---

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

I feel that his flat calling range is wider than what you have granted him, including more suited aces, wheel draw aces and suited connectors and one gappers. As he's flatting,he may be trying to encourage a multiway pot with one of these hands.

Because we minraised pre, checked flop, called turn, we aren't exactly demonstrating strength, and could feasably have picked up a club draw on turn that bricks when the king falls.

So that said, I put him on a value range of

22-99, A2s,A2o,A6s,A8s,KJo,KTo,K9s,A2s,A2o,A6s,A8s,87s,76s

And a bluffing range of

QTo, QTs, JTo, JTs,J9s,J9o, 9To, 9Ts, A9o, A9s, A7o, A7s, A5o, A5s, A4o, A4s,A3o,A3s.

If I counted properly, that means he has 128 combo's for value and 127 for bluffs, so too wide to discern.

I would be inclined to call so we can see what the villian is capable of and develop our read on him. I believe that judging by his double barrel stat he could be capable of bluffing two streets, and with his pre flop aggression on earlier hands, and our overall lack of information on villian, we can effectively buy a read on him here, maybe giving insight into what sort of hand is likey to flat (and possibly determine what sort of hand he is likely to 3bet), with a chance of taking down the pot in the process.

Haven't read other comments yet. sorry if repeating stuff.

these are the spots i always have problems with. I mean about what you say calling the turn in a vacuum can be the right thing but a bad play because he may follow through a lot on rivers.
I usually end up just cbetting the flop against players that are good and are capable of double barreling air once i check back flop but I'm not srue about their frequencies on the river.
I knnow of good ways to exploit people that do it a lot or not a lot but find it very difficult to actually get reads on this.

Personally i think you miss assessed his pre flop range. The player in the BB doesnt seem to be 3betting a lot. i think SB range can be much wider once you min raise the button. I would include more SC and even suited one gappers like T8s/J9s/79s/ and things like Q9s/Axs/K8s+ some A8-A9o.

this depends probably on how many tables he's playing but i find guys playing less tables will call this wide more often and 3bet some of these as well.

so a turn donk range for value would be A8/89s/K8s/77?/A2s/A6s?

obv the bluffs can now be much wider on river but he may not be bluffing river often even if he does have air... But even if he decided to Vbet an 8 a 6 or 77 we only have to be right 26% of the time. Also you will gain good reads if he has air or a thin value hand which is extremely valuable given these situations are common.

One thing i will say though are hand looks like what it is that kinda sucks.

I would add some stuff like suited connectors 87s+, maybe a couple of suited aces like A8 - AT; I just think his range is bit wider as you're min-raising on the button.
Also, I also agree that hands like AJ, KJ, KQ can be discounted slightly as you said that he's aggressive, which leads me to believe that he'll 3-bet AJ, KJ, KQ.
Based on his bet size, I believe it's rarely a full house here, which means that his hands for value are basically Kx and some stuff for thin-ish value (A8s, 87s, 89s, T8s, 99, TT)
I think bluffs here include: 97s, T8s, 44, 55, 77, A9s -> I think he's bluffing a good amount here with these hands as the K is a scare card.
My action is probably fold or raise. The stakes scare me a bit as I don't think he'll ever fold Kx and he might call sometimes with his thin-value hands. Therefore, the micro-stakes leads me to fold more than raise, but I am tempted to raise so I can get a quicker read on what type of a player he is.

I would assume villain could be value betting thinly on the river any 8x since our range looks so face up as ax and small pp. If I was villain I would think that we are not chking the flop and calling turn with many kx type of hands only ak. This is a good bluff card for villain since it weakens the strength of our precieved range.

As played I would still fold the river this looks like a thin value bet. I think checking this flop is a mistake yes he may only continue with better hands but getting villain to fold his equity to the pot is good thing in my eyes.

I think that his preflop calling range is wider. Axs for instance.
On the river, I don't think that his value range is larger than something like A8s, 66, 99, KcTc, KcJc.
Bluffs: AJ, AT, AXs, QJs, JTs, QTs, 9Ts.

Everything else he's checking there, imo.

So, I think that there is more bluffs than value hands on his range. But I'm still folding due his bet sizing. I think that he would bet larger with air.

Thanks for the incentive to post, linkwood! This is my first.

I would have cbet the flop since we have a backdoor flush draw. If called, I would give up on any non-diamond, ten, or ace. On an ace, I would check the turn for pot management (added bonus: deception). On a ten or diamond, I would continue betting. If the ten hit, I would probably check behind on the river for pot management, and consider folding to a river lead. On a diamond, if my flush hit, I obviously bet the river. If raised, simply call with our 2nd-nut hand (fold if he goes all-in, but note it).

Having checked the flop, I don't think we can call the turn with the intention of folding to a smallish 1/2 pot river bet if we don't hit. Our implied odds are not great. If we hit our A, we're unlikely to get paid sufficiently, and likely to be coolered if we do get action. The prospects of hitting a T are just slightly better. So either fold the turn (a low risk/reward plan), or call with the intention of making a play on the river if a good scare card comes (a moderate risk/reward plan), or else raise now with the intention of barreling any river (a high risk/reward plan). My gut says start out with the moderate risk plan.

As played, we can only call if we think Villain does this with unsuited overs. In that case, there's enough air in his range that we're getting a good enough price to call. The side benefits we get if we call are marginal: if he does this with unsuited overs, there's a less than 50% chance that we'll find that out by calling.

If Villain does this with suited overs only, then calling is out: he's got way too much medium strength hands, and about as much air as he has monsters. So it comes down to folding or raising. Raising is promising since there are so many hands that he could have that can't beat a pair of kings. A 2x-3x raise size should be sufficient unless he's quite stationy. Since we don't have much history, I prefer maybe, hmm, a 2.5x size because of the side benefit we get to him calling with marginal hands (we find out he's a crazy marginal-hand-protecting station). Another side benefit is we create an aggressive image for ourselves if called.

So, raise > call >>> fold if he has unsuited overs in his range, and raise > fold >> call if he only has suited overs. I raise 2.5x.

board is 2c 2s 8d 6c Ks.
Given his range on the turn of AcJc, KJ, Qj, QT(?), JT, 88,77,66, 55, 44 and the occasional 9Ts. so he probably value bets here with KJ (12 combos) 88(3 combos),66(3 combos) . He could be bluffing QT(16 combos),JT(16combos) and 9Ts (4 combos), and he most likely checks behind 55(6 combos) 44( 6 combos) and AcJc (1 combo)

So we have:

value = 18 combos

Bluff = 35 combos

Checks =13 combos

For Total of 66 combos.

since he didn't check we have to take out the 55 and 44 and AcJc

New total is 53 combos

value = 18/52 = 34.6% of the time

bluff = 35/52 = 67%

He bet .65 into 1.20 giving us 2.85:1 which means he needs to be bluffing 26% of the time for us to call and since we assume he is luffing 67% of the time it is a clear call.

All this being said, the problem I have is I usually don't see the value bet bluff at micro stakes, Also, I think his range of calling pf in this spot is wider, if only because he is playing 10NL if it was near what a normal range should be we probably wouldn't be playing 10NL, Not that that changes all that much since we are still probably taking the same line to get value out of his bluffs, it just means we will probably win more and have to call a river barrel more than we would have. Just my two cents

Linkwood, do you think the hand would have played easier if you did decide to bet the flop? Yes we are behind a decent portion of his range but we are also ahead some too. I think we can include hands like J10s and Q10s. I think you're giving the villain a little more credit in his hand selection than he might deserve. Interested to hear what others think.

If his range is wider we only bet the flop if we expect a call from hands like JT and QT, otherwise when we bet he is only calling with better and folding with worse, we check call to keep these bad hands in and bet into us. I guess what I'm saying is it all depends on his fold to c bet (also his vpip is high but its almost all with him as the pre flop raiser, meaning he is proably not a calling station, meaning he will probably either fold or raise handslike JT and QT and calling a raise is hard for us so it is probably still better to check call even if his range is wider)

So because you have showed so much weakness, checking flop, calling turn. I can see him firing away with all his busted flush draws, his busted straight draws and even trying to protect a hand like 77,99. I am not sure he would fold his 99,TT and obviously he wont fold his KT,KJ hands but like I said, he has so many busted flush draws and straight draws that I think a raise will take down the pot more times than not.

Why would we raise to try and fold busted flush and straight draws? We are already beating most of them and the ones we aren't (AcJc) he is usually checking to get to showdown not betting. The only reason for raising would be if we think he has hands like 99, TT A8s 89s that we can fold out with a raise by repping a K

Firstly, i believe his pre flop range may be slightly wider than what we gave him, because of the min raise on the button, good price for villain to call against our button range. I think we need to look how often he bets OOP when missed C-bet, to see how often he turns his hands into bluffs, or consider that he was planning on check raising most flops, to turn non showdown hands into bluffs.
I think with the line we took on the flop, we should be calling the turn as we are ahead of villains range enough times, and our hand look pretty weak when checked back on an 822 board.
On the river I believe most of the time he's betting 1/2 pot for value and not for bluffs, however, he might believe that he is only getting us to fold our busted flush draws, and give up most times with our A high, and feels that he doesn't need to bet more to accomplish that. His bet sizing feels weak, and doesn't look like a K to me, but more like a blockish/value bet.
That's why I believe calling might be a bit thin, only beating his busted draws. However, raising may be a good option, represeting a Kx clubs or a slowplay on the flop, getting him to fold all the hands we beat (obviously), but also all his marginal value bets, i.e. all 2 pairs worse than kings up.
With the pre flop range we gave him, we are getting him to fold all his hands besides KQ, KJ, 88 and 66, which represents a very small part of his range, thus making it profitable frequently. Although risking more to win the same amount, we are going to win a lot more often with a raise rather than a call.

board is 2c 2s 8d 6c Ks. In position Flop: check check Turn: .35 into .50 River: .65 into 1.20


I think people are having problem with the range we put him on in the video (because this is 10NL) so here's a new one I think people would be more agreeable to. (I caution this range though because his call open is not high, he is playing a lot of hands but he is the pfr'er in those hands. This range may be more suitable for say a 21/14 type of bad 10NL reg)

most people in the comments think he is 3 betting AJ+ KQ and TT+ and that his calling range is much wider because we min raised.

3 betting AJ+ KQ TT+

Calling some 89s 9Ts type hands, any PP lower < TT, JT,QT,JK,KTs Fair?

Flop:
check check, lets say his range stays the same for simplicity. (i.e.not donking small pp's) Also I think it is still the correct play as he is not folding any pp, any 8 and we don't know if he is calling with overs or not. We can be more sure that he will bet air into us on the turn then he will call air on flop.

Turn:
For value he is probably betting 22,66,77,88,99, 89s, he is probably checking 33,44, and 55 to get to showdown and has a bluffing range of 9Ts, JT, JQ, QT, KTs, KJ

River: # of combos in parentheses( )

For value probably betting 22(1),66(3),88(3),99(6) 89s(3), KJ(12), KTs(3), Probably checking 77(6),33(6),44(6),55(6) and may be bluffing 9Ts(3), JT(12),JQ(16), QT(12),


So value = 31 combos

checking = 24 combos

bluffing -50%= 20 combos (It is really 40 combos but I am going to discount by 50% as he is not bluffing two barrels every time he has one of these hands and most people at this level do not value bet bluff like this)

Total combos = 75 Total combos that he is betting into us = 51

For value = 28/51 = 55%

As bluff = 20/28 = 45%

He bet .65 into 1.20 giving us 2.85:1 which means he needs to be bluffing 26% of the time for us to call and since based on the range we give him at this point in the hand he is bluffing 45% of the time then it is +EV to call. So now we know folding is out, but in the comments a few people say to raise. Now we need to find out if a call or a raise is the most optimal play.

So now we need to separate hands that he is pure bluffing. hands that he is bet/folding and hands he is bet/calling.

Assumptions:
1. He is never folding a king or better
2. He is going to fold any hand that is worse then a king.

So pure bluffing hands are 9Ts(3), JT(12),JQ(16), QT(12) which = 40 combos but we are discounting by 50% and are calling 20 combos

Bet/folding = 89s(3) 99(6) = 9 combos

Bet calling = 22(1),66(3),88(3), KJ(12), KTs(3) = 22 combos

Total combos = 51 (its important to note that we are not folding out 77, 33, 44 and 55 because he is not betting them on the river, this is something I think a lot of the people advocating a raise overlooked).

So the pot is 1.20 and he bet .65 into it. If we raise it is going to be about 3x if we want him to fold 89s and 99. So we will be risking 1.95 to get 1.85, so we need him to be folding approx. 52% of the time to break even. out of the 51 combos he is bet calling 22 which leaves 29 that he will be folding. 29/51= 57%. So this is also a +EV play.

So the raising EV calc is .57(1.85) + .43(-1.95) = 1.05 - .84 = +$0.21 profit.

For calling: .45(1.85) + .55(-.65) = .83 - .36 = +$0.47.

So the play is to call based on the range we gave him. Even if we add in TT to his bet fold range it is .61(1.85) +.39(-1.95) = 1.13 - .76 = +$0.37 which still makes calling the most optimal play.

Thoughts?

Worth a free coaching session?

Also If he is folding KT to this raise it becomes more profitable to raise, but I don't know that he is

Based on the bet size I think the SB ha Kx, TT, 99, 8x and maybe some bluffs in his range.

From a purely EV point of view I like folding this river. His bet size looks like he wants a call. I think his bet size with bluffs would be somewhere between 0.65 and 0.85. So I think his hand is weighted towards value but not nut type hands.

I can see merits in calling. We're getting good pot odds to make a call and by folding we learn nothing.

On the river I don't like raising unless you're making it really big. I think that the biggest problems players at 10NL have is not value betting wide enough and calling down too light. So, I don't think that he's going to value bet 77 and I don't think he's folding Kx to a raise. We beat all his bluffs except AcJc.

Also, I was wondering about what you said regarding 'betting for protection'. Isn't protection just a result of betting for value (i.e. not the reason we ever would bet) or betting to collect dead money? Just a small quibble I know, but its one of the things from Baluga Whales vids that was drilled into my head.

I haven't watched the Baluga Whale video but I think what Linkwood is getting at is that villian is betting in order to fold out hands like random overcards that have equity against 77 but won't put more money in without hitting.

An example of this is with 33 in position after calling a bet on a 952r flop and an off suit 2 comes on the turn and we get checked to. I don't expect him to call with AK (although he might) and I don't expect him to fold 44 (although he might), I'd still bet here because I think a large percentage of our opponent's range is 2 overcards which won't put any more money in the pot unless the make a pair on the river.

I think the bet on the river polarizes his range to either a bluff, a K that got there, or a valuebet with weak pp. Given that our hand is very transparent to him he got to think that he can take us of our hand with his entire range when 2 barrelling on the river. You could argue that his bet size is weak which does indicate that he is not bluffing. I think a K would bet bigger especially at this limit where people call more frequently. A pp would probably only be checkcalling, but it can not be discarded that he is making a block bet.

Given that he more often has a weak holding here when looking at bluffing ranges and that he only called preflop and that he would probably be betting bigger with a tight value range, I think the best play is to raise him which he only can call with a K.

spotDespot- he only needs to have 1/3 the amount of bluffs compared to value bets in his range.

ha ha - very true.