---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 00:07:32

You say KJ is better than KQ to 3bet bluff here specifically because you're worried about AQ, but if you use KQ, villain is less likely to have AQ because of your Q blocker, so doesn't that make KQ better?

You say KJ is better than KQ to 3bet bluff here specifically because you're worried about AQ, but if you use KQ, villain is less likely to have AQ because of your Q blocker, so doesn't that make KQ better?

This becomes less true the deeper you are and the more the RIO will matter

Time Link to 00:40:25

This is an interesting spot for me, as I currently try to widen my 3 bet calling range vs resteal.

Do you call with any Ax suited in this spot vs any type of vilain or do you have factors that you consider? For example, if vilain has a low 3 bet vs steal range and is very aggro postflop, are you likely to call here?

I guess your call here will mainly rely on your ability to outplay your opponents posflop more than on preflop odds? ( I know you discussed this preflop pot odds earlier in the vid).

Been waiting for your videos for a long time man.

You say KJ is better than KQ to 3bet bluff here specifically because you're worried about AQ, but if you use KQ, villain is less likely to have AQ because of your Q blocker, so doesn't that make KQ better?

yeah I agree. If you are 3betting as a bluff you are trying to get a fold preflop, and KQ makes it more likely that happens. Also, if he does happen to call with AQ, he only flops a Q as often as a set, and you have position, so you will end up winning most of the time that both players have nothing unless your plan is to just give up if he calls because his calling range is strong.

Interested to here threads thoughts on this

You say KJ is better than KQ to 3bet bluff here specifically because you're worried about AQ, but if you use KQ, villain is less likely to have AQ because of your Q blocker, so doesn't that make KQ better?

I think I'd rather have the higher pot equity post-flop when more money starts going in, that have the extra FE pre-flop when the pot is still small.

It's a good point though and it's hard to definitively prove which is better. Intuitively I feel like KJo is better than KQo in that spot.

If we have KQo, then we have roughly 69% FE vs a MP range that's folding down to TT+,AJs+,AQo+. If we have KJo with 67% FE. It just seems to be like the domination concerns is more important that the blocker value when that's your FE difference.

Time Link to 00:15:20

bottom left with AQs - are you planning to barrel turn and river on bricks if he calls flop?

Great video threads13. Really liked the breakdown of the K8 hand and the combinator stuff, kind of eye opening.

Can you please move to Canada and play 50-200NL on Stars? And if you dont' like snow, Mexico would be nice too... :-)

Your videos keep getting better. Great job!

bottom left with AQs - are you planning to barrel turn and river on bricks if he calls flop?

Yeah, most likely. The river gets closer and could go both ways. It's going to hinge on how often he gets to the river with less than TP, and how often he folds weak TPs on both the turn and the river. He's pretty unknown so those are difficult questions to answer. Because of this I would try to be reasonably balanced. We have a lot of stuff we could be barreling here, so if we auto 3-barrel then we might have a few too many bluffs in our range. So, I think we just bluff sometimes so that we are more in balance. This means we used a mixed strategy of sometimes bluffing our AQ, sometimes giving up. Or maybe never bluff AQ and always bluff KQ.

This is an interesting spot for me, as I currently try to widen my 3 bet calling range vs resteal.

Do you call with any Ax suited in this spot vs any type of vilain or do you have factors that you consider? For example, if vilain has a low 3 bet vs steal range and is very aggro postflop, are you likely to call here?

I guess your call here will mainly rely on your ability to outplay your opponents posflop more than on preflop odds? ( I know you discussed this preflop pot odds earlier in the vid).

I think Axs is typically a call here unless you have a reason not to. You are calling with this hand because it flops good a lot. If it hits an A, it's likely the best hand. It flops the NFD, which is a pretty strong draw, 10% of the time.

I wouldn't say I call to "outplay". I dislike that explanation because it's so vague. What's it mean? I "outplay" by calling with 72o and just constantly folding unless I flop trips. I'm playing perfectly right? I think what people mean by that is "we're going to have to bluff". I like that explanation as it is much more descriptive about what really we mean. Yes, we are definitely going to have to bluff from time to time. We're also going to flop the best hand fairly often. However, it's pretty easy to get enough fold equity when you have the NFD+over or NFD+TP 10% of the time. The more out opponent is building a big pot with a wide and weak range, and then folding, the less of a hand we need to bluff him post-flop. So, we can then call with more hands. So we can start calling with SCs, suited one-gappers, and so on. They don't flop the best hand as often, but they flop a lot of draws to bluff with. That's a great idea if your villain is 3-betting with a wide range, and then will fold it a lot. If he's playing a lot of hands that require you to fold and have little showdown value, then don't fold a lot, and collect all that dead equity.

Yes, the pre-flop pot odds are a variable, but ranges are more important, imo. So, if a guy makes it a little smaller than "standard" then I'll call with a few more hands. When facing a smaller than normal raise, I often ask myself what I would do vs this player if he had made a normal raise... and then I loosen it up a little. I think using pre-flop pot odds as huge justification is a big mistake from just a pure theoretical standpoint. It's nice to get better odds, but it's not a huge deal. If you play a tight range vs a 3x, then you play a slightly less tight range vs a 2x. If you're playing a wide range vs a 3x, you're playing an even wider range vs a 2x. You don't go from playing a tight range vs a 3x to playing a very wide range vs a 2x. It doesn't make sense.

Time Link to 00:23:18

upper left with AQo - you say your going to bet twice there a lot if you get one caller. Would it be for thin value?

Time Link to 00:27:06

I notice your cbet bluffing sizing vs fish is like 2/3 pot. Don't you think we can go smaller like half pot or even a little bit less than half pot since we are really just trying to make them fold air?