---

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

Haven't watched yet but I LOVE the ideal of this series!

Time Link to 00:11:38

table 4: ATs. I think this turn is a very good spot to check. When he checks back he either has ace high and spiked top pair or air that may bluff and rep the ace when you check but fold when you bet. You have essential board lock so it isn't like free cards are an issue.

gonna re-sub to DC for this

table 4: ATs. I think this turn is a very good spot to check. When he checks back he either has ace high and spiked top pair or air that may bluff and rep the ace when you check but fold when you bet. You have essential board lock so it isn't like free cards are an issue.

I disagree with this. Most regs cbet too much and vs someone who cbet too much they're bluffing the flop (cbetting) with most of their things that have remote amount of equity that they can barrel or they're c/fing. When he checks the flop his range contain hands that are bluff catchers or air that he's still giving up. It's a disaster to let someone stay in the pot if they're giving up.

So vs that range leading gets called by the bluff catchers that may bet for "protection" and make some things like small pp which are probably not bluffing anyways fold.

Nice video. I'd really like to see Dani play and hear questions from Blah about his play in one of the next episode. Keep the good work guys.

I disagree with this. Most regs cbet too much and vs someone who cbet too much they're bluffing the flop (cbetting) with most of their things that have remote amount of equity that they can barrel or they're c/fing. When he checks the flop his range contain hands that are bluff catchers or air that he's still giving up. It's a disaster to let someone stay in the pot if they're giving up.

So vs that range leading gets called by the bluff catchers that may bet for "protection" and make some things like small pp which are probably not bluffing anyways fold.

I don't see why it's a disaster to let him stay in the pot when we have the board this crushed. Given that he's going to have few if any outs, it seems worth it to give him an opportunity to bluff/bet for protection/make a second-best hand. I also agree with previous poster that his range for checking back probably includes some Ax and if he did check back with air he'll possibly see the A as a card he can represent.

I disagree with this. Most regs cbet too much and vs someone who cbet too much they're bluffing the flop (cbetting) with most of their things that have remote amount of equity that they can barrel or they're c/fing. When he checks the flop his range contain hands that are bluff catchers or air that he's still giving up. It's a disaster to let someone stay in the pot if they're giving up.

So vs that range leading gets called by the bluff catchers that may bet for "protection" and make some things like small pp which are probably not bluffing anyways fold.

IDK, I prefer checking over leading as well, if he's polarizing his range by checking-back bottom pair or Ace high then he's betting Ace high for value and bottom pair for protection so we're check-calling for value vs both compared to him calling us for value regardless and we're +EV because he bluffs with air when Ax is in his check-back range X% of the time. If he's not polarizing his Cbetting range by checking-back the bottom of his showdown value, then he's probably delayed Cbetting air on the perceived scare card regardless or continuing to check-back complete air that'll possibly bluff the river or at most a 2 outter that's significantly more likely to bluff catch on the river and be bet size insensitive to our PSB than to bluff catch on the turn.

I really don't see a lot of players checking-back the bottom of their drawing range like GS + BDFD that often, and they're probably bluffing the Ace one or two streets with the draw anyway so I really don't see where the value in leading the Ace is comming from because I check it to bluff catch, check/raise bluff and/or check/raise for value and I can't remember the last time I got sucked out by the 4 to 5 outters.

I don't understand how checking-back top pair on a board vs. an opponent who has at most 2 outs is "disastrous" because our ability to catch his bluffs or thinly value bets his PPs has to be way higher EV than the EV of a two outter winning a PSB off us on the river. Also, getting our lead raised on a card he can legitimately rep a turned 2 pair on totally sucks ass (for both our Ax and our air). A lot of really good players check the Ace, and if what you're saying is true then you don't have much to worry about when you check the Ace either because 6max players are betting all of their equitable hands on the flop and they're check-back range is only a two outter, so the odds of them drawing out are slim to none and what we're really concerned about is how often they bluff that ace (and fwiw it's a lot).

The risk vs reward has to be in our favor IMO.

I don't see why it's a disaster to let him stay in the pot when we have the board this crushed. Given that he's going to have few if any outs, it seems worth it to give him an opportunity to bluff/bet for protection/make a second-best hand. I also agree with previous poster that his range for checking back probably includes some Ax and if he did check back with air he'll possibly see the A as a card he can represent.

You get same value from his betting for protection hands when you lead and you make him fold junk which he isn't going to bluff anyways. When sonmeone has 10% equity and he never bluffs why do you want to give him a free card so he can suck out 10% of the time? If you have a read someone delayed two barrels alot then this is a clear check but I don't have that read and will just assume when people check their range contains stuff they are giving up and stuff they are bluff catching with vs that range I think betting is the most +EV play.

Checking is higher EV only if villain is bluffing the turn with a high frequency. Most 6 max players with the exception of the really good ones do not have balanced aggression on each street. Their aggression frequency goes down each street which is an indication they are less likely to bluff later on in the hand. Vs their thin value bets you can ignore that part of their range because its the same EV betting or checking vs that part.

blah234 Liked your play a lot. Hope to see more videos from you.

You get same value from his betting for protection hands when you lead and you make him fold junk which he isn't going to bluff anyways. When sonmeone has 10% equity and he never bluffs why do you want to give him a free card so he can suck out 10% of the time? If you have a read someone delayed two barrels alot then this is a clear check but I don't have that read and will just assume when people check their range contains stuff they are giving up and stuff they are bluff catching with vs that range I think betting is the most +EV play.

How do you know they never bluff the Ace? They bluff the Ace a lot fwiw, and I don't think you can just assume they always check it behind. I mean it's the most believable card for them to bluff if they polarize with A high or people think they could polarize with A high, why wouldn't they bluff it?

How do you know they never bluff the Ace? They bluff the Ace a lot fwiw, and I don't think you can just assume they always check it behind. I mean it's the most believable card for them to bluff if they polarize with A high or people think they could polarize with A high, why wouldn't they bluff it?

I don't know they never bluff the A, I just think it's unlikely for someone to try and rep an A. I think our definition of polarized range is different. My defintion of polarized range is when that range contains nuts or air only and nothing in between. When someone checks flop and bets turn their range is nothing polarized but contains many thin value bets/protection hands.

At lower stakes regs might be trying to rep an overcards on the turn but that play doesn't work at all at midstakes. People are more likely to call on overcards because apparently its a good barrel card and its just so hard to spike a 3 outter compared to all your other bluffs and thin value bets. Repping an overcard on the turn is just not a credible bluffs in aggressive games because it reps a very narrow value range. Think about how often someone actually checks flop then hits an A on the turn when they got a wide range preflop and 70+% cbet frequency compared to some random bluff or thin value bet.

Time Link to 00:23:33

"it just gives me another opportunity to make a correct decision."

I really like that sentence. I think that people really lose sight of that a lot.

finally DC makes something happening
because really, compared to other sites lately, not much happening, besides newmanmi vids, ansky and FOF heiko series lately
come on guys. More MSNL+ crushers in todays games

other than dani missed the action in every hand nan was talking about, it was a great video

just kidding guys, I enjoyed it a lot!
definitely has potential to be one of the best series on DC