---

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

12:30 A-high monotone flop, n0whereman cbets 87s

WiltonTilt mentioned in one of his videos about a really interesting play where when he cbets a drawy flop in 3bet hands, if villain just flats, he will often shove the Turn with a lot of hands, on the basis that overpairs/top pairs/and big draws will often raise the flop so the flat-call usually indicates weakness and there will be a ton of FE on a Turn shove.

My question is, if this were a 3bet pot HU, is making the same play on monotone flops just as effective. Should villains be raising with the same hands (overpairs, TPTK, big draws) on these flops, and would flatting also indicate weakness (I guess sometimes you do run into the slowplayed nuts, but this is assuming we're not afraid of monsters)? If so, it seems like shoving a safe turn would have pretty solid FE against TAGs/Regs. Wilt might be better at answering this, but maybe you guys could weigh in as well.

23:20 KQ picks up FD/SD on Turn, n0whereman passes on the 2nd barrel

Are you more inclined to 2nd Barrel a weaker hand on the Turn like a gutshot that doesn't have much equity and checking a stronger draw like a FD or SD? Basically, do would you tend to 2nd Barrel a low equity draw more often and check or take a free card on a high equity draw?

39:00 JJ cbets KQx flop vs fish

Value-betting thin against complete calling station makes great sense, but this particular villain didn't seem like he's been calling down past the flop a lot. In that case, doesn't betting the flop just allow him to play his hand perfectly against us, calling or raising when he's ahead and folding when he's not? Like tuba mentioned, it's almost as if were turning JJ into a bluff against the non-FD portion of his range. Was this primarily done because of the FD's that could be in his range and targeting those for value? Does your play change if the board were dry?

Even against the FD's, he's calling every time so we'd get some value on the flop. But we'd be checking a lot of Turn cards since we're not sure if he has the FD or K/Q, giving him a free look at the river. If we were to check the flop, we'd have more information after he acts on the turn. This might let us get value from the non-FD hands we're WAY ahead of since sometimes he may call a 1/2 pot bet or so suspecting we might be stealing after we checked the flop. Waiting for a safe turn card to bet would also drastically reduce his odds to call with the reduced equity FD. He will often even make an unprofitable call since only we know he has absolutely no implied odds against us on the river.

If he has a K or Q and calls, we lose the same amount on the flop or turn either way. But we're going putting that money in good more often on the Turn. This is just a really really common spot so I'm interested in hearing more on it.

Nice to see someone using a HUD without the silly colour-coding enabled. Honestly, I think colour coding is pretty dim to use since it is just another layer of information your brain needs to process on top of the actual stat itself. Recipe for more confusion, not less.

I use the colours to group stats - preflop stats are green, cbetting stats are red etc. Makes it easy to read, and I can assess the stat 64/1 without it needing to be red to say this guy sucks.

12:30 A-high monotone flop, n0whereman cbets 87s

WiltonTilt mentioned in one of his videos about a really interesting play where when he cbets a drawy flop in 3bet hands, if villain just flats, he will often shove the Turn with a lot of hands, on the basis that overpairs/top pairs/and big draws will often raise the flop so the flat-call usually indicates weakness and there will be a ton of FE on a Turn shove.

My question is, if this were a 3bet pot HU, is making the same play on monotone flops just as effective. Should villains be raising with the same hands (overpairs, TPTK, big draws) on these flops, and would flatting also indicate weakness (I guess sometimes you do run into the slowplayed nuts, but this is assuming we're not afraid of monsters)? If so, it seems like shoving a safe turn would have pretty solid FE against TAGs/Regs. Wilt might be better at answering this, but maybe you guys could weigh in as well.

23:20 KQ picks up FD/SD on Turn, n0whereman passes on the 2nd barrel

Are you more inclined to 2nd Barrel a weaker hand on the Turn like a gutshot that doesn't have much equity and checking a stronger draw like a FD or SD? Basically, do would you tend to 2nd Barrel a low equity draw more often and check or take a free card on a high equity draw?

Hand 1: I guess shoving the turn on a dry board is not that profitable. Reason is, that on a drawheavy board villain needs to protect his strong hands much more (he has a really ugly decision when the turn completes a draw); In case he has a big draw, shoving over you cbet is most times +EV, since he has a lot of fold equity and depend on the draw enough equity. On a dry board he can't have these big draws and doesn't need to protect his strong hands (in 3bet pots he'll get the money in easily, even by just calling your cbet).

hand2: I think the point is that villain was shortstacked and Hero didn't want to commit himself by betting out (odds would have forced him to call). Generally you ARE more inclined to 2nd barrel the more equity/FE you have. Since Hero's FE was low as well (one of them statets that in the video) there's no point in betting.

Regarding the JJ hand where you pass on the cbet on a AAK flop. I agree that we don't get value from worse hands, thus betting doesn't make sense.
But don't you have to cbet these flops in higher stakes as well for the sake of balancing? (because if you hit a A you would cbet and w/o betting your and just calling your hand gets so obvious..)

Regarding the JJ hand where you pass on the cbet on a AAK flop. I agree that we don't get value from worse hands, thus betting doesn't make sense.
But don't you have to cbet these flops in higher stakes as well for the sake of balancing? (because if you hit a A you would cbet and w/o betting your and just calling your hand gets so obvious..)

balance by checking Ax there, as you still can't get value from worse except Kx

Super vid, guys. I'm guessing these 'dual-instructor' vids involve a ton more work for you guys, compared to the 'single instructor' variety, but the results are really, really worth it.

You two make a great team.

Really looking forward to seeing more from you both.

Thanks a lot.

Super vid, guys. I'm guessing these 'dual-instructor' vids involve a ton more work for you guys, compared to the 'single instructor' variety, but the results are really, really worth it.

You two make a great team.

Really looking forward to seeing more from you both.

Thanks a lot.

we do it for the fans.

There's also some interesting math for the 66 hand. Let's assume that our villain either has a hand like AK (or AT) which has 13 outs against us or that we are drawing to 2 outs ourselves. (So we'll assume he doesn't push QQ/QJs/JJ here.) How often does he have to show up with a hand like AK or AT to make the call profitable?

This is pretty easy to set up. We have about 70% equity when ahead and about 5% equity when behind. (I'm keeping the numbers simple just to illustrate the calculation. When you're doing calculations like these, these estimates are fine because your answer will only be off by 1% or so and that won't affect your decision in any substantial way.)

We're risking $36.50 to win about $58. That means to break even we must win just under 40% of the time (= 36.5 / (36.5 + 58)). Let's use 40% for simplicity.

Let x be the percentage of times that we have the best hand (and are trying to fade our opponent's 13 outer). Then our chances of winning the pot are: 0.70*x + 0.05*(1 - x) = 0.65*x + 0.05. If we set this equal to the necessary 0.40, we get the equation:

0.65*x + 0.05 = 0.40, or 0.65*x = 0.35, or x = 0.35/0.65 = 0.54

So the opponent must have a worse hand 54% of the time or more in order for a "hero call" to be correct.

I think it is really important to do these kind of calculations away from the table because they give you a sense for how often you have to be right in order to make a call profitable. Notice that in this spot hero was getting pot odds of about 3-to-2 but the fact that he had less equity edge when ahead than the villain did when villain was ahead means that he needs to have the best hand more than the 40% of the time that pot odds would suggest. But to find out just how much more than 40%, you have to do the (relatively simple) calculation.

A lot of players tend to overestimate the effect of having to fade outs here. Yes, you need to be good 55% of the time rather than 40% of the time, but often people treat this situation like they have to be right 80% of the time.

Notice that you are making a pretty significant mistake in folding here if villain will only show up with a better hand 1/3 of the time. And that is despite the fact that you'll feel like an idiot that one time in three if you do call.

i dont think this is correct at all but i dont have time to look at it in depth. let me just say that we definitely only need to win the pot as much of the time as pot odds dictate; this is a fundamental concept. the calculation you are performing can be more simply done using pokerstove and just putting in our hand, the board, and our opponents perceived calling range.

i dont think this is correct at all but i dont have time to look at it in depth. let me just say that we definitely only need to win the pot as much of the time as pot odds dictate; this is a fundamental concept. the calculation you are performing can be more simply done using pokerstove and just putting in our hand, the board, and our opponents perceived calling range.

I may have worded it poorly. You are right that we need to win as often as pot odds dictate, but that is different from being ahead on the turn as often as pot odds dictate, because we have to account for the possibility that the river card turns our hand from a winner to a loser or vice versa. Here, because our opponent has more outs when we are ahead than we have when we are behind, we need to be ahead on the turn about 55% of the time in order to end up winning the hand about 40% of the time (which is our given pot odds).

Since the math that I wrote above took about 1 minute to do, I think it is easier than firing up Pokerstove, but that is just personal preference.

heres just a somewhat random range i put together in a few seconds:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 37.518% 37.52% 00.00% 1040 0.00 { 6c6d }
Hand 1: 62.482% 62.48% 00.00% 1732 0.00 { 99-88, AQs+, ATs, KQs, ATo+ }


so since we dont really think many of those 88-99/Qx type hands are in his range i think its a pretty clear call.

17:00

What would happen in the JJ hand 17 minutes in if Foscocity was to raise the pot pf. Would it be a calling situation or a 3 bet situation? There is a small stack behind that could easily go over the top of a 3 bet so would calling be the correct choice?

Hey,

I've just registered to Deuces cracked, as I'm not even beating NL50 at FTP and as a really great player recommended exactly that series. I've just seen the prior vids and tomorrow I'm gonna view this one. I'm just too tired to get a lot of it but I want to say here that you both have been done a great job and I hope, too, that you will do other series or single vids again.

Greets

Well, now I've looked the last video as well. I have to say it helped me a lot for understanding the poker game itself. Hopefully I'll be better on the tables, too, which is, I'm afraid, a totally other thing, though.
As I said before, would like to see any further vids of you guys.

Great series guys! Keep it up.