---

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

Time Link to 00:42:59

What do you think of an overbet on this turn?

Time Link to 00:44:36

Your note taking needs to become far better.

Ex/

Flats QQ on BTNvsCO. Calls down 3 streets on 973tt,8o,9o.

This is important because he did not raise on a board where both of you can have alot of draws and he doesn't necessarily represent that strong of a range.

Also, I like to add possible inferences and adjustments in the notes so I don't have to reverse engineer them out later.

Ex/

Expect stronger ranges in single raise pots. Very likely to take bluff catching lines with strong hands, raises are likely to be extremely polarized.

Time Link to 00:54:05

Still hate it. Yes, the 4 regs in front of you are all tight, but your stuck OOP against 3 of them, and additively you're going to get cold called a hole bunch here.

Even when you don't, you have K3s against a 35bb stack. Your equity advantage is not going to be crushing (he's not going to cold call your raise with a whole bunch of 3's, for example, and he IS going to CC them with a whole bunch of K's) and you don't win that much even if you do cooler him.

Your note taking needs to become far better.

Ex/

Flats QQ on BTNvsCO. Calls down 3 streets on 973tt,8o,9o.

This is important because he did not raise on a board where both of you can have alot of draws and he doesn't necessarily represent that strong of a range.

Also, I like to add possible inferences and adjustments in the notes so I don't have to reverse engineer them out later.

Ex/

Expect stronger ranges in single raise pots. Very likely to take bluff catching lines with strong hands, raises are likely to be extremely polarized.

Yeah, note taking is something I can defiitely improve on, but to be fair it is something I especially struggle with while also recording a live action video.


EDIT: Wow. Do I take no note at all? That's pretty odd to see myself do that. Not to make excuses, but I'd expect myself to take a lot of notes over that. I guess it's just easy to forget things when you're also trying to give explanations for things going on. I'll try to be more cognizant of that in the future. In that regard, I've already recorded the next episode and I'm pretty sure I noted a lot of stuff in it.

Still hate it. Yes, the 4 regs in front of you are all tight, but your stuck OOP against 3 of them, and additively you're going to get cold called a hole bunch here.

Even when you don't, you have K3s against a 35bb stack. Your equity advantage is not going to be crushing (he's not going to cold call your raise with a whole bunch of 3's, for example, and he IS going to CC them with a whole bunch of K's) and you don't win that much even if you do cooler him.

Meh... fair enough. Looking at it in reverse the stack size consideration probbably makes it -EV. Otherwise I don't really have a big problem with it.

03:05 - 3betting AKo OOP "a little bit smaller" vs a 26bb and a 55bb stack - why? I think that the shorter stack will make a decision based on his hand and not your betsize and against a stack this short it really doesn't matter, but there is the 55bb stack left to act. If he calls pre flop there will be an awkward SPR on the flop and you end up playing a guessing game imo. I would make it enough to be able to shove any flop (it will capitalize mostly on his tendency to call too much and will minimize your room for error later on). There is also a threat that it may go multiway and when you miss you end up check folding I assume and I believe it's a waste of your equity vs their combined range pre flop (if its a pro short stacker and a decent "half stack" this logic doesn't apply, but I hope you get what I'm trying to accomplish here when playing against fish).

Raising to 3,5x OTB with 67o when there's a "weak" player on SB and who I assume is a reg on BB. You call this raise "thin value". Where exactly is the value coming from? 67o is complete garbage to me, OTB I would minraise this to achieve a profitable steal in a vacuum and I would only continue in +EV spots post flop. There is no reason to bloat the pot pre, because you have reduced fold equity vs the weak player and you are offering BB more reason to go for a resteal or a squeeze with a marginal broadway type of hand to push you out of the pot when the weak player gets in (well there is one reason imo - when SB calls with a wide range and then folds a lot after that).

03:05 - 3betting AKo OOP "a little bit smaller" vs a 26bb and a 55bb stack - why? I think that the shorter stack will make a decision based on his hand and not your betsize and against a stack this short it really doesn't matter, but there is the 55bb stack left to act. If he calls pre flop there will be an awkward SPR on the flop and you end up playing a guessing game imo. I would make it enough to be able to shove any flop (it will capitalize mostly on his tendency to call too much and will minimize your room for error later on). There is also a threat that it may go multiway and when you miss you end up check folding I assume and I believe it's a waste of your equity vs their combined range pre flop (if its a pro short stacker and a decent "half stack" this logic doesn't apply, but I hope you get what I'm trying to accomplish here when playing against fish).

When playing vs short stacks I often bluff smaller, so balance can be part of it, but that's not really what I'm getting at in this hand.

If I 3-bet a to 12 like I did here, and see only the guy who started with 25 will probably shove or fold. Vs him it's fairly irrelevant what size he makes it but I do prefer smaller because it does give me a raise fold option (especially if he's only a few bb deeper).

With the other player, say he calls... there's 24 in the pot and he has 47 behind. If I were to make it 14 then those numbers change to 28 in the pot and 45 behind. I don't really see a big difference in the way I'm setting up the stacks. Either way I can get the money in with two bets when I hit. Either way I'm probably not open shoving the flop.

You may be saying make it ~20? In which case there will be 40 in the pot and 39 behind, which means we could just shove. Now that I type all that, I think that may have been where you were going with it. My problem with that is once we start making it that big we just make our opponent fold a lot of stuff that would incorrectly stack off to us on a lot of flops. I'd rather get him to the flop.

We end up pricing him out with hands like A7o that would probably fold to a hug bet, but call a small one. In my mind I'd rather get him to make the mistake of seeing the flop because I'll win the battle of mistakes post-flop. It would be interesting problem to simulate in an EV calc though!

Raising to 3,5x OTB with 67o when there's a "weak" player on SB and who I assume is a reg on BB. You call this raise "thin value". Where exactly is the value coming from? 67o is complete garbage to me, OTB I would minraise this to achieve a profitable steal in a vacuum and I would only continue in +EV spots post flop. There is no reason to bloat the pot pre, because you have reduced fold equity vs the weak player and you are offering BB more reason to go for a resteal or a squeeze with a marginal broadway type of hand to push you out of the pot when the weak player gets in (well there is one reason imo - when SB calls with a wide range and then folds a lot after that).

Kind of semantics. We get value by taking down the pot some pre (which we can call a bluf) and some post (which we are techinically bluffing, but if I'm raising in a pot that I'm going to win 50% of the time either pre or on the flop... aren't I basically v-betting?)

It's obviously not a great hand, but I can be getting value by building a pot that he will fold in a lot. Also, I can actually eek out a little bit of value in some spots with my pairs because I'll be able to thin v-bet those hands in good spots.

If he's going to be calling and folding a lot then I like to make the pot a little bigger.

I mentioned in the first episode (I think?) that I'm not a big fan of min-raising the button vs non-short stacks. I think our FE decreases too much and that we don't make the auto-profit. I experimented with it for a month last year and I was shocked at how much different my FE was. So, I'm not really sold on that. You could make a case that I should just 3x the BTN in this spot, but I think min-raise is just too small. Besides, if the player is a fish then it's really unlikely that you're winning this pot 57% of the time that is required to make the steal an immediate pre-flop profit. Effectively I think people treat 2.5x and minrais WAY differently. I'm not saying it's logical... in fact it's almost certainly emotional. However, it's definitely happening, imo. By raising smaller with a wide range we induce people to play more hands, but still play a range that beats us. So, would I rather raise 2.5x and get 55% FE or min-rase and get 45% FE? I'd take the 55% FE because most of my range wants them to fold. They are playing more correctly vs my range by calling more.

Love this most recent detailed explanation of button raise sizing.

15.20 - really surprised at the call of sqz w/A7s , i wonder am i playing to tight vs a sqz while IP or if you would consider this pretty marginal when looking back , could you give me a range your happy to call with here if his sqz was 6% - value part being (JJ) QQ+ , AK and we could guess the bluffs would be offsuit broadways and suited Ax

15.20 - really surprised at the call of sqz w/A7s , i wonder am i playing to tight vs a sqz while IP or if you would consider this pretty marginal when looking back , could you give me a range your happy to call with here if his sqz was 6% - value part being (JJ) QQ+ , AK and we could guess the bluffs would be offsuit broadways and suited Ax

I think it's pretty fine. It's just really likely that he's on a lot of junky stuff. It'd be nice if I had a better idea on what sort of stuff he is squeezing. I could call tighter or wider if I knew what sort of hands he was 3-betting.

I would probably be calling with something like 88+, suited broadways, Axs.

I think it'd be reasonable to be value shipping the stronger part of this range like QQ, JJ, AK. You could make a case that bluff shipping these hands is better and that could be true, but I lean towards calling with these sorts of hands.

Time Link to 00:40:12

Are we ever checking the nutflush draw here v. a player who plays 33% of hands hoping he makes a worse flush so we can get his whole stack? only if villain 100 bb deep? or even deeper?

Are we ever checking the nutflush draw here v. a player who plays 33% of hands hoping he makes a worse flush so we can get his whole stack? only if villain 100 bb deep? or even deeper?

I think playing for an implied odds play is much less profitable than taking down the pot more than often enough.

In poker, we're often comparing implied odds (hitting our hand) to trying to steal the hand (win without a showdown) and if the steal fails we have a backup plan. The more likely our opponent is to fold (now or in the future) the more profitable it is to go after the steal. The more likely our opponent is to pay us off the more we profitable it is to play for implied odds. Hoping that he has has a flush draw (unlikely) and hits (unlikely) and pays us isn't a very likely a event. Furthermore, he's unlikely to fold that hand anyways so we probably get paid when we both make flushes regardless. This makes it even less of a consideration. However, it's fairly unlikely that he has anything on this board texture so we should be able to steal this pot quite often.