---

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

Awesome first episode! Looking forward to rest of this series.
Could you explain the numbers in the HUD? I didn't quite figure out what is what...

Could you explain the numbers in the HUD? I didn't quite figure out what is what...

Sure. I actually want to get rid with a lot of these (maybe I'll do that now that I'm thinking about it). I used to have a monster HUD, but as I play the more I want to simplify things and rely on note taking. I'll probably get rid of stuff like Donk bet flop, and limp-call, and just look at them on my HUD.

Name/Hands/Steal/BB fold vs Steal
VPIP/PFR/3-bet/Squeeze/Fold to 3-bet
Flop c-bet/Fold to flop c-bet/Donk bet flop/Limp-call
EP/MP/CO/SB/BTN,<------------------ (this line is all raise first in by postion)

Threads you did not inform me of a new series coming out! Cant wait!

The JTs hand, you misread your hand there and said you turned an open ender so it was a good time to barrel... You turned a gutter so if you had known that would you still think it was a good spot to fire the second barrel?

Great vid cant wait for the rest of the series.

The JTs hand, you misread your hand there and said you turned an open ender so it was a good time to barrel... You turned a gutter so if you had known that would you still think it was a good spot to fire the second barrel?

Can you time link or let me know what time the hand was?

Time Link to 00:18:18

You turned a gutter would this change your decision to barrel?

You turned a gutter would this change your decision to barrel?

Na, probably just a misspeak on my part.

Time Link to 00:13:49

Table 4: His 3bet is so small. Shouldn't you take a flop with Q9s in position getting like 2.7 to 1?

v. timely topic (for me anyway). This is the main thing I've been working on lately.

kind of hard to see the cards of the opponents with the black deck and black table/dark background. Also the avatars make it hard to read the hud stats. But maybe thats just me...

Otherwise great to see more full ring content. Looking forwards to the series

Time Link to 00:26:41

What would the bottom of your range be for overcalling on table 4 here - 1 extra BB already 3 way when it gets to you with J7s?

Table 4: His 3bet is so small. Shouldn't you take a flop with Q9s in position getting like 2.7 to 1?

I have no reason to think that he's a bad player, so I'm assuming he's a TAG. I also have no reason to assume that he's 3-betting me light. Calling a 3-bet IP with a hand like Q9s is only good if I'm playing against a bad player or if he's a TAG 3-betting me light. The pot odds aren't THAT much better such that I should be be peeling with a whole bunch of extra hands that's I would be folding to a pot-sized 3-bet.

What would the bottom of your range be for overcalling on table 4 here - 1 extra BB already 3 way when it gets to you with J7s?

I think that's a pretty common mistake is to cry implied odds and call with a bunch of pretty-looking hands here. The pre-flop pot odds tell so little, compared to think about how post-flop play will be profitable, about the profitable the hand will be. The profitability of the hand will lie in how well will it play post-flop.

The problem with the pot odds pre-flop argument is when a bunch of money goes in pre-flop, the pot gets bigger. When pots are raised and multi-way, the pot gets bigger. When the pot is bigger, c-bets are bigger. That means you have to pay a higher portion of your stack to draw. This actually cuts your implied odds for drawing (it boosts your "flopping monsters" implied odds, but J7s pretty much sucks at flopping monsters). J7s is principally a hand that's going to flop a lot of draws (two-pair/trip draws, flush draws, straight draws). So, I'm only calling here if the SPR will be high enough such that I can still draw and drawing will be profitable. Drawing really is not that profitable vs TAGs (when you're drawing to a flush, TAGs don't really pay off when it gets there). So, I need there to be a bad player in the pot. Having said that, if a bad player is in the pot I'm probably calling regardless of the fact that it's multi-way, so it being multi-way is not often a huge perk to get into these situations when you're 100bb deep. If you make the stacks deep, you kind of like that it's multi-way because it brings the whole stacks into play and the pot is not so big such that it cuts down on your implied odds. You're in the happy middle area then.

Given it was a min-raise (I probably missed that at the time) you can probably call with stuff like J9s or J8s here given there's a bad player in the pot. If you make this a 3bb raise, I think you have to tighten up to J9s and JTs.

Great start to the season and brilliant to see Threads with a whole series.

I have finally caught the RUSH bug, any chance of an episode or two in this series?

Keep up the good work man!

I think that's a pretty common mistake is to cry implied odds and call with a bunch of pretty-looking hands here. The pre-flop pot odds tell so little, compared to think about how post-flop play will be profitable, about the profitable the hand will be. The profitability of the hand will lie in how well will it play post-flop.

The problem with the pot odds pre-flop argument is when a bunch of money goes in pre-flop, the pot gets bigger. When pots are raised and multi-way, the pot gets bigger. When the pot is bigger, c-bets are bigger. That means you have to pay a higher portion of your stack to draw. This actually cuts your implied odds for drawing (it boosts your "flopping monsters" implied odds, but J7s pretty much sucks at flopping monsters). J7s is principally a hand that's going to flop a lot of draws (two-pair/trip draws, flush draws, straight draws). So, I'm only calling here if the SPR will be high enough such that I can still draw and drawing will be profitable. Drawing really is not that profitable vs TAGs (when you're drawing to a flush, TAGs don't really pay off when it gets there). So, I need there to be a bad player in the pot. Having said that, if a bad player is in the pot I'm probably calling regardless of the fact that it's multi-way, so it being multi-way is not often a huge perk to get into these situations when you're 100bb deep. If you make the stacks deep, you kind of like that it's multi-way because it brings the whole stacks into play and the pot is not so big such that it cuts down on your implied odds. You're in the happy middle area then.

Given it was a min-raise (I probably missed that at the time) you can probably call with stuff like J9s or J8s here given there's a bad player in the pot. If you make this a 3bb raise, I think you have to tighten up to J9s and JTs.

Thanks for a great response. I am very wary of these kind of situations and no longer call with any trash crying "implied odds" - I just thought J7s here might be about the bottom of my calling range, but you didn't even consider it so I just wanted to make sure my thought process wasn't way out of whack. It seems it probably isn't but maybe I need to tighten up just a little more + you missed the fact that it was a min raise (which I wasn't sure if you had done or not and how that affected the decision).

Thanks.

Great start to the season and brilliant to see Threads with a whole series.
I have finally caught the RUSH bug, any chance of an episode or two in this series?

Keep up the good work man!

I don't have a lot of Rush experience at this point so I highly doubt that I'll do anything in these series. I run into enough trouble explaining my thought process with 4-tables and using my time bank to create explanation time (see my multiple time outs for proof), so I imagine I'd be a hot mess trying to coach while playing Rush.

Also, my own play as of late has been moving in the direction of playing fewer tables and getting reads. I think it would be using my skills optimally do videos geared towards the same thing. To the effect, I'm thinking of making the 200NL section as a doing two videos covering the same session so I may be able to talk about getting reads a little bit more.

Time Link to 01:00:25

Tbl 1: What do you think the merits are to slow playing here? When I was watching I instantly thought slow play because you have the board so crushed and to keep both fish in who wont fold TP if they hit on the turn. Why do you think raising is better here?

Time Link to 00:15:49

on the bottom left with the A5 why are we not isolating with that? there is a person sitting out to our left and someone in front of us just limped.
great vid

Time Link to 00:29:39

what do u think about calling the min raise with j9 or possibly 3betting it?

Tbl 1: What do you think the merits are to slow playing here? When I was watching I instantly thought slow play because you have the board so crushed and to keep both fish in who wont fold TP if they hit on the turn. Why do you think raising is better here?

I figured they had plenty of draws that I could go ahead and get extra value from here. They aren't folding an overpair anyways. Between the two of them, you'd think that one has some sort of draw or overpair that I can get it in against/get a raise in against pretty often right now. Essentially there are two loose and bad players who seem interested in the pot already, so I don't see a need to slowplay so that they can become interested.

on the bottom left with the A5 why are we not isolating with that? there is a person sitting out to our left and someone in front of us just limped.
great vid

Just a standard video mistake. Didn't notice that we were in the CO. Things like that happen in videos because I'm focusing on different things.

what do u think about calling the min raise with j9 or possibly 3betting it?

Both options seem bad, but I think it goes folding>calling>>>>>3-betting.

If we're thinking of 3-betting we are usually 3-betting as a bluff or 3-betting for value.

This guy is a loose passive player, so I'm completely dropping my 3-bet bluffing range. There's no reason to bluff a guy that never folds, right? That would just set us up to have a wide and weak range vs a guy we need to have value-betting hands. Weak hands aren't very good at value-betting.

It's hard to imagine that J9o is a value 3-bet, so there's no way this can be a 3-bet.

Calling is also pretty meh. He seems to have a tight opening range, thus I need to be play hands that have the ability to out-flop him, or hit a draw that can get paid. J9o doesn't do either of those things.

As a bit of a thought puzzle (try to just think big picture here, from there you can make your adjustments based on how they played post-flop)...

- What range would you flat vs an 11/7 opening UTG?
- How should that change vs a 50/7?

Time Link to 00:20:28

Very nice vid!

vs. a TAG, you say you don't hate calling KK in MP - could you expand on that a bit? fwiw, I'm a 6max player with very little FR experience, I'd only be calling KK in CO/BTN with someone left to act that I expect to squeeze relatively often, and/or with fish in the blinds, would never occur to me to flat in MP? Thanks!

Very nice vid!

vs. a TAG, you say you don't hate calling KK in MP - could you expand on that a bit? fwiw, I'm a 6max player with very little FR experience, I'd only be calling KK in CO/BTN with someone left to act that I expect to squeeze relatively often, and/or with fish in the blinds, would never occur to me to flat in MP? Thanks!

Sure, when you're playing vs aware TAGs you have to be aware of your perceived range. Your perceived range looks crazy strong when you 3-bet here. You can't go crazy 3-bet bluffing too much as his range is strong, and there's still several people left to act that can just happen to show up with a hand. So, we can't bluff a lot. In general when we can't have a lot of bluffs it becomes harder to value bet (he'll bluff catch less if he doesn't think we're bluffing). So, since we can't really be bluffing a lot, he should be able to play really well against our range when we 3-bet. Meaning he probably makes more mistakes vs us if we flat KK than if we 3-bet it. Thus, we probably do better to flat KK in that spot without image.

In a 6-max game people are more default getting it in with AK,QQ, JJ type hands pre-flop, and thus 3-betting KK is going to be much more appealing. That's just a case of where ranges change because of the general game dynamics of 6-max vs FR (players don't like getting it in as wide in FR in general). Also, it's way easier to build an active image pre-flop because you're facing wider ranges, so 3-bet bluffing is more of viable strategy. So, people expect more bluffs and your stats/image will tend to agree with the story they expect. When people see a story they want to believe in, and see it confirmed, you can expect them to react. Thus, your image and people's general behavior makes 3-betting KK much more appealing.

Time Link to 00:29:38

Great explanation of perceived ranges in that spot, makes perfect sense.

I'm asking questions while watching the video, apologies if I ask about something you address later in the vid.

Here you have A3o on table 4 in the CO, and start saying it's an interesting spot because we might be thinking about stealing with this hand against tight players left to act, but we want to think about what hands we want to be stealing with against tight players - and then you flop a straight bvb on table 2.

You continue talking about hands to play against tight players a few minutes later, talking about the diff between 66 and T9s utg against a tight lineup left to act - here, though, in LP is this not a good steal opportunity if we have tight players to act? The postflop value of this hand isn't great, just like the 66 utg discussion, but isn't the pf steal value good enough if the players left to act are folding a ton to a LP steal? As you might guess from my question, I like to steal with a pretty wide range until someone behind me gives me a reason .to narrow my range.

Never mind, you did address it a few minutes later, thanks!

Time Link to 00:37:04

Any particular reason you raise to $1.25 from the cutoff w/ Q6 suited on table three here? You've bounced around between raise sizes and I didn't know if this was an accidental reflection of the strength of your hand manifesting itself in your open size.

Any particular reason you raise to $1.25 from the cutoff w/ Q6 suited on table three here? You've bounced around between raise sizes and I didn't know if this was an accidental reflection of the strength of your hand manifesting itself in your open size.

Na, it has nothing to do with my specific hand's strength. I typically use different raise sizes by position and I also make bigger raises when there's a bad player I'll be isolating. I'm making it 4bb in EP, 3bb in MP, 2.5bb from LP. The stronger my range, the bigger the raise. If there's a bad player in the blinds, I make the raise size bigger. So, I'll make it 4bb across the board (I probably could make it 5bb in EP then). If the loose and bad player from the blinds is short stacked, I make just make it 3bb anyways because I won't have any trouble getting his stack in, and that keeps the SPR a little bit higher so that I have a little more flexibility.

Time Link to 00:52:23

I'm not sure whether I get your point on checking back A9. Let me see whether I get it. You are saying that we're not going to double barrel because we don't think we have a lot of FE on a double barrel, so checking back A9 on the flop does two things for our range:
1.) Because we aren't betting A9, our flop betting range is stronger and does better against his flop calling range. Also, our double barrel range is also more weighted towards value, which is good since our turn bets aren't getting a lot of folds
2.) The EV of checking A9 on the flop and c-betting A9 on the flop are about the same, but it allows us to have a more +EV double barrel range.

Sound about right?

I'm not sure whether I get your point on checking back A9. Let me see whether I get it. You are saying that we're not going to double barrel because we don't think we have a lot of FE on a double barrel, so checking back A9 on the flop does two things for our range:
1.) Because we aren't betting A9, our flop betting range is stronger and does better against his flop calling range. Also, our double barrel range is also more weighted towards value, which is good since our turn bets aren't getting a lot of folds
2.) The EV of checking A9 on the flop and c-betting A9 on the flop are about the same, but it allows us to have a more +EV double barrel range.

Sound about right?

Yep, you got it.

Sure. I actually want to get rid with a lot of these (maybe I'll do that now that I'm thinking about it). I used to have a monster HUD, but as I play the more I want to simplify things and rely on note taking. I'll probably get rid of stuff like Donk bet flop, and limp-call, and just look at them on my HUD.

Name/Hands/Steal/BB fold vs Steal
VPIP/PFR/3-bet/Squeeze/Fold to 3-bet
Flop c-bet/Fold to flop c-bet/Donk bet flop/Limp-call
EP/MP/CO/SB/BTN,<------------------ (this line is all raise first in by postion)

Is there any way you can upload your HUD link so I can import it? My old computer crashed and I need to redo my 6max HUD on a new computer...

Is there any way you can upload your HUD link so I can import it? My old computer crashed and I need to redo my 6max HUD on a new computer...

Unfortunately I've changed my HUD since this moment. I don't mind sending my current one, but it's quite a bit different now.

Unfortunately I've changed my HUD since this moment. I don't mind sending my current one, but it's quite a bit different now.

That would be great! Do you feel like the change is an improvement. Another thing I would love to know is how you use aggression factor,aggression frequency and aggression percentage. I have been playing for years and I use these to gage how aggressive an opponent is but I steal don't really know the difference between the two. I know the formulas but I still can't put the difference in words. Also while working on a popup for my HUD under Aggression Holdem Manager has Aggression factor but then it has Aggression percentage and when you put aggression percentage total it shows up in the HUD as aggression frequency, which is it aggression frequency or aggression percentage because they are different aren't they? I tried emailing holdem manager but they just sent me a link to the stat definitions which didn't help at all

That would be great! Do you feel like the change is an improvement. Another thing I would love to know is how you use aggression factor,aggression frequency and aggression percentage. I have been playing for years and I use these to gage how aggressive an opponent is but I steal don't really know the difference between the two. I know the formulas but I still can't put the difference in words. Also while working on a popup for my HUD under Aggression Holdem Manager has Aggression factor but then it has Aggression percentage and when you put aggression percentage total it shows up in the HUD as aggression frequency, which is it aggression frequency or aggression percentage because they are different aren't they? I tried emailing holdem manager but they just sent me a link to the stat definitions which didn't help at all

I'm pretty sure Aggression Percentage = Aggression Frequency. I personally don't really use Aggression Factor at all. It takes forever to converge and it isn't really that intuitive like Aggression Frequency is. I actually don't use frequency that much either, but much more than AF. You do have to look at it in conjunction with other stats. For example, if a guy is playing a PF style of 11/9 he SHOULD have a higher aggression than a guy playing 50/20 because the nit just has better hands more often - which would lead to him being more aggro. This goes from street to street. The more aggro the guy is on the flop, the more air he has on the turn. The streets are connected. Generally speaking, seeing frequencies over 40% can be high, and they should tend to decrease from street to street. So, if you see post-flop frequencies of something like (flop/turn/river) 40/35/30... that's a pretty aggro, but not ridiculously out of line, tough player. If you see something like 50/40/20... that's a player who's likely 2-barreling a lot, and then runs out of steam on the river. As always, check your sample sizes. It takes a lot of hands to get a sample on the river stats because not many hands get to the river.

Here's the file. Make sure you select the correct site in the "use for" area. I started by using the Leak Buster HUD, but I've made a lot of changes to it.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=555JSURT

At the 18:30 mark on table 3, you elect to bluff shove the river. You bet about $40 into a $28 pot. My question is about the size. Why wouldn't you bet a smaller amount, say pot or 2/3 pot? It seems like a spot where you could risk less & get the same result.

At the 29:00 minute mark on table 1, you get QQ in the SB & elect to flat vs a button raise from a player we have no stats on & 2 fish who had limped. My question is why wouldn't you 3-bet there? I understand the point you made about keeping the fish in, but I would 3-bet there as we are out of position & our hand loses equity the more players we face.
I've been losing w/ QQ over my last 50k hands, so I found this to be an interesting spot since I would play it different & would love to hear any thoughts you have on playing QQ in general. Thanks.

At the 54:00 minute mark on table 4, you get 99 in the small blind vs a BTN open raise. My question about this hand is similar to my last one regarding the QQ. Why do you flat as opposed to 3-betting?

At the 18:30 mark on table 3, you elect to bluff shove the river. You bet about $40 into a $28 pot. My question is about the size. Why wouldn't you bet a smaller amount, say pot or 2/3 pot? It seems like a spot where you could risk less & get the same result.

I feel like shoving actually gets a few extra folds such that we do better to shove even though it risks more. I showed some math with this in my first short. Check that out and let me know if you have any questions.

At the 29:00 minute mark on table 1, you get QQ in the SB & elect to flat vs a button raise from a player we have no stats on & 2 fish who had limped. My question is why wouldn't you 3-bet there? I understand the point you made about keeping the fish in, but I would 3-bet there as we are out of position & our hand loses equity the more players we face.
I've been losing w/ QQ over my last 50k hands, so I found this to be an interesting spot since I would play it different & would love to hear any thoughts you have on playing QQ in general. Thanks.

I think we do better by letting the bad players in than we do by 3-betting and getting a lot of folds. I'm not too worried about an equity loss because I think we will be play very well post-flop vs fish. The limpers are very likely to make more mistakes which adds to our equity. Basically, keeping them in likely sets up situations what we play better post-flop than everyone else, while 3-betting just gets a lot of folds as the player won't have much of a reason to think we are bluffing. If I had some image or knew anything about the player I would be 3-betting here very, very often. As is, I just expect him to fold to my first 3-bet a lot.

He'll still continue with KK+,AK though.

At the 54:00 minute mark on table 4, you get 99 in the small blind vs a BTN open raise. My question about this hand is similar to my last one regarding the QQ. Why do you flat as opposed to 3-betting?

I think by 3-betting he mostly just folds a whole bunch. Most of the stuff he calls with does well vs 99. He'll call with AQ, JJ, etc. So, we just set up a situation where our equity isn't that good, but the pot is really big. That's a bad situation. By flatting I keep all of his worse hands in and can allow him to bluff when I'll be able to call fairly often. That's a good situation.

In both of these cases I didn't expect to get as much action from worse hands by 3-betting as I do by calling. I really only 3-bet 99 if I feel like I can shove over a 4-bet.

At ~48:00 when you have A9o against a loose passive fish, what are the advantages of betting the turn compared to checking and taking your A9 to showdown? You mentioned that you don't mind checking the flop, because villain is loose/passive... I totally agree. But can't we apply the same logic to the turn situation? We have A high with a decent kicker versus his range (AK/AQ would've raised pre, maybe not 100% because he's loose/passive but I think it's close). So if we bet, he'll only call with hands that beat us and will not fold to a turn barrel. Or do you think villain is bad enough so he'll call with A4, A5, 45s, 56s, xxcc. So we're also betting for thin value?

Just wondering, because this is a spot where I usually take a 'showdown-line'

Awesome series btw, gonna watch all eps asap

At ~48:00 when you have A9o against a loose passive fish, what are the advantages of betting the turn compared to checking and taking your A9 to showdown? You mentioned that you don't mind checking the flop, because villain is loose/passive... I totally agree. But can't we apply the same logic to the turn situation? We have A high with a decent kicker versus his range (AK/AQ would've raised pre, maybe not 100% because he's loose/passive but I think it's close). So if we bet, he'll only call with hands that beat us and will not fold to a turn barrel. Or do you think villain is bad enough so he'll call with A4, A5, 45s, 56s, xxcc. So we're also betting for thin value?

Just wondering, because this is a spot where I usually take a 'showdown-line'

Awesome series btw, gonna watch all eps asap

Good question.

I mostly expect him to bet a K into us on the turn. So, when he checks the turn he ends up having a range of air and weak pairs. I agree that he's unlikely to fold any pair but he has way more air. If he's never going to bet that air, there's no point in giving him a free card to catch up and beat us when he has 6 outs most of the time. We could bet the flop for the same reason, but if we know he's going let us know when he has a K by betting the turn, we can check the flop for that extra information. Once he checks the turn we have a much better idea about his range and can be a cleaner bet. You could also just do something like bet 1/3 that may get you some calls from worse A-high but still gets his air to fold.

It's one of this situations where we are likely to have the best hand, and unlikely to get called by a range that we do well against, yet we still bet. It seems a little funner, but basically if we know we have the best hand most of the time then checking is a mistake. If we check in this spot we should be hoping to induce a bluff or a light call - a mistake from him. If that is unlikely to happen (it is) then he never makes mistakes. So, we shouldn't check and be the only one to make a mistake. We lose in that situation.

Time Link to 00:12:15

Hope this is not too late to ask questions on this episode. I am reviwing it, still a lot of useful info to work on my game.

You are mentionning that we need to 3 bet more vs tight players that folds a lot to 3 bet and that we should have a bluffing range as wide as our value range. In term of fold to 3 bet %, as a starting point, what could be considered a player that folds a lot to 3 bet? I mean, I guess vs a guy that folds less than 50% of the time, 3 betting light is probably almost unprofitable, vs a guy that fold 50-60% we could have a x% of our range as a bluff and so on...

Hope this is not too late to ask questions on this episode. I am reviwing it, still a lot of useful info to work on my game.

You are mentionning that we need to 3 bet more vs tight players that folds a lot to 3 bet and that we should have a bluffing range as wide as our value range. In term of fold to 3 bet %, as a starting point, what could be considered a player that folds a lot to 3 bet? I mean, I guess vs a guy that folds less than 50% of the time, 3 betting light is probably almost unprofitable, vs a guy that fold 50-60% we could have a x% of our range as a bluff and so on...

Over a good sample size, seeing a fold to 3-bet over 70% is a pretty good indicator that you should have a really wide bluffing range and a really narrow value range. It really is one of those things that a stat isn't the best way to do it. It's going to be based on things like... how often does he fold to 3-bets to you, what's both of your positions, will he respond or just keep folding, etc. The fold to 3-bet stat is a variable of course, but only one of of a few.

I'm pretty sure Aggression Percentage = Aggression Frequency. I personally don't really use Aggression Factor at all. It takes forever to converge and it isn't really that intuitive like Aggression Frequency is. I actually don't use frequency that much either, but much more than AF. You do have to look at it in conjunction with other stats. For example, if a guy is playing a PF style of 11/9 he SHOULD have a higher aggression than a guy playing 50/20 because the nit just has better hands more often - which would lead to him being more aggro. This goes from street to street. The more aggro the guy is on the flop, the more air he has on the turn. The streets are connected. Generally speaking, seeing frequencies over 40% can be high, and they should tend to decrease from street to street. So, if you see post-flop frequencies of something like (flop/turn/river) 40/35/30... that's a pretty aggro, but not ridiculously out of line, tough player. If you see something like 50/40/20... that's a player who's likely 2-barreling a lot, and then runs out of steam on the river. As always, check your sample sizes. It takes a lot of hands to get a sample on the river stats because not many hands get to the river.

Here's the file. Make sure you select the correct site in the "use for" area. I started by using the Leak Buster HUD, but I've made a lot of changes to it.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=555JSURT

Hi. First of all geat series!
About your new HUD stats, why are stopped using PFR and Agression stats? Do you think they are not that important or you are just cheking them in the pop up menu if necessary? I thought PFR is "must to have' stat...?
Thanks for reply in advance.

Hi. First of all geat series!
About your new HUD stats, why are stopped using PFR and Agression stats? Do you think they are not that important or you are just cheking them in the pop up menu if necessary? I thought PFR is "must to have' stat...?
Thanks for reply in advance.

I have PFR on my HUD, but Aggression Factor or Frequency I don't. I will sometimes check Aggression Frequency via my popup to see if anything is really interesting (numbers that fall drastically from the norm), but I've actually removed Aggression Factor completely. I have absolutely no way of ever looking at that number. That should give you an idea how important I think that stat is.

I'm sorry if I sound stupid (I am a fish after all), but why is aggression factor unimportant? I wish, I had a better understanding of these things. Do you use the PFR/Agg freq. and notes to like determine how often he is likely to double/triple barrel postflop?

I'm sorry if I sound stupid (I am a fish after all), but why is aggression factor unimportant? I wish, I had a better understanding of these things. Do you use the PFR/Agg freq. and notes to like determine how often he is likely to double/triple barrel postflop?

To me it's really not intuitive. To calculate it, it's like add all the raises and the bets and divide by the calls... and then you have to figure out where you're at in the lunar cycle or something.

.......... or I could just look at the aggression frequency and see the percentage of time they bet or raise. I think that's way more intuitive

Also it takes forever to converge anyways. VPIP/PFR converges much faster and usually will give you an idea of how your opponent thinks about the game. After a lot of hands I'll start looking at aggression frequency more, but by then I probably have played enough that I have a bunch of notes on the player anyways so it still is only useful every once in a while.

I just can't see a reason to ever use aggression factor now that we have aggression frequency. Aggression frequency is far superior.

Ok Thanks a lot Threads13 for the thorough answer. I'm working on my HUD setup still. I'm kinda a noob, when it comes to HEM as i've played on sites which didn't support it for most of my active poker life. This will help. Thanks!!

Fishy

I have PFR on my HUD, but Aggression Factor or Frequency I don't. I will sometimes check Aggression Frequency via my popup to see if anything is really interesting (numbers that fall drastically from the norm), but I've actually removed Aggression Factor completely. I have absolutely no way of ever looking at that number. That should give you an idea how important I think that stat is.

Hehe. I understand now, thx.

BTW, I asked you about PFR, cause there is no this stat in the file you upload here:"leakbusterfullring".

BTW, I asked you about PFR, cause there is no this stat in the file you upload here:"leakbusterfullring".

That's weird. There definitely should be.

Could you explain your color coding of players. What colors are which player types?

Could you explain your color coding of players. What colors are which player types?

Typically it was something like:

green = mark
orange = reg
red = tough aggro reg

I think I used blue or purple for short stackers, and the other for bad tight-passives. Not sure which was which and I didn't see any obvious examples in skimming, but I'm sure it will be apparent from watching.

Let me know if there's any other ones I've forgotten about. I haven't played on FTP for a while so my memory is a little fuzzy.

Time Link to 00:02:49

How did you copy the Date and hour to your note with just a click? nice one...

How did you copy the Date and hour to your note with just a click? nice one...

That's a Grindcore super-ninja move. Basically I just copy it and put it on my clipboard. So, I'm just hitting CTRL^V.

Time Link to 00:09:02

Table 4:

You say, that there are a lot of draws on this Board possible, but your opponent has a tight openraising-range. On this board it is very difficult for him to have any kind of draw, because he will not play hands like 9T,TJ and the Ad blocks all his possible flushdraws. He could have imo KdQd as Draw, but this is just one combo. You also will not very often have a Draw, because I assume your callingrange vs his UTG-OR in MP will not have a lot of suited connectors.

On this Board he will have very often Ax-type hands or Pocketpairs 77+. I guess, that if you raise he will fold nearly everything except AK. Wouldnt it be a better play to call the Flop and hope that he will barrel the Turn again?

Time Link to 00:14:32

Table3:

Which cards would you doublebarrel on the Turn/ triplebarrel on the River, if your opponent would call you on the flop?

Time Link to 00:47:07

You said, that you choose hands for double barrel at the flop, which have good equity against the callingrange.

1. Which equity against the callingrange should a hand approximately at least have, that you would consider this hand as a good doublebarrel hand?

2. Do you value Outs to the Nuts higher then for example outs to Overcards?

2. Would you distinguish between OOP and IP? (e.g. OOP higher equity required then IP)

3. Do you also take into consideration, if you have a higher Foldequity on certain Flops?

Btw awesome video. I already learnt a lot. I am looking forward to watch the other vids :-)

Time Link to 00:53:56

Why are you more likely to bet on this board KJo instead of A7?

Would you bluffcatch with A7o on this board vs this player?

Table 4:

You say, that there are a lot of draws on this Board possible, but your opponent has a tight openraising-range. On this board it is very difficult for him to have any kind of draw, because he will not play hands like 9T,TJ and the Ad blocks all his possible flushdraws. He could have imo KdQd as Draw, but this is just one combo. You also will not very often have a Draw, because I assume your callingrange vs his UTG-OR in MP will not have a lot of suited connectors.

On this Board he will have very often Ax-type hands or Pocketpairs 77+. I guess, that if you raise he will fold nearly everything except AK. Wouldnt it be a better play to call the Flop and hope that he will barrel the Turn again?

By there being a lot of draws on the board I really mean that he can potentially put me on a draw when I raise. Furthermore, if draws come in that could easily slow him down with hands like AK/AQ. It's not so much that I want to raise to get value from draws.

So, I think it's a little bit better to play our hand fast here. I doubt that he will fold an A out right, and even if he c/f's AJ/AQ on the turn I still got 2 bets from him. I don't imagine calling gets 3 that often given the wetness of the board and that him 3-barreling AQ/AJ is a bit of an overplay.

Calling is a reasonable play as a mix-up and slowplay, but I think raising should be your default play - especially if you raise a lot of flop c-bets.

Table3:

Which cards would you doublebarrel on the Turn/ triplebarrel on the River, if your opponent would call you on the flop?

Spades are pretty obvious 2-barrel cards. He can't really raise me off hand very often since I have the As. So, I get to realize my equity a lot. I would often also barrel on cards that scare 2nd pair (J, T, etc).

You said, that you choose hands for double barrel at the flop, which have good equity against the callingrange.

1. Which equity against the callingrange should a hand approximately at least have, that you would consider this hand as a good doublebarrel hand?

2. Do you value Outs to the Nuts higher then for example outs to Overcards?

2. Would you distinguish between OOP and IP? (e.g. OOP higher equity required then IP)

3. Do you also take into consideration, if you have a higher Foldequity on certain Flops?

Btw awesome video. I already learnt a lot. I am looking forward to watch the other vids :-)

1) I typically will tend to bet flops with BDFD's or better if I don't think I have a particularly high amount of FE.

2) Yeah, I generally am more likely to bet a hand OOP than IP. IP I can use delayed c-bets + I'm guaranteed to see the turn. OOP that's no longer true, so the value in checking goes down. When we're deciding whether to bet or check then we are trying to figure out which is better. Checking goes up a lot in value when we're IP, comparitively speaking, where betting is not necessarily increased that much.

3) Yes, for sure. The more I have implied odds the more likely I am to check, though checking OOP is rough because we can get bet at a lot and c/c'ing draws as the PFR is usually worst than betting ourselves.

TY TY. Glad you've enjoyed it.

Why are you more likely to bet on this board KJo instead of A7?

Would you bluffcatch with A7o on this board vs this player?

KJ actually has more equity when called, imo, so it's a higher +EV bet. It's a better hand vs his calling range A7 might actually be better to just c/f as it doesn't have a lot of equity when called, doesn't get better hands to fold, and doesn't get called by worse. We may or may not have enough FE to make A7o a +EV bet, but it's a lot easier to make KJ a +EV bet because we just have more equity overall.

Hey threads, just a quick post to say I've started watching your series and it's really useful stuff. I'm contemplating the move from 6max to FR and it's good to see how it plays and the different considerations required. I'm currently donking up the supermicro full ring tables to try it out and it's going pretty well tbh.

I've a quick question about 'reggish stats' which you probably address is some other video. I know there's no such thing as optimal stats or anything but I'm trying to work out if I'm simply playing far too loose in general. I've obviously tightened up compared to 6max but in my mind I've pretty much just added an additional 3utg seats that have a few extra options due to not being the first to act. Is this a reasonable way to think about it until I've more FR experience? I've found myself to be the far loosest player at every table I've played at so far.

Cheers

Hey threads, just a quick post to say I've started watching your series and it's really useful stuff. I'm contemplating the move from 6max to FR and it's good to see how it plays and the different considerations required. I'm currently donking up the supermicro full ring tables to try it out and it's going pretty well tbh.

I've a quick question about 'reggish stats' which you probably address is some other video. I know there's no such thing as optimal stats or anything but I'm trying to work out if I'm simply playing far too loose in general. I've obviously tightened up compared to 6max but in my mind I've pretty much just added an additional 3utg seats that have a few extra options due to not being the first to act. Is this a reasonable way to think about it until I've more FR experience? I've found myself to be the far loosest player at every table I've played at so far.

Cheers

The way I look at it is the CO is the CO in both games. You make your decision on your opening range based on who is on your left. So, you will be opening the same sort of ranges in that seat as it's the same thing in both games. In FR you have to play really tight in those extra 3 seats. You have to player tighter than what you would in the first two seats in a 6-max game by a long shot. In a 6-max game I'll typically open at least 15% UTG. In a FR game it's more like at least 7%.

Thanks for the reply,

I've noticed you talking about UTG ranges in terms of playability, advocating folding the lower pockets and adding in the higher suited connectors in their place. 7% looks something like 66+ AKo+ AQs+ JTs+ I'm still getting my head around folding pp and AQo utg, but it makes sense and I'm going to give it a go.

Thanks for the reply,

I've noticed you talking about UTG ranges in terms of playability, advocating folding the lower pockets and adding in the higher suited connectors in their place. 7% looks something like 66+ AKo+ AQs+ JTs+ I'm still getting my head around folding pp and AQo utg, but it makes sense and I'm going to give it a go.

Yeah, I'd be more inclined to fold the 66 in favor of opening AJs.

Time Link to 00:45:10

I have a few questions in reference to the A9o hand, vs a more aggressive player would you be more inclined to CB the flop?

As played if they called the turn would you fire again on any rivers? Bet size and why please?

Thanks

Time Link to 00:59:01

T86m and you say we bet a $1.50 because they are going to fold ton of the time. Are all 4 players really going to fold on this board or are you talking specifically about these particular players your playing against. I think this is a check back because I expect a ton of draws to call and the board gets ugly on so many turn cards. Is this flawed logic on my part?

I have a few questions in reference to the A9o hand, vs a more aggressive player would you be more inclined to CB the flop?

As played if they called the turn would you fire again on any rivers? Bet size and why please?

Thanks

VS a more aggro player I'd be less inclinded to c-bet. I think that means he's less likely to fold and that's pretty much what we're counting on to c-bet that flop.

I would tend to check back the river if called. I'd be more inclined to 2-barrel something like T9 that I had delayed c-bet. I think sometimes we're up against a draw on the river so it's fairly close between checking and betting. It's nice to see his hand when it's relatively close between betting and checking.

T86m and you say we bet a $1.50 because they are going to fold ton of the time. Are all 4 players really going to fold on this board or are you talking specifically about these particular players your playing against. I think this is a check back because I expect a ton of draws to call and the board gets ugly on so many turn cards. Is this flawed logic on my part?

Yeah, when the action goes down this way it's very unlikely anyone has even TP. So, that's quite a bit of folding right there if you're betting vs ranges that are that weak. When they do call you'll have quite a bit of equity because you're rarely dominated. You'll be coin-flipping a lot, and dominate a decent amount, and be 60-70% a lot. But mostly these guys will just have a ton of A-high and K-high and be folding.

When I get called I'd happily bet the obvious brick turns.