---

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

I watched the end of this video, because the main action with

Hero is CO with A 9

Turn: ($37.05) 7 5 6 9

SB bets $23, Hero ships

Hand was against my poker buddy
He x/r the flop and instantly b/f the turn with K J

ah thanks....being results oriented makes me feel more inclined to call. call. but i still dont know if he fires river with no heart ever? or if he only fires with hands that beat us but C/F all the other stuff.

I guess with the extra IO of Kxhh or Qxhh hands he can have might make up for the fact that we can make some bad folds or he sometimes hits an over on river.

ah thanks....being results oriented makes me feel more inclined to call. call. but i still dont know if he fires river with no heart ever? or if he only fires with hands that beat us but C/F all the other stuff.

I guess with the extra IO of Kxhh or Qxhh hands he can have might make up for the fact that we can make some bad folds or he sometimes hits an over on river.

Knowing that heart combos are definitely in his range now brings up two important questions:

1) How often is villain bombing the river when he misses?
2) How often do we wuss out and fold when the above happens?

Knowing exactly what villain hand is going to make us likely to fall victim to some results-oriented analysis. In general, I feel that the majority of the 100NL player pool is not likely to run huge river bluffs, so I was expecting river to go check/check a lot. Pair that with my belief that villain had a good amount of air on the turn given the timing, and I just didn't see much good coming out of just calling the turn. If he's always checking the river, you're giving random overs 6 outs to beat you when just sticking it in guarantees you win the pot.

Obviously this particular player could think about and play poker totally different than the average 100NL reg, but, in game, we had no way of knowing that.

I very strongly disagree with your reasoning in this analysis but I've already said that before the results were posted so I'm not being results oriented. But against the type of hand villain actually had we lose so, so much money by shoving. We deny ourselves the chance to stack him, we successfully catch bluffs when he bets the river and if he does spike his 6 outer he's very likely to check in my opinion.

In video your main argument for shoving was because you thought he had air and wanted to protect your equity. Overbet shoving a hand where when we get called we are absolutely destroyed equity wise, we get nothing better to fold and the only upside is protecting against some parts of villains range that have about 12-14% equity seems bad to me theoretically.

I very strongly disagree with your reasoning in this analysis but I've already said that before the results were posted so I'm not being results oriented. But against the type of hand villain actually had we lose so, so much money by shoving. We deny ourselves the chance to stack him, we successfully catch bluffs when he bets the river and if he does spike his 6 outer he's very likely to check in my opinion.

In video your main argument for shoving was because you thought he had air and wanted to protect your equity. Overbet shoving a hand where when we get called we are absolutely destroyed equity wise, we get nothing better to fold and the only upside is protecting against some parts of villains range that have about 12-14% equity seems bad to me theoretically.

Are you betting if checked to on the river if a T-K peels off? You're ignoring the fact that one of my arguments for shoving was that I thought he had absolutely no hands in his range that would call the shove and I thought he would shut down on the river. In this particular case, calling was clearly the better play as the money lost when he hits his 6 outer is greatly made up for by the fact that we're going to win when he completely whiffs and more often than not gives up on the bluff, and the times we stack him we outflush him.

I went with my read that his range was comprised mostly of air and my belief that when facing an unknown, there is a much greater likelihood that they are not going to bomb the river as a bluff at 100NL. Under that scenario, there is no value in calling and inviting the small possibility that you could get outdrawn when taking the pot down right away is almost always going to work.

Make this 400NL+ and I am 100% on board with what you are saying.

Fair enough. My main bone of contention then is that you're putting an awful lot of stock into a read that is not confirmed at all. I agree with you on the timing, it looked very, very suspicious and very, very unlikely to be a made hand (though in retrospect knowing that he had this hand may make it slightly more likely that he could have had a value hand).

But I'm just not sure I agree that a) your average unknown 100NL player is aggressively attacking these board textures with bare overs enough to make the equity bare overs have an important concern and b) that your average unknown 100NL player will never bluff the river. It may be rarer than at higher stakes but I think you will find some 100NL players will be very reluctant to give up on a bluff and surrender and will try to force it through. And your range does appear very marginal so I think bluffs cannot be ruled out with any degree of certainty.

Even if he NEVER bluffs the river and he NEVER has a hand that beats us he can still have weaker flush draws which should be considered in our decision, and I'm just not sure you can categorically states that he never has a hand and he never bluffs the river based solely on the fact that this is 100NL and his timing is weird.

Fair enough. My main bone of contention then is that you're putting an awful lot of stock into a read that is not confirmed at all. I agree with you on the timing, it looked very, very suspicious and very, very unlikely to be a made hand (though in retrospect knowing that he had this hand may make it slightly more likely that he could have had a value hand).

But I'm just not sure I agree that a) your average unknown 100NL player is aggressively attacking these board textures with bare overs enough to make the equity bare overs have an important concern and b) that your average unknown 100NL player will never bluff the river. It may be rarer than at higher stakes but I think you will find some 100NL players will be very reluctant to give up on a bluff and surrender and will try to force it through. And your range does appear very marginal so I think bluffs cannot be ruled out with any degree of certainty.

Even if he NEVER bluffs the river and he NEVER has a hand that beats us he can still have weaker flush draws which should be considered in our decision, and I'm just not sure you can categorically states that he never has a hand and he never bluffs the river based solely on the fact that this is 100NL and his timing is weird.

I went with what my gut instinct was when I first saw the turn bet before I knew what the results were. Rich and I actually talked about this hand before recording as it was at the end of the video and he wanted to make sure it was discussed. I went to find it and couldn't help myself from looking at it, especially with the interesting turn card, but that was the only hand in the video I saw before recording. I ended up saying the exact same things about it during recording that I did before.

From playing in these games, seeing a lot of people do a lot of different things, and especially watching so many players willing to barrel flops and turn with draws or nothing at all, but being unwilling to follow through on the river, coupled with the fact that I strongly believed that the timing was very suspicious, I came to the decision that I did. It's completely possible that the line we decided to go with ( and I said I thought I would just shove on the turn before I knew that Rich did ) might not be the best line for this particular player, but I do think that it will be against a lot of players.

Time Link to 00:22:34

I think that dbarreling here is better than cheking back turn calling river cause it makes your hand easier to play.
Also you can improve. I believe that a good /thinking palyer would 3 bet your isolation raise on AQ, maybe KQ and the board is wet, theres a lot of fdraws on his range and probably some str8 draws also, so imo dbarreling achieves two thinks: charges out the draws and make your life easier.
I would dbarrel and check back river if i didnt improve