---

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

boooooommmmm

d/l now!!!

Hey guys,

There were some problems with the recording of this episode (that were entirely my fault). The future episodes will be longer.

Inavacuum,

45 minutes of, great street by street break downs and a good idea of what our thought process should be, is by far better than nothing at all!

I love this series and am excited to see it back in rotation, I was worried that it was just 2 and done, but thankfully your back. Excited to see more!!

Great work!! Thank you, Inavacuum

Time Link to 00:35:10

On the 65s hand your reasoning seems flawed.

You say that in theory when he check/shoves we are more likely to fold then if he CR a reasonable amount. And then you go on to say that since he made it a reasonable amount his his range is weaker? I either misunderstod something or something got left out. Either way it's irrelevant since most people dont have a check/shove range here to begin with. So until we have seen him check/shove, the fact that he does NOT do it now means nothing.

Then you say that he might assume this board is a good board to CR against your C-bet. Which is true against a thinking player. But we already said preflop that this guy was an aggresive lag, and he called our 3B oop. Most 100nl lags just wont get out of line on wet boards in a 3B pot in my experience. And he could play his entire range of sets, 2p and draws this way. And at the same time we dont know if he folds anything but his bluffs. So we basically go from knowing nothing but the fact that hes an aggresive lag to assume that he either CR bluff alot or folds a good part of his non-bluffing range here.

Also if we expect him to be aggresive clearly there is merit to checking. It might not be the correct choice but saying that theres no point to it is simply false.

On the two dry flops where we get CR:ed and decide they rep nothing i wont go into detail. But also there i have to disagree with your advice to not do it ourself. There are definitly players against whom its profitable to CR flops where we rep a very polarized range. Just the fact that you decide to call down two streets with T-high proves that.

I really hope the above doesnt come across as offensive because thats no my intent. I definitly think the hands you showed might have been correctly played. I just dont think the reads and assumptions you stated lead to that conclusion.

On the 65s hand your reasoning seems flawed.

You say that in theory when he check/shoves we are more likely to fold then if he CR a reasonable amount. And then you go on to say that since he made it a reasonable amount his his range is weaker? I either misunderstod something or something got left out. Either way it's irrelevant since most people dont have a check/shove range here to begin with. So until we have seen him check/shove, the fact that he does NOT do it now means nothing.

This may be a factor of simply playing on different sites but I see bad regs at SS c/shoving here ALL the time. So much so, that I expect some random bad LAG to do it almost by default when he has a hand like AQ that he doesn't know what to do with. The fact that he didn't do this means he isn't as terrible as may be first thought, but it does mean we have more FE seeing as we always have 0 when he shoves.

There is merit to thinking about checking in certain circumstances, you are correct. In that particular instance I do not prefer that line.

On the two dry flops where we get CR:ed and decide they rep nothing i wont go into detail. But also there i have to disagree with your advice to not do it ourself. There are definitly players against whom its profitable to CR flops where we rep a very polarized range. Just the fact that you decide to call down two streets with T-high proves that.

The first dry flop is a little different to the other dry flop. They are both dry, but the paired flop I view as a different in that it's the type of flop that certain types of players love to attack with incredibly high frequency. I'm talking about J 5 5, as here, or Q 3 3, K 4 4, whatever. From my experience, which is a couple of million hands, bad regs and fish will c/r bluff those flops even more than a flop as dry as K 7 2r. So although the other flop is dry it's not so dry that I know he's going to fold if I just reraise bluff right there. In this case Hero's hand also has much more chance to improve - and we earn more money than just taking it down earlier. When I say to stop doing it if you're doing it I am refering to check raising the J 5 5 type flops with air. For clarification I will say that we should never rule out a line entirely at all. When I say stop doing it I mean stop just automatically doing it at every opportunity, especially vs more thinking players against whom it just won't work.

I really hope the above doesnt come across as offensive because thats no my intent. I definitly think the hands you showed might have been correctly played. I just dont think the reads and assumptions you stated lead to that conclusion.

Don't worry about offending me because it's not going to happen. Thanks for your input.

Regarding the 56s hand that Keruben was talking about, I was wondering why this is a 3bet pre-flop?

My (rather limited) reasoning for not 3-betting this hand would be that its value is mainly post-flop with the ability to make big hands and semi-bluff, so if we 3bet we are leaving less room post flop with stack sizes to semi-bluff etc. Your read is he is an aggro lag, so we can't expect to have much fold equity pre-flop either, so we are raising for value with 6 high?

What am i missing ?

Really glad this series was continued, very enjoyable, thanks.

Time Link to 00:05:00

Is there not some merit to a c/r for protection here, since e.g. AK has 26% equity at this point?

Is there not some merit to a c/r for protection here, since e.g. AK has 26% equity at this point?

The problem with that is that it becomes very difficult for more money to go in with us holding the best hand after we c/r. For example, lets say we are in villain's spot and we hold AA and get check-raised on this flop. We should be very unhappy. In effect we're getting close to turning our hand into a bluff if we c/r when we factor in how the hand plays out from that point on if our opponent does not fold. This is my starting point for relative unknowns. If I have the kind of dynamic where I can c/r this flop profitably with villain it's extremely unlikely I would have just flat preflop in the first place.

Regarding the 56s hand that Keruben was talking about, I was wondering why this is a 3bet pre-flop?

My (rather limited) reasoning for not 3-betting this hand would be that its value is mainly post-flop with the ability to make big hands and semi-bluff, so if we 3bet we are leaving less room post flop with stack sizes to semi-bluff etc. Your read is he is an aggro lag, so we can't expect to have much fold equity pre-flop either, so we are raising for value with 6 high?

What am i missing ?

Really glad this series was continued, very enjoyable, thanks.

The 3bet can be up for debate, I will answer your question but I'm not going to have a separate debate on 3betting ranges as we don't really have the scope (nor do I have the desire) for that in this thread suffice to say that 3betting this type of hand from this position when certain factors are green is a big part of my game and one I have a lot of success with.

I want to be able to have a wide 3betting range vs early positions as well as late positions. If I am 3betting someone who is in an earlier position it's less likely they will 4bet bluff, so I can 3bet more hands that I can't 5bet shove with often (although we can still shove a hand like 65s we'd obviously rather shove a pair or suited Ax). This leaves villain the option of folding a ton or calling. If they do call the range they call with is often going to be hands that 65s is doing well against (we're not 3betting it to hit TP), and even when it misses the flop we still have a huge advantage with initiative and position.

Time Link to 00:17:32

he can also have Q9 here

Time Link to 00:11:50

Why play a bluff like this when presumably you wouldn't play a made hand like this?

Excellent video btw.

Ya, I definitely thought Q9 was a possibility there as well.

Why play a bluff like this when presumably you wouldn't play a made hand like this?

Excellent video btw.

I would play a made hand that way vs some people who will play back when I rep a re-bluff. See episode one for an example.

The reason it works as bluff is that we're choosing to expose an exploitable play with an exploitable play of our own that this type of villain will close to never play back against which is preferable when our hand is so vulnerable to their air.