Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (High Stakes)

Blah and the Fiend: Episode Two

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or Sign Up Now
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
 

Blah and the Fiend: Episode Two by FoxwoodsFiend, blah234

FoxwoodsFiend and Blah234 go over some more hands at $5/10.

About Blah and the Fiend Subscribe to

From the forums and mocrostakes to mentoring with Ansky, Blah now joins forces with FoxwoodsFiend for a mentor style series to hone his chops with another one of DeucesCracked's finest!

Tags

blah234 foxwoodsfiend blah and the fiend ipod friendly hh review hand replayer $5/10 1k nl 1000nl 1000 nl

Video Details

  • Game: nlhe
  • Stakes: High Stakes
  • 49 minutes long
  • Posted over 2 years ago

Downloads

Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.

Sign Up Today


Comments for Blah and the Fiend: Episode Two

or track by Email or RSS


D3rJack

Avatar for D3rJack

444 posts
Joined 02/2010

I'm turbo folding if I get 4 bet.



I agree.
B/c I think that he is so nitty that there is not too much value against his 3bet_Callrange, I would hence prefer to coldcall in this particular spot, only.

Posted over 2 years ago

GeeBeeQED

Avatar for GeeBeeQED

1 posts
Joined 11/2010

Time Link to 00:29:15

I think the only thing for Blah to do here is shove. In the case where WingMan has came long with KJ, KQ, KT, it's his only way to recover some money on the hand from SeanSean. I don't give SeanSean AK here for all the reasons you state. However, with so little remaining behind, isn't he pot commited for the balance of your checks with any 2 pair or set? I think his play looks like a made hand from the flop, a cautous set or AQ. It seems like KQ or KJ should be a distant worry here. The overiding concern is making a profit on your remaining chips when WingMan luck boxed his way into winning the pot. (I've not viewed past this point as of these comments)

GeeBeeQED

Posted over 2 years ago

blah234

Avatar for blah234

2602 posts
Joined 12/2009

What do you think about calling 3bets oop? Isn't that what rather weaker players do? I followed a two+two thread about this topic a while ago and the conclusion was that it's almost impossible to play profitable in 3bet pot oop against a decent 3bet range unless you stop 4betting your value range PF



Posted on 2+2 must be true? What is the argument for never calling 3 bets OOP?

My argument for it's necessary to have OOP calling range is if you never call OOP villain can totally polarize his 3 betting range and reduce his 3 bet sizing to exploit us. If we reduce our 4 bet size in relation to villain's 3bet size then villain has the option to call 4 bet IP, especially slightly deeper than 100BB. If we don't reduce our 4 bet size then each bluff has smaller risk to reward ratio and the EV of each 4 bet bluff and each 4bet/call with the bottom of our range decreases to a point where we can't prevent villain from having +EV 3 bets vs us with a very wide range.

All this only matter if villain is exploiting us and you can choose to never call 3 bets OOP if villain is not.

Posted over 2 years ago

surfdoc

Avatar for surfdoc

191 posts
Joined 02/2007

Time Link to 00:28:37

Very tricky river spot. The good news is this is sufficiently rare and so close at the same time that if we just don't get disconnected and make any decision it won't be too bad. I think c/f is likely the best since a reg bluffing into a protected dry side pot should be downright rare.

I am curious about one thing though. We all have taken AK out of this guys range based on his turn play. FWF and others based this on the fact that he didn't ship it in. So I am wondering if you guys saw him show AK at showdown would you think he is expert, very good, regfish, or real fish?

Posted over 2 years ago

Tolp

Avatar for Tolp

157 posts
Joined 09/2010

Posted on 2+2 must be true? What is the argument for never calling 3 bets OOP?



I never said that this has to be true. The basic argument was that it’s hard to balance your 4bet and call 3bet oop range. There are only so many (value) hands you can play, so you turn your ranges face up and it’s hard to make calling a more +EV play than 4bet/folding against a good player. I think BalugaWhale says something along these lines in his book too.
If you don’t start to call with AK, QQ+ in these spots your range becomes incredibly narrow. Something like: AQ, KQ, AJ, KJ, QJs, JJ, TT. (I think it’s very hard to play this range profitably oop against a decent 3bet range of let’s say 8-10% unless villain has a very junky polarized range without many Ax hands in it. And calling with middle PPs cannot be right, because I doubt someone can play them profitable oop against a good, aggressive opponent without initiative.).

I agree with what you say in your second paragraph. Calling 3bets oop becomes way more profitable, when villain starts to unbalance his 3bet range against us (which he has to to exploit us). Obviously I’m going to start calling 3bets oop, when villain starts to make smaller 3bets against me. When we get deeper or 3bets become smaller or villain starts to call 4bets IP variables change and so our initial game plan has to change as well, no doubt about that. I just was referring to hands we get 3bet oop by a good regular with a decent 3bet range about 100BB deep without any special dynamics going on.


What do you think about shoving the turn with your straight in the 89 hand? The weaker player is coming along with any hand he calls a pot sized bet anyway, while the reg might still level himself into call with a set or top two pair.

@surfdoc: I would think he is very good-expert (or a very passive). I mean Blah can't have much else than top two pair or 89 in this spot. Sets are very unlikely, so his hand is pretty much locked and his primary goal should be to keep the weaker player in the hand, who easily could have a pair plus straight draw and might find a fold with such a hand against a huge bet and a shove. When the weaker player calls, the pot is going to be so big on the river that it’s unlikely Blah folds many hands he bombed the turn with. Actually, the more I think of it a call with AK would be way better than a raise in that spot.

Posted over 2 years ago

surfdoc

Avatar for surfdoc

191 posts
Joined 02/2007


@surfdoc: I would think he is very good-expert (or a very passive). I mean Blah can't have much else than top two pair or 89 in this spot. Sets are very unlikely, so his hand is pretty much locked and his primary goal should be to keep the weaker player in the hand, who easily could have a pair plus straight draw and might find a fold with such a hand against a huge bet and a shove. When the weaker player calls, the pot is going to be so big on the river that it’s unlikely Blah folds many hands he bombed the turn with. Actually, the more I think of it a call with AK would be way better than a raise in that spot.



Nice Tolp. I think flatting turn here is better by a pretty wide margin for the reasons you stated. The short stack is going to feel priced in and getting him to put in 48bb on the turn is pretty sweet especially since the pot size and turn bet sizing will almost guarantee Blah stacks any river card. The only issue is hand protection but on this texture 3 ways they are going to be sharing boat/chop outs so often that a slowplay is in order.

I did see that Lola mentioned this earlier but I missed that in the wall of text.

Oh and by the way, since when are we able to label a 27/16/7 guy (120 hands) a fish?

Posted over 2 years ago

blah234

Avatar for blah234

2602 posts
Joined 12/2009

. So I am wondering if you guys saw him show AK at showdown would you think he is expert, very good, regfish, or real fish?



I would think villain has FPS and not thinking in terms of ranges and math so probably "regfish"

Given math the guy with short stack is never going to call 400 but fold for less than 100 more. I've but the him to a decision for his entire stack anyways. My range has no semibluffs or pure bluffs since I put one player all in. My perceived range should have some 2 pair and KQ type of hands which want to blow the reg out of the pot and play for stacks with the SS. Therefore, my bet/folding range on the turn will NEVER ever bluff shove or bet for thin value on the river.

By shoving the turn villain is guaranteed to get it in vs anything that I will bet or call river with which will think about folding on the river such as this river or any river that pairs the board. So villain will stack 100% of my value range by shoving the turn where as he will only stack 70% of my value range by slow playing AK. Then bet/folding range which will never put another bet into the pot sucks out like 10% of the time so villain has only reversed implied odds instead of implied odds by calling.

Posted over 2 years ago

surfdoc

Avatar for surfdoc

191 posts
Joined 02/2007

I would think villain has FPS and not thinking in terms of ranges and math so probably "regfish"

Given math the guy with short stack is never going to call 400 but fold for less than 100 more. I've but the him to a decision for his entire stack anyways. My range has no semibluffs or pure bluffs since I put one player all in. My perceived range should have some 2 pair and KQ type of hands which want to blow the reg out of the pot and play for stacks with the SS. Therefore, my bet/folding range on the turn will NEVER ever bluff shove or bet for thin value on the river.

By shoving the turn villain is guaranteed to get it in vs anything that I will bet or call river with which will think about folding on the river such as this river or any river that pairs the board. So villain will stack 100% of my value range by shoving the turn where as he will only stack 70% of my value range by slow playing AK. Then bet/folding range which will never put another bet into the pot sucks out like 10% of the time so villain has only reversed implied odds instead of implied odds by calling.



I am picking up on some contradictory statements here especially in light of what actually happened in the hand. i.e. you DID bet for thin value on the worst non-pairing river in the deck. I think you are also wrong about this "fish" calling the turn when it goes bet/shove in front of him.

Posted over 2 years ago

blah234

Avatar for blah234

2602 posts
Joined 12/2009

I am picking up on some contradictory statements here especially in light of what actually happened in the hand. i.e. you DID bet for thin value on the worst non-pairing river in the deck. I think you are also wrong about this "fish" calling the turn when it goes bet/shove in front of him.



what happened in this hand doesn't matter at all, villain is playing vs my perceived range and it has more than 1 hand combination. We can't see people's hole cards and can only optimize our play vs their perceived range. I'm sure anyone who plays with 450BB is most likely a "fish" and will almost never call for 400 but fold for 450.

This hand is the very top of my range but if I have the rest of my range ie 2 pair etc where he has 0 chance to get the rest of my money and 100% chance to lose more when I boat up. By not shoving turn he misses value from my percevied range. Hands that b/c the turn like 89 will auto c/f on any board pairing card and I'm thinking about folding this one so that's where the 70% not stacking me comes from.

Posted over 2 years ago

Tolp

Avatar for Tolp

157 posts
Joined 09/2010

I am picking up on some contradictory statements here especially in light of what actually happened in the hand. i.e. you DID bet for thin value on the worst non-pairing river in the deck. I think you are also wrong about this "fish" calling the turn when it goes bet/shove in front of him.



I’m with surfdoc on this one.
I understand, what Blah is saying and his math might be right as long he is going to check/fold 89 every time on the river, when a K, a 9 or any card falls, which pairs the board. But in reality this is not going to happen (as seen). The next thing is, we basically can’t have a set on this board, maybe TT, but that’s about it – only a handful of players flat QQ and JJ oop in this spot preflop. Even if we could have them in our range, we have to think about our perceived range. So what hands of our perceived range are actually going to call, when villain shoves? 89, maybe TT (although I think in a vacuum TT is a fold). We definitely have to fold all two pairs unless we think villain is crazy. That’s why I would rather say villain is very good, when he just calls the turn with AK, instead of thinking he has FPS, because there pretty much is no value range you call a turn shove with but fold to a blank river card (especially when the pot odds get amazing). So the main concern of the PF raiser should be to keep the weaker player in the pot.

As surfdoc indicated you shouldn’t underestimate the “psychological” aspect in such a hand. A weaker player might not be able to fold his hand, when the turn goes bet/call in front of him, but might be able to muck his hand, when it goes bet/shove. I know this doesn’t make much sense mathematically, but that’s how weaker players react to certain actions.

Posted over 2 years ago

surfdoc

Avatar for surfdoc

191 posts
Joined 02/2007


As surfdoc indicated you shouldn’t underestimate the “psychological” aspect in such a hand. A weaker player might not be able to fold his hand, when the turn goes bet/call in front of him, but might be able to muck his hand, when it goes bet/shove. I know this doesn’t make much sense mathematically, but that’s how weaker players react to certain actions.



It is not just about the psychological aspect although I assume this is an issue of semantics and we are really saying the same thing. It is about hand reading and bayesian analysis which is how good and bad players decide when their hand is good. It is a very common spot where any of us think our hand may be good enough to call a bet but we can't call a bet and a raise in front of us. This not because of the dollar amount but simply because of the likelihood that are our hand is garbage despite getting more attractive odds on a call. Even a bad player can see this turn get bet then jammed and make a "big laydown" with KJ, KQ, KT, QT, JT, type hands realizing that he may be drawing dead to a chop.

Posted over 2 years ago

surfdoc

Avatar for surfdoc

191 posts
Joined 02/2007

I also want to point out that almost everyone makes the crying river call when they are getting 3047239:1 and the the big river fold is a dying breed in today's online poker climate (possibly for good reason)

Posted over 2 years ago

Tolp

Avatar for Tolp

157 posts
Joined 09/2010

It is not just about the psychological aspect although I assume this is an issue of semantics and we are really saying the same thing. It is about hand reading and bayesian analysis which is how good and bad players decide when their hand is good. It is a very common spot where any of us think our hand may be good enough to call a bet but we can't call a bet and a raise in front of us. This not because of the dollar amount but simply because of the likelihood that are our hand is garbage despite getting more attractive odds on a call. Even a bad player can see this turn get bet then jammed and make a "big laydown" with KJ, KQ, KT, QT, JT, type hands realizing that he may be drawing dead to a chop.



That's what I've tried to say. We are on the same page here.

Posted over 2 years ago

runners23

Avatar for runners23

129 posts
Joined 01/2011

donkrx

Avatar for donkrx

68 posts
Joined 02/2012

Time Link to 00:31:51

After his turn flat call, I actually expected him to have either KJcc/KTcc a lot and AK a bit less often (cause that hand might raise the turn) because of the way he played the hand. I really don't think he ever has a set here.

Here's my thought process, and I'd love to hear what you guys think:

First of all, on the flop, his sets would have fast-played because the board is so connected and people show up with broadway hands so often in a 4-way single-raised pot (notice that WingMan had QT here) that its very easy for him to get value by worse. Expecting him to be worried about us having 89 here is too much of a stretch (look what he called us on the flop with), most of the time he's going to put us on 2 pair or pair+draw and will fast play QQ/JJ/TT every time to protect & charge the KQ/KJ/KT hands that we or someone else in the hand might have. At the same time I can see a lot of people peeling once with a K here without even thinking about what our range is.

On the turn when he calls again, it seems really weird to me. At this point I'm even more confident that he would not flat any set than on the flop.... we basically told him that we're never folding after we pot the turn and he's doing great against our range if he has a set, even if we include 89. So he doesn't have QQ, JJ or TT, probably not K9s though that beats us anyway, so that leaves KJcc and KTcc and maybe a stubborn KK. AK is still possible but again that beats us anyway. I know its a stretch to put someone on a super narrow range like that but I just don't see how he could have anything else. Is it a mistake for him to call with KJcc here? Yeah almost definitely, but you can't expect people to play perfectly. It's probably just too tempting for most people to fold a draw with that many outs even if its just one card to come (and WingMan could not re-open the action either). All of that considered we are clearly dead on the river....

On the river I definitely dont like the shove, but I guess you were operating under the assumption that he could still have a set while I personally feel he can't have one. Even if he can have a set though I prefer check/calling over shoving into him. Over both of those I like check/folding...

Interesting hand....

Posted about 2 years ago




HomePoker ForumsHigh Stakes Strategy → Blah and the Fiend : Episode Two