---

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

This series is the nuts. Andrew's discussion of pot management has paid immediate dividends in that my river bets are much more profitable. Thanks so much and I look forward to this series! Keep up the great work guys.

TD

best vid ever. great.

it stops after 28 mins?
is it totally watchable if I download it?

it stops after 28 mins?
is it totally watchable if I download it?

yeah

Thanks

Listening to the reasons for what to play, when and against what type of opponent was very, very informative. My only problem with the video (and this is minor) is Tuba's bedside manner. He constantly interrupts people before they finish making their point, and blurts out what he wants to add. When he restrains himself from interrupting he has a very dismissive sounding "yeah" which seems more than just a tad rude.

Bare in mind that I only mentioned what I did as something minor and with the intention of adding to what is a very high quality and excellent piece of work.

Fwiw, tuba did calm down some, toward the end of the video....

[Discussion necro]
In general I'd agree with you, but Baluga talks so much Steve pretty much _has_ to interrupt him to say anything at all

Late to the party since I just signed up (again), just needed to throw my love towards tuba and baluga with the others. Such a sick good series and the best I've seen so far on DC, hands down. Thanks guys!

Time Link to 00:35:32

Bottom left table with 55.. Obviously we are betting for value on the flop which is very dry. Do you think that villain gave us a good reason to fold on his raise. It looks like to me he's re-stealing the pot there. You think reraising there is an option?

Thanks,
Great series btw

Bottom left table with 55.. Obviously we are betting for value on the flop which is very dry. Do you think that villain gave us a good reason to fold on his raise. It looks like to me he's re-stealing the pot there. You think reraising there is an option?

Thanks,
Great series btw

we kinda rushed over that huh.

id rather call than reraise, simply because if i think hes bluffing there hes probably so airheavy that i can call down several streets. however, if i dont think hes bluffing enough, id just fold.

Andrew

Time Link to 00:17:31

T8s:

Of course T8s is a very nice hand to coldcall IP for known reasons (you can flop husge, you can flop potEq. and playmore often agressivley,you have less reverse implieds...).
So as default Iwould of course coldcall IP such a hand as for example Bu vs. a Co-openraise.
But there is one exception:
Squeezy blinds.
Here I would 3bet or fold depending on the opponent.
my concret question:

Where is here the border where you taking the risk preflop of coldcalling, but with the danger to get squeezed?

How high have the squeeze-stat ofat least one opponent to be, in order to not coldcall such a pretty hand?

T8s:

Of course T8s is a very nice hand to coldcall IP for known reasons (you can flop husge, you can flop potEq. and playmore often agressivley,you have less reverse implieds...).
So as default Iwould of course coldcall IP such a hand as for example Bu vs. a Co-openraise.
But there is one exception:
Squeezy blinds.
Here I would 3bet or fold depending on the opponent.
my concret question:

Where is here the border where you taking the risk preflop of coldcalling, but with the danger to get squeezed?

How high have the squeeze-stat ofat least one opponent to be, in order to not coldcall such a pretty hand?

i think this is a very good post, and the answer is that this "border" is something that has to be felt out, or estimated, and can't really be *known*.

Andrew

i think this is a very good post, and the answer is that this "border" is something that has to be felt out, or estimated, and can't really be *known*.

Andrew

First of all, great that you are answering in an older thread - respect

Yeah,
I have guessed that there cannot be a clear answer.
In vacuum I would say that a squeeze-stat of >8% looks dangerouse.

Time Link to 00:19:12

98o:

Definetlyagree with you that Hands with good EQ. and hands which will often more often a SD are way better to 3bet pre OOP.
Just b/cof your reasoning that ppl are calling on average IP more 3bets -> you need postflop more often a madehands or/and some decent EQ.

What you think about SCs/SOGs to 3bet OOP vs. Steals?
Of course SCs/SOGs will flop postflop more often some EQ with which you will be able to play aggressivley postflop and stand more often some pressure...
On the other side, they also will flop very rarely a decent madehands...

What you thik in general about this?

Time Link to 00:39:08

Additionally to the both concepts , skill -and cardadvantage and their relationships between them, you have also mentioned shortly the positionaladvantage.
How this relates to the others?

I just guess:

1.) The less cardadvantage you have the more important it is, to be IP postflop.
2.) the less skilladvantage you have, the more important it is to play postflop IP

and opposite.

right so?
Are there any other relationships and interactions between these 3 great concepts?

Time Link to 00:12:29

On the top left and bottom right boards, the instructors keep saying we should just "shove" instead of re-raising to say 3x or 4x. This doesn't really make sense to me because I don't see how we would ever get called by anything but an incredibly strong hand...like say three of a kind or better (which won't happen often)... because we are essentially giving our opponent horrible odds to call. I haven't seen a hand where we've been advised to shove all-in on a pot where we don't have the nuts either, which to me seems to be an obvious telegraph to our opponents "hey i have the nuts, you better fold your top pair/ two pair" . I just don't understand how shoving is providing us with maximum EV