---

Poker Video: MTT/SNG by fslexcduck (High Stakes)

Setting my ego aside for a moment, this is a great episode for me personally. I listen to these in my car on the way to work, and it is hard to concentrate on previous episodes when Vanessa and Gman are going at light speed with discussion and theories on hands that I can't even remember. I find myself having to pause / rewind a lot in them. I think because of the more basic level of thought with the guest and the language obstacle, it forced this episode to slow down and go over some basics which is exactly what I needed.

I remember a while ago Bart saying in Deuce Plays that he was going to make an effort to slow down and repeat the hands a couple times after some listener feedback, it really helped. Anyway, sometimes the super advanced stuff makes me gloss over and lose focus and this episode really helped. I realize that a lot of people here benefit from it because they are at a higher point in their game, but I'm not at that level and this one really helped! Great job

Just want to say (because I posted a kind of "hate-comment" on the Gman episode), that I really like your analysis over the last few episodes, Vanessa!

Episode Seven synopsis: Vanessa interviews an inaudible European poker player in a cave somewhere in Tallinn.

Ok, listened to this episode now, your guest was kind of "meh", all he kept saying was: " You've got to make good decisions..."

Anyway, I had a question about the KK vs. 66 hand. Basically by c/c 3 streets you got lucky that he was triple berreling and you've got so much value out of the specific hand you were up against. What is your opinion on c/r the flop, since so many players will shut down on the turn with their big Aces? Do you feel you're missing the value against all those QQ,JJ,TT (99) hands that will bet the turn again? Many of them will fear a broadway card if it doesn't hit their sets, which is also a killer, while they might continue on the flop when you c/r...

Anyway, I'm a limit player, since you can't make up value on later streets, you c/r immediately. But here I can't really see how waiting will make you more. Afraid of valuetowning youself? Probably not...

Thanks for excellent analysis on rest...

Yeah, while this guest got me to slow down, he certainly wasn't what I would have hoped from someone on the show unfortunately. The barriers of his language added to his level of play made it difficult, I think. I'm not sure if it would be an issue with all very novice players, but it's something I will think about in the future. It was tough to gauge in advance that his thought processes would be simplistic (or perhaps that he just couldn't express them in English well) since he was playing not too poorly at my table of an EPT Main Event. In the future I think I'm going to look for more serious players as the amateurs or semi-pros even, or at least think of a way to do a better job screening in advance.

Basically by c/c 3 streets you got lucky that he was triple berreling and you've got so much value out of the specific hand you were up against. What is your opinion on c/r the flop, since so many players will shut down on the turn with their big Aces? Do you feel you're missing the value against all those QQ,JJ,TT (99) hands that will bet the turn again? Many of them will fear a broadway card if it doesn't hit their sets, which is also a killer, while they might continue on the flop when you c/r...

First of all, when a tight player reraises me and my UTG range, I don't expect him to have TT or 99 or even JJ as often as QQ or KK or AA. Then there is also the possibility that he is bluffing. If I c/r the flop, I get value from QQ (but often not even three streets), and he probably can find a turn fold with anything worse than that very often. I also let him give up with all of his bluffs by representing strength. In general in 3-bet pots, your opponents are polarized preflop, so taking a hand like KK and check/raising the flop is going to let them continue only with the strong half of a polarized range (QQ-AA, random 3bets that hit the board better than KK, big draws), and basically represent a hand stronger than the one I have with KK, which is not an optimal line. By just calling, I represent a hand that just wants a cheap showdown when my hand is somewhat better than that, because I make it easy for them to valuecut themselves as well as try to bluff me off my hand. I'm way less concerned with missing a bet from QQ or JJ than I am from letting him off the hook with bluffing in a bad spot when I have a big hand, and also getting a cheaper showdown when he does have me beat.

First of all, when a tight player reraises me and my UTG range, I don't expect him to have TT or 99 or even JJ as often as QQ or KK or AA. Then there is also the possibility that he is bluffing. If I c/r the flop, I get value from QQ (but often not even three streets), and he probably can find a turn fold with anything worse than that very often. I also let him give up with all of his bluffs by representing strength. In general in 3-bet pots, your opponents are polarized preflop, so taking a hand like KK and check/raising the flop is going to let them continue only with the strong half of a polarized range (QQ-AA, random 3bets that hit the board better than KK, big draws), and basically represent a hand stronger than the one I have with KK, which is not an optimal line. By just calling, I represent a hand that just wants a cheap showdown when my hand is somewhat better than that, because I make it easy for them to valuecut themselves as well as try to bluff me off my hand. I'm way less concerned with missing a bet from QQ or JJ than I am from letting him off the hook with bluffing in a bad spot when I have a big hand, and also getting a cheaper showdown when he does have me beat.

i think this spot is a common mistake for some thinking tourny players that kinda get lost in the leveling of a hand ( and frankly Fancy Play Syndrome) where they end up being what they see as aggressive and fancy, only to the detriment of their own play. even thou the guy wasn't able to speak english too well, i think he did have a good idea of what he was doing in hands. I just think he was nervous and the language problem didnt help much. you still made it intersting vanessa! good job!

Vanessa, you have to talk about the Q9 hand with Varconi (sp?). Even though it's ESPN entertainment....it looked interesting...YOU were hillarious...like "WTF are you doing?"

i think this spot is a common mistake for some thinking tourny players that kinda get lost in the leveling of a hand ( and frankly Fancy Play Syndrome) where they end up being what they see as aggressive and fancy, only to the detriment of their own play. even thou the guy wasn't able to speak english too well, i think he did have a good idea of what he was doing in hands. I just think he was nervous and the language problem didnt help much. you still made it intersting vanessa! good job!

I think the guy wasn't that great. The reason is the KK hand. He couldn't tell her what hand her put her on. He would have to know her UTG raising range would be a bit on the tight side and that even though she is an aggressive player, her c/c line all the way down shows great strength. That's the thing about good aggros in general...they will balance well with calling as well as barrelling. I am just interested what he has her on after she c/c's the turn. He would have to know that if she were on any type of draw, she's going to push it rather than play it passively..for the most part. She turned her hand partially into a bluff catcher but also with her line...a bluff inducer....not a spazz inducer

I think the guy wasn't that great. The reason is the KK hand. He couldn't tell her what hand her put her on. He would have to know her UTG raising range would be a bit on the tight side and that even though she is an aggressive player, her c/c line all the way down shows great strength. That's the thing about good aggros in general...they will balance well with calling as well as barrelling. I am just interested what he has her on after she c/c's the turn. He would have to know that if she were on any type of draw, she's going to push it rather than play it passively..for the most part. She turned her hand partially into a bluff catcher but also with her line...a bluff inducer....not a spazz inducer

Huh? He said he was targeting TT and JJ on the river as those are the hands that made sense to him to take that line (he did not expect a smooth call with KK from Vanessa and the big aces wouldn't have continued past the turn).

Huh? He said he was targeting TT and JJ on the river as those are the hands that made sense to him to take that line (he did not expect a smooth call with KK from Vanessa and the big aces wouldn't have continued past the turn).

I may have to go back and listen again...but she asked him quite a few times what he put her on and either he misunderstood or couldn't answer. By the river, he would have to know..especially with that bet size..she wasn't folding. although he did admit it was a mistake. It may have been the language barrier that led me to believe he was lacking in a few areas. But it seemed she was leading him with obvious questions...But what do I know? I have never played an EPT event...

Yeah I agree he wasn't incredibly good, and especially not good at articulating his thoughts. He would probably say the same, and I think he was probably better than the language barrier allowed him to convey. I do think he put me on TT or JJ, even if he didn't make that explicit when I asked.

As far as the Q9 hand vs. Varkonyi - look in the General Discussion forum, the WSOP Day 3 thread... I talk about it there. And normally I wouldn't have said anything but I thought he was a pro and he said some pretty rude things earlier and it was just such a terrible play, heh.

Time Link to 00:12:44

Pretty brilliant breakdown of the concept of " Polarized Hand Ranges" in agressive players. First time i heard this precisely formulated. Either bluff or nuts when aggressive players bet. When they check call they got a decent hand they want to take to showdown, kind of potcontrolling.
This tells me to things: Float when they bet with good hand to catch their bluffs and bet strongly when they check/call to let them pay for their marignal hands. What better lines do you see Vanessa ? What are the implications you draw from such a playing style?

Thanks

Dom