---

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

Awesome video, and also very funny intro

pretty funny dynamic between the two of you

--

Tuba: "Yeah, I think with the K T 8 rainbo.."

Baluga: "Stop, I'm talking"

Tuba: Stunned silence

Baluga: "So.. yeah, as I was saying, I think with the K T 8 rainbow.."

lol

Bit behind on watching this but worth the wait. This is one of the sickest vids I've seen. Great stuff and a ton of info in a short space of time.

i rly hate tubasteve and balugawhale, i wasn't going to renew my yearly subscription to DC, and use that money for a coach and renew in a month or two... now, im just going to have to use my beer money to pay for the coach, and i really, REALLY like beer.

great job guys

Best vid i've seen on DC about SSNL. I feel like i learnt more from this vid than any other poker material i have seen, read or heard. Thank you.

Great job guys.

I know this is old but I was just rewatching some of my favorite videos and tried using the notetaking and other methods Wiltontilt talked about in Haj School and its crazy how much good stuff and great poker theory there is in the coaching tree videos and you realize it even more when you're actively thinking and notetaking.

Really cool stuff.

Just seen it for the first time. This video is the stone cold nuts.

Sick good. Best live play video I've ever seen

Just stumbled upon this series after going thru Road to robusto and alot others and this one really blew my mind. My jaw is on the floor and I have no idea of what to do with all this information - massive overload!
This is the bomb! I will be re-watching this series many, many times.

Time Link to 00:41:39

pretty old thread but,
AT hand, in villain's shoes how would you play his hand? You are 2buyins deep, so id assume you d call with T8s in position. He flopped top pair with a flush draw, so you have to call a flop bet and the turn one; and when you get to the river its very unlikely that you're behind, cuz your opponent has to 3bet A2s, low pairs which is very unlikely someones doing that at this level or some suited tens and theres only 2 of them left in the deck so there are very few combos of that; so hes probably value betting big overpairs here often. Cuz you talked about this spot as him calling too lightly pre and post flop, maybe you/I got something wrong?

pretty old thread but,
AT hand, in villain's shoes how would you play his hand? You are 2buyins deep, so id assume you d call with T8s in position. He flopped top pair with a flush draw, so you have to call a flop bet and the turn one; and when you get to the river its very unlikely that you're behind, cuz your opponent has to 3bet A2s, low pairs which is very unlikely someones doing that at this level or some suited tens and theres only 2 of them left in the deck so there are very few combos of that; so hes probably value betting big overpairs here often. Cuz you talked about this spot as him calling too lightly pre and post flop, maybe you/I got something wrong?

I just re-watched this video and had the same thought. I can't see where this player made any kind of big mistake with T8s. /shrug

I saw this series ages ago but have decided to watch it all again. Anyways, I don't know how to do the time-stamp but it's roughly at 52:00. The scenario is pretty self explanatory, you don't really need mch context.

Hero is dealt 77 in the SB, the CO opened to pot and the button called. You both(Baluga and Tubasteve) agreed that squeezing here is terrible. I didn't really think you explained why that well.

Is it because our hand has better post-flop equity than it does preflop? Thsi was the logic that I felt that you were using. If we 3-bet here (squeeze) we should know that we are 3-bet bluffing and merely trying to take down the dead money. Is that sooo bad? 77 looks and plays better than say 22 or 33 but when we miss most flops and are OOP, we are forced to check-fold a hell of a lot of the time. Also, when we manage to flop a set, we are still OOP and getting stacks will not always be easy.

Is my thinking backwards here? How am I meant to think about this spot?

I saw this series ages ago but have decided to watch it all again. Anyways, I don't know how to do the time-stamp but it's roughly at 52:00. The scenario is pretty self explanatory, you don't really need mch context.

Hero is dealt 77 in the SB, the CO opened to pot and the button called. You both(Baluga and Tubasteve) agreed that squeezing here is terrible. I didn't really think you explained why that well.

Is it because our hand has better post-flop equity than it does preflop? Thsi was the logic that I felt that you were using. If we 3-bet here (squeeze) we should know that we are 3-bet bluffing and merely trying to take down the dead money. Is that sooo bad? 77 looks and plays better than say 22 or 33 but when we miss most flops and are OOP, we are forced to check-fold a hell of a lot of the time. Also, when we manage to flop a set, we are still OOP and getting stacks will not always be easy.

Is my thinking backwards here? How am I meant to think about this spot?

saw this series ages ago but have decided to watch it all again. Anyways, I don't know how to do the time-stamp but it's roughly at 52:00. The scenario is pretty self explanatory, you don't really need mch context.

Hero is dealt 77 in the SB, the CO opened to pot and the button called. You both(Baluga and Tubasteve) agreed that squeezing here is terrible. I didn't really think you explained why that well.

Is it because our hand has better post-flop equity than it does preflop? Thsi was the logic that I felt that you were using. If we 3-bet here (squeeze) we should know that we are 3-bet bluffing and merely trying to take down the dead money. Is that sooo bad? 77 looks and plays better than say 22 or 33 but when we miss most flops and are OOP, we are forced to check-fold a hell of a lot of the time. Also, when we manage to flop a set, we are still OOP and getting stacks will not always be easy.

Is my thinking backwards here? How am I meant to think about this spot?

saw this series ages ago but have decided to watch it all again. Anyways, I don't know how to do the time-stamp but it's roughly at 52:00. The scenario is pretty self explanatory, you don't really need mch context.

Hero is dealt 77 in the SB, the CO opened to pot and the button called. You both(Baluga and Tubasteve) agreed that squeezing here is terrible. I didn't really think you explained why that well.

Is it because our hand has better post-flop equity than it does preflop? This was the logic that I felt that you were using. If we 3-bet here (squeeze) we should know that we are 3-bet bluffing and merely trying to take down the dead money. Is that sooo bad? 77 looks and plays better than say 22 or 33 but when we miss most flops and are OOP, we are forced to check-fold a hell of a lot of the time. Also, when we manage to flop a set, we are still OOP and getting stacks will not always be easy.

Is my thinking backwards here? How am I meant to think about this spot?

saw this series ages ago but have decided to watch it all again. Anyways, I don't know how to do the time-stamp but it's roughly at 52:00. The scenario is pretty self explanatory, you don't really need mch context.

Hero is dealt 77 in the SB, the CO opened to pot and the button called. You both(Baluga and Tubasteve) agreed that squeezing here is terrible. I didn't really think you explained why that well.

Is it because our hand has better post-flop equity than it does preflop? Thsi was the logic that I felt that you were using. If we 3-bet here (squeeze) we should know that we are 3-bet bluffing and merely trying to take down the dead money. Is that sooo bad? 77 looks and plays better than say 22 or 33 but when we miss most flops and are OOP, we are forced to check-fold a hell of a lot of the time. Also, when we manage to flop a set, we are still OOP and getting stacks will not always be easy.

Is my thinking backwards here? How am I meant to think about this spot?

Hi Pokerfarm, next time you should just PM one of us if you have a question in the forums rather than post a few times.

As for your question, the simple matter is that 77 doesn't play well in 3-bet pots. When you reraise pocket 77 there is almost no flop you can bet and expect to get called by worse, so 3-betting a hand like 77 is only a good idea if you expect your opponent to 4-bet a lot, allowing you to profitably 5-bet shove as a semibluff.

In a single raise pot it is significantly easier to get to showdown with 77 than 22 as we are able to bluffcatch more often without the weaker parts of our opponents range having so many outs (like A5s type stuff). We also don't just have to play fit-or-fold, we can c/r bluff certain boards just as we would with 22-33 if we think we have little showdown value yet also think our opponents range is wide on the flop.

One last thought, in the actual hand we were also multiway, giving us much better implied odds to flatcall with any PP. If I missed anything perhaps Baluga will chime in...

very nice video, great stuff!

49:00, JJ on a QQ5 flop, OOP. What do you do if you lead the flop and get 3bet. Because you talk about bet flop, bet turn and if you get raised, its an easy fold. I agree but what if the vilain 3bet you on the flop? Is it a bluff most of the time, a Q, a PP? I suck in this spot because imo, its a call but what to do on the turn after calling the flop 3bet...check call, check fold, lead again...?

I do have one question though - when playing yourselves (Baluga and Tuba), how do you ensure that you make the 'correct' decision based on the information in front of you? How do you stop the autopilot option? Do you have a mental checklist before making a decision? Do you ask yourself a question before taking an action?

I feel like I autopilot sometimes and make poor decisions because of it and watching the vid has opened up new thoughts but I need to ensure that I can apply these correctly while playing.

EDIT: First Post \o/

Its like boxing or any martial art. In the ring, when you are fighting, you do what you are trained to do. In the ring you wont try any new moves or do anything complicated. You will do the basics that have been hammered into you. Thats why repitition of the basics (keep your gloves up) is so important.

For me its the same with poker. When you are playing you can only do what you have been trained to do. Dont expect to come up with ninja decision trees on the fly. Rather make mistakes, analyse them, watch videos about them, write about them, make them again, analyse them again, rinse repeat. Eventually those things become reflex and your autopilot gets a level up.

So my answer to your Q is level up your autopilot through training away from the table and analysis of your play at it.

Sorry but i think this is bad advice (if i understand right what you say ofcourse). Not adjusting on the fly = death imo. Doing anything at the table by reflex is bad.
How do you stop autopilot? Just start thinking. Play less tables for a while and think through every single spot. What's his range? How affect board texture to his range? How affect to your hand? What do you want to achive? What will you do if he call/raise/donk? What will you do if a certain trun/rivercard comes? With what hands will he pay you off? How many streets will he pay? With what hand will he bluff? How's your hand looks like? How would you play the nuts in the spot? How many times have you air in the spot? How should you change your bet size based on the circumstances? And many many many more things to consider just in a single hand, on a single street.
What you can/should do away from the table is thinking about type of hands (beyond session review, leak finding, etc). How can i play a mid suited connector profitably? Where the value come from with them? What kind of board am i looking for with it? What's a good situation with a suited connector? And at the tables you can ask yourself: Is this a good situation to a suited connector? If no (how) can i adjust to keep play profitable? What's his range? How affects board texture........
I hope you get my point!

greenzulu, i think you made an EXCELLENT post here. a few days ago i watched episode 1 of the eightfold path to poker enlightenment, and in it tommy talks about improving your C game. to me, that is kind of what you are explaining in this post (autopilot might be B game ). and your boxing/martial arts "in the ring" metaphore was SPOT on.

Cernunnos, your post was very good too. i think you are describing A game here. "Play less tables" is EXCELLENT advice on how to stop autopiloting. you give many excellent examples of questions to ask yourself while in the ring, and the questions about "what will you do if" are very good to combat autopilot, because all these self questions require the hero to take time during the hand, which is limited, and you can ask the "what if" questions of yourself while the villain is using up their time thinking about their current action.

i guess i'm not adding anything. i just wanted to cheerlead for greenzulu a little

also, thank you beluga whale and tuba steve for making the vid.
and thank you very much KRANTZ for putting it in the Mirco 6max NLHE playlist.

Time Link to 00:14:16

In my opinion a lead is correct here, for value and dead money reasons, assuming that none of these guys bluffs us, because then we are in no reverse implied odds situation, because we can just fold when we get action.
If we give the nit a range of 99-22,ATs,QTs+,JTs,T9s,QTo,JTo
and the loose passive a range of 99-22,A9s-A2s,K9s-K2s,Q9s-Q2s,J9s-J2s,T2s+,92s+,82s+,72s+,62s+,52s+,42s+,32s,A9o-A2o,K9o-K2o,Q9o-Q5o,J6o+,T6o+,96o+,86o+,75o+,64o+,54o,43o,32o

and we assume that the nit folds if he has overcards with no fd or 22,55,66 (just for the sake of making the calculation easier, I know that we are ahead of those PPs
and the loose passive folds if he has no pair no draw then the probability alone that both guys fold is about 30% and if we think we lose our bet (as if we were bluffing) the other 70% of the time we're called, it makes a bet of 0,36$ breakeven which is almost half the potsize. Including that we are probably oftentimes ahead when called and therefore don't lose our bet completely, i think it makes a halfpot bet profitable, if we think those guys play fit-or fold here to halfpotbets and don't bluff us and we therefore don't put any more money into the pot, but can check it down and be good sometimes.

But since we don't know those ranges/these assumptions are valid, a check/fold might be good too, because our EV gained by betting here is very small i think -> really senseless post i just made

Time Link to 01:06:12

But, doesn't our positional advantage of 3betting on the button with hands that could be dominated offset our card disadvantage tremendously? If I 3bet KJ and he calls with AJ or KQ, we're both going to miss the flop most of the time and being in position means we're likely taking it down after 1 or 2 barrels.

Time Link to 00:09:11

OK so on the 99 hand, here is something that is kind of confusing to me. BW says the primary reason for betting is for "value", and then goes on to say that the times villain calls with better are counter balanced by the times villain folds. However, he rarely folds a better hand here, although he can call with draws.
Further, there are so few good turn cards for the 99 hand, the 9 of spades completes so many draws, an A or K hits so much of his range, etc... If villain calls, what can we do on the turn except c/ f? And if we bet and get him to fold, his hand was worse anyway. I do think a c bet is pretty good here, because c/c down to showdown seems bad, and c/f seems to be too weak/ exploitable. It's just that betting as default seems like the least bad option, although villain is folding worse, so this is not a "bluff" as such per se, and he mostly calls better or at least calls with Okay equity, and if he does call, how can we barrel the turn, or if we check the turn and he bets, how can we call? So, this hand just presents a paradox when viewed from the school of thought of "we either bet for value or as a bluff". I am inclined to think from situations like this that the concept that a bet is either for value or a bluff only is somehow erroneous? I mean a bet is basically bluffing with the best hand. And yet, seems correct here. Am I correct to think it is good sometimes to "bluff" with the best cards?

Time Link to 01:01:46

and I believe 89 sooted was what Matt Damon flopped on KGB in rounders at the end! lol so it works in deep stack poker and in the movies!

Time Link to 00:47:43

how often would you say he is bluff raising in this spot? I know that it was stupid to check the flop to begin with, but how often is he checking back with a Q in his hand? It would seem to me that he assumes we don't have a Q and he could be semi-bluff raising A high or even a turned flush draw.