---

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

The basic assumption underlying my bluffcatching approach at these stakes is that people are bad at value betting. So depending on the specific turn/river combos we can def consider calling twice, knowing that someone isn't going to value bet AJ on the turn/river when an A hits the turn very often, and may not even bet AQ, given that our hand looks a lot like AK when we check back. So an A in particular I'd be very suspicious of and would be more like to bluff catch. Vs other cards, like a Q I'd be more inclined to give them credit given that I feel like they will value bet a Q more confidently and can def have Qx in their range (prob at least 20-30 combos of Qx in their 3bet calling range). A J I'd be suspicious given that it only improves AJ and the occasional JJ+. Spades suck, but if a spade comes he's prob not value betting anything except a flush or set, so I'd be suspicious.

So basically chking is an option if we think villain is likely to bluff given that we can hand read, they suck at value betting (making hand reading easier), and we have position. Now we'd have to balance this with the idea that people don't continue bluffing nearly often enough (they usually fire one or two and then quit), especially when they have perceived showdown value (a pair or Ax), so vs a lot of guys calling once and folding some rivers may be good. Chking is a bit more complicated and requires more poker playing, so that's why I would recommend most at these stakes just defaulting to betting, which is likely more +EV anyways.

Great response-thank you-makes tons of sense. Didn't think of the fact that villain is unlikely to thin vbet A turn with AJ/AQ.


It's interesting because MOST players who will call a 3bet OOP without a plan are making the mistake of calling too much rather than folding too much (everyone EXCEPT those who are often slowplaying or planning to ch/R bluff because they view us as 3betting a wide, polarized range). So if they are somewhat of a post flop calling-station regular, we might even get them to call with Ax with the As or something, so we can cbet for value and collect dead money vs a good portion of their range that has about 6 outs against us. Then again, vs these type of opponents, the 3bet is probably not a good idea (we should be 3betting a depolarized value range if they are going to call too often).

So after this hand, depending on what happens (i.e. he calls a cbet and folds a blank turn, he bets the turn after a missed cbet and gives up on the river showing air at SD, raises the flop cbet, etc), how are you adjusting your play vs him in the future? Who would you continue to 3 bet with hands like K9o, which villains might you not cbet this board with TPKK against if the hand happened again?

[quote]edit:
lol, you actually mention the importance of these decisions just after the hand in the vid. I think delving deeper into this hand would be interesting.[/quote]

Ya haha sorry thanks for the correction i was on my cell phone and was just guessing. I agree though this is definitely a huge spot for me and my fellow micro bottom feeders just because Im not even sure that the average player would shy away from spots like these where FE makes a cbet profitable because were terrible at betting for value.

Also If you can think of another spot that is comparable but is actually too thin to bet i Think that could make an awesome DC short with a comparison between the two spots and the relevant factors that sway the decision to a given side.[/quote]

I'll keep an eye out for a similar situation for you guys. In the meantime, one of the most common things I see, especially in the micros and small stakes is guys 3betting w/ Ax (less than AQ or AJ) and then checking back an Axx board. The only time I can think of where this would be a very good idea is if you're playing against a player like me that will see that as weakness and fire the turn and river very light as a bluff/value bet. That's not as common in the micro/small stakes tho as guys who will just play passively with perceived showdown value (eg 99 on AJ2r). They likely will call a bet but won't turn their hands into a bluff. Since you're probably betting that board with all of your air I would bet all of my top pairs on that board and save the bluff catching for hands like KK on Axx. I see regs at these stakes chking top pair a ton and I think most of the time its for the wrong reasons - ie its a leak.

Either play is fine, depending upon a couple factors. I don't think that position really effects the exploitability of our play. The key factor in determining whether to bet or not is whether we can get value better by betting the flop or bluffing catching on later streets. In general I prefer to chk, but only because villains are bad at exploiting it. If they start adjusting or if you find a villain who is more likely to call the flop for one reason or another you should bet the flop.

Would you like double barreling a random reg who checks Axx to us? Three barrels? One and done can't be too profitable.. What would be good turn card to barrel on (not in this hand in particular but in general? My problem is that I know I'm not representing very much because even with AJ on Axx, I'm prob bet flop, check turn, bet river. Very few hands would I bet bet bet. Does he know this? I can never tell.

Would you like double barreling a random reg who checks Axx to us? Three barrels? One and done can't be too profitable.. What would be good turn card to barrel on (not in this hand in particular but in general? My problem is that I know I'm not representing very much because even with AJ on Axx, I'm prob bet flop, check turn, bet river. Very few hands would I bet bet bet. Does he know this? I can never tell.

Generally any time some reg that I don't have a specific read on checks to me as the preflop raiser I will unload the clip unless the board comes really bad in a way that helps their range. I would def bet 3 streets w/ AJ on Axx if checked to as well. You almost always have the best hand and it makes your bluffs more credible.

Linkwood. Great serie, great addition to Grindcores master pice. Realy love it. any many thanks

Time Link to 00:36:42

In my experience against these fishy players at these stakes the bet check bet line is being called just as often if not more. They are generally limping a lot of hands and rarely letting g of pairs. Don't you feel that you get your value from these players by taking them to value town all day?
A high hands are much better showdown hands as they are showing up with such a weak range

In my experience against these fishy players at these stakes the bet check bet line is being called just as often if not more. They are generally limping a lot of hands and rarely letting g of pairs. Don't you feel that you get your value from these players by taking them to value town all day?
A high hands are much better showdown hands as they are showing up with such a weak range

Doubt A high has much showdown value here given the board texture. The K is a great scare card since everyone puts you on AK and our hand looks like it could easily be a number of Kx hands. Think we def have enough fold equity to bluff here.

As an aside, just because we can profitably bluff here doesn't mean that I would value bet light here either. Its rare that I would play a value hand other than Kx this way, but if I did I would certainly value bet it (prob 99 or TT+) and expect to be good most of the time when called. Although there is a relation between bluff and value bet profitability, its not as connected as most think.

Time Link to 00:14:09

Why does it matter if you think he has a lot of weak hands that will fold? Do you expect these hands to call on a brick river?

Why does it matter if you think he has a lot of weak hands that will fold? Do you expect these hands to call on a brick river?

Potentially. And likely more often than they would on the turn, given that a turn bet implies the threat of a river bet as well.

...Although there is a relation between bluff and value bet profitability, its not as connected as most think.

Can you expand on this little?

Can you expand on this little?

Sure. Logically, it would seem that a situation where it should be very good to bluff would be bad to value bet, and vice versa. Actually though there are situations that are both good to bluff with part of our range and value bet with another part. The reason why is that the two are actually not directly related. A good bluffing situation is a situation where our opponent will fold enough of the time as compared to our bet size in relation to the pot to make the bluff profitable. A good value betting situation is a situation where our value bet will be called by worse hands enough of the time to be profitable.

So, lets use an example. We raise in the sb vs a bb reg and we forget to look at our cards. The flop comes 752r. We cbet and get called. The turn is a K. This is a spot that is both good to bet as a bluff AND as a value bet with different parts of our range. Lets say we have QJ, we can likely bet and get the villain to fold some of his pocket pairs, Ax hands, and floats. If we had a hand like K6s on the other hand it would be a good spot to value bet, given that unless villain is slowplaying a set, floated a hand like KQ, or slowplayed AA we are now ahead and expect to be ahead the majority of the time when called vs most opponents. So with various parts of our range we can both bluff and value bet profitably because each action is dependent on related but separate situational variables.

I hope that makes more sense. Let me know if you have questions.

Time Link to 00:30:18

---- time stamp fail attempt lol

Time Link to 00:30:18

I have trouble with this postflop.

I know 1010 is a strong hand against somebody that 3-bets a lot, but we are out of position. If I 4-bet, I think most of the time people are not going to 5-bet bluf a lot, so I think I am either against a range that is stronger then 1010, or weaker and we get a fold if we 4-bet. Since it's not as a bluf it feels like I am wasting 1010. So, calling should be the better option

But how do we play post flop if we get an K high flop, dry, and he bets. Do we call? probably right? so, what if the turn is an A? and he bets again.. Do we call again since he could now be using the A as a good barrel card?

What do we do if we get a low flop, he bets, and keeps building the pot very big to a point where we are almost all in on the river?

I always feel like I am ending either tight passive or very spewy in spots like this?

Would it be a better solution to just leave the table? I think that is what you talked earlier about, when you talked about 'short term solutions/quick fixes'

I am not sure how to aproach this.

another question is: How many hands do we need on a guy to know he is 3-betting light a lot? it seems with a short sample size we are either against a light 3-bettor or somebody that runs hots, which leads us to the question I adressed already

thanks

^^^^

it could also be a lower board: 945 dry, he bets, we call, turn is an A.. etc

awesome video man, good to see some coaches on DC that have a tighter aproach to 6-max, most of them lean towards the laggyness

First off thanks for the quick response and detailed analysis as I know we are going off on a tangent, but I am fascinated by turn and river play as I feel like that is where you can really gain an edge on the field. Your explanation clears up that statement a lot.

Intuitively the first paragraph makes all the sense in the world. Reading the example though, I quickly imagine a couple different variables. Obviously we can think up infinite scenarios but in short I think about bet sizing and your opponent. In a vacuum against a random opponent we can manipulate our bet sizes given our intention (bluffing or value betting). At these stakes we shouldnt be terribly worried about opponents exploiting your bet sizes. Given reads and styles of different opponents would determine our likelihood of bluffing/value betting. Do you agree with this logic?