---

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

Time link won't pop up for me: 15:20 or so when villain checks back K9o on K43(r)7(fd)Q(o)

You say that A5s becomes much more of a snap call because villains river bets will be more polarized, but I think this is a mistake until we have more information.

We have already seen villain play two pretty clear value hands in a passive fashion (AJ check AQ6(fd)6(o) turn as well as K9) as well as not rebuy in the KJ > QJ hand that happened before the video.

While you are right in that his river bets become much more polarized, I think the mistake is assuming that villain will be standard reg-aggressive when barreling and bluffing. Given that he has already shown to deviate from some pretty standard lines by being passive, I would want to see if he shows that same passivity in other spots rather than assume he is passive when it comes to TP value bets and aggressive with draws and bluffs.

Time Link to 00:35:16

This board is dry enough that he might fire 3 streets with J9, however I don't think he pots the turn with J9 or even QJ for that matter. A big bet on the river imo polarizes his value range to AJ, J7, JJ, 77, 22, QQ-AA

Time link won't pop up for me: 15:20 or so when villain checks back K9o on K43(r)7(fd)Q(o)

You say that A5s becomes much more of a snap call because villains river bets will be more polarized, but I think this is a mistake until we have more information.

We have already seen villain play two pretty clear value hands in a passive fashion (AJ check AQ6(fd)6(o) turn as well as K9) as well as not rebuy in the KJ > QJ hand that happened before the video.

While you are right in that his river bets become much more polarized, I think the mistake is assuming that villain will be standard reg-aggressive when barreling and bluffing. Given that he has already shown to deviate from some pretty standard lines by being passive, I would want to see if he shows that same passivity in other spots rather than assume he is passive when it comes to TP value bets and aggressive with draws and bluffs.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to wait for more info but for me this is all the info I need to adjust, and if I find out later that the adjustment was premature then I'd switch back. Given that he's 2 tabling us and we're 50 hands into the match, I'm pretty comfortable with adjusting now and keeping an eye on these spots for other info. If it was a close spot, then I'd agree with you.

This board is dry enough that he might fire 3 streets with J9, however I don't think he pots the turn with J9 or even QJ for that matter. A big bet on the river imo polarizes his value range to AJ, J7, JJ, 77, 22, QQ-AA

Yea I agree that is his river value range, maybe KJ too, maybe. Also the fact that he bluffed no pair no draw on one of the worst turn barrel cards is another massive read, and probably makes what I said in the A5 hand more true because he can potentially get to the river with even more pure air, and not just the busted turn semibluffs. Food for thought.

Yea I agree that is his river value range, maybe KJ too, maybe. Also the fact that he bluffed no pair no draw on one of the worst turn barrel cards is another massive read, and probably makes what I said in the A5 hand more true because he can potentially get to the river with even more pure air, and not just the busted turn semibluffs. Food for thought.

Eh, I kind of agree with this and kind of don't.

What I would take away from the hand is that villain is simply more random. It would appear that he does not think about constructing ranges the way we do.

For example, when you assigned his semi-bluffing range for x/r on QQJ and then analyze the way it changes his range when the 9 peels off on the turn, I think this villain may play back at much closer to the same frequency with T9 with a backdoor flush draw or with A7o than most tougher villains would, simply because I think he thinks that we are just cbetting air with that sizing and he wants to play back so he raises.

Thus I expect his ranges to be a lot wider in some spots and for him to show up with a lot of non-sensical lines (such as blasting 96o on J722 or checking back AJ on AQ66).

The final thing to watch out for when trying to call down a-high against villains like this is that you are occasionally going to whiff when he bluffs AT or 33. I don't know if this read is strong enough that we *have* to stop calling down in spots like that, but it's something I'd watch for.

Time Link to 00:04:18

Why is checking back better than cbetting K3 here readless ? You can auto-call what turns and rivers ? Or you expect that it just checks down and you win ? I just see us checking and giving up alot on the turn

Time Link to 00:08:20

Villain never bet folds better on K43 ? He never cbets A9 or 77 and does not know what to do vs cr and folds ? And if he bet folds worse isn't it a very good result for us? Not like we are super happy with our sd value with A5.

Time Link to 00:42:27

So the main reason we call AQ on J92cc 6h is because he is a bad at value betting ?

I really enjoy your videos, Wilt!

Why is checking back better than cbetting K3 here readless ? You can auto-call what turns and rivers ? Or you expect that it just checks down and you win ? I just see us checking and giving up alot on the turn

early in the match, i prefer to check weak showdown value and see how he plays these situations, how thinly he can value bet, whether or not he auto bluffs, etc. in other words, i'm not folding many turns and rivers until I get a read in this spot. The more a situation is repeatable and comes up a lot, the more inclined you should be to get to showdown early and often.

Villain never bet folds better on K43 ? He never cbets A9 or 77 and does not know what to do vs cr and folds ? And if he bet folds worse isn't it a very good result for us? Not like we are super happy with our sd value with A5.

no one bet/folds 77 here. A9 he shouldn't cbet in the first place, but if he does, he shouldn't bet/fold it early in the match (not sure if he does). Even if you give him some better Ax that bet/fold, it doesnt mean c/r is the best play.

So the main reason we call AQ on J92cc 6h is because he is a bad at value betting ?

yea that makes calling 2x here with AQ even easier. It could still be a call against a guy who is value betting 9x and Jx too because of the equity we have against those hands + the rest of his range we are already beating, but it depends on how often he purely gives up with air and whether or not he turns Ax into bluff as well. It could get tough on some rivers, however even some of the "bad" rivers might be ok to call on because of all the other draws he can have that bluff those bad rivers, and the hands like 9x might not always value bet on the scary rivers, so he can get more polarized. Against very tough opponents, this situation is not so easy.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to wait for more info but for me this is all the info I need to adjust, and if I find out later that the adjustment was premature then I'd switch back. Given that he's 2 tabling us and we're 50 hands into the match, I'm pretty comfortable with adjusting now and keeping an eye on these spots for other info. If it was a close spot, then I'd agree with you.

yup

brye, think about your options in a bluffcatching spot - call or fold. you're trying to evaluate the ev of a call (a fold is 0ev). if his bluffing frequency increases, a call increases in ev. if it decreases, so too does ev. if we have information that suggests he has fewer valuebets, we still have a gap in information, which you recognize - we don't know the extent of his bluffing frequency.

think about our decision here: as his bluffing frequency increases, so too should our calling freq. just as calling if his bluffing frequency decreases becomes a mistake, so too does folding when he bluffs enough. people worry so much about making 'bad' calls that they forget that folds can be bad, too. it's easy to write off the hand and move on - we capped our loss, we never saw his hand, etc. but in reality, we'd be giving up money not to use the info we have.

this concept is pretty important and is going to be a central topic of discussion in my next series