---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Micro/Small Stakes)

wrong title. Its Setup Artist, not Search and Destroy

Description is wrong, too, then?

Time Link to 00:21:09

T1 AQs - do you have a 3bet calling range here OOP 200BB deep? Would you call with say 87s rather than AQs so you don't have any domination issues?

threads been drinking or something all good man party on but change the title

really like the vids

Really like this series, got a lot out of the way you talk about the hands. Makes me think about poker again instead of just grinding too many tables on auto-pilot :-)
Just one little piece of advice: in the Full Tilt software got to options -> badge display options -> my view -> display badges without links ;-)

Time Link to 00:25:44

Re. taking notes in notepad-just don't forget to copy/paste the notes into HEM during your session review so you have them next time!

T1 AQs - do you have a 3bet calling range here OOP 200BB deep? Would you call with say 87s rather than AQs so you don't have any domination issues?

I'd probably not flat either unless I think he's 3-betting me light. 87s is not really getting the implied odds there, imo. However, I would be flatting PPs for set value. AQs is more reverse implied odds. We would probably just like 1 bet to go in, unless we hit a flush - in which case he probably isn't paying off unless he smacked the flop as well. So the depth of the stack doesn't really help this particular hand.

Really like this series, got a lot out of the way you talk about the hands. Makes me think about poker again instead of just grinding too many tables on auto-pilot :-)
Just one little piece of advice: in the Full Tilt software got to options -> badge display options -> my view -> display badges without links ;-)

Firstly, thank you. I try to talk about poker in a way that is just super logical. I think the game is complicated enough as it is, so I try to do my best to make concepts as easy as they can be.

Secondly, that's so helpful. I actually specifically ask for that piece of advice in the next episode. It will be particularly funny now that I actually end up saying in Episode "I wonder if this is what makes that pop up... " and I click it like 5 times! Epic fail. I'll fix that the next time I log on so it won't be an issue after Episode 3.

Time Link to 00:15:37

Love the series!!!

You say here that with 44 UTG we want to be raising when there are bad loose players in front of us that will be calling. This is only for when we are in position correct? I understand this if the player is a loose calling station, because he will be folding a lot when he doesn't hit and paying off when we both hit. It seems like OOP this would be the opposite, i.t. we should be calling in middle position with 44 vs an UTG raise if the player is super tight but not if they are super loose. The idea being we are getting paid off a lot more money when we hit a set because he will have a really strong hand more often. Against a LAG raise we will be missing the flop most of the time and have to fold to c bets and barrels and when we do hit a set he won't have anything to pay us off with very often. Is this correct? Should we consider the playability of a setmining hand much stronger against loose players when we are in position and weaker when we are OOP and vice versa against TAG's?

As far as the other two major groups of players in this spot:
against a loose passive we want to be playing in position and not OOP and against a tight passive we want to be playing OOP not in position, or if we do play in position we want to be check folding on more flops because they will be calling multi streets but its worth raising pf because he has a very tight range. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Time Link to 00:26:41

Here is how often I was 3 bet for 25NL 6Max over 110,000 hand sample

% I was 3 bet as initial raiser

Cutoff 15.4%
Button 14.3%
From SB 8%
From BB 1.6%

Total (all combined) = 12.3%

As an example of our mind playing tricks on us, while playing I could have sworn I was getting 3 bet when stealing from the SB a lot more than anywhere else because I thought it seemed weak.....

Love the series!!!

You say here that with 44 UTG we want to be raising when there are bad loose players in front of us that will be calling. This is only for when we are in position correct? I understand this if the player is a loose calling station, because he will be folding a lot when he doesn't hit and paying off when we both hit. It seems like OOP this would be the opposite, i.t. we should be calling in middle position with 44 vs an UTG raise if the player is super tight but not if they are super loose. The idea being we are getting paid off a lot more money when we hit a set because he will have a really strong hand more often. Against a LAG raise we will be missing the flop most of the time and have to fold to c bets and barrels and when we do hit a set he won't have anything to pay us off with very often. Is this correct? Should we consider the playability of a setmining hand much stronger against loose players when we are in position and weaker when we are OOP and vice versa against TAG's?

The key factor is: "are they going to be paying off frequently when we flop sets?" Playing to flop a set vs a 30/10's raise is profitable, as is playing vs a 30/27's. The thing is that 30/27's will probably bluff a lot more post-flop in bad spots so we win money from them when they don't have anything. Loose passives may not bluff too much, but they won't get away from their hands when they should. Playing OOP is not too big of a deal because bad players don't use their position well. We'd certainly rather be IP vs a bad player, of course, but a set vs them is pretty golden regardless.



Now, if you're talking about playing against a decent player then you'd rather set mine vs the tight range - for sure. However, it's still going to be profitable to call with PPs vs a wide LP raise from a TAG because what we want to do vs him is bluff and bluff-catch. Sets are amazing bluff-catching hands. Just don't raise!

As far as the other two major groups of players in this spot:
against a loose passive we want to be playing in position and not OOP and against a tight passive we want to be playing OOP not in position, or if we do play in position we want to be check folding on more flops because they will be calling multi streets but its worth raising pf because he has a very tight range. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

I think you pretty much always want to be IP if you get to choose.

I think you might be over-thinking it a little bit. Just look at it this way: If a bad player is paying off 100bb very often when you flop a set, then you want to try to flop as many sets as possible when the price is right.

Time Link to 00:07:37

What about bet folding this turn to get value from his worse 9s and worse 2 pairs? and possibly 1010 if he limp called that pre.

What about bet folding this turn to get value from his worse 9s and worse 2 pairs? and possibly 1010 if he limp called that pre.

I didn't have any reason to think that he was particularly bad, so then I end up in a spot on the river where I feel like I have too thin of a value bet and not enough of a hand to c/c (won't v-bet worse, doesn't have bluffs). So, I have to c/f river. Obviously that's not terrible but I think we probably get cleaner value by just checking turn and betting river.

Another nice vid, looking forward to the next.

Sick read in your KK utg vs. btn 3bet. I'm still feeling my way around the difference in 3betting ranges against positional ranges in FR vs. 6max, what kind of range (in a vacuum) am I expecting a 16/14 to 3bet on the btn vs. an utg open? KK+/AKs?