---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by DOGISHEAD (Micro/Small Stakes)

Great series thus far. It's great that the video is this lenghty also.

man ,i wanna be coached by gman

On the OOP AQ hand where you guys were complaining about it being such a sick spot and that AK is a big part of his range, and you might even fold, I just seemed to disagree completely with this. It wasn't like this was his first 4bet and I dunno. To me I thought 'man if i was playing right now I'm fistpump getting it in if he bets turn'. That and once he checks back I was thinking I'd shovel the river. I know you guys explained your thinking but I was wondering if you could expand a lil more on this hand and possibly tell me if/how my thinking here is flawed.

Also - Sick vid for sure. Not boring by any means but 90min straight of any one poker video gets a lil brutal in the length department imo.

why would u ever complain about a longer vid, stop watching if u dont want

Complaining about lenght of vid is terrible, the longer the better dogishead thanks

I thought this was a great video and had a question about the hand with AQ. How would you feel about a smallish turn lead with the AQ followed by a now smaller river shove (in proportion to pot size)? I was thinking against a range of pure bluffs/JJ-KK/better it extracts more value since I didn't feel as though he straight shoves river as a bluff after being check called on that flop and also didn't think he'd be good enough to value shove JJ-KK but would definitely call small turn leads with JJ-KK as well as Ts... as well as get spazzy and shove over the top because your hand looks so marginal. Is this logic alright? We obviously are still losing to the same hands that we would have otherwise but I think it gets more value than c/c'ing a shove on the river as well as just outright shoving ourselves since I don't think he bluff shoves his stack on the river enough, nor calls a shove on the river enough after being flatted pf then c/c'd on an A high flop. Obviously a VERY transparent looking play against a good hand reader but it just felt like given reads and flow of this particular match that it would be appropriate and having a balanced line not as necessary.

Also the discussion about the decision whether to check back or bet bottom pair type hands on the turn was very good as well.

First of all I would like to say this is a great video and am very much looking forward to the sequels, however, there is something that bothers me when you talk about 4-bet sizing.

In the AQ vs J8 hand, he raises standard 3BB $1.5, you make it 12BB 6$ and he makes it 36BB $18 and you call it $3-4 over pot?? As far as I see it this is exactly potsized raise and in fact your 3-bet is the overbet... When he 4-bets to $16 you have $12 to call into a $24 pot. Giving you 2-1 odds.

Lets look at a easy to understand example. A $10 pot. Someone bets pot $10, so now the pot is $20 and you have to call $10 to see, making it 2-1 odds... Now look at your 3-bet size. You made it $5 before you got deep stacked. This is on top of a $1.5 raise. So he will have to call $3.5 into a $6.5 pot giving worse than 2-1 odds. not even talking about when you make it $6 instead of $5.

There might be more reasons why it's better to 4-bet smaller, but you don't touch too much on that, you just grate on the opponent for making such ridiculous overbets. Which in my eyes is faulty maths on your part.

I thought this was a great video and had a question about the hand with AQ. How would you feel about a smallish turn lead with the AQ followed by a now smaller river shove (in proportion to pot size)? I was thinking against a range of pure bluffs/JJ-KK/better it extracts more value since I didn't feel as though he straight shoves river as a bluff after being check called on that flop and also didn't think he'd be good enough to value shove JJ-KK but would definitely call small turn leads with JJ-KK as well as Ts... as well as get spazzy and shove over the top because your hand looks so marginal. Is this logic alright? We obviously are still losing to the same hands that we would have otherwise but I think it gets more value than c/c'ing a shove on the river as well as just outright shoving ourselves since I don't think he bluff shoves his stack on the river enough, nor calls a shove on the river enough after being flatted pf then c/c'd on an A high flop. Obviously a VERY transparent looking play against a good hand reader but it just felt like given reads and flow of this particular match that it would be appropriate and having a balanced line not as necessary.

Also the discussion about the decision whether to check back or bet bottom pair type hands on the turn was very good as well.

This never really occurred to me, partly because at higher stakes one tends to develop a phobia of turning one's hand face up when it is unnecessary to do so. But thinking about it, that may well be the optimal line, because I can imagine him calling a lot of KK, QJ, random single spade hands that he'd check back the turn with, and he may jam them anyway into us on the turn given our strange looking line. That may well be the optimal line although, like you said, against a higher stakes opponent it's a bad idea and looks pretty face-up. I think it's a good idea; nice thinking.

First of all I would like to say this is a great video and am very much looking forward to the sequels, however, there is something that bothers me when you talk about 4-bet sizing.

In the AQ vs J8 hand, he raises standard 3BB $1.5, you make it 12BB 6$ and he makes it 36BB $18 and you call it $3-4 over pot?? As far as I see it this is exactly potsized raise and in fact your 3-bet is the overbet... When he 4-bets to $16 you have $12 to call into a $24 pot. Giving you 2-1 odds.

Lets look at a easy to understand example. A $10 pot. Someone bets pot $10, so now the pot is $20 and you have to call $10 to see, making it 2-1 odds... Now look at your 3-bet size. You made it $5 before you got deep stacked. This is on top of a $1.5 raise. So he will have to call $3.5 into a $6.5 pot giving worse than 2-1 odds. not even talking about when you make it $6 instead of $5.

There might be more reasons why it's better to 4-bet smaller, but you don't touch too much on that, you just grate on the opponent for making such ridiculous overbets. Which in my eyes is faulty maths on your part.

Hahaha, I think we just got caught. Gman and I are both idiots who can't do math.

Yeah, you are absolutely right; our original reraise was an overbet and his 4-bet was pot size, and I was hopelessly wrong when I suggested that he had overbet the pot with his raise, he had just clicked the pot button. The way we should've framed the hand is not that he had overbet the pot, but that he had bet much larger than the standard 4-betting size, which would be closer to somewhere between $13-$16. It is very rare to see a 4-bet to pot with 100bb stacks, and still fairly uncommon with 200bb stacks. Once stacks get quite deep the pot 4-bets become the norm, but despite that, you're right, he did not 4-bet any more than pot, although his 4-bet size is still distinctive as being larger than the average 4-bet than thus indicative of strength. Of course, he did end up having J8 which made us further revise our read on his 4-bet sizing, but as an initial reaction, our thinking that he was doing that mostly for value is pretty fair.

Thanks for the comments Cannes, we'll try to be more careful not to make fools of ourselves in future episodes.

38 mins in, you have 68hh on T46hss and check it to him. you then say you want to call, but don't you hate every turn spot?

- if we bet and he raises, why can't we just ship it in? he'll raise air a decent amount, he might even raise/call like AJ because he was pretty tilted, we flop a lot, and aren't crushed a lot (with the backdoors we pbb have like 28% equity against a higher pair)
- if we check, and he bets, why don't we checkraise and let him shove overs a decent % of the time? given the way the match was going there seemed like their was a lot of value in inducing spazzes, instead of checkcalling and getting to SD hoping the boards comes good and he doesn't hit etc

i can't edit, but obv we don't hate every turn spot but we do hate 2/3rd of the deck

It is possible in HM to use a different HUD for your HU games, so using your 6max HUD, especially if it contains VPIP and PRF, is pretty useless.
Also postflop stats are lol bad to have in your HUD, because it is so so board texture dependent. And most stats are only useful over a sample that you'll most of the time not reach.
Also postflop stats makes you lazy, without those stats you are forced to make better reads, wich are more importants HU than those little numbers.

Against an idiot, no reason to try and outsmart them.

I am new to DC and I am starting out HU. I love your comments and hope, U will soon make another HU series.
However I don't understand why we poker players tend to disgrace ppl, who might be bad or hobby players with words like idiots (they might be smart persons and very successful in their living) or fishes. I hope we will soon find other terminologies to describe them.
At least we earn our income from this people. Chess players describe them as beginners or as players who have leaks in that part of their game.

Sorry for posting my comments so late after the publishing date, but my interest for HU just grow recently.

First of all let me say that the first two episodes I have watched were really great: the theory part was outstanding and I never watched an instructional video where the discussion of 2 coaches added so much. Furthermore, I was a little bit surprised how much information the video contained: I first argued whether to watch the video as I typically play NL1000-5000 FR and 6max and the video was "so lowstake", but it was really worth watching!

I have some questions that have not been answered yet, hoping that you will look at the thread...

Q1:
At 43:15, Villains opens to 1.50 and you 3-bet to 6.00. You don't elaborate on the 3-betting size in this spot, but you argue later that you are 3betting larger because of the deeper effective stacks, which makes absolutely sense to me. However, I wonder whether the opponent tendencies also affect your decision. It was pretty obvious that Villain called 3bets way too much and thus you adjusted by only value-3-betting. Another possible adjustment would be to raise larger with our value-3-betting hands in order to push our equity edge preflop even more. Hence, I wonder whether you would 3-bet *this opponent* 100BB deeps also a little bit larger than a regular opponent?

Q2:
There were two turn decisions where we decided to go with our hand, but in one spot we wanted to play c/c turn, c/c river, while in the other spot we decided to c/rai. It would be great if you could elaborate on your reasoning for these two spots.

Spot 1 (31:59 right): Villain raises 1.50, we 3bet to 5 with AJo, Villain calls. Flop: JJ3r. We bet, Villain calls. Turn: Ah bringing a flush draw. We decide to c/c turn, c/c river

Spot 2 (41:26 left): Villain raises 1.50, we 3bet to 5 with 86s, Villain calls. Flop comes T64ss with a backdoor FD for us. We check, Villain bets, we call. Turn is the 7h and brings us the backdoor flushdraw and a double gutter. We decide to c/shove the turn.

The reasoning for checking the turn is clear, I just wonder why you c/r in one spot, while you c/c in the other.

In Spot 1, if he has an Ace or a Jack, we get it in with either line. If he has a hand like a Pocket pair, he may call the c/r (we saw he likes to call), but he will not bet the river if we check again. If he turned a flush draw, he will call the turn, but not necessarily shove the river. Furthermore, we may get calls by KQ, KT, and QT. Hence, in order to be c/c > c/r, we need to assume that he will have a lot of air and will bet a decent amount of his bluffs on the river, even though the stack/pot-ratio is terrible to bluff. Do you really see him that often bluffing or did I miss sth. in the analysis?

In Spot 2, we are clearly commited given a ton of outs and if we call, the pot is 52.50 and we play with 23.50 effective remaining stacks. Is the difference here that he may have sth. like KQ and thus overcard outs and we want to get him to fold his remaining equity? I don't think that we get any better hand to fold, so I think the reason for betting should be getting worse hands to call. Do we expect he may call with 5x (having an OESD) or other flushdraws? Would c/c turn, c/c any river an alternative line here?

Thanks in advance ;=)

Time Link to 00:41:37

I don,t think that going all inn on the turn is the best option. i think that the best line is to call the turn to see the river; if You just call you have control on the river. if you hit your draws witch is very likely because all of your outs and push, he will be too committed to fold his $22.5, and if you don't hit and he pushes you can save $22.5. so just calling will give you the control on the river;thats why i think calling is the best option.

Time Link to 00:53:34

On this hand since this opponent is a passive loose opponent I would make my decision of calling or folding depending on what he does on the turn and river. If he checks the turn it could either be 2 things 1)he might be slow playing a hand like AK, two pair like AT or trips 2) he has a weak hand. So I would know on the river what it's the strength of his hand depending on his action . since this player is passive and loose he is very unlikely to make a big bet bluff on the river if he pushes it would mean that his check on the turn was a slow-play of a monster, but if he checks it down to the river you can be certain you are ahead with your AQ. In this situation I would have value bet the river because since he check the river i know am ahead and is very likely he will call with a weaker hand like j 8 since he is loose .

Time Link to 00:34:28

Hi enjoying the series, just a bit confused, a little earlier Gman said we shouldn't be 3bet bluffing with hands like 9T against this opponent as he'll be calling with hands that have a better 9t, kicker alot - however at this point you say you would be inclined to 3bet bluf 9t(s) - is this purely because it is suited, or is the comment about not 3betting 9t vs this opponent not 100% earlier, thanks very much!