Nolan and SoundedSimple do commentary as Nolan plays 6 tables of $5/10 Full Ring NLHE.
Our Full Ring coaches are coaching each other, finally, all the way from low stakes to high stakes.
Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.
great video, def a lot different than my standard SSNL games! i would love to see how this session progressed because it was a sudden end.
Really liked the dual commentary over the whole series, i think it leads to better discussion than someone explaining his thoughts alone.
stealing tim0thee and this other lag players blinds with 84cc! i'm assuming you were busy talking and not paying attention, but this isn't normal correct? do you ever flat a 3bet from tim0thee with this type of hand? I mean I'm assuming not, but if your opening their blinds with it I'm guessing your planning on not just folding everytime they 3bet u.
you say with the JJ, that you are just going to cbet and turn your hand into a bluff hoping that it doesn't hit his range. but, isn't this a spot where you can just check back with position? or are these games so aggressive that checking back here always leads to a turn donk by your opponent and you have to fold, thus its better to cbet and have a chance to win? cuz it just seems like cbetting here just folds out hands your beating and only keeps in hands beating you.
Can you discuss further why you choose to not bet the turn with JJ?
You suggest that you get more value by checking thru and betting safe rivers but given his range and board texture - how many safe rivers are there?
If his range is mainly capped PPs maybe some random SCs and not many float overcards.
Any 3,4,8,9 makes a 4 str8 board - 16 cards
Possibly A,K prevent you from being able to extract a value bet - so even though he prolly hasnt float overcards that he becomes less likely that he will call worse hands.
Thats now 24 of 46 unknown cards - which either develop the board or reduce your capacity to extract value.....seems like alot of the deck to me.
Is there that much difference in his range that calls bet/bet/check rather than bet/checkbet to make up for this?
Thanks for the series and love your work as usual - and more Paddy guys.
Nah, we got one more vid worth of time out of it.
Spoiler: Scout pwns me
Great to hear there is a part 2, would be sick if that was it.
Nice to hear an Irish dude commenting too, would love to see you guys do
a video on ongame, haven't played there in ages.
a few things seemed wierd to me, first of all i think we had k j on the button when a fish min raises the cut off and you say you flat because if you 3 bet theres a huge chance that you get 4 bet bluffed. Personally although i havent played full ring in a long time that seems kinda paranoid, but anyway just as a function of your range being stronger when you 3 bet theres no way you can get 4 bet bluffed more than squeezed right? you didnt really mention getting squeezed but it has to be more likely than getting 4 bet bluffed just based on the strength of your flatting range vrs your 3 bet range. This isnt taking into consideration that having the fish to ourselves when its likely hes goping to flat a lot of hands we dominate preflop I would usually just 3 bet there.
The king ten hand where you flat peachys ep raise the way you played it seemed kinda wierd to me from a theoretical standpoint. Just theoretically if we arent going to get value besides a c bet (I would usually bet the turn since we can be floating and it protects our range and stuff, probably checking most rivers back if c/c) and obviously against his under the gun range were not really looking to make moves on a lot of flops right? Basically if were not getting value more than a c bet and were not going to make moves should we just fold this hand pre? On the jacks where we three bet the button it seems like when the flop comes K Q x dd its a standard spot to check because were obviously not gettng value from worse and the only draws were really protecting are against broadway gutshots but we have two jack blockers so even protecting against this seems like its not that important of a consideration and also maybe he check raises those draws we dont really know but my standard would be to check there. The aces hand where we three bet and then you say that you plan to check/check ship but that doesnt make any sense to me because we dont have any bluffs in our range when we do that where as when we c bet we do obv. Also I think that when you check a board where your c betting most of your whole range it really looks like you have showdown value and probably wont fold it so id be kinda suprised if the villian really emptied the clip there. Anyway I havent played full ring in awhile and so i was paying attention more than I usually do in videos. Im not trying to be critical because I like the video so far a lot eso with joint discussion, I was just wondering what your thoughts were and since i havent played full ring in awhile if those assumptions seem right to you. Anyway good video and looking forward to more.
a few things seemed wierd to me, first of all i think we had k j on the button when a fish min raises the cut off and you say you flat because if you 3 bet theres a huge chance that you get 4 bet bluffed. Personally although i havent played full ring in a long time that seems kinda paranoid, but anyway just as a function of your range being stronger when you 3 bet theres no way you can get 4 bet bluffed more than squeezed right....
You're probably right here. I was still kinda sick making this video and to be honest I wasn't happy with a lot of my play. I'll try and address as many points which you guys have brought up as I can here.
The JJ hand where I check back the turn against a iffy player is probably bad. I never thought out about the board texture as detailed as Digger has. I was a little apprehensive moreso because I wasn't familiar with the villain and he had kinda bizarre stats (something like 18/9 iirc). Regardless, it's almost definitely better to bet the turn here, and probably b/f against most unknowns.
Not 3-betting KJ on the button vs a fish due to fear of being 4-bet probably does sound paranoid, and does happen less frequently than getting squeezed. However, many regs are quite good at seeing when someone 3-bets a fish in late position, and you do get four-bet more frequently than you may expect in a FR game in this scenario. Its worth noting that a few really reputable 6m regs were no the tables as well. Given I'm probably alwyas folding to a 4b in this scenario, I would argue that I lose more in the long run from fodling 3bb to squeezes than I do folding 9 or 10bb to 4-bets as I feel that I get 4b with a high enough frequency that I lose more this way in the long run. This is definitely debatable and I have no numbers to back this up, just feel. It'd be pretty tough to get accurate numbers no someones "fourbet a 3b iso'ing a fish in LP" stats anyways.
You bring up a great point about playing KT suited vs peachy or whoevers UTG raise. However, I think you're discrediting how frequently we can get a hand like trips or two pair in good as well as nail big draws that combat his range of hands that will stack off well. Flopping top pair is obviously not a favorable scenario in these situations, and we probably figure to lose more than we gain in that situation long run, however that doesn't mean we shouldn't play it in the most profitable way possible for that specific scenario. I hope that makes sense.
I'd have to say I disagree pretty whole-heartedly about checking back JJ when we have pf initiative vs a weak/unknown player on a KQx board. It stays consistent with our range preflop and lets us know where we stand. It is simpler to just bet and take it down then check back and play guessing games. For example, if the turn is a blank, would you guys want to check again? If so and the river is a blank and the villain pots, is calling ever profitable? There is added value in the fact that some players may c/c the flop with QJ suited or AQo or the likea nd fold to a second barrel. Betting the flop allows us to represent a reasonable range matching our pf action and possibly get extra value on creating a fold in later streets. In these spots I think its alwyas best to tsay aggressive and represent a hand which you could reasonably have. However, I do understand the inclination to try and go to showdown cheaply and don't think it's terrible, just not optimal image-wise or equity-wise.
I'm still at Mohegan and have some things going on, but you guys broguht up some great points. When I first watched this video I didn't think it was too noteworthy but you guys have definitely fleshed out some things I think I did wrong and some things I probably didn't apply enough thoguht to which is always good.
Two Irish dudes commenting, one just has a sexier accent.
I'll try and get back to the Q's I missed later on this evening, keep them coming in the meantime if you'd like, I'll have considerably more free time tonight.