---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by inavacuum (Micro/Small Stakes)

The last hand is a fold. I'm having trouble coming up with enough hands we beat, even vs this player, when we have no reads indicating otherwise. It's important to consider a shove, even vs this player, but I dislike it in this scenario - I think he's likely to put Hero on a FD and never fold his KhTh/74o/whatever. I'm glad this came up because it's important to realise that even coaches will make mistakes (the ones that never do are the ones you want to avoid) and that re-reviewing hands is important. As is the fact that playing crazy recreational players HU consistently will warp your mind temporarily.

I agree, the last hand should definitely be a fold on the river. Seems I've played so many hands like this against a fish I now believe that folding on the river adds to my EV in the long run almost more than anything else. In this case we extract value on the flop and turn with our flush draw and overcard but we should NOT pay off imo let's say at least 9/10 times on the river with ace high. Just about any time I've looked up a fish on the river in this type of scenario I lose to hands like 10/5s, Q/6o or K/6o it's ridiculous. Although I'm feeling curious as heck, and there's a small chance that I actually may be good, I know that to pay him off will always create such a super bad feeling I'd rather just say to myself afterwards 'I played the hand as well as I could and didn't pay max' turning negative to positive. That's why the correct play imho is to just fold and move on to the next hand. Simple as that. What we really want after all, is for him to stay around long enough for us to get his money.

Around 38:30, you say you would cbet that big if we were 200bbd. Is that because of not giving him implied odds, or just to size up for the shove on river? I mean, if we are cbetting 3 streets like 1/2, doesn't that look strong enough? Do we really get more folds to the shove on river? Or are we just scared of being overshoved if we not size it up for a shove?

Around 38:30, you say you would cbet that big if we were 200bbd. Is that because of not giving him implied odds, or just to size up for the shove on river? I mean, if we are cbetting 3 streets like 1/2, doesn't that look strong enough? Do we really get more folds to the shove on river? Or are we just scared of being overshoved if we not size it up for a shove?

It's definitely better to size up the cbets for a shove assuming we have enough fold equity. The range of hands that villain can call with for 200bbs is generally going to be extremely constricted compared to the range of hands in the same spot for 100bbs, for the same reason that people's preflop shoving ranges become different. If you bet 1/2 3x with 200bb effective, villains range will stay more or less at its 100bb range - still profitable, but not as profitable as committing his entire 200bb.

Time Link to 00:31:47

When I see a small turn bet like that (at 5NL) it seems the villain usually has a made hand and bets the turn that size as a "feeler" bet. He wants to know if you have anything that you'll call with. If so, the river bet is big.

Sometimes I see aggro-maniacs use this as a bluff line, but they and their use of this as a bluff seems rarer.