---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by KRANTZ (Mid Stakes)

What hands are better to bluff-raise the flop IP rather than float? I know in one video Jay said he likes to float with hands that have some sort of equity. What kinds of hands are better to bluff-raise vs a high frequency cbettor, little to no equity?

Yah, usually hands that just completely miss... against aggro opponents who will barrel you, gutshots are good to raise with rather than float... also sometimes turning small pocket pairs into bluffs are better than flatting and hoping to get to showdown.

http://se.youtube.com/watch?v=dYlckOkcLsY&feature=related

Very nice vid.

The 77 shove over the squeeze is intruiging. Let me see if I get this right:

You're basically risking 396 to win 84. So he has to fold about 80% of the time. Let's say he only calls with AA and KK, which is 0.9% of hands or 10% of his range (which was 9%). That means that 90% of the time you win 84$, and 10% of the time you're a 4:1 dog.

Your EV(77)=90%*84 + 10%(20%*424-80%*396)= -23$ approx. Adding more hands in his calling range is obviously not so good, as long as they have an equity advantage over 77. I mean, I don't believe people would call with QQ, but anytime it happens, it hurts you.

Moreover, when it gets back to villain, his decision looks like this: he has to risk 340 to win 424, so he needs about 20% equity, which would bring QQ to breakeven vs your AA/KK. If somewhere there is a doubt in his mind that you might be bullshitting him, or even convince himself you have AK in your range, he might very well call with JJ, like he did. Especially since it would be an awkward way of playing QQ on your part.

Does it make any sense?


PS: sorry, timestamp is around 1:06

Awesome!

Moreover, when it gets back to villain, his decision looks like this: he has to risk 340 to win 424, so he needs about 20% equity, which would bring QQ to breakeven vs your AA/KK. If somewhere there is a doubt in his mind that you might be bullshitting him, or even convince himself you have AK in your range, he might very well call with JJ, like he did. Especially since it would be an awkward way of playing QQ on your part.

Does it make any sense?

No Peesocake, it doesn't. Sorry about that.
He needs about 44% equity, so he would have to put you on a AA,KK,QQ,AK,and sometimes a JJ, to call with QQ. Let alone JJ.

But the point was, that even if he only calls with AA and KK, it doesn't look like a good shove, which is kind of intuitive. What am I missing?

If he only calls KK+ he is folding more than 90% of his range. So we would be making a ton of money preflop because we win 84$ ten times in a row before getting 400$ in preflop with 20% equity, so on average this move would earn us rougly (840-240)/11 = +54$. That said: villains calling range should be way wider, and he should have snap called with JJ.

Yes, thanks Hielko, I forgot to add your actual winnings (90% of 84) to the times you´re a dog.

I really don't get why jamming is ever better than 4-betting smaller when we know nothing about villains 4 bet calling range (i.e. in a vacuum). Obv if we know villain calls a lot of small four bets with random broadway-trash (not very likely)then a 4-bet jam might be better, but even with such an unlikely scenario I'm not super-thrilled about jamming.

I really don't get why jamming is ever better than 4-betting smaller when we know nothing about villains 4 bet calling range (i.e. in a vacuum). Obv if we know villain calls a lot of small four bets with random broadway-trash (not very likely)then a 4-bet jam might be better, but even with such an unlikely scenario I'm not super-thrilled about jamming.

havent watched the vid yet, but I can tell you why 4-bet shoving 77 is better than 4-betting small and calling it off. If villain is capable of 5-bet bluffing some hands that won't call our jam but have good equity against 77 then we are costing ourselves money. Assuming he's getting it in with the top of his range always, the question is what does he do with some of his 3bets like AT, AJ, KQ, JT, 99 etc. If villain is an aggro 3 bettor there are lots of hands that he'll 3bet that won't call a jam that are flipping (or better) against us. And if we ever 4-bet bluff he might 5 bet jam some of them putting us in a bad spot. Especially if he ever shoves stuff like 88-99 which are probably never calling a shove.

Ok, agreed on that, but I'm pretty sure that the discussion at several points in the vid are based on the assumption that you wont see a lot of 5 bet bluffs at these stakes. If we give credit to that assumption it just doesn't seem like the best play to me.

KRANTZ, at 11mins with A 2 on KT4 you say you prefer checking back against an opponent who bluff-raises a lot, which makes perfect sense. Could you expand a bit more on why you are more likely to check back AQ here?

I think the reason is that when you get CRd with A2 on that board your hand is total garbage with very little equity and you have an easy fold. This is not the same with AQ where you sometimes have the best hand, and have a draw to the nuts as well as an overcard. Getting checkraised here will put you in a tough spot and can lead to folding the best hand since the guy will have a ton of draws in his range.

Nice work guys. Solid stuff. I really enjoyed the discussion on overbets that resulted from the hand played at 22:40 ish with 28s. I am interested in one particular point though. After Krantz suggests overbetting the turn 3 ways and we get called, the comment was "if they do call, they are usually drawing."

This seems very much the opposite of what I would conclude. The turn overbet seems to be much more likely to fold them off of draws since they will now be getting such a terrible price. This also took place in the setting of a limped pot (wtf how does he have TT here?) where your turn bet sizing will often mean a flopped monster that is trying to build a large pot. In addition, considering we aren't really deep enough for him to call the turn based on implied odds, I think his hand range is even further skewed towards made hands. I am sure the argument is that calling draws here is standard due to him being a "fish", but I doubt we can really conclude that based on the fact that he is playing 33/12 after only 52 hands.

The river is also an interesting spot. I don't agree that we need to jam here. I think "a stubborn queen" is a very small part of his range here. I also think that with some of the more loose passive types, we will sometimes see the nut queen and they just won't release it. The problem arises when we change our assumptions about a particular player type street to street and also base these assumptions on very limited info generated by HEM.

This was excellent.

Good fun noticing how Hielko's accent changes week by week. Also, the few times Krantz "suggested" an alternative line, I could just imagine Hielko thinking to himself: "oh no, there goes another buy-in...kiss that 400 bucks good-bye..."

hahah I also thought that

good video
some interesting dicussion there

I think his hand range is even further skewed towards made hands. I am sure the argument is that calling draws here is standard due to him being a "fish", but I doubt we can really conclude that based on the fact that he is playing 33/12 after only 52 hands.

The river is also an interesting spot. I don't agree that we need to jam here. I think "a stubborn queen" is a very small part of his range here. I also think that with some of the more loose passive types, we will sometimes see the nut queen and they just won't release it. The problem arises when we change our assumptions about a particular player type street to street and also base these assumptions on very limited info generated by HEM.

I disagree completely with most of this - the assumptions are supported by the limited info generated by HEM but they're founded on the fact that there was little action on the flop.

I disagree completely with most of this - the assumptions are supported by the limited info generated by HEM but they're founded on the fact that there was little action on the flop.

Which part(s) specifically do you disagree with? The main assumption I am hoping to clarify for myself and the group is what is a call of a turn overbet in this type of spot more likely to be a made hand or a draw? What if we bet 3x the pot? 4x? overbet ship the the whole thing? Is there a threshold of some sort?