---

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

If your line is to bet thin for value on the turn and then bluff the river - doesn't that imply that you expect to be beat when called on the turn? And doesn't that mean that you are in fact simply two-barrel bluffing and not betting for value?

I play 100nl and I would c/f 88,99,TT on the turn because I don't really see people fold much of anything there. Are regs good enough to fold KK or AA to a 3barrel in 200nl?

Excellent idea for a video, should really encourage people to use the forums more. Great content too, DC shorts is a fantastic idea.

yea, DC coaches should participate in forums a bit more as well imo, that would be cool if in every thread there was at least one answer (as a rule or something) from DC coach at every micro SSNL MSNL HSNL forums/threads

Time Link to 00:13:05

Thanks BalugaWhale for reviewing this HH. I can sleep better now

Time Link to 00:06:43

i really feel like 1/2 players will continue to bet 88-JJ for sure here as most don't understand when Hero flats two streets that he is likely very strong, but they think the opposite, like oh maybe he is weak and picked up a diamond draw etc...

Yeah horny - the 2nd NL6max-DC-Short and I am already inside - that is somewhat sexy

@Beluga:
This format is awesome and your explanations have been all great.
In fact I think now that I did just give him too less Credit to make another thin val.bet on the turn.
In reality it is reasonable for him to val.bet here thin b/c he can expect me to have worse hands in my Flopcallrange (7 for example).
Even when I fold these hands vs. another bet, it is not too bad for his pocket 99/88 b/c he capitalize on hte deadmoney and mekes me some PotEQ to fold. Just haven`t notice this aspects while posting this hand.

Your thoughts about turning 88/99 on the river into a bluff , are imo also great

Thank you very much, I rly appreciate it

My mind boggles at the idea of valuebetting a street when one's hand will never get to showdown without bluffing. Taking the villain's person, for ease of language:

If we bet the turn, and get called by worse (value), and he always folds the river with any worse hand he called the turn with (I take it from the video that we do always bluff the river?), then our holding doesn't matter: we could just as well have had air.

Because we could just as well have had air on the turn, there is surely no sense in which we can think of ourselves as having "got value" on the turn: we were simply getting dead money in on the turn to be taken away on the river.

Is this essentially what was meant in the video, and just a matter of the language used, or am I missing something?

I really like this kind of video format ! Short, sweet , instructive and not too long... and if we want more, then just watch an other one.

I think DC should make more of thoses

Great new video format!

My mind boggles at the idea of valuebetting a street when one's hand will never get to showdown without bluffing. Taking the villain's person, for ease of language:

If we bet the turn, and get called by worse (value), and he always folds the river with any worse hand he called the turn with (I take it from the video that we do always bluff the river?), then our holding doesn't matter: we could just as well have had air.

Because we could just as well have had air on the turn, there is surely no sense in which we can think of ourselves as having "got value" on the turn: we were simply getting dead money in on the turn to be taken away on the river.

Is this essentially what was meant in the video, and just a matter of the language used, or am I missing something?

It still matters a little bit if you have air or 88 here.
For exapmle you have with 88 on the turn 80% EQ, vs. something likev Ac7c.
So 80% are your PotEQ and it makes sense
1.) to realize your PotEQ
2.) making Villain`s EQ-share of 20% folding.

It still matters a little bit if you have air or 88 here.
For exapmle you have with 88 on the turn 80% EQ, vs. something likev Ac7c.
So 80% are your PotEQ and it makes sense
1.) to realize your PotEQ
2.) making Villain`s EQ-share of 20% folding.

Are your points 1) and 2) equivalent: ie we: Realise our pot equity (1) by getting him to fold out his equity share (2)? Otherwise, I'm not sure I know what you mean. Certainly, if he folds the turn with something like Ac7c, it doesn't matter that we have 88 vs that part of his range. However, if I've misunderstood you and and you were discussing some sort of turn valuebet:

If there are cards which come on the river that lead us to take a line in which we may see a showdown that we will win, then it obviously does matter that we have 88 (eg., we check, villain checks behind with worse).

If, however, (as I said in my fist post) we always bluff him off the worse hands he called the turn with on the river (along with some better hands), it clearly doesn't matter that we have 88 on the turn.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the turn bet is bad, simply that the logic behind it is flawed.

Are your points 1) and 2) equivalent: ie we: Realise our pot equity (1) by getting him to fold out his equity share (2)? Otherwise, I'm not sure I know what you mean. Certainly, if he folds the turn with something like Ac7c, it doesn't matter that we have 88 vs that part of his range.

When the turn goes check/check and Villain is drawing you out on the river, then you miised to realize your 80%-PoTEQ-Share on the turn.

When the turn goes check/check and Villain is drawing you out on the river, then you miised to realize your 80%-PoTEQ-Share on the turn.

As I said, I agree with betting the turn, but BW calls it a "valuebet", and I don't think we can consider it a valuebet if we never see a showdown that we win.

I believe the correct logic behind the turn bet is to get dead money in that we can take away on the river - and this does not depend on us having 88.

Edit: the protection you're discussing is certainly a bonus that we get from the turn bet, but I don't think it's the primary reason we should be doing it.

Love the short format. I think a coach providing constructive criticism, correcting flawed logic, and pointing out misapplied principles will be extremely helpful..

Keep um comin.