---

Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by DosXX (Mid Stakes)

Just want to reiterate, I'm looking for hands from the community for next week's video. I am looking for hands where we are in the CO or on the button, almost any dynamic will work. Please indicate stats/reads on relevant players. No guarantees I will use your hand, it depends how many I get, but it won't get reviewed unless you send it. Please limit your hands to 2 so I don't have to sort through a ton. PM or hit me up on skype: dosxxpoker.

Time Link to 00:22:58

I think that this flop is player dependant in terms of CR vs C/C. Vs a good who is loose and SD bound I think CR is better. It is better because he will NOT fold made hands like 66-JJ and is unlikely to get out of line later streets. This board is wet and will cause some players to want to SD on a non diamond turn and riv. I think if the flop was AQ5o, then c/c is far superior play since there are less draws and dudes that are SD bound can fold their 66-JJ.

Time Link to 00:33:55

Can you explain your point more thoroughly about capping preflop to make the reg play more honest? With the short fish in the pot wouldn't the pot be protected postflop, anyway?
Or is this a limit thing I'm missing, I'm not much of a limit player.

Can you explain your point more thoroughly about capping preflop to make the reg play more honest? With the short fish in the pot wouldn't the pot be protected postflop, anyway?
Or is this a limit thing I'm missing, I'm not much of a limit player.

Well, I would say the pot won't be protected *that much* postflop, because the fish's range is so wide, that the other player can still semibluff raise to try and get it HU with the fish with a weaker range than normal, it's actually somewhat of an incentive for the other player to fold out my range and get it HU on the flop. That's specifically to your protected pot point.

Typically, when players 4bet they are given more respect postflop because ranges are so much more narrow and showdown bound compared to a typical fish isolation play and then calling the other player's 3 bet (our range becomes less strong and less able to showdown). It's one of the reasons we can 4bet, because sometimes investing that extra small bet will let us win the whole pot when someone misreads our range as stronger than it is and doesn't bluff is off the pot.

Yes, the concept of misrepresenting the range and to get initiative is pretty clear, that's not really my question. I'm wondering how the short fish in the hand changes the whole game (if at all) and how you could be bluffed off the best hand/draw when there are so many bets in the pot already.

Give an example of a case please where you would be bluffed off the best hand/draw. Maybe on a board of AK7 where he has 88 and cb?
I still can't really wrap my head around this, say with 10,5 small bets on the flop wouldn't you be able to draw to most stuff unless the fish donks and you might be afraid of getting trapped or if he cr. Maybe let's just assume the fish will already be allin on the flop (like in this case, basically, duh).

It's less about being bluffed off the best hand per se, and more about being bluffed off equity when we can't really call. So the AK7 example is pretty good, since we could easily have 6 clean outs in that scenario against both players. Another example would be if he decides to get frisky on some turns lets say we c/call twice on a board of J96Q and he bets a 2 on the river. Normally, I think we'd probably have to fold that hand given the action and the all-in player, but we can get bluffed (by 88, by AK), because the button bets for whatever reason (maybe expert, maybe spew) and gets us to fold the best hand in the pot.

We could also be put in some bad situations when we c/r the flop and the button decides to raise the turn. Lets say we c/r the flop on a 44T board then bet a K turn, if he raises, we probably have to fold, but he could occasionally have something spazzy like AQ/AJ and win the pot with is play. Now, when we 4bet, I think we eliminate the majority of those situations. Remember, it's probably more about having the initiative on the flop/turn and getting our opponent to fold equity, that's really the more common scenario.

Something else is that we can check back the turn sometimes when we're in position, saving half a bet when drawing with no fold equity/value (4 sb pf, 1 sb flop, 0 turn = 5) as opposed to not capping pre (3 sb pf, 1 sb flop, 2 sb turn = 6)

I think it's also useful for widening and balancing your range a bit without giving up much.

Time Link to 00:02:11

You say he has AK,TT+ by default. Against that range, an ace on the river is a very good card after the K high flop. It reduces AA from 6 to 3 and AK from 12 to 9 combination. You win here around 40% if he bets his entire range. (I know, why would he, but he had 5BB)

You say he has AK,TT+ by default. Against that range, an ace on the river is a very good card after the K high flop. It reduces AA from 6 to 3 and AK from 12 to 9 combination. You win here around 40% if he bets his entire range. (I know, why would he, but he had 5BB)

Yes thanks for adding some math into the river call. It's definitely close because no normal villain bets his entire range, but as you mention, he has 5 BBs so maybe he gets a little spastic. Also, if we add in a few combos of things like QJs or TJs preflop, we extend his barreling range to the river quite a bit so our call becomes much easier.

Time Link to 00:25:44

wondering how you would answer this multiple choice question and would welcome any elaboration:

The difference between a 6 max game and 9 max game where the first three players have folded is:

A: None at all

B: Very little

C: Small but something you should pay attention too

D: Large and something you should think a lot about

E: So large that good six max players would have to make major adjustments

Time Link to 00:59:32

so if you have, say, 89 of hearts in this same situation do you respazz ever?

wondering how you would answer this multiple choice question and would welcome any elaboration:

The difference between a 6 max game and 9 max game where the first three players have folded is:

A: None at all

B: Very little

C: Small but something you should pay attention too

D: Large and something you should think a lot about

E: So large that good six max players would have to make major adjustments

Probably C, leaning towards D over B though.

The game is still fundamentally about ranges. I just think ranges change after the first 3 positions in a full ring game compared to a 6 max game.

so if you have, say, 89 of hearts in this same situation do you respazz ever?

Probably not 89 hearts, but I think my combo straight/flush draws are better candidates.

Probably not 89 hearts, but I think my combo straight/flush draws are better candidates.

Okay, so this is probably a spot where I, on occasion, take a different tack with the 89 for better of for worse because when I pinpoint a read such as, "I just don't believe his story" aka he's bluffing my next logical leap is that this pot is MINE for the taking, not his. However, I also know there is a fine line between "playing back" and "spewing" so I'm looking to refine my reactions to some of these reads.

Now, I know that what you're basing your read on is the polarity of his range, not a stone cold soul read where you're like 95% sure, but if his range is actually polarized right down the middle it seems like youre getting the right price to either 3 bet the turn or raise a safeish river. Now, if I'm wrong about this (and I'm slightly leaning toward being wrong but not quite sure why) then that seems to mean that I am either overconfident in my read or the price actually isn't right for such a play. So my question is: When you catch this guy on this board telling a story that just doesn't make sense, why not just rebluff with all your weak draws and air?

Probably C, leaning towards D over B though.

The game is still fundamentally about ranges. I just think ranges change after the first 3 positions in a full ring game compared to a 6 max game.

I agree and would probably put my answer squarely on C. Now the question is why. I can't think of any way they would be different except for the players that gravitate to each one. For example, if 9 six max regs (strong and weak regs alike) all jumped together into a 9 max game and then the first 3 players folded, the remaining players would now be playing a pure, unadulterated six max hand. Do you agree?

By the way, the reason this concerns me a bit is that nowadays I play mostly live full ring but for game starting purposes I like to be able to convince those players who "don't like shorthanded" that they, in fact, play shorthanded poker on a fairly regular basis. Not that it will do a whole lot of good necessarily but I would like to have my shit straight nevertheless. Thanks for this whole series by the way.

I agree and would probably put my answer squarely on C. Now the question is why. I can't think of any way they would be different except for the players that gravitate to each one. For example, if 9 six max regs (strong and weak regs alike) all jumped together into a 9 max game and then the first 3 players folded, the remaining players would now be playing a pure, unadulterated six max hand. Do you agree?

By the way, the reason this concerns me a bit is that nowadays I play mostly live full ring but for game starting purposes I like to be able to convince those players who "don't like shorthanded" that they, in fact, play shorthanded poker on a fairly regular basis. Not that it will do a whole lot of good necessarily but I would like to have my shit straight nevertheless. Thanks for this whole series by the way.

Yes I agree with your statement. Some players tend to just be more comfortable at a 9 handed game and they tend to approach the game differently than players who are comfortable at a shorthanded game. Good luck trying to convince anyone to start short though!

Okay, so this is probably a spot where I, on occasion, take a different tack with the 89 for better of for worse because when I pinpoint a read such as, "I just don't believe his story" aka he's bluffing my next logical leap is that this pot is MINE for the taking, not his. However, I also know there is a fine line between "playing back" and "spewing" so I'm looking to refine my reactions to some of these reads.

Now, I know that what you're basing your read on is the polarity of his range, not a stone cold soul read where you're like 95% sure, but if his range is actually polarized right down the middle it seems like youre getting the right price to either 3 bet the turn or raise a safeish river. Now, if I'm wrong about this (and I'm slightly leaning toward being wrong but not quite sure why) then that seems to mean that I am either overconfident in my read or the price actually isn't right for such a play. So my question is: When you catch this guy on this board telling a story that just doesn't make sense, why not just rebluff with all your weak draws and air?

I guess my answer would be that just rebluffing all my air and weak draws makes me the one whose story doesn't get believed. Do you see what I mean? We still need to be judicious with our bluffs, otherwise it becomes really easy to play against US.

I guess my answer would be that just rebluffing all my air and weak draws makes me the one whose story doesn't get believed. Do you see what I mean? We still need to be judicious with our bluffs, otherwise it becomes really easy to play against US.

I do see what you mean. There is a point at which I become the one spewing. By the way, I just played a hand yesterday and had this discussion running through my head. I just posted it in the forum if you're interested http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/1-Mid-High-Stakes-Limit-Hold-em/topics/550451-KJ-turns-flush-draw-bets-