---

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

Time Link to 00:07:07

Cool story at the start

I have one question on the 1st hand:
You said that it can be interesting to C/R sometimes in such spots as Villain a hand like AJo vs. more suspicious REGs.
I know that most of the time you then will get folds or light calls.
But what if you make the C/Raise to 3x and get a 3bet?
Without FEQ you would then need about 41,6% EQ to go broke (we don`t have so much) -> hence fold vs. most opponents and only continue when you have reason to assume that Villain can rebluff here in a high enough frequency?

In the third hand (QTxttKsJ board), you suggest that you need to bluff-catch the river with some non(effective)nut hands; given you are checking all your Ax hands on this river and that your range is so heavy with Ax (from your 4b bluff range) I suspect that you are indifferent to his bluff frequency even if you are check-folding anything worse than Ax.

If he bluffs too much your Ax make more; if he bluffs too little you get to showdown marginal hands.

I think that calling with 9x is probably bad against almost any villain range composition and that calling twopair or worse would be terrible.

Cool story at the start

I have one question on the 1st hand:
You said that it can be interesting to C/R sometimes in such spots as Villain a hand like AJo vs. more suspicious REGs.
I know that most of the time you then will get folds or light calls.
But what if you make the C/Raise to 3x and get a 3bet?
Without FEQ you would then need about 41,6% EQ to go broke (we don`t have so much) -> hence fold vs. most opponents and only continue when you have reason to assume that Villain can rebluff here in a high enough frequency?

mostly call/reeval, unless crazy dynamic, shoving usually bad

In the third hand (QTxttKsJ board), you suggest that you need to bluff-catch the river with some non(effective)nut hands; given you are checking all your Ax hands on this river and that your range is so heavy with Ax (from your 4b bluff range) I suspect that you are indifferent to his bluff frequency even if you are check-folding anything worse than Ax.

If he bluffs too much your Ax make more; if he bluffs too little you get to showdown marginal hands.

I think that calling with 9x is probably bad against almost any villain range composition and that calling twopair or worse would be terrible.

really tough spot obv. if only villain would come one and give away his thought process we could actually know what is correct . It may very well be a fold without the Ace, but it doesn't seem "solvable" without more info.

Good vid, didnt mind the similar hands at all since it gives some extra discussion on the checking as PFR theme.

Not a nice spot at the end, i think in general we should prolly tighten up our opening range if a really good reg is abusing us 200bb deep with position and also probably fold a hand like 98o against his 3bet.

Good vid, didnt mind the similar hands at all since it gives some extra discussion on the checking as PFR theme.

Not a nice spot at the end, i think in general we should prolly tighten up our opening range if a really good reg is abusing us 200bb deep with position and also probably fold a hand like 98o against his 3bet.

I don't think it was mentioned, but in this spot it is certainly reasonable to consider implementing a limping range as a viable strategy. You can't expect to ever fold out a playable hand from the BTN's range so there isn't really any dead money to capitalise on preflop; we can amplify the mistakes of the fish in the blinds by playing pots with a greater SPR. If BTN starts auto-raising that isn't too hard to combat; limpRR what would be a normal/tight opening range but play much bigger (easier) pots when OOP - with the option to just call and play speculative hands if the fish come along as well.

My thought on the first hand is that the villain possibly took some kind of weird line with a flopped set or maybe even the nut flush draw on the flop (less likely). He could have been planning a c/c on the flop, then a c/r on a non-heart turn, especially if he knows that we will be betting a large portion of our range. When the heart came, he decided to c/c instead and obviously c/r when the river paired the board. It seems very non-standard, but in my mind it almost makes more sense than 6-4 or pocket 4s. Does that make sense to you guys?

I really wish you guys could equalize your volumes when doing these types of videos. I can barely hear jk3a with volume at a normal level and when i turn it up i get WoT blaring through my speakers. This is not unusual btw, and is a fairly common problem on poker videos when there are multiple coaches from different locations. just wish you could fix it somewhere in the process.

hey guys,

i'm really enjoying this series so far. i'd like to here some more about the concept you talked about at the end of the first hand,ie why it can be good to value bet lightish even in spots where its hard to get called by worse/good bluffing spots.

is this just because you give away less information by betting and so if you're fairly sure you have the best hand anyway you may as well bet since you probably don't lose anything by betting,plus you might induce a hero call,or is there more to it than that?

My thought on the first hand is that the villain possibly took some kind of weird line with a flopped set or maybe even the nut flush draw on the flop (less likely). He could have been planning a c/c on the flop, then a c/r on a non-heart turn, especially if he knows that we will be betting a large portion of our range. When the heart came, he decided to c/c instead and obviously c/r when the river paired the board. It seems very non-standard, but in my mind it almost makes more sense than 6-4 or pocket 4s. Does that make sense to you guys?

agree, those hands def make some sense as well

hey guys,

i'm really enjoying this series so far. i'd like to here some more about the concept you talked about at the end of the first hand,ie why it can be good to value bet lightish even in spots where its hard to get called by worse/good bluffing spots.

is this just because you give away less information by betting and so if you're fairly sure you have the best hand anyway you may as well bet since you probably don't lose anything by betting,plus you might induce a hero call,or is there more to it than that?

let's say you bet 50 into 100 on the river and expect villain to fold 60% of the time. giving yourself 2:1 on a bluff means you only need him to fold 33% of the time to make the bluff profitable.

conversely, if of the 40% of the times he calls, we're ahead 55%, we've also made money with a value bet. this is how you can end up with spots the bluffing and value betting thinly are both profitable.

I don't think it was mentioned, but in this spot it is certainly reasonable to consider implementing a limping range as a viable strategy. You can't expect to ever fold out a playable hand from the BTN's range so there isn't really any dead money to capitalise on preflop; we can amplify the mistakes of the fish in the blinds by playing pots with a greater SPR. If BTN starts auto-raising that isn't too hard to combat; limpRR what would be a normal/tight opening range but play much bigger (easier) pots when OOP - with the option to just call and play speculative hands if the fish come along as well.

could be viable, but typically not my preferred strategy. I'd rather just be put in some tough decisions by the reg on the button in order to get to play bigger pots with the fish from the blinds, especially when we're all deep. For those who aren't as comfortable playing oop vs good regs, then certainly it sounds reasonable enough.

WoT

let's say you bet 50 into 100 on the river and expect villain to fold 60% of the time. giving yourself 2:1 on a bluff means you only need him to fold 33% of the time to make the bluff profitable.

conversely, if of the 40% of the times he calls, we're ahead 55%, we've also made money with a value bet. this is how you can end up with spots the bluffing and value betting thinly are both profitable.

Just to add another thing to Jared's excellent post here, the situation will typically come up either when a) you're playing vs a fish who has a wide range of many busted draws (esp that could have you high-carded) and b) playing vs a tag whose range is "capped" (hard for him to have a better hand than x).

WoT

interesting stuff,sounds like i should definitely be thinking more about stuff like that!

thanks for the replies