---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by Ansky (High Stakes)

Haven't watched yet but I LOVE the ideal of this series!

Time Link to 00:11:38

table 4: ATs. I think this turn is a very good spot to check. When he checks back he either has ace high and spiked top pair or air that may bluff and rep the ace when you check but fold when you bet. You have essential board lock so it isn't like free cards are an issue.

gonna re-sub to DC for this

table 4: ATs. I think this turn is a very good spot to check. When he checks back he either has ace high and spiked top pair or air that may bluff and rep the ace when you check but fold when you bet. You have essential board lock so it isn't like free cards are an issue.

I disagree with this. Most regs cbet too much and vs someone who cbet too much they're bluffing the flop (cbetting) with most of their things that have remote amount of equity that they can barrel or they're c/fing. When he checks the flop his range contain hands that are bluff catchers or air that he's still giving up. It's a disaster to let someone stay in the pot if they're giving up.

So vs that range leading gets called by the bluff catchers that may bet for "protection" and make some things like small pp which are probably not bluffing anyways fold.

Nice video. I'd really like to see Dani play and hear questions from Blah about his play in one of the next episode. Keep the good work guys.

I disagree with this. Most regs cbet too much and vs someone who cbet too much they're bluffing the flop (cbetting) with most of their things that have remote amount of equity that they can barrel or they're c/fing. When he checks the flop his range contain hands that are bluff catchers or air that he's still giving up. It's a disaster to let someone stay in the pot if they're giving up.

So vs that range leading gets called by the bluff catchers that may bet for "protection" and make some things like small pp which are probably not bluffing anyways fold.

I don't see why it's a disaster to let him stay in the pot when we have the board this crushed. Given that he's going to have few if any outs, it seems worth it to give him an opportunity to bluff/bet for protection/make a second-best hand. I also agree with previous poster that his range for checking back probably includes some Ax and if he did check back with air he'll possibly see the A as a card he can represent.

I disagree with this. Most regs cbet too much and vs someone who cbet too much they're bluffing the flop (cbetting) with most of their things that have remote amount of equity that they can barrel or they're c/fing. When he checks the flop his range contain hands that are bluff catchers or air that he's still giving up. It's a disaster to let someone stay in the pot if they're giving up.

So vs that range leading gets called by the bluff catchers that may bet for "protection" and make some things like small pp which are probably not bluffing anyways fold.

IDK, I prefer checking over leading as well, if he's polarizing his range by checking-back bottom pair or Ace high then he's betting Ace high for value and bottom pair for protection so we're check-calling for value vs both compared to him calling us for value regardless and we're +EV because he bluffs with air when Ax is in his check-back range X% of the time. If he's not polarizing his Cbetting range by checking-back the bottom of his showdown value, then he's probably delayed Cbetting air on the perceived scare card regardless or continuing to check-back complete air that'll possibly bluff the river or at most a 2 outter that's significantly more likely to bluff catch on the river and be bet size insensitive to our PSB than to bluff catch on the turn.

I really don't see a lot of players checking-back the bottom of their drawing range like GS + BDFD that often, and they're probably bluffing the Ace one or two streets with the draw anyway so I really don't see where the value in leading the Ace is comming from because I check it to bluff catch, check/raise bluff and/or check/raise for value and I can't remember the last time I got sucked out by the 4 to 5 outters.

I don't understand how checking-back top pair on a board vs. an opponent who has at most 2 outs is "disastrous" because our ability to catch his bluffs or thinly value bets his PPs has to be way higher EV than the EV of a two outter winning a PSB off us on the river. Also, getting our lead raised on a card he can legitimately rep a turned 2 pair on totally sucks ass (for both our Ax and our air). A lot of really good players check the Ace, and if what you're saying is true then you don't have much to worry about when you check the Ace either because 6max players are betting all of their equitable hands on the flop and they're check-back range is only a two outter, so the odds of them drawing out are slim to none and what we're really concerned about is how often they bluff that ace (and fwiw it's a lot).

The risk vs reward has to be in our favor IMO.

I don't see why it's a disaster to let him stay in the pot when we have the board this crushed. Given that he's going to have few if any outs, it seems worth it to give him an opportunity to bluff/bet for protection/make a second-best hand. I also agree with previous poster that his range for checking back probably includes some Ax and if he did check back with air he'll possibly see the A as a card he can represent.

You get same value from his betting for protection hands when you lead and you make him fold junk which he isn't going to bluff anyways. When sonmeone has 10% equity and he never bluffs why do you want to give him a free card so he can suck out 10% of the time? If you have a read someone delayed two barrels alot then this is a clear check but I don't have that read and will just assume when people check their range contains stuff they are giving up and stuff they are bluff catching with vs that range I think betting is the most +EV play.

Checking is higher EV only if villain is bluffing the turn with a high frequency. Most 6 max players with the exception of the really good ones do not have balanced aggression on each street. Their aggression frequency goes down each street which is an indication they are less likely to bluff later on in the hand. Vs their thin value bets you can ignore that part of their range because its the same EV betting or checking vs that part.

blah234 Liked your play a lot. Hope to see more videos from you.

You get same value from his betting for protection hands when you lead and you make him fold junk which he isn't going to bluff anyways. When sonmeone has 10% equity and he never bluffs why do you want to give him a free card so he can suck out 10% of the time? If you have a read someone delayed two barrels alot then this is a clear check but I don't have that read and will just assume when people check their range contains stuff they are giving up and stuff they are bluff catching with vs that range I think betting is the most +EV play.

How do you know they never bluff the Ace? They bluff the Ace a lot fwiw, and I don't think you can just assume they always check it behind. I mean it's the most believable card for them to bluff if they polarize with A high or people think they could polarize with A high, why wouldn't they bluff it?

How do you know they never bluff the Ace? They bluff the Ace a lot fwiw, and I don't think you can just assume they always check it behind. I mean it's the most believable card for them to bluff if they polarize with A high or people think they could polarize with A high, why wouldn't they bluff it?

I don't know they never bluff the A, I just think it's unlikely for someone to try and rep an A. I think our definition of polarized range is different. My defintion of polarized range is when that range contains nuts or air only and nothing in between. When someone checks flop and bets turn their range is nothing polarized but contains many thin value bets/protection hands.

At lower stakes regs might be trying to rep an overcards on the turn but that play doesn't work at all at midstakes. People are more likely to call on overcards because apparently its a good barrel card and its just so hard to spike a 3 outter compared to all your other bluffs and thin value bets. Repping an overcard on the turn is just not a credible bluffs in aggressive games because it reps a very narrow value range. Think about how often someone actually checks flop then hits an A on the turn when they got a wide range preflop and 70+% cbet frequency compared to some random bluff or thin value bet.

Time Link to 00:23:33

"it just gives me another opportunity to make a correct decision."

I really like that sentence. I think that people really lose sight of that a lot.

finally DC makes something happening
because really, compared to other sites lately, not much happening, besides newmanmi vids, ansky and FOF heiko series lately
come on guys. More MSNL+ crushers in todays games

other than dani missed the action in every hand nan was talking about, it was a great video

just kidding guys, I enjoyed it a lot!
definitely has potential to be one of the best series on DC

Sweet. I'll watch just after my next session

Like you two together and some good content. Anything apart from FTP or Stars is painful on the eyes IMO

Love the intro. Makes me feel funny inside.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

Time Link to 00:27:32

Regarding the ATo fold vs the minraise, doesn't the presence of the fish cold caller make it hugely plus EV to call? Even if we play super nitty against the UTG opener and don't give him action, when we flop a pair we can value bet the crap out of the 44 VPIP fish. I also think 14% isn't a particularly tight UTG opening range.

Hey Blah,

Great vid, really awesome to see you on a DC vid, coming from the member videos forum. I still appreciate you reviewing my video and it just inspires me and I'm sure the other member video players to continue working hard.

Anyways, ansky asked at the end for any suggestions on the series. He mentioned going through your database, I thought what about spending a video or a portion of the video on reviewing your database for potential leaks and then going to a sweat session and targeting those spot. I would also be interested to know how you guys study your own play in between sessions, for example do you guys just look at the big pots or do you narrow your database for specific situations (for example: 3bet pots, vs. ck raise after you cbet, etc.). Also, do you guys ever study your villains, go over your notes, and then condense your notes afterwards from reads to exploitable plays. I find myself having a list of reads, but at the table I don't have time to synthesize these reads for profitable plays. Just some thoughts.

I look forward to the next one!

Randy

Thanks again Blah, your story is inspirational!

other than dani missed the action in every hand nan was talking about, it was a great video
)

I agree.
Hope he pays attention to the action more, got a bit frustrating. Blah was repeating himself a lot.

Also, do you guys ever study your villains, go over your notes, and then condense your notes afterwards from reads to exploitable plays.

Yeah I too am curious as to what kind of things Dani looks for in the other regs' play and his approach to gathering and incorporating reads.

good first video btw

You get same value from his betting for protection hands when you lead and you make him fold junk which he isn't going to bluff anyways. When sonmeone has 10% equity and he never bluffs why do you want to give him a free card so he can suck out 10% of the time? If you have a read someone delayed two barrels alot then this is a clear check but I don't have that read and will just assume when people check their range contains stuff they are giving up and stuff they are bluff catching with vs that range I think betting is the most +EV play.

Checking is higher EV only if villain is bluffing the turn with a high frequency. Most 6 max players with the exception of the really good ones do not have balanced aggression on each street. Their aggression frequency goes down each street which is an indication they are less likely to bluff later on in the hand. Vs their thin value bets you can ignore that part of their range because its the same EV betting or checking vs that part.

Glad to see that this got some good discussion going for a hand that was glossed over in the video itself. What hands have 10% equity vs us on this turn? What is the chance that those hands check the flop? How is it that you think people never bluff the ace? Maybe we play in different games. Oh wait, we don't Any ideas on the metagame implications of betting vs checking this turn? How do players react to getting checkraised if they do have Ax?

I am also interested in your thoughts on street by street aggression and that the good players have this balanced across all streets. I have not seen that to be the case but then again I could be guilty of not being able to identify a good player.

Glad to see that this got some good discussion going for a hand that was glossed over in the video itself. What hands have 10% equity vs us on this turn? What is the chance that those hands check the flop? How is it that you think people never bluff the ace? Maybe we play in different games. Oh wait, we don't Any ideas on the metagame implications of betting vs checking this turn? How do players react to getting checkraised if they do have Ax?

I am also interested in your thoughts on street by street aggression and that the good players have this balanced across all streets. I have not seen that to be the case but then again I could be guilty of not being able to identify a good player.

I think I talked enough about the AT hand already but I will answer your other questions

Good players have balanced aggression on each street for 2 reasons that I can think of.

1. They're adjusting to villains tendencies. For example if someone auto bets when check to then I will check my whole range on the flop and almost never cbet thus my aggression on the flop goes way down vs that villain. Good players understand that being aggressive is not the only way to extract value from every villain.

2. They're using position well. Blindly barrel away from flop to river just makes your early street ranges way too air heavy and easy to play back against. Good plays understand this so they will distribute some air into their turn and river betting range which allows them to have more balanced range that can both bet for thin value and as bluff on very street. This allows them to take many different lines and more creative postflop play.

Ansky: At the end of the video with A9s. You said u would flat or squeeze here as a standard which is fine since we are getting good odds to flat and its a spot to squeeze. But say if the button didnt cold call the PFR, what is your standard here? Would it still be the same or a fold mostly?

I don't know they never bluff the A, I just think it's unlikely for someone to try and rep an A. I think our definition of polarized range is different. My defintion of polarized range is when that range contains nuts or air only and nothing in between. When someone checks flop and bets turn their range is nothing polarized but contains many thin value bets/protection hands.

At lower stakes regs might be trying to rep an overcards on the turn but that play doesn't work at all at midstakes. People are more likely to call on overcards because apparently its a good barrel card and its just so hard to spike a 3 outter compared to all your other bluffs and thin value bets. Repping an overcard on the turn is just not a credible bluffs in aggressive games because it reps a very narrow value range. Think about how often someone actually checks flop then hits an A on the turn when they got a wide range preflop and 70+% cbet frequency compared to some random bluff or thin value bet.

As far as polarization, I mean their Cbet flop range is either polarized or depolarized, where a polarized cbet range checks-back all hands that have SD value but can't value bet i.e. bottom pair, Ace high etc. and all high potential hands that can't withstand a check-raise like a gut shot with a back door flush draw or two overs with a back door flush draw etc. When you consider their range for checking-back the flop, that range contains both A high and bottom pair, Ace kicker to make top pair and two pair hands on the turn that'll value bet so check flop with Ace, turn Ace, bet Ace is a delayed Cbetting strategy that's consistent with our polarized Cbetting strategy. I don't think you can actually compare the Ace to the other over cards here, because the other over cards aren't consistent with our polarized Cbetting strategy and there are more combinatorics of Aces in a 6max players range than any other overcard from pre-flop as well.

Altho' I agree the villain's turn range is a weak, depolarized range consisting of Ax, bottom pair and turned draws as a product of his flop range being a polarized range, which is why checking here is good IMO because we can check/raise the shit out of his range for either value or as a bluff depending on how he continues with his bluff catchers (or over bet lead if that's your thing). My point is tho', I think players reflexively bluff that Ace when checked with some frequency and that includes MSNL - it's a spot I really think you should reconsider and see for yourself because I've had the exact opposite impression.

I actually agree that the AT might be a check/raise

I like the idea of increasing the pot size versus Ax hands, which call twice but don't ever raise, if we c/r on the turn we can get a lot of money in. It doesn't have to be work that often for it to be the correct play.

Blah I don't think it is worth much to consider how best to play vs his 2 out hands (very hard for him to have 10% equity...) You are likely making no extra money versus those no matter what you do, unless he decides to bluff with them (which he likely only does if you check). It's also a sweet spot to have a bunch of bluffs and value c/r hands, because it is a spot where you can be very strong but he cannot, and any braindead reg would know that. Meta wise it's good to have lots of c/r hands here.

I agree.
Hope he pays attention to the action more, got a bit frustrating. Blah was repeating himself a lot.

my bad

Ansky: At the end of the video with A9s. You said u would flat or squeeze here as a standard which is fine since we are getting good odds to flat and its a spot to squeeze. But say if the button didnt cold call the PFR, what is your standard here? Would it still be the same or a fold mostly?

That might sway it more towards a 3b or fold.

It'd be better if Blah played the video at 2x speed and pausing for discussion during interesting spots instead of letting it run like you do now. Discussing hands in replayer might be more interesting than video review of Blah's play.

Blah is carbon your main site?

I actually agree that the AT might be a check/raise

I like the idea of increasing the pot size versus Ax hands, which call twice but don't ever raise, if we c/r on the turn we can get a lot of money in. It doesn't have to be work that often for it to be the correct play.

Blah I don't think it is worth much to consider how best to play vs his 2 out hands (very hard for him to have 10% equity...) You are likely making no extra money versus those no matter what you do, unless he decides to bluff with them (which he likely only does if you check). It's also a sweet spot to have a bunch of bluffs and value c/r hands, because it is a spot where you can be very strong but he cannot, and any braindead reg would know that. Meta wise it's good to have lots of c/r hands here.

check flop and then c/r the turn is something I don't do very often maybe I should add it to my arsonal and the reasons you gave make alot of sense. The reason why I don't use this play often is that when villain is bluffing turn they are usually bluffing river as well because when someone checks twice their perceived range is much weaker so villain is more likely to fire twice. If I checked this turn I'd c/c then c/r any river to get max value from people's bluffs since villain's range is top capped in this spot.

But we're checking regardless of whether or not we check/raise or check/call, yay I feel validated today. As an aside, I don't think it's horrible to lead here as long as you do it for more than pot or less than half pot, either for value or semi-bluff or as a false blocking bet inducing a raise from their air (2/5 PSB usually induces). Just leading for the standard 1/2 to 2/3 PSB lets them play perfectly, which is why I hate it.

Sigh I just made a lengthy post and everything got deleted except for the first line. Will try again.
"If you have a read someone delayed two barrels alot then this is a clear check but I don't have that read and will just assume when people check their range contains stuff they are giving up and stuff they are bluff catching with vs that range I think betting is the most +EV play. " - blah

I think that is why surf+dire disagree with blah. I think it's a pretty standard play for most stars/ft mid-high stakes players to be checking a DEpolarized (ace high as sd) range and delay cbetting a turned ace or turned 5 outer w/o reads. Whereas it doesn't seem like a standard to be that aggressive on carbon poker according to blah. (not to say 1 way is always better/more advanced or whatever)

In spite of the small sample size, I feel like carbon poker doesn't feel as tough as stars/ft 5/10. I'm basing these assumptions off of some of the things that blah mentioned as tendencies for the players he's facing. Such as not needing to put in some marginal hands in his 4-5bet range b/c there's no point when his opponents won't fold so might as well just play the top-top vs them. That sounds like a luxury that I haven't seen at that limit on stars/ft.

With that said, all the logic/thought processes are well explained and are based on sound justifications imo. Just seems like the exploitation of the player pools are different so far.

fwiw I immediately thought leading that turn card was weird and that a check was standard for hero so that he might possibly be able to get 2 streets of betting in on the turn + if villain will bluff that turn card a lot then hero can rebluff too and ofc get value when hero has it.

Time Link to 00:00:25

what is the idea behind this strange intro?

Time Link to 00:36:47

Why not call 3bet with hands like K9s or even K5s instead of 98s? In general top pair matters more in 3bet pots than a possibility of making a straight with 98s.

It'd be better if Blah played the video at 2x speed and pausing for discussion during interesting spots instead of letting it run like you do now. Discussing hands in replayer might be more interesting than video review of Blah's play.....

+1

Please pause the video when you guys are talking at length about a hand. Rewind/Fast Forward. I really enjoy listening to both of your thinking (taking notes). The thing for me is that, by the time you guys are done talking about a hand, we are 5-10min further into the video. A bit distracting. (What was the board texture again that they are talking about?)

I like the video (over replayer) as it shows the timing on villain's reactions. It was also interesting to see Carbon Poker.

Yeah I too am curious as to what kind of things Dani looks for in the other regs' play and his approach to gathering and incorporating reads.

good first video btw

Would like to know this too Ansky.

Time Link to 00:24:30

How do we play on turn when we c/c here (89 Q69r) and he keeps betting

1) On: Total Rag
2) Card that hits in the vid
3) T-J
4) Qx
5) A, K

Do you ever call 3 streets against standard betsizing?

Thanks in advance for reply cbet too much oop I think and would be lost here

Time Link to 00:59:13

can you play on Merge too Dani plz plz ?

Great video overall, I hope this is not just an 8 part series but something more longterm...Like real life NL grinder, just ending playing 500/1k HU v Ivey instead of NL200.

Also, please keep playing on the site instead of pulling replayer, it shows much better how the games have played so far as you could see in that spot when Ansky was influenced by the hand we played. Blah doesn't seem to make many notes and we would miss all that

Would like to know this too Ansky.

Can you rephrase this? I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

blah : "And what if he raises"
Ansky "Well if he raises then umm...you shoot yourself"

haha made me laugh so much

Great video, not too many interesting spots thou but I'll guess they will come!

Can you rephrase this? I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

Just curious as to what kind of things you tend to look for in the other regs' play at these stakes. A few examples of some things you see a good amount would be great!

Just curious as to what kind of things you tend to look for in the other regs' play at these stakes. A few examples of some things you see a good amount would be great!

I think your question is far too vague, I could write half a book about how to make reads on players.

I tend to classify people by how thin they valuebet, how much they value absolute hand strength, how much heart/ balls/ craziness they have, how many tables they play, things like that. Beyond that you'll have to be more specific about what you are trying to ask me.

I have'nt read all the replies so I'm not quite sure whether this point has been stated or not. Anyways, I definitely like the combination of the two of you. What I think would really help though, is to give the whole discussion a little more structure. e.g., the standard way in which a certain hand/spot should be handled should be more like: blah234 commentates on his own play, gives his reads on opponents and after that let dani explain his thoughtprocess with the information given to him. I think in this particular video, it's a little too much like ,,well i thought like this" and then ansky would say like ,,well i would do this" and then again blah234 would say like ,,oh yes but he is opening like x%" ... thats just a little too much waste of time in my eyes, since there's plenty of things to talk about, why not try and make it as effective as possible?

I do like the video a lot. Might not sound like I did, but actually I do. Thanks for doing it!

Time Link to 00:58:18

Just made it through the rest of this. Nice stuff guys. Just a little advice. I think there is a tendency for you both to talk at the same time. This happened to me when I was making the hudless videos with Mike and it can be a bit distracting. Blah, you are correct to try and verbalize your thoughts, but be careful to let Dani speak and realize that most of the viewers are tuning in for precisely that reason.

Also, just curious if the 55 is an auto fold slightly deep vs a pretty tight range. I definitely don't click the autofold as I am never folding closing the action if there is a colcaller. I am not sure if I would fold even if it is HU but it is certainly close.

Hey Blah I'm a regular in these same games and have played a ton with you in the past. I'm sure you will recognize me if I told you my screenname.If you decide to record a session in the future, can you let me know (maybe pm for skype) so i can sit with you while recording?

Also, you should consider using the "hide all-in button" settings and turning it off, misclicks are a bitch.

Time Link to 00:29:16

What about a raise here? something like 2.5x raise. he is probably going to fold 77-TT. Also you make him fold his equity share.

hh reviews over video review imo, enjoyed it thx guys!

hh reviews over video review imo, enjoyed it thx guys!

+1 on the hand history reviews. I think that would be a better format for Ansky to get into more in depth theory discussions.

hh reviews over video review imo, enjoyed it thx guys!

+2

Hope the rest is as good as this. Learning a lot from you guys. This is why i signed up. Great job (especially on first vid).

Time Link to 00:22:38

What about the times he randomly decides to Bluf Jam since we are Betting so small on the river? Isnt that a good enough excuse to check back vs possibly making a incorrect fold on the river? I know it seems weak to say , its just Ive leveled myself a few times making those small bets. Thank you.

What about the times he randomly decides to Bluf Jam since we are Betting so small on the river? Isnt that a good enough excuse to check back vs possibly making a incorrect fold on the river? I know it seems weak to say , its just Ive leveled myself a few times making those small bets. Thank you.

We're not folding if you're talking about the AK hand if we bet river. Bet small for thin value in general is a good play vs your average players but not against the very good players. Good players will not call when you rep a thin value bet and their hand is the intended target so they will shove or fold.

Time Link to 00:27:53

table 4
why don't you reisolate QJ?

table 4
why don't you reisolate QJ?

i don't see a QJ hand with the time stamp you gave

Time Link to 00:27:37

there we go with my QJ question

The guy limped seems to be like a pro short stacker, he can shove like any Ax hands in that spot and you can't bluff even if he calls. Pretty sure reraising any hand you don't want to call a shove with is -EV.

Time Link to 00:15:09

What about raising huge with the flush draw here on the turn, there is a great chance you will win the pot, and if he does have a monster, he's probably just calling and if you hit the river you can jam..

What about raising huge with the flush draw here on the turn, there is a great chance you will win the pot, and if he does have a monster, he's probably just calling and if you hit the river you can jam..

How can you assume villain will not shove on you with a made hand when you raise huge? What if you don't hit the river after you raise huge? Lose a bigger pot? bluff jam?

Bet sizing is often just a math question. You need to balance your range and your betsize so you don't end up spewing.

Time Link to 00:12:24

How can flatting with ATs be good in the blinds against a fairly tight open range from MP? I mean our toppair will often be dominated, so I don't get it really. Or has it anything to do with the fact that we plan to play back on many boards that makes you think the call pre is good?

How do we play on turn when we c/c here (89 Q69r) and he keeps betting

1) On: Total Rag
2) Card that hits in the vid
3) T-J
4) Qx
5) A, K

Do you ever call 3 streets against standard betsizing?

Thanks in advance for reply cbet too much oop I think and would be lost here

Over one year has passed and still no reply.

Anyone??

How can flatting with ATs be good in the blinds against a fairly tight open range from MP? I mean our toppair will often be dominated, so I don't get it really. Or has it anything to do with the fact that we plan to play back on many boards that makes you think the call pre is good?

we don't plan on playing fit or fold that's for sure. Domination doesn'tmatter much both players only flop the same pair about 1/8 times and we don't have to auto stack off when we hit A. Domination goes both ways. our pair of T dominates his pair of T from hands such as 9-K T has well. No sure why people think only pair of A can be dominated by pair of T can't.

Over one year has passed and still no reply.

Anyone??

We'd put him on a range and call. We can't just play the board we'd also have to play the villain so the info you gave is only half the consideration. In spots where villain will barrel with wider range we call lighter. Easy call if any back door draws come in at least on the turn.

Time Link to 00:24:15

if i was in the villians shoes would it be a good idea to check raise the river, as you are repping a marginal hand?

if i was in the villians shoes would it be a good idea to check raise the river, as you are repping a marginal hand?

no that's typical level 2 thinking and the difference between small stakes and mid to high stakes. Villain's perceived range isn't the only factor when playing vs competent opponents, we need to be on level 3 and think about our perceived range as well.

Time Link to 00:22:25

ya def squeeze the orange, ansky has solid logic, blah has beginners thinking im surprised hes playign so high, i would crush this guy if he was at my table cuz i could just check weaker hands and get to showdown, how does he not bet AK on such a board?

Time Link to 00:22:25

btw sorry if that sounds harsh blah ;P