---

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

In before complaint about low stakes content, lol

The minraise on the river with bluff and calldown with bottom pair were hillarious by those guys
Good stuff covered imo, but valuebetting is kinda boring, waiting for the final episode

Time Link to 00:51:33

Would you donkbet a 10x here and for balance would it be for the same amount as your semi-bluffs?

Reason I have been donkbetting close to pot here with both is because half-potting it may invite reraises and floats with overcards and draws leaving nasty turn decisions oop, a bigger bet is more threatening for later streets and may get some pairs to fold and generally don't we want to take the pot down on the flop if possible?

Would you donkbet a 10x here and for balance would it be for the same amount as your semi-bluffs?

Reason I have been donkbetting close to pot here with both is because half-potting it may invite reraises and floats with overcards and draws leaving nasty turn decisions oop, a bigger bet is more threatening for later streets and may get some pairs to fold and generally don't we want to take the pot down on the flop if possible?

If you're betting a norm 2/3 Pot amount then them calling with over cards and weak draws is a mistake assuming they aren't bluffing you often on the turn and river or you aren't paying them off big when they hit. If you have trouble playing medium strength hands oop for a donk bet then polarize your range more and donk hands where you have easier decisions like draws not good enough to c/c or c/r and big hands you want to play a big pot with. When you take this strategy you are easier to play against but it stops you from making big mistakes. When you become a better hand reader and you have a better idea of how thinly villain can value bet turns or raise flops then donk betting weak/medium top pairs becomes more attractive.

Time Link to 00:49:02

the 1/3 pot bet on the end is kinda interesting....i can see the logic to get light calls from worse hands... when i do this and get raised i seem to have a hard time folding vs a guy who is kinda aggro on the end...as i figure to myself "well, iv'e bet small and induced villains action" this isn't always the case and i obv sometimes get valuetowned...do you have a kinda plan/thought process that you use to indentify when you've have induced a spazz or your beat??? or is it basically going through the combo's of missed draws and your opinion of villain??
i guess the A-9 hand earlier on where Caffry 3bet v small pre was another kinda example when villain spazz min raised the river with Q-10 on the monotone dimond flop...both you guys concluded we are not going to be good here a ton but there is some value in a call....Caffry bet i think 9 into 35 on the end and vil min raised...i agree with what you both were saying 100% but i still wud use the logic of me inducing action due to my apparent weak bet size.and i'd make the call...do you think this is a conceptual flaw in my thinking??? it could be that i just like to call lol

Thanx

Steve

the 1/3 pot bet on the end is kinda interesting....i can see the logic to get light calls from worse hands... when i do this and get raised i seem to have a hard time folding vs a guy who is kinda aggro on the end...as i figure to myself "well, iv'e bet small and induced villains action" this isn't always the case and i obv sometimes get valuetowned...do you have a kinda plan/thought process that you use to indentify when you've have induced a spazz or your beat??? or is it basically going through the combo's of missed draws and your opinion of villain??
i guess the A-9 hand earlier on where Caffry 3bet v small pre was another kinda example when villain spazz min raised the river with Q-10 on the monotone dimond flop...both you guys concluded we are not going to be good here a ton but there is some value in a call....Caffry bet i think 9 into 35 on the end and vil min raised...i agree with what you both were saying 100% but i still wud use the logic of me inducing action due to my apparent weak bet size.and i'd make the call...do you think this is a conceptual flaw in my thinking??? it could be that i just like to call lol

Thanx

Steve

it is a flaw in your thinking. you're thinking that because you view your bet as looking weak, your opponent views it that way as well. this often isn't the case, your opponents all look at the game in completely different ways. sometimes these differences are subtle, sometimes they are huge. the way you need to be reasoning out a call is in asking yourself "can i come up with logical reasons why X player would a) agree that my bet looks weak AND b) respond w the given aggressive action"

yea that makes sense Jay..thanx again