---

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

oh didnt notice hes folding to 90% of 3bets in that case u can 3bet pretty wide, that would prob still be near the bottom of your range?

Haha yeah probably. There's going to be a lot of random stuff in there in this particular spot because of the "he's not going to bluff again" effect... Might have some K8o... 95s... just stuff that looks playable I'd do in this spot, but without any recent history I'd say this is near the bottom of my range. Def the worst suited Q I'd do this with.

Time Link to 00:34:56

Are we assuming here that he has a wider range than normal being that it is a squeeze against your already light button range? But being in the BB do you really think that he often checks a lot of flops after squeezing this?

I am not even looking at his stats as I ask because I want to talk about this against different types of players.

A good/avg reg who is willing to play back at you will have a weaker 3b/sq range but will also CB a weaker range after his 3b here (but we can't really play back at it with no equity at all if a set misses). But he has equity on almost all flops.

Against a good/avg reg who wont do this because light because he is more standard within his lines, and particularly in 3b pots, we only have bluff value in a hand where the player only has a strong range PF and probably won't spew post flop leaving us way ahead/way behind, and never knowing which it is.(and the way ahead is our bluff range without a set).

And lastly, against a fish/euro station or nutbag, we have no value without a set on the flop, we risk being 4b shoved or playing 3 handed vs a station/fish/weirdo, and in a hand where ranges are hard enough, let alone what hands he probably isn't willing to fold. We have no bluff value against any equity that he flops (or sucks at playing PF when he has montsers). Just SUPER high variance if not -EV vs this player.

Just thoughts. I snap call here mid session too when I see "I have position, time to rock this hands world" but while watching you do it, all I could think was "this isn't good at all here"

Are we assuming here that he has a wider range than normal being that it is a squeeze against your already light button range? But being in the BB do you really think that he often checks a lot of flops after squeezing this?

I am not even looking at his stats as I ask because I want to talk about this against different types of players.

A good/avg reg who is willing to play back at you will have a weaker 3b/sq range but will also CB a weaker range after his 3b here (but we can't really play back at it with no equity at all if a set misses). But he has equity on almost all flops.

Against a good/avg reg who wont do this because light because he is more standard within his lines, and particularly in 3b pots, we only have bluff value in a hand where the player only has a strong range PF and probably won't spew post flop leaving us way ahead/way behind, and never knowing which it is.(and the way ahead is our bluff range without a set).

And lastly, against a fish/euro station or nutbag, we have no value without a set on the flop, we risk being 4b shoved or playing 3 handed vs a station/fish/weirdo, and in a hand where ranges are hard enough, let alone what hands he probably isn't willing to fold. We have no bluff value against any equity that he flops (or sucks at playing PF when he has montsers). Just SUPER high variance if not -EV vs this player.

Just thoughts. I snap call here mid session too when I see "I have position, time to rock this hands world" but while watching you do it, all I could think was "this isn't good at all here"

Are you referring to the 22 hand OTB? If so, I think you're misreading the action. He didn't squeeze, he just 3-bet from the SB vs my BTN open, and the BB cold called. I'm going to post about that hand, but let me know if I'm looking at the wrong one.

The hand went down in such a way that I am getting a pretty decent price on a call (and I'm closing the action so there is no risk of getting 4-bet) because of the presence of the cold caller, and should be able to bluff with a high success rate because he won't often check strong hands in a 3-way 3-bet pot. He'll likely just bet for value. I also assumed (incorrectly as it turns out) that he wouldn't bluff that much given the BB's cold call. I also assumed the BB wouldn't bluff that much when checked to (and wouldn't have that many bluffing hands in the first place given that he cold called). He would tend to bet his good hands though. So, it will check to me a reasonable % of the time (30%?), and when they do check they are quite unlikely to have anything, so my bluff success rate should be pretty high. Also, we also should get paid pretty well when we happen to hit a set, because its a 3-way pot and there's a good chance somebody can flop a TP/OP, we have a lot of EV there. We also have a lot of EV from bluffing because we won't make very many bad bluffs. Between those two things I think we are in a good spot to call here with a small PP. Basically, I think given the ability of our hand to just flop a set and get paid, I don't think we have much EV elsewhere to justify this pre-flop call, given the price we are getting. That may the part that may make you not like the call, but I think the EV of hitting a set is easily underestimated. We obviously don't hit it a lot, but it's worth a lot of EV still. Probably not enough to call purely based on set value, but also it's likely to make it such that we don't have to "find" much other EV to make this a +EV call. You say that this can't be good, so is there anything in particular in my thought process that you disagree with?

I'd be more concerned about a player willing to c-bet to rep a lot of strength here. I would have ended up playing really incorrectly vs him, but not a lot of players will do that at these stakes. Now that I've seen that, I have to adjust by not as easily folding to c-bets (calling in this spot on the flop actually looks reasonably strong so I think a float should be pretty effective), but the flip side is that I win more when I happen to hit a set.

Time Link to 00:17:37

Table 2: K7s

I like the big c-bet with these stacksizes, but do you snapcall when he shoves there? Would you bet differently when the stacksize of the fish was 100bb?

And I was wondering what your play would be if he x/c the flop and the turn:
A) pairs the board
B) is an ace (I assume he x/c a decent amount of Ax hands)

Table 2: K7s

I like the big c-bet with these stacksizes, but do you snapcall when he shoves there? Would you bet differently when the stacksize of the fish was 100bb?

And I was wondering what your play would be if he x/c the flop and the turn:
A) pairs the board
B) is an ace (I assume he x/c a decent amount of Ax hands)

Nah, I'd still bet pretty big if were 100bb deep.

I think we still bet in those situations. If the board pairs that doesn't often hit him, and he doesn't often have us drawing dead. There won't be that many combos that are added to his 2-barrel calling range if the 2nd or 3rd card pairs, and if the top card pairs.... well he wasn't folding that on the turn anyways and now it's harder for him to have that.

I agree that Ax well c/c flop, but that overcards him pretty often too so we should get some extra FE vs those hands. Given we have a lot of PE I think still do well to blfuf.

Time Link to 00:21:35

Would you never consider flatting the 77 here, with the implied odds of flopping a set in position, vs 3+ other villans who may be willing to stack off with wearker holdings?

Would you never consider flatting the 77 here, with the implied odds of flopping a set in position, vs 3+ other villans who may be willing to stack off with wearker holdings?

Nah, I want to build a pot here. I'm in position and I have a hand that will be able to to get a couple bets in with good equity fairly often. I prefer those bets be a little bigger than they would be if I limp.