---

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

Hey Bart, I love the podcast and am excited about this video series. You mention in this hand a concept which I've heard you bring up a lot on the podcast: that you should have raised more so the pot would be bigger and you can make a pot-sized shove on the river. But you also often say that live players don't understand the size of the pot. Now, I understand that you have put white chips in for your bets to help your opponent understand the pot size, but you also said he's been putting in yellows, and I'd imagine that this pot still has that ridiculous cluster effect you talk about despite your best efforts. Also, when you get to the river, I feel like- assuming it's not a giant overbet- people are more analyzing whether to call the concept of an all-in bet rather than a 2000 chip bet that happens to put you all in. In other words, they're thinking, "Oh he has an all in hand" not "He has a 2095 dollar hand." I don't know if that last thought made sense, but my base point is still, would not betting those extra 200 dollars on the turn really stop you from going all in on the river? I can think of a handful of other reasons why your bet sizing should be bigger on the turn, but I am just curious if live players don't get pot size why you give yourself the extra restriction of making your bets constrained by the size of the pot?

I've found that all in bets are more intimidating on the river, especially if they are over pot size. That's why I want to spike the pot up on earlier streets so that my opponent can realize that my all in on the river is less than pot.

Bart I would definitely like to see a 3-bet part of the series as well. 5 percent would mean you're averaging 3-betting every other round at a 10-handed game, however, I believe you've often advocated not overplaying AK pre in live?

I definitely do not do a lot of 3 betting in 5-10 for several of the reasons that were mentioned in the Limon "Deuce Plays" episodes. Firstly, you can always build a pot with what you know is the best hand on later streets. Sometimes you can win a big pot with second pair, top kicker, a hand that never would get to showdown in a 3 bet pot. Secondly, people are not opening all that light so 3 betting a 20/4 player is not the best way to go about doing things. Lastly, I like to flat a lot with AK to keep dominated hands in against players that cannot fold top pair.

Good episode and obviously very popular juding from all the comments. I have had a rough time trying to transition to the live game. I've been a winning player at both 25 and 50nl but have not been playing well live. While I love the hand replayer, any thoughts on maybe doing a video power point style explaining some of differences in live play vs. online. Maybe some of the pitfalls that online players get into when going to live play.

You must raise the flop here to build a pot with a hand that draws so strongly to the nuts. The hand was limped so the SPR is super high. The turn play really depends on what cards come out--if a JQKos fall i'd probably bet. It would be close whether or not I would bet the one liners and I would definitely check back all board pairing cards.

I am going to disagree here. Twice you use the words "shovel money into the pot." Are we to assume that if you get 3 bet on this flop you are going to play for stacks? You briefly mention the chance that someone behind you could pop it but don't spend much time with the "passive" kid who just led out into the whole casino. While it is true we have a high equity hand, when we escalate this limped pot from 60 bucks to 6k we are pretty much always looking at a set or 57. So, what was your plan when you make it 175 if he pops it to 750?

On another note. I agree that your river sizing was wrong and that you should jam or underbet but I don't know why you were so surprised as to call this the craziest hand you have ever seen. Maybe the passive kid is capable of rubbing 2 brain cells together. If he is then he should know that you almost always have a flush. If that is the case and he has the Ac then you have to be either running a massive multistreet bluff or are betting for value. If he concludes that you are betting for value then he has a crying call since you would almost always just shrug and turn over the Kc or Qc rather than value own yourself. Yes, he has a monster but in this spot it is still a bluff catcher.

[quote] I am going to disagree here. Twice you use the words "shovel money into the pot." Are we to assume that if you get 3 bet on this flop you are going to play for stacks? You briefly mention the chance that someone behind you could pop it but don't spend much time with the "passive" kid who just led out into the whole casino. While it is true we have a high equity hand, when we escalate this limped pot from 60 bucks to 6k we are pretty much always looking at a set or 57. So, what was your plan when you make it 175 if he pops it to 750? [/quote]

Why can't we call if he bet 3 bets the flop? I'll still have $2250 behind and players like this have a difficult time getting away from a flopped nut hand. It is highly unlikely that he plays 52ss from UTG so when he repops the flop he basically only has 57 or top set, although the ladder is unlikely. If he does have a set and a one liner comes on the turn he is always checking. If a deuce were to come and he shoved he always has 57 and I think we can make a big fold.

[quote] On another note. I agree that your river sizing was wrong and that you should jam or underbet but I don't know why you were so surprised as to call this the craziest hand you have ever seen. Maybe the passive kid is capable of rubbing 2 brain cells together. If he is then he should know that you almost always have a flush. If that is the case and he has the Ac then you have to be either running a massive multistreet bluff or are betting for value. If he concludes that you are betting for value then he has a crying call since you would almost always just shrug and turn over the Kc or Qc rather than value own yourself. Yes, he has a monster but in this spot it is still a bluff catcher. [quote]

Why would I shrug and wrap behind with the K or Q of clubs here if I put him on a made flush when he bet called the turn? I'm not sure how you deduce that the Ac is a bluff catcher here--you just give your opponent credit for always having a straight flush when there is a four liner on the river? I would always bet the King high flush here and the Queen high would be close.

Sweet video. How do you take notes? At the table, or after the session?

Sweet video. How do you take notes? At the table, or after the session?

At table with Blackberry Although I am switching to either the Iphone or Thunderbolt this week. BTW suggestions?

At table with Blackberry Although I am switching to either the Iphone or Thunderbolt this week. BTW suggestions?

In before Apple Fanboys... (MRI Shows Apple Stimulates Fan's Brain Like Religion) http://techland.time.com/2011/05/19/why-do-we-care-so-deeply-about-brands-like-twitter-and-apple/

Get the Thunderbolt.

Androids are half the price and do the same stuff with less privacy violation and are probably faster too. The only reason to go with Apple would be the semi fashion statement it makes.

At table with Blackberry Although I am switching to either the Iphone or Thunderbolt this week. BTW suggestions?

Not an Apple Fanboy but I did get an iPhone about 6months ago and aside from wanting to stick w/ Itunes for music management, I preferred the poker apps available for iPhone at the time over those available for droid. I Haven't looked recently at what's been made available for android but the two I use most are Poker Journal (poker session/profit tracker and notes) and PokerCruncher (awesome stoving app that you will love - actually better than Poker stove).

There is also a hand replayer app for notating hands called Hand History. It is pretty slick if you want to replay hands but probably not as fast as shorthand notes at the table. Hand history allows you to upload hands to there site to be viewed by others. I'm not sure how or if it could integrate with your DC hand replayer.

Why would I shrug and wrap behind with the K or Q of clubs here if I put him on a made flush when he bet called the turn? I'm not sure how you deduce that the Ac is a bluff catcher here--you just give your opponent credit for always having a straight flush when there is a four liner on the river? I would always bet the King high flush here and the Queen high would be close.

I think betting the king would be a pretty big spew and betting the queen would be an enormous spew. You think the player you described calls off a 300 BB stack with the jack? Although using the results of the hand is not supposed to be used as an argument, I think your read that he has a made flush has to be tweaked based on the fact that he did not actually have a made flush.

Great episode bart. It is very clear that you put a solid effort for this video. Would you be able to add some hands where there is a maniac( i mean a player who is willing to 3bet light pre, isnt affraid to bluff good cards and perhaps bluffs too often) at the table and how this changes your strategy?

I think betting the king would be a pretty big spew and betting the queen would be an enormous spew. You think the player you described calls off a 300 BB stack with the jack? Although using the results of the hand is not supposed to be used as an argument, I think your read that he has a made flush has to be tweaked based on the fact that he did not actually have a made flush.

Remember, he isn't calling off an entire 300BB stack, just a half pot size bet on the river. And yes, I definitely think he is calling with the queen high flush.

Great episode bart. It is very clear that you put a solid effort for this video. Would you be able to add some hands where there is a maniac( i mean a player who is willing to 3bet light pre, isnt affraid to bluff good cards and perhaps bluffs too often) at the table and how this changes your strategy?

Sure, although it is rare to run into such a player at this level. There's a guy named Hank who plays Commerce 5-10NL during the day, super aggro and crazy. But even he has toned his antics down a bit. I got into a 3bet pot with a guy who bluffed his stack off to me 150BB deep last week. I may use that hand for an upcoming episode.


Bart

Amazing Video~! Thanks so much Bart. I love your podcasts as well! You are AWESOME! That said, I do have a bit of a noob question in regards to stack size maintenance. In live games, if you find yourself at less than maximum buy in amount at any point, do you continue on playing until you build up (thru short stack play or w/e) or do you at some point refill your stack to max buy in before taking another hand?

If the latter is the case, at what point do you buy your stack back up to max buy in level. Im sorry if this is a dumb question, but Im still new to poker, and live games, and always wondered how work that.

Thanks!

PS: Also, some people asked about how you play vs maniacs, and you responded that basically there arent many at your stake level at commerce (but that youll find an example later to use). I currently play at Oceans 11 down in San Diego and I find that the 1/1 and 2/2 game at my place has a fair amount of regs who play chip bully lag bluff maniac poker, and I wonder if that is a product of just being in lower stakes (where the cost of play isnt as serious for some people to make them play more meta game)... or if is something else Im not getting.

If youve got time to answer a two parter, I d love to know your thoughts on the typical types of player pools we will experience at the various stakes (from the bottom on up to where you are now), and how you think each stake should be approached and beaten. Thanks for your help!


Sunny (Oda)