---

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

Was thinking the same thing as George Turner's post above re the 88 hand. Seems like most of our value is from draws, so we should get it on the turn.

Thanks for making this series, guys. It's nice to have some more micro content. I appreciate your putting in all the work to make this happen.

However, I am extremely disappointed with the quality of this video. The audio and visual quality were good, and you were both easily understandable, but I found it lacking in nearly every other area. Steve, I wonder if you reviewed this video beyond checking audio quality before submitting it. If not, I challenge you to watch some of it and see that it is up to neither your nor DC's usual high standards. Also related to production, it's properly "bonsai."

There was a segment in the middle that was intended to have been edited out, but was not. That is mostly amusing, and I would normally overlook small production errors like that, but it served to emphasize the feeling that this video was hobbled together and rushed out.

There was quite a bit of wasted time and dead air. At one point maybe a minute was taken up with "Umm" and "Uh" and a discussion of how long the video had run so far. Again, not a huge deal on it's own, but it noticeably detracts from the useful content.

There is also a feeling of trying to force discussion and drag out spots that don't require it. I have no problem with rambling, or taking up most of an episode with one hand, if it involves getting deep into theory or a lot of "what if" type discussion. But when several minutes are taken just discussion one street of the actual hand, it can get frustrating and boring. Especially when the spot is rather uninteresting to begin with, as most of these were.

I hope this isn't taken wrong. I don't mean to insult your work. I do understand that at these stakes there aren't going to be a lot of really fascinating spots. However, I've been looking forward to this series, and I don't want to see the rest of the videos come out looking like this one.

Like if they could afford $30 p/month for a training site they wouldnt be playing 5nl..right?!

It's not the cost. It's the experience.

Time Link to 00:30:52

I disagree that checking the turn with 88 when the board pairs is best. The problem here, is we don't know enough about the villain. Someone playing 63% of hands passively will have a huge range still at this point, and if we check behind and an overcard or spade come and villain leads, we will have to fold.

I believe Bart Hanson refers to these scenarios as the "negative equity slow play" where even if villain has few worse hands that will call a bet, checking with a vulnerable hand allows MANY MORE hands to peel that will only put more money in the pot when they outdraw us on the river.

If we knew more about this opponent, such as his thin value bet and b luffing tendencies after a missed 2 barrel OOP on variable rivers, I can see recommending a check behind. But vs an unknown LP player at 5NL, not betting this turn is probably a leak. Would you suggest a value bet here with JT? I'm quite sure you would, and vs this opponent, there is little difference b/t the two hands (since worse tens and 99 are such a tiny part of his range).


edit: you later suggest a small value bet, which I like better than checking, but it may not maximize value since this player is most likely not paying attention to bet sizes AND if he is and reads it as weak, a small ch/R here could be ultra profitable and force us to fold the best hand. The likelihood a 5NL villain playing 63% of hands is ever going to bluff raise us is extremely small, but it's probably equally unlikely that he treats a 1/3 pot bet different than a 2/3 pot bet.

Wow, 5nl . . really?! Such basic content seems wasted on two good coaches to me. I take it that this series goes higher?

EDIT: Ok maybe that came across as douchey, Its just I'd be surprised if many people playing 5nl were actually DC members. Like if they could afford $30 p/month for a training site they wouldnt be playing 5nl..right?!

Yes, you do come across as such. Sorry to be blunt, but many players here play the super micro-stakes and are frustrated by the lack of content targeted for their level, because they know that 2NL to 10NL aren't the cakewalk people are making them as.

While what you learn for 25NL and over is useful to think about your poker, it is not adapted against superfishes who check/call three streets with an absolute monster or play totally randomly. Because, really, who expect a fish to LIMP and CALL pre-flop, then cc three streets with AA at 25NL, huh? Does that enter in your calculation at 25NL and over? Well, these things happen quite often at 2 and 5NL, and that can lead easily to self-valuetown and losing lots of money when you shouldn't be.

Plenty of people are allowed to write freely on the forums, without having a Premium DC subcribe, and play the super mirco stakes either because they cannot afford to play on scared money or attempt to build themselves a bankroll. I don't pay a dime, yet can afford to watch the movies because I can rake enough MGR at 5NL (I wub Rush Poker).

Many of these struggle at these levels, yet they know the solution isn't to move up either because they don't feel ready, cannot cope with the swings, or simply don't have the money. And bring brushed off like wannabee players they either give up or keep it to these levels until they can finally turn a profit. Yet they are poker players as much as others, and any video that would help them moving up is a good move. I'd do videos for 2NL, 5NL and 10NL myself if I could, because I have really seen the world around at these super tiny levels, to the point I can actually predict most of the time who has the monster, and who has the top pair in a checked small pot. And I strongly believe that at 2-to-10NL, stacks spared is as much money won as pots gained.

And as ybother was my coach, he knows how frustrating these levels are for thinking players. So Matt, kudos for this series, and I will be following it closely.

And as ybother was my coach, he knows how frustrating these levels are for thinking players.

I think you're definitely on to something here-I hope future episodes can go deeper into developing reads and making decisions vs players who are not "thinking." We run into these players constantly at the micros, and everyone just says "vbet,vbet,vbet!" but sometimes, this is not the correct strategy, depending on the villain. IMHO, everyone has "tendencies" even if they aren't "thinking" about ranges, equities, etc. developing skills to recognize these tendencies and exploit them is paramount to beating ANY limit. To do this, however, a live video is really required, unless we can cover more hands in a episode using a vid review. Perhaps 2 consecutive episodes in the future can be a prolonged live session to work on developing reads on players who seem to be making many "mistakes" and not "thinking" like a TAG.

Wow, 5nl . . really?! Such basic content seems wasted on two good coaches to me. I take it that this series goes higher?

EDIT: Ok maybe that came across as douchey, Its just I'd be surprised if many people playing 5nl were actually DC members. Like if they could afford $30 p/month for a training site they wouldnt be playing 5nl..right?!

Hi there,

I don't see what's wrong in playing nano-stakes and also paying 30$/month to learn from the best. I'm not sorry for any $$ payed to DC till now.
It's a good investment.

P.S. Thanks Tuba for this opportunity!

Keep it fun!

I think calling this river bet is WAY -EV here with AQ. We have a bluff catcher here and the line villain has taken screams value from a fishy player like he is. I dont think he minraises the turn with Jx even with a club or gutter to go with it. So his range on the turn is flush's and sometimes straights. And air. Again i dont think he minraise a hand like QJ. But even if he did, he isnt valuebetting the river on a board this drawy with a bare Jx. So his range on the river is flush's and straights, very rarely a bluff because there arent many hands in his range that he would semi-bluff the turn with that will fire again on this river which could easily hit our range since we called his turn raise. We could have a flush or a straight now ourselves so i think his bet is always value.

Totally in agreement here, from personal experience.

As soon as I saw the min-raise it screamed flush to me, or anything that beats an eventual running top pair good kicker. At these levels a fish raising is a big red flag that he has hit what he sees as something big, unless you have experience that he is capable of bluff-raising. Only the A made it worthwhile to call another bet, otherwise I would have easily folded my AJo for another hand.

Yes, technically you need to be right 25% of time... IF his range was wider to include bluffs. But on the River, what can Hero be beating except a total nutcase bluff? It's a typical Reverse Implied Odds with the A on the River. With the min-raise on the Turn and the underbet on the River, it screams a fish value betting his straight or flush, and thus his range is now so narrrow that it becomes totally -EV even to think about calling this 1$ as Hero's equity is now next to zero.

Fishes do raise... however they have this warped theory that raising more means they'd lose you to a fold, so they want to keep you in because, to them, it's extracting value out of you. Hence the min bets on two streets and the min-raises: That way they give you unbelieve odds unwittingly because you pay to keep yourself in the hand they "know" you cannot likely beat. Keeping you calling on three streets is more important to them than thinking about extracting the maximum value from your possible hand range, hence why they love to check/call their made monsters on the flop to exploit any lack of suspicion that you are betting against a made set, straight, or two pairs. Hence why if at these levels a Villain is check/calling over two streets something is amiss, and in these case I do not mind checking to see what he has, sacrificing further value extraction for information and/or saving my stack for another hand.

Remember that most fishes at 2-to-10NL do not think in relative terms. They mind what they have, not what you may be having. If they hit a flush, any flush, or any hand that they deem superior to unlikely to beat, they'll raise and check/call your bets until the cows come home. If they do not have anything, however, they won't even cede you a single bet on the Flop, even if you underbet. They don't think about bet-sizing, they think in absolute terms about paying money to see something. If they call, it's because there's a reason... from hitting a monster, drawing, or even having hit a third pair on the Flop and disbelieving you have anything.

Trust me, when you see a Villain winning a 0.91$ pot with made quads after checking three streets without a single bet, you know the dynamics are just different from 25NL and over. Yeah, you might say that particular player suck (and I agree), but I see the other side: anyone hitting at least two pairs would have been unwittingly siphoned of his stack if he had interpreted these checks as Villain having air.

I think you're definitely on to something here-I hope future episodes can go deeper into developing reads and making decisions vs players who are not "thinking." We run into these players constantly at the micros, and everyone just says "vbet,vbet,vbet!" but sometimes, this is not the correct strategy, depending on the villain. IMHO, everyone has "tendencies" even if they aren't "thinking" about ranges, equities, etc. developing skills to recognize these tendencies and exploit them is paramount to beating ANY limit. To do this, however, a live video is really required, unless we can cover more hands in a episode using a vid review. Perhaps 2 consecutive episodes in the future can be a prolonged live session to work on developing reads on players who seem to be making many "mistakes" and not "thinking" like a TAG.

Unless you have reads about particular Villains at these levels, I'd say pot control is paramount at these levels, and unconditional value betting can lead to bankroll disaster, because Villains can and do check/call three streets with better, and even the nuts. And these cannot be discharged as simply "villain hitting the higher part of their range", because what's the higher part of one's range when it hits two pairs on a spreaded board with a hand such as 63o, say J63 3tone, and the Villain checks to trap you?

Stacking should be only when you have the sure nuts or a next to unbeatable hand like a set. Otherwise, tread lightly.

Remember the adage "do not be scared of monsters under your bed?" Doesn't apply at 2-5-10NL, sorry. While I do not say they happen all the time, we mustn't get paranoid after all, their range is so wide that, ironically, chances they hit is statistically wider due to the sheer size of their hand range. They can and do hit two pairs or straights sometimes with hands like J8o. And unless they raise the flop when it hits J8x or QT9, you'll never suspect anything and if you hit your top pair and value bet relentlessly, you'll end up losing 100bb.

Villain having a hidden monster is more probable as these limits than at higher limits because, by their passivity they'll let you draw up to the second best before raising and lull you into a false sense of having the better hand, and we are taught to interprete "checking" as weakness and "check/calling" as drawing. Fine for thinking players, but fishes do not play by these rules, their only thought is "omg I have a two pairs/set/straight/flush, I must keep him/her in the hand and call everything!", which often translate by "aha, got him trapped" at the Turn and min-raising you, hoping you'll continue to call for a cheap price.

I am not saying that players should be checking all the time, just that a) checking for pot control is a good tool in case of uncertainty, and b) the "value bet 3 streets and profit" motto doesn't work very well in nanostakes because many Villains underplay their monster hands. And even if it is the "higher part of their hand range", a stack loss is still 100bb left to be won back, and a part of making profit in poker is also in part through cutting one's losses in uncertain ventures.

^^^^^^Wow, It all makes sence now.

So, now that you did such a wonderful analysis of the phsychology of one of these guys, what is the best way to exploit this.

I think you're being a bit result oriented there. I agree wholeheartedly that some of the recreational players can be trappy, but if you get trapped, make a note.
It's not that common in the long run, and even those times it does happen you usually find that you're getting value cut when you are out of position or you called in position preflop.

It just boils down to the age old question - what do I beat (that he calls with).
I fear flushing boards (my cards are sooted lol), I fear straightening boards, especially if they have a five or a ten on them,
and I fear raggy unconnected boards.

That doesn't mean I wont bet for value, but I'm a little more discerning about what constitutes value.

Maybe it's my playing style? I'd have C-bet that AQ on the two tone flop, trying to steal the button and get value from flush draws,
relying on my two overcards vs his. And I would then check it back un-improved trying to get to showdown with ace high.

I'd have shut down HARD when the turn completed the flush draw. That ace on the river was a total brick for us after that.

If the Jack was offsuit, then I'd call a small lead (on the river), or check behind. I wouldn't call pot on that river

The vast majority of my BIG losses come from getting overexcited with an overpair, or top pair and a nut fd in a three bet pot facing a turn min re-raise.
And every time the thought process goes "F-you! I'll re-ship! Oh you flopped a straight with your two gapper? Well that's me at 20% AGAIN then."

The overhwelming majority of my TOTAL losses come from calling raises from any position.

edit: when I talk about calling if the jack is offsuit I meant calling on the river after the ace came. I'd be uncomfortable calling if the blinds bet out the offsuit jack turn card.

I think you're being a bit result oriented there. I agree wholeheartedly that some of the recreational players can be trappy, but if you get trapped, make a note.
It's not that common in the long run, and even those times it does happen you usually find that you're getting value cut when you are out of position or you called in position preflop.

It is quite enough common to scrap one's bankroll within a few hundred hands. This is why I put my word of caution.

Being result-oriented is fine at nanostakes, IMHO, because it is transitional poker game. No one in his or her right mind play the nanostakes because it's the level they like to play and they'll make profit off. Most serious players play them to build a bankroll to play the "real" stakes, and thus reaching these results as fast and painless as possible is important, and playing EV all the time despite the results is not. Nanostakes are poker Limbo, nothing more, nothing less. Avoiding costly traps and winning one small pot at a time are huge parts of getting away of this Limbo. Money spared is money won.

That is why I am skeptical that nanostakes can be analyzed like players were in 25NL, it is simply not adapted to non-thinking players, and the aim is different: The aim is not long-term profit, but short-term bankrolling. So playing equity edges is not optimal. Brutally seeking the nuts and winning a sizeable pot, or at best stacking the Villain off his money, is the optimal play. Suspicion that a trap might lay in front of you leads either to a check/call or a quick fold and ultimately money spared.

Also, I do not see the "fishes bet with air" mentality often described in real life experience. They are surprisingly nitty post-flop. What I see is that fishes are very straight-forward: Yes, I did catch bluffs, but I otherwise give a lot of credit to a Villain betting, and especially raising, at nanostakes. Hence why I like to keep the pot small, or at least under control, when I am not certain of where I stand. It is much easier to give up a small 10bb pot in face of a surprise raise, than risking stacking myself off when my fold equity is nil and my equity isn't better. Because before a hidden monster, whatever you evaluate your hand, whatever the range you put Villain on, you real equity remains mathematically next to zero when the hands are revealed.

I am not saying it happens all the time, or even most of the time, or even half the time... all I say is that each time Hero stacks off against a hidden monster because he misjudged the ability of Villain to trap him, it's 100bb (and even more) lost in the drain that have to be either won or deposited back.

Of course, it's my style of playing. But being result-oriented at nanostakes is a sin I am glad, for once, to commit.

You certainly make an eloquent argument, And I can attest that there is certainly ample scope to beat 2-10NL merely by harvesting the dead money.

There are a number of high volume microstakes players doing just that.

hey guys, thanks for your comments and criticisms. matt and i haven't worked together in a while so i agree that the chemistry and flow of the video were a bit poor. we actually have discussed ways to make the series better in the future, including letting matt take the lead on the discussion, and spending less time on each individual hand in order to cover more spots. let us know what you think of the next video!

here in the DC area we just had a wicked storm that knocked out my power and actually caused a few deaths near my house, so i don't know when i'll be able to respond to all the questions but i do intend to once i'm fully operational again. the only reason i have internet access now is because my summer class starts in 40 minutes and i came to campus early.

cheers!

Hey guys thanks for making these videos on the super micro stakes! I had to make the unfortunate decision to drop down to 5NL last night and was glad to find this video this morning.

I'm not sure how far ahead this series has already been planned, but there are a couple of concepts from other series' (in particular From the Ground Up) that I am hoping you guys might be able to expand upon.

The first one is reading flop texture and when to avoid c-betting. How should we be adjusting our c-bets against typical players at these stakes? The other concept is determining if a bet on the river has value.

I'm still very new to the site, there may already be good videos on these concepts that I have not found yet. If so, could someone please kindly direct me to these?

Thanks for your help everyone!