---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by blah234 (Mid Stakes)

How do you find playing on William Hill? I have a bonus I can use at a few sites and William Hill is one of them.

Someone on DC was complaining about the lower stakes having bots to make up the numbers but I'm not sure how true this is.

I don't have too much problems with bots.

Very good video, I enjoyed it. People shouldn't have any doubts whether you are a winning player after watching it

Please record more vids on 200nl iPoker, because it looks like you can get plenty of action here. My few advices for you:
- move HUD showing your stats a little bit down, so you can see the time counting down and avoid timing out
- over half year ago I download a very nice table mod for iPoker, which could be useful for your future vids, PM me if you would like to get it:

http://screenshooter.net/8739124/xalwwdx

- I don't know if you play on this network something more besides coaching videos, but I heard there is a program called "iPoker BetPot", which allows you to use mouse wheel to adjust bet sizing, it also puts bet sizing for you right away into the box, so in practice you can just mostly click "Call" and "Raise" and not waste time on doing it manually

Thanks I will check out the software, it does look better than the default layout.

Time Link to 00:08:24

Wow you did make it sound like putting more money in the pot with nuts (AA) would be -EV. Had hard time believing what I just heard. Fine if you meant that it is less +EV than shipping. It depends and can be debated.

Good point that it is up to the viewer to decide what is good/bad advice. My bullshit detector went trough the roof on this one =)

Time Link to 00:34:44

You say this is a standard 3bet, why is that? Its vs a 13/4 (not sure what the hand sample is). If you didnt notice he was so tight and that changes your mind, why would this be a standard 3bet vs a more tagish opponent?

You say this is a standard 3bet, why is that? Its vs a 13/4 (not sure what the hand sample is). If you didnt notice he was so tight and that changes your mind, why would this be a standard 3bet vs a more tagish opponent?

The 3bet is a little splashy.. But 3betting top 12-15% vs CO open is more or less standard. Why?

Because those are the hands that we can play from the SB vs a 3x open from the CO unless CO is VERY wide. We could call with some of the hands and 3bet a tighter range.. but then we would be splitting our range into two parts.. which makes hand reading a lot easier for our opponents.

So your saying a depolarized 3bet range from the SB of 12-15%, more/less depending on the opponent, is the recommended play as a standard. And eliminate all call range in the sb to make hand reading harder for observent opponents?

So your saying a depolarized 3bet range from the SB of 12-15%, more/less depending on the opponent, is the recommended play as a standard. And eliminate all call range in the sb to make hand reading harder for observent opponents?

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

We use depolarized range providing that Villain responds by folding or calling. If he prefers folding or 4-betting instead, remember to switch into polarized range and 3b/5b something like { 22+, AQ+ }.

We use depolarized range providing that Villain responds by folding or calling. If he prefers folding or 4-betting instead, remember to switch into polarized range and 3b/5b something like { 22+, AQ+ }.

In BB where it is easier for us to split our range and flat some hands vs the CO it is less of a mistake to think like this. But poker is seldom black or white.

We can 3bet trash vs a player that folds way too much pre flop and/or a plays super weak post flop.

But that does not mean that we should start flatting BW hands unless we are also flatting our very best hands.

I'm not a big fan of the terms polarized and depolarized in a pre flop context. That is why I wrote top 12-15%. T5s has more than 35% equity vs any reasonable calling range. So even complete trash has a fair bit of equity.

If we are not 3betting Top X % of hands. Then we are likely 3betting 22+, AQo and the neighbors to the weakest BW hands we flat pre flop. Hands like K8s which has > 40% equity vs a reasonable calling range. Now polarized make no sense.

Edit: I know I have used those terms myself in the not so far past. And I may misspeak from time to time.. but I really think it is counter productive to have the wrong framework for our thought process.

hi nice vid as usual, you repeat several times to calculate ev and several time that an action seems very close from an other (exemple folding or raising river)
can you please take a hand of this video where you think ev is close and do the maths so we could have the right method to do it, because i have to say that even if i am a winning 100/200 player i sometime struggle to find the more ev+ hand with pokerstove and my brain (for something more difficult than calling a river bet given pot odds)
im surely not the only one
thanks and have a nice day

...3betting top 12-15% vs CO open is more or less standard..

hi how did you come to this number?


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.771% 63.83% 00.94% 270463097416 3976061106.00 { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 35.229% 34.29% 00.94% 145294405172 3976061106.00 { random }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.444% 63.24% 01.20% 265310552308 5042300084.00 { 99+, A4s+, KQs, A4o+ }
Hand 1: 35.556% 34.35% 01.20% 144119327524 5042300084.00 { random

does that means that top 15% is the same using pairs or AXs to go with nut hands? because im allwaus strugling to chose between small pairs and Ax to 3bet/5bet

hi nice vid as usual, you repeat several times to calculate ev and several time that an action seems very close from an other (exemple folding or raising river)
can you please take a hand of this video where you think ev is close and do the maths so we could have the right method to do it, because i have to say that even if i am a winning 100/200 player i sometime struggle to find the more ev+ hand with pokerstove and my brain (for something more difficult than calling a river bet given pot odds)
im surely not the only one
thanks and have a nice day

Watch the existing math videos on this site to learn to calculate EV. EV calculations by hand takes forever and way too long to post every step in the forum.

hi how did you come to this number?

does that means that top 15% is the same using pairs or AXs to go with nut hands? because im allwaus strugling to chose between small pairs and Ax to 3bet/5bet

3betting small PP is not a super great idea vs CO. We get called too often and villain will have a rather strong range + jamming is a little meh vs CO. That said there are players who 4bet/fold with too high a frequency. All in all I would rather 3bet/5bet the suited aces.

TOP 15% is roughly how wide you can 3bet without having to jam very marginal hands over a 4bet.

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

please tell me if this range construction is correct for defeing my blindes (at least Sb because its more difficutl to flat with the possibility of being squeezed)
i want to termine which % i have to defend my blindes to improve my game (i know its not the first leak to plug but i fold to steal around 80%..)

we are sb and a btn opens to 3bb, he steals 40% as most regs
he can open any two card if we fold more than 66% so we have to defend 33%
since he steals 40% we have to defend 13.2%
since small PP are much difficult to play postflop oop and we have blockers with Axs we construct a 3bet range of around 13% (more that what i do now + the fact that i sometimes call when i think i wont be squezed)
the 3 bet ranges would be TT+,A2s+,A9o+,A5o-A2o,if he rarely calls but either fold or 4bet
the 3bet ranges is now 99+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KJo+ if he often calls


if he opens 2,5bb he can open any two cards if we fold more than 55% preflop, so we have to defend 45%, since he steals 40% we have to defend 18%...
the 3bet ranges is now 77+,A2s+,A2o+ if he rarely calls but either fold or 4bet
the 3bet ranges is now 77+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A9o+,A4o-A2o,KJo+ if he often calls

is it the right method? i m suprised that we does not flat anything
it s much difficutl to construc the range for BB

thanks its a good way of improvment, expecting its not too much out of video

we are sb and a btn opens to 3bb, he steals 40% as most regs
he can open any two card

Apparently he is not opening ATC. There is a player left to act so it is not just up to you to defend the blinds.

3bet a range where you are comfortable jamming wide enough to not become too exploitable pre flop because you 3bet/fold too often. Top 15% is not a crazy choice wider if villain folds too much

ok i think i got it (when i wrote any 2 cards that meant he can open any two IF if fold more thant x%..but to construct the range i took the betsize + the fact that he open 40% and not 100%
thanks it seems i will be better in my sb play, i have to think about a calling range in BB

Time Link to 00:42:49

You say that you need x% vs someone's entire range to value bet the river, but isn't it also the case that we use certain bet sizes in order to target certain parts of someone's range? For example, in this hand, can we not bet something ridiculous like 12 bucks on the river and assume he'll look us up with practically any spade?

You say that you need x% vs someone's entire range to value bet the river, but isn't it also the case that we use certain bet sizes in order to target certain parts of someone's range? For example, in this hand, can we not bet something ridiculous like 12 bucks on the river and assume he'll look us up with practically any spade?

you never know what people will do with their range. What if you bet 12 and he jams for example here? Playing vs a part of villain's range is a leak because you're always playing vs their full range and not parts of it. If you think betting smaller will cause villain to call with a wider range which gives you over 50% equity then by all means do it, you'd need a pretty good reason as to why you'd expect that action though, especially vs thinking players since almost no one bluffs with that sizing.

Hi, I renewed my subscription here just to check out your latest content, it's awesome!

I have one question regarding decision making, variable counts in poker, risk vs reward and whether or not that decision is +/- EV.

You 3bet that AQ vs UTG open - it's very simple to understand and it's a one-step plan.

How do you view low EV, high risk multi-street plans that can be very -EV if you have one of your variables wrong (out of many that were involved in the hand) - basically, where your lack of information can induce big mistakes from yourself.

I find that it's very easy to make decisions based on math when the pot is very small and opponents ranges are widest, but whenever I narrow my own range and my opponents range (big pots), I end up spewing, because my assumptions about my opponents range and his reaction to my actions was wrong to begin with (after we got to turn or river). At least on small stakes, turn and river play should be fairly honest in my experience so I like to draw the line that I don't cross on the flop and very rarely deviate from that unless I have good reads on my opponents.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?

Hi, I renewed my subscription here just to check out your latest content, it's awesome!

I have one question regarding decision making, variable counts in poker, risk vs reward and whether or not that decision is +/- EV.

You 3bet that AQ vs UTG open - it's very simple to understand and it's a one-step plan.

How do you view low EV, high risk multi-street plans that can be very -EV if you have one of your variables wrong (out of many that were involved in the hand) - basically, where your lack of information can induce big mistakes from yourself.

I find that it's very easy to make decisions based on math when the pot is very small and opponents ranges are widest, but whenever I narrow my own range and my opponents range (big pots), I end up spewing, because my assumptions about my opponents range and his reaction to my actions was wrong to begin with (after we got to turn or river). At least on small stakes, turn and river play should be fairly honest in my experience so I like to draw the line that I don't cross on the flop and very rarely deviate from that unless I have good reads on my opponents.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?

Lack of information should never lead to a "Big" mistake. We are not only playing vs villain's range but also playing our own range. For example, if we bluff into a villain who only has the nuts then as long as our bluffing frequency is not too high (proper range construction) then mistake will not be that big since the frequency of it happening is fairly low.

Street by street EV is almost pointless because the hand doesn't end on 1 particular street there's always the possibility of the hand to continue. We only care about the EV of our line. So stealing is auto + EV or not on the flop is irrelevant unless villain folds often enough preflop and we can x/f every flop still make profit.

We should always look for the highest EV play. Folding is 0EV so if there's something that's higher EV we should do that instead of folding. Only win small pots is fine as long as we don't lose any huge ones, this is the typical example vs nits. No one can force you to play a huge pot, you are allowed to click fold whenever you want. Reason like I have to call here because <insert reason here> or when I bet the turn, I have to bet the river because <insert reason here> are all just excuse for poor postflop play.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?

In many situations both players will have marginal hands with a very high frequency => your strategy is only good if you have not put much money into the pot to begin with. What you are advocating is 3betting a very narrow range and calling 3bets with a very narrow range.. As I hope you can see this leads to a very poor strategy.. What you need is a better understanding of position.

In many situations both players will have marginal hands with a very high frequency => your strategy is only good if you have not put much money into the pot to begin with. What you are advocating is 3betting a very narrow range and calling 3bets with a very narrow range.. As I hope you can see this leads to a very poor strategy.. What you need is a better understanding of position.

I don't understand where you are getting this from. When you have a lot of fold equity you can always resteal, but the idea is to give up spots where at best case scenario, according to your own ability to play poker, the result is breakeven. From early positon only having value oriented opening ranges unless we are specifically isolating a player from the blinds and the table allows us to do so. Late position however we can minraise/fold buttons for example and don't have to worry about playing back vs 3bets. We can for example, tighten our opening range vs players who stop folding... If they players call X % of the time, but fold enough pre to make our open +EV in a vacuum, we are freerolling the times we flop the nuts vs his continuing range and he spews into us. I use this kind of logic pre flop and on the flop very often, when my hands are marginal, but there's some small edge pre flop and profitable opportunities later on (if our opponent folds A LOT we will steal with a cbet, if not, we don't start fighting over a questionable edge, because we have to beat rake etc and can make mistakes ourselves).

We invest X amount of BB-s with a profitable plan in mind (it can be as simple as the EV of our own action in a vacuum, and if it's +EV, we can stop the hand after that if we don't like the future). Post flop again, only take good spots as they get more complex, avoid big mistakes by managing the pot size well with questionable hands, if you can't come up with a plan, you could bet/fold X% of the time to break even vs opponents folding frequency (you are choosing your odds on a bluff).

I really don't like spots WHEN i am not targeting a specific leak of my opponent and I'm forcing myself to call or fold, it's something I completely try to avoid (again, when I'm not targeting a specific leak) and pre flop my choice becomes raise or fold if 3bet is +ev in a vacuum or for example, if my opponent calls 3bets and folds enough to cbets to make that plan +EV. If not, I might just choose folding pre. Post flop if I'm out of position, my options become betfolding or checkfolding in most cases, vs aggressive opponents who bet fold, I may choose to checkraise, based on just the odds. Again, no plan - I'm giving up. With marginal hands after these actions when I considered them +EV in a vacuum, I say I can safely check fold. And when I have huge equity advantage vs my opponents continuing range, I can easily get value. Now if my opponents call me a lot, I punish them by doing it for value only, and if my opponents fold a lot, I slowplay to extract value that way (underrep my hand and they perceive my continuing range to wider still, because they don't know I'm polarizing my calling range to hands that I beat his valuebetting range (this is when I don't have a reason to bluffcatch (if I can't bluffcatch, I can check/fold or bet/fold if opp folds X% of the time - very effective for donkbetting for ex. [these are examples "plans", ofc I have many more complex and very opponent specific types aswell]).

To sum it up... We can end the hand with a bet, when we don't have a reasonably profitable "plan" & we can squeeze out some immediate profit. And if not, we c/f, because we were profitable up until that point.

*Reasonably profitable = We know where we stand in the hand and how it will play out without us making mistakes (we know where our profit is coming from, we have it defined) & we are showing X amount of profit.

This is getting long... but I hope you understand how my though process is by now.

I really don't like spots WHEN i am not targeting a specific leak of my opponent and I'm forcing myself to call or fold, it's something I completely try to avoid (again, when I'm not targeting a specific leak) and pre flop my choice becomes raise or fold if 3bet is +ev in a vacuum or for example, if my opponent calls 3bets and folds enough to cbets to make that plan +EV. If not, I might just choose folding pre. Post flop if I'm out of position, my options become betfolding or checkfolding in most cases, vs aggressive opponents who bet fold, I may choose to checkraise, based on just the odds. Again, no plan - I'm giving up. With marginal hands after these actions when I considered them +EV in a vacuum, I say I can safely check fold. And when I have huge equity advantage vs my opponents continuing range, I can easily get value. Now if my opponents call me a lot, I punish them by doing it for value only, and if my opponents fold a lot, I slowplay to extract value that way (underrep my hand and they perceive my continuing range to wider still, because they don't know I'm polarizing my calling range to hands that I beat his valuebetting range (this is when I don't have a reason to bluffcatch (if I can't bluffcatch, I can check/fold or bet/fold if opp folds X% of the time - very effective for donkbetting for ex. [these are examples "plans", ofc I have many more complex and very opponent specific types aswell]).

Hands are never played in a vacuum and this strategy will lead to a weak/tight game. It's a pretty bad idea to have a polarized calling range...

I don't think it's bad when you only put yourself in that position when you are playing a strong range vs a weaker range (but in this scenario I'm mostly dominating my opponent and people in my experience make big mistakes because they perceive my continuing range wider than it actually is and my range is very strong to begin with).I don't put myself in spots where I'm creating passive dead money and give it away. It only happens as a calculated loss in spots where my investment was +EV overall (stealing small pots etc).