---

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

Another great video! Something about the way Inavacuum explains these situations that makes them all make sense to me. In just two videos he has improved my hand reading skills.

I hope they continue to let you make this style of video in the future and I hope it's sooner than later in the year.

I loved being part of the serie, and I love all the great responses Tim and I got. Thank you!

Time Link to 00:55:59

Wouldn't clicking it back be better than shoving here? He's never calling with worse if we shove, and if he does call were in bad shape or slightly ahead against a draw. But if we minreraise he may think were full of it and bluff shove something like QJ or JT or maybe even 99,88 etc.

Wouldn't clicking it back be better than shoving here? He's never calling with worse if we shove, and if he does call were in bad shape or slightly ahead against a draw. But if we minreraise he may think were full of it and bluff shove something like QJ or JT or maybe even 99,88 etc.

I do think he will call with worse, or I wouldn't shove. It's something that I see extremely often vs inexperienced micro regs I have no history vs when they make this betsizing on the flop they're folding air/draws or getting it in with a bad range, which is what we want and as evidenced by the hand this plays out (though I expected him to have showdown value and not such a weak holding). Our play isn't perfect from a balance perspective but that is not necessarily the same as making the most money in a given situation. I have gone into more detail in one of my earlier replies, I'd recommend you view that also.

Time Link to 00:11:05

I think him betting again defines his range further. His range on the flop doesn't change from his bet on the turn but I think his betting range on the turn is much more heavily weighted towards 5's and pocket pairs between 22-99.

After calling the turn the river is very polarized vs this type of player and I think a call is mandatory because I think he never bets a 5 or pocketpair for that amount.

I think that the turn is a lot closer then discussed in the video. I think that A LOT of air just checks the turn

I think him betting again defines his range further. His range on the flop doesn't change from his bet on the turn but I think his betting range on the turn is much more heavily weighted towards 5's and pocket pairs between 22-99.

After calling the turn the river is very polarized vs this type of player and I think a call is mandatory because I think he never bets a 5 or pocketpair for that amount.

I think that the turn is a lot closer then discussed in the video. I think that A LOT of air just checks the turn

Good analyis. I think a key point is that something these fish love to do is bet a small amount on he flop (whether it's a donk or not) and define our range based on whether we call or raise this small bet. When we just call (shackled by the SB) he decides he can makes us fold our range on the turn because it must be weak, and this is why I think he's likely to be firing air again on the turn in this instance. I would say under many circumstances the turn play is a lot closer.

Time Link to 00:26:53

I think its over-leading on the average viewer of this video to say this doesn't make sense with an Ace. Weak aces on the flop are SO COMMONLY doing this on the river. Fish love to bet pot with big hands these days. Very misleading data imo.

Sorry to reply a 3rd time with some not so positive comments but, this video so far is so soul-read-your-face.

I'd like to see this format with sent in HH's where the coach in the video DOES NOT KNOW THE RESULTS. I mean from the way you talk during each hand, its so blatantly obvious that you know the result of the hand. Everything is so clear-cut results orientated and I think some of the information is bad for micro stakes players. This gonna turn a lot of players into monkeys and they are gonna spew off several stacks.

Sorry to reply a 3rd time with some not so positive comments but, this video so far is so soul-read-your-face.

I'd like to see this format with sent in HH's where the coach in the video DOES NOT KNOW THE RESULTS. I mean from the way you talk during each hand, its so blatantly obvious that you know the result of the hand. Everything is so clear-cut results orientated and I think some of the information is bad for micro stakes players. This gonna turn a lot of players into monkeys and they are gonna spew off several stacks.

I think i agree and disagree with your comments. After i watched the first episode i played a session and blew a couple of buy ins in spots shown in the video. But the important thing i forget was I had no history/image. These lines only work when you have history or a read on the villain. Once i took this into account ive seen my results improve

Sorry to reply a 3rd time with some not so positive comments but, this video so far is so soul-read-your-face.

I'd like to see this format with sent in HH's where the coach in the video DOES NOT KNOW THE RESULTS. I mean from the way you talk during each hand, its so blatantly obvious that you know the result of the hand. Everything is so clear-cut results orientated and I think some of the information is bad for micro stakes players. This gonna turn a lot of players into monkeys and they are gonna spew off several stacks.

I know the results of the hands because I played 90% of them and the other 10% were played by my students. I'm also sorry to hear that you misunderstood the concept and also that you don't enjoy it. Nothing about either video has been misleading, but you are most entitled to your opinion and I encourage you to voraciously uphold it. There's a thread in the R&D forum for you to suggest video concepts, perhaps you can get your format idea made a reality.

I know the results of the hands because I played 90% of them and the other 10% were played by my students. I'm also sorry to hear that you misunderstood the concept and also that you don't enjoy it. Nothing about either video has been misleading, but you are most entitled to your opinion and I encourage you to voraciously uphold it. There's a thread in the R&D forum for you to suggest video concepts, perhaps you can get your format idea made a reality.

I know you played them. And I am not indicating your play in them is wrong. I am indicating that the analysis discussed in the video seems totally results orientated. You are obviously right in the sense that these players did do what they did, thats a fact, but I think the percentages and what hands might be in their range, etc are very biased to the result of the hand, but thats just my opinion.

Also, if you are going to go in this way. I think you should include more loosing hands like I mentioned last week, and also more hands that you FOLD. Non-showdown winnings are becoming more and more important.

EDIT::

I do understand the concept. But you are turning general reads that ended up being right into mega ultra soul-reads and you are IMHO going to make people take their reads WAY too far.

With 2 episodes to work with I wanted to include the most interesting spots and this unfortunately didn't leave too much time for other useful spots I'd like to have included. The miniseries was created on the fly to show in particular non-standard play and this is what it achieved. Given the scope for more extrapolation I would very much like to examine a more diverse array of spots under the proper provisos - as such I will certainly take this and all other feedback under advisement when considering future content.

The 88 hand on AQ6cc and fish donking out, I always view it as a draw donk/calling, and donking/calling turn, and river depending on fish. How would you play against that line?

The 88 hand on AQ6cc and fish donking out, I always view it as a draw donk/calling, and donking/calling turn, and river depending on fish. How would you play against that line?

Do you mean what do I do if he calls the flop raise and then donks the turn again? I often see this player type fall into c/c mode once they call the flop raise if they do have a draw, so until I've seen otherwise I may weight him away from this range but we obviously can't discount it. If he does donk the turn it really depends how much he bets. It becomes a less profitable situation when he's donking the turn and the river whether a draw completes or not - it would have to depend on how we view the culumination of all the small pieces of information we have. Does he like to bluff his missed draws on the river? Does he make thin or bad value bets? Often we will have fold equity on the turn and can raise again, often we won't and should fold or call based on how we view his river play.

I think he would bet all of his draws and air, less often weak showdown value but it certainly happens. I think he can stab 100% of his range but is less likely to stab mid-weak showdown value (remembering that we're assuming he's a fish). If he didn't bet the turn I'd be quite unlikely to try and make him fold the river when he often does have showdown value and it becomes a case of "our A high is good or he's not folding".

My problem i run into with delayed c-betting or checking back these type of boards is against people who stab 100% of their range on the turn, but won't c/r bluff unless they have a big draw. Then they'll bet all rivers as well What is optimal here?

Also what if we have 99? Do you like going for 2 streets of value here? or do you prefer to check back the turn and pick off a bluff? Or are you folding a river bet on a bricked river?

Also on the 22 hand is he never blocking bet there with KQ?