---

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

could he be doing this with like A7s thinking he is only beat by QQ and you might call KQ or KK? OR he could think you might herofold a weak ace and if not he's still splitting.

Yeh, that's certainly a concern here. I probably should have called.

FWF, at 24:30 with KQcc on Kd7dJs4s, you said you prefer either c/jamming or c/folding turn primarily because there are so many draws. If the turn had been a diamond, rather than a spade, do you still like jamming?

also, even though on the turn the board is very draw heavy, we're in a 4b pot 200bb deep so villain's range is certainly going to be much narrower than it would be in a single-raised or 3b pot, so shouldn't we heavily discount the number drawing hands villain could have? (for ex. a hand like QTs probably isn't 4betting pre)

I don't like jamming on a diamond because it's so much more likely you're dead. And yes his range is going to be narrower than in a single-raised or 3bet pot but it's going to be a way more polarized range and probably very bluffheavy since it's button vs blind

could he be doing this with like A7s thinking he is only beat by QQ and you might call KQ or KK? OR he could think you might herofold a weak ace and if not he's still splitting.

valid points, those are definitely all possibilities and it's hard to say without knowing their respective images, but normally A7 just checks here IME

Interesting turn.

Of course 100% agree that R/Call AI (normal size) is for given reasons much better than just jamming it in.
And it is here a good play b/c you also raise here in some % a strong madehand like a set.
Ok,
but said this I was very surprised that rasing here your madehands is for you standard and hence that you probably jam here more often a set, then call Turn - bet/Jam/Call River (depending on the rivercard and action).
Sure it is good and you wanna do it here sometimes.
But isn`t it actually for your whole range better to call here only the turn with a set in a higher freq. than to Raise the turn in order to protect our weaker parts of our Turncallrange (TT/JJ - maybe vs. MP pre trapped QQ+, when you have decided to not raise it on the flop)?
My guess just was that,
- raising turn is better/more comfortable with our Semibluffrange (though sometimes a doublefloat can be also interesting, actually even very interesting when you think about it)
- calling turn is actually better for our strong Madehands (though sometimes we should raise here of course our sets).

Protect semibluff range+ not losing action vs hands we're colddecking on tons of scary rivers + exposing yourself to getting barreled by a hand that would bet fold if you brick + you can always protect made hands by flatting a wide and strong range (KQ/AK/AA that you slowplay)= raise sets here

btw.,
how yould your flopplay change if you would have here Ah3h instead of JhTh?
Would you then maybe prefer more often floating with more EQ + drawing to the BackdoorNuts?

I'd be inclined to float Axhh precisely because I don't want to scare away worse draws that may shut down otherwise and because if the turn comes an ace we're getting barrele d(b/c how can we have an ace?)

rest of the hand was horny, though I was a little bit worrying if ppl are rly val.betting in this spot thin enough on the River b/c of the fact that you can have all your sets in your range and with the T on the river, now TT also has a set

TT folds the turn every time

+ also b/c Villain cannot rep soo many bluffcombos in his eyes and hence maybe should not val.bet too thin here on the river, in general...
But of course I am not sure about this.
If I am wrong and he can val.bet here thin enough, I just love the riverjam

People normally can and should value bet "thin" (i.e. non-nut holdings) when their opponents' range is weak and they have a wide semibluffing range to get ot the river with (wide bluff range= bet thinner)

greats answers with much interesting stuff which will make me for sure think about it - thank you, rly appreciate it


shortly @the TT-stuff: Thought ppl will call here often on the turn on the King b/c it is a potential "good" bluffcard and Villain has some Bluffcombos in his range.

@thin Val.bet-stuff: Yeah, that is actually also what i think (the more bluffcombos you can rep, the more thinner you should val.bet).
I was at the beggining worrying that Villain has not in his MP-oR-Range enough bluffcombos to val.bet rly thinnly on the river as he had in his LP-oR-Range.
But after having reconsidered it just right now, I take this worry back -> hence, I rly think that the riverjam was actually super-good

This was btw. another great part, rly incredible valueable series from you both - keep the very good work on

TT folds the turn every time? Really? Maybe thats a big leak of mine but I always call on 259 K turn with TT.

TT folds the turn every time? Really? Maybe thats a big leak of mine but I always call on 259 K turn with TT.

Oops I misremembered the board and thought it was K952. My bad (and even then "every time" is a bit strong but "often enough to not worry about it" is closer to the truth)

RE: JTs @41:40 that you've been discussing. I usually flat here IP like Hielko did (raise OOP) and I'm just wondering how the hand tends to play out for you when you raise and get called here. Obviously his calling range is way tighter than if we were OOP, so are we very often checking behind turn?

Time Link to 00:31:57

On the turn here you say you would XC whenever you miss (not just this bad turncard) because we don't have much FE on this board. I was thinking we could get them off whatever 99-KK they have and some weak AX by river.

Do you think villains' flop calling range here will be much more weighted to TP? Expect people to never fold bluffcatchers to you when this board bricks off?

RE: JTs @41:40 that you've been discussing. I usually flat here IP like Hielko did (raise OOP) and I'm just wondering how the hand tends to play out for you when you raise and get called here. Obviously his calling range is way tighter than if we were OOP, so are we very often checking behind turn?

bet the smallest amount that leads to a pot-sized bet all-in on the river then bet that amount on all rivers normally works

On the turn here you say you would XC whenever you miss (not just this bad turncard) because we don't have much FE on this board. I was thinking we could get them off whatever 99-KK they have and some weak AX by river.

Do you think villains' flop calling range here will be much more weighted to TP? Expect people to never fold bluffcatchers to you when this board bricks off?

I think range for bet/calling is way more tilted towards top pair than TT and I don't think he folds most Ax on this board with all the draws and with your value range being narrow

Time Link to 00:32:29

Can you explain in more detail why this is okay to c/c turn? Seems like you have low implied odds and some reverse implied odds. What is your overall plan for the river?

I disagree with bet/calling the last hand. These type of nitty players always have QQ 66 and 99 and 76dd is the bottom of their range here.

Very good series btw, really enjoying the content.

Time Link to 00:22:48

what size would you donk here?

Time Link to 00:43:01

What are we repping here if we raise the JTs? Is that not going to be really transparent especially with the state of modern day poker? In other words, do we not rep more by flatting... we still have the mid pocket pairs in our range as well as the higher QQ-AA which we certainly could be slowplaying a percentage of the time. So while we do risk looking like 77 to someone not thinking all that deeply, we don't rep much by raising (and run the risk of being 3bet right here) and its harder than usual for our opponent to put us on air in this given spot because it was raised UTG and flatted UTG+1. I'm not saying we cant have just overs here when we flat, but it just seems a lot less likely than it would be normally if we werent UTG/UTG+1.