---

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

wrong title. Its Setup Artist, not Search and Destroy

Description is wrong, too, then?

Time Link to 00:21:09

T1 AQs - do you have a 3bet calling range here OOP 200BB deep? Would you call with say 87s rather than AQs so you don't have any domination issues?

threads been drinking or something all good man party on but change the title

really like the vids

Really like this series, got a lot out of the way you talk about the hands. Makes me think about poker again instead of just grinding too many tables on auto-pilot :-)
Just one little piece of advice: in the Full Tilt software got to options -> badge display options -> my view -> display badges without links ;-)

Time Link to 00:25:44

Re. taking notes in notepad-just don't forget to copy/paste the notes into HEM during your session review so you have them next time!

T1 AQs - do you have a 3bet calling range here OOP 200BB deep? Would you call with say 87s rather than AQs so you don't have any domination issues?

I'd probably not flat either unless I think he's 3-betting me light. 87s is not really getting the implied odds there, imo. However, I would be flatting PPs for set value. AQs is more reverse implied odds. We would probably just like 1 bet to go in, unless we hit a flush - in which case he probably isn't paying off unless he smacked the flop as well. So the depth of the stack doesn't really help this particular hand.

Really like this series, got a lot out of the way you talk about the hands. Makes me think about poker again instead of just grinding too many tables on auto-pilot :-)
Just one little piece of advice: in the Full Tilt software got to options -> badge display options -> my view -> display badges without links ;-)

Firstly, thank you. I try to talk about poker in a way that is just super logical. I think the game is complicated enough as it is, so I try to do my best to make concepts as easy as they can be.

Secondly, that's so helpful. I actually specifically ask for that piece of advice in the next episode. It will be particularly funny now that I actually end up saying in Episode "I wonder if this is what makes that pop up... " and I click it like 5 times! Epic fail. I'll fix that the next time I log on so it won't be an issue after Episode 3.

Time Link to 00:15:37

Love the series!!!

You say here that with 44 UTG we want to be raising when there are bad loose players in front of us that will be calling. This is only for when we are in position correct? I understand this if the player is a loose calling station, because he will be folding a lot when he doesn't hit and paying off when we both hit. It seems like OOP this would be the opposite, i.t. we should be calling in middle position with 44 vs an UTG raise if the player is super tight but not if they are super loose. The idea being we are getting paid off a lot more money when we hit a set because he will have a really strong hand more often. Against a LAG raise we will be missing the flop most of the time and have to fold to c bets and barrels and when we do hit a set he won't have anything to pay us off with very often. Is this correct? Should we consider the playability of a setmining hand much stronger against loose players when we are in position and weaker when we are OOP and vice versa against TAG's?

As far as the other two major groups of players in this spot:
against a loose passive we want to be playing in position and not OOP and against a tight passive we want to be playing OOP not in position, or if we do play in position we want to be check folding on more flops because they will be calling multi streets but its worth raising pf because he has a very tight range. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

Time Link to 00:26:41

Here is how often I was 3 bet for 25NL 6Max over 110,000 hand sample

% I was 3 bet as initial raiser

Cutoff 15.4%
Button 14.3%
From SB 8%
From BB 1.6%

Total (all combined) = 12.3%

As an example of our mind playing tricks on us, while playing I could have sworn I was getting 3 bet when stealing from the SB a lot more than anywhere else because I thought it seemed weak.....

Love the series!!!

You say here that with 44 UTG we want to be raising when there are bad loose players in front of us that will be calling. This is only for when we are in position correct? I understand this if the player is a loose calling station, because he will be folding a lot when he doesn't hit and paying off when we both hit. It seems like OOP this would be the opposite, i.t. we should be calling in middle position with 44 vs an UTG raise if the player is super tight but not if they are super loose. The idea being we are getting paid off a lot more money when we hit a set because he will have a really strong hand more often. Against a LAG raise we will be missing the flop most of the time and have to fold to c bets and barrels and when we do hit a set he won't have anything to pay us off with very often. Is this correct? Should we consider the playability of a setmining hand much stronger against loose players when we are in position and weaker when we are OOP and vice versa against TAG's?

The key factor is: "are they going to be paying off frequently when we flop sets?" Playing to flop a set vs a 30/10's raise is profitable, as is playing vs a 30/27's. The thing is that 30/27's will probably bluff a lot more post-flop in bad spots so we win money from them when they don't have anything. Loose passives may not bluff too much, but they won't get away from their hands when they should. Playing OOP is not too big of a deal because bad players don't use their position well. We'd certainly rather be IP vs a bad player, of course, but a set vs them is pretty golden regardless.



Now, if you're talking about playing against a decent player then you'd rather set mine vs the tight range - for sure. However, it's still going to be profitable to call with PPs vs a wide LP raise from a TAG because what we want to do vs him is bluff and bluff-catch. Sets are amazing bluff-catching hands. Just don't raise!

As far as the other two major groups of players in this spot:
against a loose passive we want to be playing in position and not OOP and against a tight passive we want to be playing OOP not in position, or if we do play in position we want to be check folding on more flops because they will be calling multi streets but its worth raising pf because he has a very tight range. (Correct me if I'm wrong!)

I think you pretty much always want to be IP if you get to choose.

I think you might be over-thinking it a little bit. Just look at it this way: If a bad player is paying off 100bb very often when you flop a set, then you want to try to flop as many sets as possible when the price is right.

Time Link to 00:07:37

What about bet folding this turn to get value from his worse 9s and worse 2 pairs? and possibly 1010 if he limp called that pre.

What about bet folding this turn to get value from his worse 9s and worse 2 pairs? and possibly 1010 if he limp called that pre.

I didn't have any reason to think that he was particularly bad, so then I end up in a spot on the river where I feel like I have too thin of a value bet and not enough of a hand to c/c (won't v-bet worse, doesn't have bluffs). So, I have to c/f river. Obviously that's not terrible but I think we probably get cleaner value by just checking turn and betting river.

Another nice vid, looking forward to the next.

Sick read in your KK utg vs. btn 3bet. I'm still feeling my way around the difference in 3betting ranges against positional ranges in FR vs. 6max, what kind of range (in a vacuum) am I expecting a 16/14 to 3bet on the btn vs. an utg open? KK+/AKs?

Another nice vid, looking forward to the next.

Sick read in your KK utg vs. btn 3bet. I'm still feeling my way around the difference in 3betting ranges against positional ranges in FR vs. 6max, what kind of range (in a vacuum) am I expecting a 16/14 to 3bet on the btn vs. an utg open? KK+/AKs?

Yeah, probably QQ as well. Maybe JJ. He might also throw in a bluff now and then.

Time Link to 00:43:48

Table 1

Hi, nice series.

Why the 2º Barrel against the loose player? It isn't a bit spew? ty

Table 1

Hi, nice series.

Why the 2º Barrel against the loose player? It isn't a bit spew? ty

I think it's ok. Loose players make it to the turn with all sorts of garbage so when we fire a second barrel that doesn't mean he has to fold something good for the barrel to be +EV. We get him to fold a lot of gut-shots, A-high, maybe some BPs, and he also will call with a lot of OESD's and FDs that we get value against. So, our equity isn't terrible here when we get called.

We also have to compare to EV of betting to the EV of checking. It's true that a lot of the stuff we get to fold by betting the turn is playing correctly as we are ahead of it. However, if we check a lot of that stuff that we "beat" will bet into us on the river and we can end up having a tough time calling. If we had a read that he's particularly bluff happy we could check back to induce, or that he doesn't value bet a lot of hands, but without that I think we make our opponent accidentally be bluffing at such a frequency such that he's playing pretty unexploitably. If that's the case, we can't choose the highest +EV play. If we can't do that, we can't beat our opponent in that spot. So, part of the turn bet is to avoid a bad river situation where we can't play well. It's to stop us from getting bluffed/stops opponent from playing his range on well on the river such that we (not villain) just make mistakes.

Time Link to 00:07:50

Do you think that the opponent has a lot of 6x in his range for limp/calling preflop? Seems like he should expect you to have lots of big cards given your line preflop - I think betting here looks pretty bluffy and could cause him to spaz out.

Do you think that the opponent has a lot of 6x in his range for limp/calling preflop? Seems like he should expect you to have lots of big cards given your line preflop - I think betting here looks pretty bluffy and could cause him to spaz out.

In my experience a lot of players won't turn hands into bluffs even if I were to check to him so by that logic I don't expect him to bluff-raise when facing aggression either. I think a bluff would be less than 10% of his raising range.

Time Link to 00:20:54

Do you make the call there with out 2 pair? You said you were committed do you still feel this way after the shove?

Do you make the call there with out 2 pair? You said you were committed do you still feel this way after the shove?

Yeah, my two-pair range is likely stuff like QQ-TT(only 7x may be stuff like A7s that I may just flat pre) and I'd be playing them the same way. I think he could just be spazzing pretty often.

Time Link to 00:01:15

Isn't that call with ATs a little bit loose? Since villain has just 40bb, which gives us less maneuverability postflop + we don't know anything about him...

Time Link to 00:08:40

I guess if the river would have been a blank you would check again and fold if he bets, unless he bets small, right?

To sum up why you choose to x/r on river: You did x/r, the river because his betting range is most likely equal to his calling range, and if you x/r you can get more money into the pot, right? And if he checks back, he mostly lilkely would have folded anyway to a bet...

Isn't that call with ATs a little bit loose? Since villain has just 40bb, which gives us less maneuverability postflop + we don't know anything about him...

I think it's fine. I just think it's a good enough hand for the situation. He's opening from the HJ. ATs is a pretty good hand. I'd only not call vs a really tight range or if I had a position issue. We're in the CO, though.

I guess if the river would have been a blank you would check again and fold if he bets, unless he bets small, right?

To sum up why you choose to x/r on river: You did x/r, the river because his betting range is most likely equal to his calling range, and if you x/r you can get more money into the pot, right? And if he checks back, he mostly lilkely would have folded anyway to a bet...

Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, that's pretty much it, and I may induce a bluff. If I donk and he has a straight he may just flat, but he'll call a c/r.

Ok thank you for you answers

Time Link to 00:36:24

Do you think that we can fold on turn if he would have bet bigger?

Also, how would you have played the hand if it was a Jxxxx board with the same action?

At around : 0:39:30:

You say if he bets again on river, he most likely just has a value range, because players at these limits are not aggressive enough to 3-barrel as a bluff and espcially not in 3-bet pots, and his value range has us beaten. Do you see any merit in donking the river, because we can get called by AQ, which he would check back most likely after betting two streets? Or do you think this is too thin, because AQ would be the only worse hand that potentially bets two streets and might call a bet on river, and we can't even say that AQ is in his 3-betting range after we opponent from UTG.

Do you think that we can fold on turn if he would have bet bigger?

Also, how would you have played the hand if it was a Jxxxx board with the same action?

At around : 0:39:30:

You say if he bets again on river, he most likely just has a value range, because players at these limits are not aggressive enough to 3-barrel as a bluff and espcially not in 3-bet pots, and his value range has us beaten. Do you see any merit in donking the river, because we can get called by AQ, which he would check back most likely after betting two streets? Or do you think this is too thin, because AQ would be the only worse hand that potentially bets two streets and might call a bet on river, and we can't even say that AQ is in his 3-betting range after we opponent from UTG.

Probably just fold if he bets something greater than 2/3's. I just don't think we have enough equity to continue, and we need a decent amount once he starts betting that big given the reverse implied odds and we aren't auto-getting to showdown.

I think the hand is very similar on a J high flop.

I don't think he has AQ often enough to make donking the river a good plan. I think we're value-towning ourselves too much.

Probably just fold if he bets something greater than 2/3's. I just don't think we have enough equity to continue, and we need a decent amount once he starts betting that big given the reverse implied odds and we aren't auto-getting to showdown.

I think the hand is very similar on a J high flop.

I don't think he has AQ often enough to make donking the river a good plan. I think we're value-towning ourselves too much.

Thanks again for your reply!

Why is it very similar on a J-high board? We would be ahead of QQ now...

Thanks again for your reply!

Why is it very similar on a J-high board? We would be ahead of QQ now...

Yeah, but I don't think he usually plays QQ this fast. That's somewhat mitigated by the times he plays AQ this was on a Q-high board.

Probably just fold if he bets something greater than 2/3's. I just don't think we have enough equity to continue, and we need a decent amount once he starts betting that big given the reverse implied odds and we aren't auto-getting to showdown.

I think the hand is very similar on a J high flop.

I don't think he has AQ often enough to make donking the river a good plan. I think we're value-towning ourselves too much.

So do you think his range for betting twice on QXXtt is like QQ+ and a few very rare bluff/AQ combos? And on Jxx, KK+ and a few very rare bluff/QQ combos?

So do you think his range for betting twice on QXXtt is like QQ+ and a few very rare bluff/AQ combos? And on Jxx, KK+ and a few very rare bluff/QQ combos?

Yes, something along those lines. I'd say he's more likely to bet TPTK than bluffs.

Take the Qxxs

If I had to put a number on it....

Betting turn frequency:
QQ = 95%
AA = 80%
KK = 80%
AQ = 30%
AK (FD) = 90%
AK (non FD) = 20%

Something along those lines. With those weights it might even be a fold with KK. Another thing is that I'd weight his 3-bet with AQ lower than AA. Basically all the hands we want him to be barreling are the hands that getting weighted down. The hands that beat us are the most likely to play this way.

If you're interested I can run the math on that with those weights. He has a small range so it would only take a few minutes.

Yeah, looking at those weights without crunching the numbers, my gut tells me the turn is very close, maybe a fold. It's up to you if you wanna do that math.

Another question - how do you expect him to react to a 4bet preflop when he has QQ and AK, and how do you think we should weight those hands in his preflop 3bet range compared to KK/AA?

Yeah, looking at those weights without crunching the numbers, my gut tells me the turn is very close, maybe a fold. It's up to you if you wanna do that math.

Another question - how do you expect him to react to a 4bet preflop when he has QQ and AK, and how do you think we should weight those hands in his preflop 3bet range compared to KK/AA?

I'll plug some numbers in soon... if you don't see me do this in a week I've totally spaced it... Knowing myself, that is 2:1 to happen so if I forget, shoot me a PM or something

I honestly think 3-betting those vs me is a mistake in the first place, but give my image I expect him to just get them in. Usually that means 5-bet shove, but they also may get into a mindset of "it's not good enough to shove, and it's too good to fold, so I call". I don't expect them to 3-bet/fold them, though (but I guess you never know what a guy folds, right?). That's kind of just how people play against me. They start 3-betting me wide for value in spots that aren't really good to do that.

For example, pretty recently I played a hand where I was slightly deep and raised UTG+1 in a FR game. An aggro reg (17/14 type) 3-bets me from the CO or HJ. I 4-bet to about 26. He flats. Flop comes Kxx. I c-bet he snap calls. Turn is a brick. At this point I have less than a PSB left and I ship it in. He snap calls AK. I think it's a pretty big mistake for him on pretty much every decision point. There wasn't any history of note (if there was, I was unaware of it ).

So, I mostly just 4-bet my AA in these situations. Vs an aggro reg I would mostly 4-bet KK. However, since I do flat with a few hands in these spots, it's good to be able to fill out my range with some nutty stuff so that my range isn't limited.


This all this could change based on recent history and game flow. If I've 4-bet him a few times recently I'm more likely to 4-bet my AA, for example.

So, I mostly just 4-bet my AA in these situations. Vs an aggro reg I would mostly 4-bet KK. However, since I do flat with a few hands in these spots, it's good to be able to fill out my range with some nutty stuff so that my range isn't limited.
.

What other hands would you be flatting with here? pp's to set-mine? AK that you didn't want to fold but didn't want to 4bet?

But yeah, with the KK then if you don't expect him to be folding QQ/AK preflop, and if we ignore any balance considerations (like the one from above), wouldn't 4betting seem like the highest EV since we aren't expecting him to be bluffing or thin value betting with QQ much post-flop?

I did it now so that I couldn't forget.

By my math I got about 35% equity on the turn so it should be a fold on the turn instead of c/c then c/f. I think we need well more than 35% equity to make a call.

If you have him barreling the turn with AQ about 60% of the time it only gets you up to about 42% equity, which I think is both optimistic and steal not good enough.

Time Link to 00:29:13

I don't really get why you want to c/bet the JT into 2 players OOP on a flop of this texture. It seems like it will hit a lot of their range, and bad players don't fold much. Yeah we have a gutshot, but I don't like c/betting this flop knowing that double-barrel bluffing call happy fish on Axx boards is not normally a winning strategy.

Just seems like a standard c/f spot on the flop.

Please could you explain a bit more why you like a c/bet here?

Time Link to 00:52:26

I don't get why you don't c/bet this flop with the A4. It's not like we have much SDV, and a bet on this flop texture is going to get him to fold his small PPs a lot of the time. King high flops are usually the nuts for c/bet bluffs IP, I guess I'd prefer it to be slightly drier, but even so, still looks like a spot where we have a ton of FE with a c/bet.

Please could you explain why you don't c/bet here, because it looks like a super standard c/bet spot to me unless I'm missing something.

I don't really get why you want to c/bet the JT into 2 players OOP on a flop of this texture. It seems like it will hit a lot of their range, and bad players don't fold much. Yeah we have a gutshot, but I don't like c/betting this flop knowing that double-barrel bluffing call happy fish on Axx boards is not normally a winning strategy.

Just seems like a standard c/f spot on the flop.

Please could you explain a bit more why you like a c/bet here?

I agree that of flops to c-bets, an A-high flop will hit their range a little bit more than normal. I wouldn't necessarily say it hits their range a lot, though. By pure definition of them being loose,, flops don't really hit their range a lot.

I think when you combine our ability to hit the nuts on the turn, and get a fold on a flop, then a c-bet is fine. It's close. I wouldn't hate a c/f, but I certainly don't think a bet is bad.

I don't get why you don't c/bet this flop with the A4. It's not like we have much SDV, and a bet on this flop texture is going to get him to fold his small PPs a lot of the time. King high flops are usually the nuts for c/bet bluffs IP, I guess I'd prefer it to be slightly drier, but even so, still looks like a spot where we have a ton of FE with a c/bet.

Please could you explain why you don't c/bet here, because it looks like a super standard c/bet spot to me unless I'm missing something.

Now there's a flop that hits 30-40% pre-flop ranges. Ranges like that contain a lot of two-broadway hands.

I'm not so sure a guy like this is necessarily folding a small PP. So, what we are trying to achieve by betting the flop is getting him to fold an airball like two-unpaired cards that don't contain straight draws. We also are unlikely to run a 2-barrel with this sort of hand, so we are trying to choose when to put our one bluff in. We can get all of that to fold on the turn if we check and then bet the turn. The only problem with this is we may induce a bluff, and give him a chance to hit. So, if he's passive then this play is better. The idea is to make the bluff on the turn with a little more information because we think he'd often bet his Kx type hands on the turn, and then we can just fold. So, instead of betting having no idea if he has a K. We can check and bet the turn when we think he has a lot less Ks. Also, if a bad turn card rolls off then we can just check our A-high down.

I think it's a mistake to say we have a ton of FE on this flop. I'd estimate it's more in the ~35% range. If you think that's incorrect then double-check me on Combonator or Flopzilla. We can compare numbers if you'd like. This is a pretty good board on which to use a delayed c-bet.