---

Poker Video: Misc/Other by DeathDonkey (High Stakes)

HJD: thanks for all the comments and the video submission, sorry I didn't have as good a read as I could have and that affected some of my comments, I wanted to try to get through your whole video in 2 weeks so I couldn't be quite as thorough with some of the hands / reads as is possible. You obviously are a strong player and hopefully I added some ideas you can use in the future.

Time Link to 00:52:54

I think I like continuing with our 8732x draw facing 2 cold. Profic has been showing down a lot of cheese, so even though I don't expect him to draw 1 often, I think our draw is still doing really well against his pat range. It sucks when LG is pat, but we still have good position and can make good decisions post.

Not sure its consistent that you arguing for us to cap draw 1 to 8732x pre, but then argue for a fold here.

I listened to it again Slide, I was kinda wishy washy though I said I prefer fold to call, so I do think its close obviously, and yeah I think I did a kinda poor job throughout of really diving into a good player read on Profic that would sway things.

That said I do not think its inconsistent at all to argue to cap draw 1 pre but fold at that spot, for one because since we didn't cap the pot is smaller and our pot odds are worse, and for two because we have a ton of new information including the likelihood that one guy is pat, the other guy took one and may be pat and we get jammed in the middle.

HJD: thanks for all the comments and the video submission, sorry I didn't have as good a read as I could have and that affected some of my comments, I wanted to try to get through your whole video in 2 weeks so I couldn't be quite as thorough with some of the hands / reads as is possible. You obviously are a strong player and hopefully I added some ideas you can use in the future.

Dont worry. this is a situation i think where 2 tables may have been too much, and just the left table would have been fine obviously its hard to know that before i started!

Oh, Evil Teddy, you may or may not make an appearance next week

Time Link to 00:27:32

my timeline comment btn has reappeared, so i want to point out the hand currently playing on the left table, its awesome

Poor boro83 though!

Time Link to 00:15:28

Guy to our left on the right table - iirc, this is the same guy who checked back the 876 and we said he's probably passive on the river. For that reason, I think I prefer betting the J and hoping his bluff-catching range is wider than his bluffing when checked to range. However, since he didn't bet the 876, his river bet when checked to is likely very polarized and probably not balanced, leading to more bluffs than what would be GTO for him. Without any sort of read on how often he bets in that spot though, it seems that betting might be slightly better. Thoughts?

Good question Tecmo - my experience with "too passive" guys is they are super polarized on the end and they don't call you as light as they should, so I like to bluff them too much and let them bluff when I have a mediocre hand. So vs that guy I'd bluff some more pairs than normal and check/call my jacks.

Ok, so you widen your bluffing range against them, but with the top of your bluffing range, you prefer to c/c. So it's something like (random % coming) the lower 75% of your range you lead and the top 25% you c/c.

With that in mind, I'm assuming we need to tighten up our value betting range against this type of player. If they are folding a lot, then it follows that when they do call, their range is stronger. So I'm guessing some of the worst hands you would normally bet for thin value vs a good player (rough 9s?), you might decide to c/c with instead?

I think the "passive, polarized on the river" player type is actually one of the most common, especially in my monthly live mixed game. For that reason, I'm trying to clarify my strategy vs them

i think you're taking one hand where he checked back 87642 in 1:0 (which he could do for a number of reasons) and saying that he is now passive and polarized in 1:1. for now, im happy enough to have the read that he isnt vbetting lightly when pat against a draw in position and probably OOP. 1:1 is a very different situation though.

another thing id like to say is that passive/polarized when checked to otr doesnt really tell us about the players calling range. ive played against passive players that will check back T's and some 9's, and never bluff, but will snap call 33+ everytime when you bet. ive also played against people that will value bet all J's, and bluff an appropriate amount, but will only call with some K's+, flat #10 if you lead and only b/c with 8's. Basically my point is that while you can generalise players into categories, you still should constantly try to develop and further your read on each individual player and to do this well i think you need to be able to notice the subtle differences in similiar spots and realise how these affect your opponents (and both your and your perceived) tendencies. This looks very complicated and long-winded typed out here, but if you think about it and manage to sort it out in your head you should take a big step towards improving reads. the eventual aim is that it kind of becomes 2nd nature and you can act in tempo without having to mentally analyze why this spot is better to bluff than normal etc.

Im not sure if i've actually helped with your question, but hopefully ive helped in some way This would probably come under the heading of game-flow and meta-game as well as reads too.

also, how do you c/c with a part of your bluffing range? dont you have to bet or raise to bluff on the last round before showdown?

also, how do you c/c with a part of your bluffing range? dont you have to bet or raise to bluff on the last round before showdown?

Have to go right now, but will respond to everything later. Just wanted to say that I'll teach you how to c/c w/ your bluffing range for a nominal fee

Have to go right now, but will respond to everything later. Just wanted to say that I'll teach you how to c/c w/ your bluffing range for a nominal fee

ah but once you c/c its now a bluff catching range! and online, you cant c/c with a bad hand hoping someone mucks the winning hand either

Right, great post HJD, I also was confused by what you said about the bluffing range stuff Tecmo.

HJD only thing I'll add is that something I think I am good at is that I am very likely to see a guy do one thing, and make a large extrapolation of other things I then "think" he will do, and start to adjust my strategy, while still trying to gain more information to refine my read. I think people usually need to be hit over the head with a read before they are willing to make an adjustment and I try to just be overly optimistic in my reads, knowing I can always re-adjust again.

Simple example is if I have never seen a guy before and the first hand I observe he raises preflop and fails to get to showdown, I will be *significantly* more likely to think he is a maniac even though I have very little evidence of it. So if he now raises the second hand in a row I will reraise quite light (this is more of a LHE example I suppose) and if he just ends up having had two good hands I will lose a bit of EV and adjust. But often I am right and I am well ahead of some of the other winning players in making adjustments that they are still trying to mentally confirm.

Thanks guys! Greatly appreciated Considering I can only play live TD these days, I've gotta do what I can to stay sharp for the WSOP.

I agree completely DD, and i think and hope i do stuff like that too, but there is only so far you can take it and you have to realise that its only a temporary read and that you need to keep adjusting, and i wasnt sure tecmo was thinking that way.