---

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

also, if we bet there with KK, isn't any flop value we get from a flush draw fairly irrelevant? in other words, we aren't firing 2 barrels, and if we bet flop, check back turn, and he leads river on a blank, he's firing all his missed flush draws, yet probably doesn't have enough of those missed flush draws compared to Ax or better for us to profitable bluff catch (Ace of hearts is on board). So despite getting value in a vacuum from a flush draw on the flop, we don't get to realize that value as we'll likely have to fold to that same flush draw later in the hand given how his ranges will be constructed.

thoughts?

well, if he doesn't have *that* many draws, then there isn't *that* much value, so we just shouldn't bet. If he does have *that* many draws, we should call river.

Andrew

Kristy, if we check back this flop, can't we expect to get led into a lot on the turn? With the FD on board shouldn't we bet our Ax a high % of the time? Now he can rep an A much more credibly than us...ok I played the video before I finished this comment and that's exactly what happened. BW didn't mention that as part of the argument for cbetting, but does that also go into the thought process?

we can expect to get led into a lot, but thats not a reason to bet with a weak hand. when we check back there and expect our opponent to lead a lot, its usually cause their hand is usually better than ours and we are just giving up.

Andrew

you said that c/r flop vs a passive guy w/AK here is better than c/c flop, donk turn. But a passive player is more likely to check back flop than to bet it. So is it better to just donk flop, bet turn and river instead of checking and hope that he bets?

even passive players still c-bet a lot. if they don't c-bet, sure, donking is better.

Andrew

table 1 - KK:

Can you explain your thought on the fold ? I know that he c/c flop 4ways on a wet flop but since he didnt c/r flop, I think that he is not likely to have overpair, set, 2pair or combo draws. I can just see him having TT here or something like Txdd..

he's never bluffing on the turn. so, that should answer pretty much all our questions.

Andrew

I really think i disagree that a pretty nitty guy will call with pocket AA or KQ if we shove because i mean what are we shoving that he is beating and how much are we bluffing in his eyes...

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

table 4 - J9s

Why a c/r is better than c/c here. He is short stack but his stats seems normal. When you c/r, you dont think there isnt that many worse hands that will call you ?

tons of worse hands and draws will call us. we also have small reverse implied odds cause stacks are so short.

Andrew

table 1 - 99

Kristy, are you 3betting for value here ? what about a flat preflop ?

value looks good. there are some real benefits to 3b pocket pairs from blinds.

Andrew

regarding your contention that we if a spot is good to run a bluff, we should usually look to play our value hands differently - I generally agree, but aren't there a lot of spots where yes, playing our value hands differently would be the most +EV play in a vacuum, but taking a less optimal-in-isolation line with our value hands is a higher EV from a total game strategy perspective?

a good example of what I'm getting at is the one hand in your recent heads up video you did with Foxwood's Fiend where you were on the river on a 5 straight board and you had a higher straight than the one on board. You bet a standardish 3/4ish size, and Foxwood's Fiend said that yes, for your hand that's the most +EV play since it will get called a lot more often than an overbet, but an overbet is still correct because you will want to be overbet bluffing those boards a lot to lay the opponent bad odds to get him off a chop, and you will have those chop-bluffs way way more often than you'll have the higher straight, so if you play the higher straight differently and the opponent sees that, he can then just look you up everytime you overbet that board.

now a counterargument might be: ok, next time I have the higher straight I'll overbet and I'll bet 3/4 pot when I have the chop. But that doesn't really work because mathematically you will have the chop way more often.

thoughts?

i tend to think that each hand has a singular best play for that hand, and that that choice depends on previous history, and that it contributes to future history, but I'm not as concerned with balancing my total range.

Andrew

value looks good. there are some real benefits to 3b pocket pairs from blinds.

Andrew

If you have some time, can you check this thread. We discuss about 3betting, flatting or folding small to mid PP from blinds vs co open. I would like to have your thought on that.


http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/8-Micro-Stakes-Online-NL/topics/403871-77-good-spot-to-bluff-cat?page=6&per_page=30#post_3487391

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

If it was vs a good thinking opponent, would you considere calling because you know that he wont just c/c flop with sets or 2pairs ?

well, if he doesn't have *that* many draws, then there isn't *that* much value, so we just shouldn't bet. If he does have *that* many draws, we should call river.

Andrew

is it not possible that he could have flush draws AND worse hands that he calls the flop with, making it such that we are greater than 50% vs his flop calling range, but still can't call a river bet.

For example, say he calls flop with 77, 99-JJ, AQ/AJ, and KQhh, KJhh, QJhh, JThh, T9hh, KThh, QThh, and we have KK no heart. If it weren't for the flush draws, we wouldn't be greater than 50% on the flop as there are 24 worse made hands, 24 better made hands, and 7 draws, so the presence of flush draws is the tipping point for whether or not we are able to value bet the flop in a vacuum. But once the turn goes check/check, we can't call the river vs a range of missed flush draws and AQ/AJ, so we are only actually realizing that flop value vs 24 out of 55 combos.

tons of worse hands and draws will call us. we also have small reverse implied odds cause stacks are so short.

Andrew

I dont get your point about reverse implied odds.. How the short stacks affect reverse implied oods here ?

thx for answers and great video, as always!

i tend to think that each hand has a singular best play for that hand, and that that choice depends on previous history, and that it contributes to future history, but I'm not as concerned with balancing my total range.

Andrew

hmm interesting. I guess you just agreed with Ariel because you wanted to keep the video moving and not bog the video down with a long discussion on this in first few hands? do you think that your play of betting 3/4 was still best, despite that now you can't play your bluffs, which you will have the vast majority fo the time, in their most profitable way (overbetting)? I guess since you were only playing a 1 hour heads up match, then your answer will be yes, but if you expected to play against him very often would you still make the same play?

I agree that each hand does have a singular best play for that hand, but you're response doesn't adress the counter argument that it may be possible that the highest EV for that hand isn't the highest EV from a macroscopic perspective in terms of your total strategy.

it's also difficult to know for sure how someone will adjust in the future, which often just becomes a leveling war which is hard to win at. but if you aren't thinking about that and are just thinking about constructing your range in a way that allows you to play most profitably the hands you will have most often, there's no way you can lose the leveling war.

another example is good laggy players or guys like Samoleus who play a ton of hands. There's no way they are making money on all of their hands, so by your argument they should be folding a lot of those hands preflop as that's the best singular EV for that hand in isolation. But this may cause them to get less action on their value hands and also lose metagame EV in that they become easier to hand read against and easier to play against, thus losing macroscoping EV.

again, I do tend to agree with you for the majority of situations. just playing devils advocate a bit to spark discussion as I think this is a very important/interesting subject imo.

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

The c/r bluff got my mind thinking tried it a fair amount vs some of the nityer regs seemed to work ok

Ty best ep so far imo at least for me.

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

did you see my post about this? I'll repost below:

"a river bluff shove would probably be profitable, but it's a lot closer than you make it seem IMO. there's 19 nutted combos and 20 thin value combos (AA/KQ/AQ) that will fold that he can potentially have (assuming we have QT). the bluff has to work 52% of the time, and he folds 51% if he folds all of his thin value hands. Take some nutted combos out because sometimes he checks back A8/K8 on the flop and the smaller river bet skews his range more toward the thin value part of his range, and the bluff becomes profitable, but still he only needs to be calling with AA or KQ like 1/3 of the time for the bluff to be -EV. And this is assuming he doesn't open 87o on the button.

I do understand the concept you are illustrating though, but this particular spot, and the fact that him being on the button adds a lot more 8x hands to his range than if he were in like MP or CO and we're on the BTN, is a lot closer."

agree/disagree?