---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (Mid Stakes)

I thought the name of this series was Booze Donor. Like you guys were going to drunken kung fu the hell out of midstakes or something. FWF providing the cold beverages. Weird....

Wonder what Freud would say about that

I am interested in hearing some more discussion on the flop play with the KK hand. We get donked into on the flop and raise. I am curious as to what our plan is if we get 3 bet? Also, why are we talking about this guy as a fish when all we have is 30/20 over a small sample? My thinking is that the raise is bad for a few reasons. First, if he is not a fish then he will be leading to 3 bet/get it in with a range that includes sets, and high equity draws like NFD or Tx of spades. We obviously don't do well against that range where we are crushed or flipping. Next, if he is bluffing or leading for value with a hand Tx hand we really don't need to discourage that and we can use our position to decide how much money goes in and on which street. Thoughts?

He's almost certainly a fish, I don't give people a green color without reason and think raising this against a random fish is totally standard. Against a good regular it's different I think, but both options could be good depending on his donking range and general tendencies. If he's unknown probably calling down is a safe default option.

Very happy to see this series on DC

Hielko and FWF together in one place, crushers, crushing

you make some good points here. you are off though with respect to the likelihood of flopping a set. Not 12:1.

http://www.suntzupoker.com/poker-odds.aspx

From the link you gave:

Odds/probability of flopping a set or better 8.5 to 1
(or 10.5% chance)

Odds/probability of flopping a set 7.5 to 1
(or 11.8% chance)


^^does not compute (i think the probabilities are correct, they just mixed the two up)

wow it's possible to flop sets that often?

thanks, good to know that!
was really way off there.
don't know where I have that 12:1 from ^^

From TubaSteve's or jk3a's (one of them i think) videos where he suggest having 12:1 implied odds just for the times when you dont get whole stacks in when you flop and for the times you flop and loose to bigger set or better...

From the link you gave:

Odds/probability of flopping a set or better 8.5 to 1
(or 10.5% chance)

Odds/probability of flopping a set 7.5 to 1
(or 11.8% chance)


^^does not compute (i think the probabilities are correct, they just mixed the two up)

hmmm. good pickup. here is another link with more of the same

http://www.homepokergames.com/odds.php

My god, the dutch accent is so ugly in english. I know, because I am dutch

looking forward to the serie!

Pfeww... Hielko is indeed very annoying to listen to.

My god wat een steenkolen engels zeg

Time Link to 00:30:13

I do remember this sick call in the WSOP ME by Tran

Time Link to 00:39:32

Did you call this full pot bet on the river wTPTK?

you could also argue the other way around.
if we do have all those small PPs in our range, we can be bluffed and floated way more easy.

the problem with opening 22 is this (at least in my opinion):
we flop an underpair 11 out of 12 times.
with that underpair we have very little equity when called and therefore need a lot of foldequity.
we might have that on the flop sometimes, but we basically have to cbet and then give up if called (or raised ofc), cause we can't barrel with only 2 outs all too often.
for our opponents this is so super easy to adjust by just floating more and just calling one and fold to the turn barrel with a medium strength hand.

and if we flop our set 1/12 times we are still utg raiser and therefore less likely to get much money in vs weaker hands.
and with 22 we can only be set over setted and not ever stack a smaller set, we basically can't cooler anyone (cause many players just play their 2 pairs very cautiously vs utg).

therefore I'd much rather have a hand like KQs to raise utg, where we can flush over flush someone or make a higher straight and were we have sooooo unbelievable more room to show aggression on further streets, which makes us way tougher to play.

don't know if thats true or the whole story, but it makes sense to me

Think you just look at opening 22. Obviously our range is much wider. When we open about 20% UTG, 22 is 2.5% of our range. So small pairs up to 55 are about 10% of our UTG opening range.

The point is you just dont ever hit low flops. Obviously you have overpairs some % of the time. JJ-AA are also about 10% of your range. By opening low pocket pairs, your range is way more balanced imo. If an oponent knows youre not opening 22-55 he can just adjust and bluff and bet you into oblivion on low boards, can he not?

Hand with AQo SB vs BTN.
Say he opens to 18, you 3b to 50 (a little bit smaller as you mentioned) and hit a K9x board like this one. Pot is around 100 and he has around 250 left, do you cbet/fold around 60?

Awesome video by the way, just 100% quality comments from FWF, the way you explain things makes it really clear. Can't wait for the next episodes!

Yeah, cbet fold seems right. Can't give up free cards and stacking off is ugly

Interesting bluff3bet:
They are some very well respected ppl who are advocating to just not have a 3betrange in MPvsUTG.
So of course, it is good to 3bet here your top of your foldingrange with good Blockingeffects (AJo, KQo, KJo, QJs...), but then you also should have to start to 3bet in this spot AK and QQ+ sometimes.
I wonder which strategy is more +ev longterm:
Either having here a well balanced 3betrange or just do not have any 3betrange in this spot.
Do you have any opinion on this one?

edit: damn, just noticed that he was opening to only 2,5BB UTG - that changes probably much due to your reasoning.
Anyways,
how do you both treat this spot considering the mentioned thoughts vs. a normalsized UTG-open (3-4BB), when UTG is not too nitty (UTG oR: 17%+) and has a decent high Foldto3bet_stat?

Threebet wide with bluff hands and three bet JJ, AQ+ seems right

I agree with 3betting there a lot, but why don't we 3bet hands like Ax, Kx or QJo here as bluffs and call with such a great hand like QJs?

There are many good reasons for calling imo:
- we have position on the pfr
- we get a great price for calling
- there is a fish in the BB against whom we want to play pots
- there is most likely another fish in the SB
- QJs plays very good multiway
- we can look very strong with our semi bluffs postflop given the positions
- its somewhat unlikely to get squeezed (players behind seem to be tagish and not all too loose and they are more likely to call to keep the fish in)
- if we overdo it we open ourselves up to get 4bet very light, cause he knows he looks very strong and we can't 5bet ship light

I know you aren't 3betting QJs there 100% of the time but I would call it probably like 95% of the time or so

People 3bet a lot, letting people into the pot makes it harder to take the pot down yourself postflop, lots of great semi-bluffing potential if he does flat, etc. I think flatting is probably the worst of the options in EP vs EP

You get back to it later on. When folding these low pairs, there really is almost no low flop you are hitting. When opponents catch on your not opening low pocket pairs they can just use agression to make us fold a lot on low flops when we are out of position?

I don't agree with folding small pairs but I don't think the metagame problem is that huge. So you can't have a set on 248. Big deal. You can still have a very strong range regardless

I'm not sure if I completely got that spot either.

This is what I thought the thought process behind it is: When we bet there our range is polarized, but since we are not going to be bluffing in that spot very often we should slowplay the nuts some % of the time as well. Does that make sense?

Would be nice to get a timestamp, but there's no inconsistency with saying "This is a bad spot to bluff, you have the nuts, check": you want to protect your whole range and when you have nut hands it's less likely your opponent is strong (as opposed to when you don't it's more likely he is). Sometimes you have to give up immediate profit for the sake of balance