---

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

was waiting for the vid all morning ! Great job guys!

Are the WMV file and flash version OK? I can't get the flash to start on screen and WMV file was only 22,556kb big.

Are the WMV file and flash version OK? I can't get the flash to start on screen and WMV file was only 22,556kb big.

Works fine here, your connection must have timed out.

everything works great, watching these series from begining trying to wake up fundamentals.
thanks

nice vid guys

I don't like the call with the sixes though, 44 mins in

you're drawing to two outs when behind and even if you're ahead, villain will still have 13 outs with AK and AT and he won't push those hands 100% of the time

you can't discount all queens from his range, he could push kings or aces and he could have even spazzed out with tens or nines in that spot

I think a call is fine if we had TT instead, but with 66 it should be a fold imo

Very nice video guys.
This is an excellent series. I need more of those NL vitamins.

// OT; I wonder who the mule is that constantly gives low ratings for all videos as soon as they are posted... Probably the same guy every time.

nice vid guys

I don't like the call with the sixes though, 44 mins in

you're drawing to two outs when behind and even if you're ahead, villain will still have 13 outs with AK and AT and he won't push those hands 100% of the time

you can't discount all queens from his range, he could push kings or aces and he could have even spazzed out with tens or nines in that spot

I think a call is fine if we had TT instead, but with 66 it should be a fold imo

thing is he should never be playing a pair this way, so 66=TT and it really ought to be good unless he's making the worst shove ever. i mean whats the difference, he shouldn't be playing 77-TT this way, why would he just shove with a showdownable hand thats likely to be best? i know people are bad, but it just wouldn't make sense for even a bad player.

and he's still making a terrible shove, but it makes sense. i expected him to show AK actually. anwyay, we explained exactly why we thought it was a call so if you don't believe us, alright, but we both still agree on the play.

I love the vid as usual, but wow...pokerstars software is homemade.

Geez, no wonder there were times early when you couldn't tell how many people were in...I couldn't either.

Again, awesome vid as usual, just enjoy FTP software sooooo much better.

thing is he should never be playing a pair this way, so 66=TT and it really ought to be good unless he's making the worst shove ever. i mean whats the difference, he shouldn't be playing 77-TT this way, why would he just shove with a showdownable hand thats likely to be best? i know people are bad, but it just wouldn't make sense for even a bad player.

and he's still making a terrible shove, but it makes sense. i expected him to show AK actually. anwyay, we explained exactly why we thought it was a call so if you don't believe us, alright, but we both still agree on the play.

well, it doesn't make sense to check shove over an overbet with 77 on a KQJss board with zero fold equity either, but yeah

in my experience at these stakes, a lot of guys panic in 3bet pots and shove in their stacks as the aggressor in the hand without thinking about it, they see a big pot and don't want to fold their marginal hand and just shove it in

it’s not something I rationalized, it’s something I’ve experienced by calling overbet shoves when villain’s line made no sense, which is why I think TT > 66

if you don’t agree that villain can show up with TT or 99 here some percent of the time, then yeah, you could have a marginal +EV call, depending on the range we give our villain

all I’m saying is that you guys are putting an unknown villain on a hand we can beat (AK) and call, which is a bit short imo

EDIT: naah, I take that last comment back

Works fine here, your connection must have timed out.

Very strange. I can DL any other WMV file (also today's PLO one) but not this one. It says source file can't be read. I tried both Firefox and Explorer. I am based in the UK and PLO video downloaded at 177kb/sec which is standard for me.

well, it doesn't make sense to check shove over an overbet with 77 on a KQJss board with zero fold equity either, but yeah

in my experience at these stakes, a lot of guys panic in 3bet pots and shove in their stacks as the aggressor in the hand without thinking about it, they see a big pot and don't want to fold their marginal hand and just shove it in

it’s not something I rationalized, it’s something I’ve experienced by calling overbet shoves when villain’s line made no sense, which is why I think TT > 66

if you don’t agree that villain can show up with TT or 99 here some percent of the time, then yeah, you could have a marginal +EV call, depending on the range we give our villain

all I’m saying is that you guys are putting an unknown villain on a hand we can beat (AK) and call, which is a bit short imo

i think the key thing to take from this hand is that people play semi-bluffs/draws/unmade hands more aggressively than weak made hands overall, which is why we dont think he ever shows up with 77-TT there. think from his perspective: "ok he called the flop, now a jack came. he probably doesnt have a queen, i just turned some potential outs, im allin!!!" if he had a pair it'd be mroe like this "aw shit i have 88 and he called and now the board brought a J. well im not sophisticated enough to turn my pair into a bluff so i'll bet small for cheap showdown or check b/c im a pussy." (although checking would be correct if he had like TT, lol)


trust me if we thought it was a bad call we wouldn't have done it as no one wants to look stupid on video and we don't edit things out of our recordings (except technical errors).


also IIRC this is the same villain that has been playing aggressively the whole time, not an unknown. jason even states something along hte lines of "he's aggro and he only made it 3x so i'll call in position".

I appreciate the point you make and I agree that most guys play their draws a lot more aggressive

I guess it all depends on how wide we perceive our villain's range to be

since my experience in these games is somewhat limited, I'll leave it in the middle

gring000h,

Steve handled your question really well imo; I just want to reiterate one point he made. At these stakes people don't value bet thin or turn weak made hands into a bluff. So when our villain makes this snap overbet shove on the turn, we can eliminate a lot of potential weak made hands from his range. This situation comes up often, and recognizing when it's appropriate to consider can really tip a hand from being a confusing situation to a relatively easy decision.

There's also some interesting math for the 66 hand. Let's assume that our villain either has a hand like AK (or AT) which has 13 outs against us or that we are drawing to 2 outs ourselves. (So we'll assume he doesn't push QQ/QJs/JJ here.) How often does he have to show up with a hand like AK or AT to make the call profitable?

This is pretty easy to set up. We have about 70% equity when ahead and about 5% equity when behind. (I'm keeping the numbers simple just to illustrate the calculation. When you're doing calculations like these, these estimates are fine because your answer will only be off by 1% or so and that won't affect your decision in any substantial way.)

We're risking $36.50 to win about $58. That means to break even we must win just under 40% of the time (= 36.5 / (36.5 + 58)). Let's use 40% for simplicity.

Let x be the percentage of times that we have the best hand (and are trying to fade our opponent's 13 outer). Then our chances of winning the pot are: 0.70*x + 0.05*(1 - x) = 0.65*x + 0.05. If we set this equal to the necessary 0.40, we get the equation:

0.65*x + 0.05 = 0.40, or 0.65*x = 0.35, or x = 0.35/0.65 = 0.54

So the opponent must have a worse hand 54% of the time or more in order for a "hero call" to be correct.

I think it is really important to do these kind of calculations away from the table because they give you a sense for how often you have to be right in order to make a call profitable. Notice that in this spot hero was getting pot odds of about 3-to-2 but the fact that he had less equity edge when ahead than the villain did when villain was ahead means that he needs to have the best hand more than the 40% of the time that pot odds would suggest. But to find out just how much more than 40%, you have to do the (relatively simple) calculation.

A lot of players tend to overestimate the effect of having to fade outs here. Yes, you need to be good 55% of the time rather than 40% of the time, but often people treat this situation like they have to be right 80% of the time.

Notice that you are making a pretty significant mistake in folding here if villain will only show up with a better hand 1/3 of the time. And that is despite the fact that you'll feel like an idiot that one time in three if you do call.