---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by KRANTZ (High Stakes)

congrats fender on your ascension to $5/10. well done.

Super cool seriesss to see some guy moving up trough the limits like Fender does. You guys make for some great content and eventho I am at the microstakes I think I have learned a bit from this video.
Like the explanation about playing your hand according to the villian you are playing. And the outlevel explanation of a hand vs the most logic explanation. Didn't watch it all, 1 hour and 17 minutes is a bit too long for my concentration haha

One thing tho: it's not "the end", its The EEND, which means "the duck". It's a dutch word
So, i would say, ask "the eend' if he is willing to join DC, it's full of ducks here

One thing tho: it's not "the end", its The EEND, which means "the duck". It's a dutch word
So, i would say, ask "the eend' if he is willing to join DC, it's full of ducks here

Yes, but its pronounced ''the ain't''

Yes, but its pronounced ''the ain't''

Although his nickname on a dutch poker forum is actually The End
So The End can't be too wrong

haha this is probably the most worthless discussion ever, i like it tho

You both agreed that you should start leading flops against the_Eend because he did not seem to be c-betting many flops.

It sounds logical that you don't want to allow him to keep the pot small, but leading flops does not really seem like an actual adjustment; surely your leading the flop happens before he can check back. In other words, there is no difference between leading flops against an opponent who doesn't c-bet very often and doing the same against a player who c-bets a lot. However, if your opponent c-bets a lot you seem to prefer the alternative of checking all flops. This means that in that case you believe checking to be more profitable than leading, which implies you believe playing against someone who c-bets a lot is more profitable than playing against someone who doesn't. Conclusion: cbetting a lot against you is a mistake. Is that right?

If you think it (the conclusion) is wrong, then leading flops against a player who checks back a lot doesn't seem correct. Adjusting your check/call and check/raise ranges and starting to overbet lead the turn (assuming he is checking back medium strength hands and air, and not strong hands and/or draws) sounds a lot better.

Looking forward to hear your thoughts

"It sounds logical that you don't want to allow him to keep the pot small, but leading flops does not really seem like an actual adjustment"

Of course leading is an actual adjustment. He's trying to pot control with a ton of hands I'd usually get value from by checking and calling. This includes some semi-strong drawing hands as well as lots of pairs. This puts more pressure on him in general and is a very good adjustment to his lack of cbets. Just call me Donkey Kong vs. a guy that doesn't cbet a lot b/c I'M THROWING BARRELS AT BITCHES ALL DAY!

"there is no difference between leading flops against an opponent who doesn't c-bet very often and doing the same against a player who c-bets a lot"

That's ridiculous! VS. someone who doesn't cbet a lot see the first paragraph, VS. someone who does cbet a lot if we start donking a ton we may miss a ton of value from his air hands (unless we are donking air ourselves in which case that's great). You also have to think about how someone is going to respond to your play, there's no rigid A = B so THAT'S GAME BOYS. They might raise every donk or fold to every donk. Everyone's different.

"Conclusion: cbetting a lot against you is a mistake. Is that right?"

Cbetting a lot against any competent non-robotic player is going to be a mistake. How it manifests itself in the current state of the game is what's important. I think you're trying to define this whole situation in absolute terms, when it's more of an ocean than a blacktop if you know what I'm sprayin'. I'm going to adjust to whatever you're doing, whether it's cbetting a little or a lot.

"Adjusting your check/call and check/raise ranges and starting to overbet lead the turn (assuming he is checking back medium strength hands and air, and not strong hands and/or draws) sounds a lot better."

Again this depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. When I flop TOP TOP with AQ and I'd normally c/r someone that cbets a lot. OF COURSE I want to lead vs. a player who doesn't so they have to float with their pairs and gutshots and make difficult decisions on later streets, they can't get away with the 2 street poker they want to play. If I had air myself and he didn't cbet a lot, I still like donking out a ton because it gives me way more flexibility and balances my range overall since I'm going to be donking a lot vs. a player that doesn't cbet a lot. There's nothing in the books that says I can't lead the flop and overbet the turn anyway.

Conclusion: Be water my friend.

Heh, I'm a little afraid this will turn into a huge debate with the both of us being convinced we're right and telling the other person where he's wrong etc. I would have liked that if I was trolling, but this is pretty interesting, so let me try to sort of do this step by step.

- Let's say there are two the_Eend's: one that cbets relatively infrequently, and one that c-bets quite often (a 'normal' amount). You said (and Krantz agreed with you) that you should start leading against the first one, whereas against the second one you should be checking (your default strategy)

- My point is that leading flops has the exact same expected value against either one of them -- his cbetting percentage is not a factor.

- You seem to believe that checking flops is more profitable than leading flops against the_Eend number 2. This implies that it's more profitable to play against #2.

- Therefore, the c-betting strategy of the_Eend #1 (the actual one in the video) is superior.

Do you agree so far?

I would much rather play against the duck #2

c-betting a lot can be a mistake. Versus players who c-bet too much check-calling and check-raising often has a higher EV than leading.

It's only superior if I don't adjust and start leading And no I don't think it will turn into any kind of crazy debate like you're thinking because my avatar will simply eat yours and that will end it all hahahaha. Honestly though, for your example to be true I have to be non-thinking and unable to adjust. That's not very likely.

I think ClicktyClick makes an interesting point, and think both parties are right. Wrt c-betting strategy there are basically three options you can:

- c-bet too much
- a 'good' amount
- too little

If you bet too much it obviously doesn't make a lot of sense to donkbet very often, since you should give people to option of making the mistake of betting too much. If people bet not often enough leading is certainly correct. For example; if someone checks back almost every single time it would be the same from an information point of view to image that you are in position and that he checks. If someone checks and you are in position you certainly want to bet some parts of your range. So if you know that someone is going to check back, you know that leading should be a big part of your strategy.

If someone cbets a 'good' amount, it probably doesn't really matter if you lead or not. That's why he's playing a good c-betting strategy; he can deal with you leading and checking. But no-one plays truly good, almost everybody c-bets a little bit too much or a little bit too little. But no-one knows what the best frequencies are, so you have to make a guess. If you think that someone is simply not c-betting enough, it's time to start leading.

clickty - i have read your OP a cpl times and i'm still not sure what you're asking - everything you are saying is obviously correct but doesn't run counter to what we are talking about. a better question you might ask is - the_Eend opens in late position, hero flats in one of the blinds. the_Eend does not c-bet often, maybe around 1/2 the time. the flop is Q27r, what parts of your range should you check and which should you lead? why? what about on 678hh?

Time Link to 00:32:57

gotta bet the river, him showing up with KT is an anamoly