---

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

Is it Blah1234 as Donny says in the intro, or Blah234 as in the heading?

that AA hand is an automatic raise on the turn for me, c/c donk turn is almost never a strong hand especially here on a 7 that cant really improved his hand; that line is 95% a flush draw or pair+str8 draw so RAISE this turn!!

Time Link to 00:09:13

Is this really a "standard" call against a UTG opener as CO?

Time Link to 00:17:49

Hi guys,

If you were villain (EVConsultant) and you had 8 9 facing Blah's c-bet, do your prefer floating or raising and why?

-Thanks.

Time Link to 00:35:13

Hey guys,

Ansky is discussing the merit of villain calling a 3-bet with 77 in this situation. If we are calling a 3-bet in position with 77+, what stops us from calling with 66-22? from what I've seen most opponents will be calling with 77-99 in the blinds instead of 3-betting, so flatting with a hand like 55 isn't going to much different then flatting 77 right? I guess 77 would have more SD value vs. 22-66 which some villains would 3-bet bluff. Also if we flat with 77 we are going to be folding a shit ton of flops anyhow, possibly almost the same amount as if we flatted 22. Like if the flop comes 843, 22 seems to have almost as much value as 77 in this situation.

Ummm, Ansky answered my question about flatting with smaller pockets, disregard, thanks.

Is this really a "standard" call against a UTG opener as CO?

I'd say so, I'm usually calling a 3 bet with ATs so why not call vs a reasonable UTG open.

Is it Blah1234 as Donny says in the intro, or Blah234 as in the heading?

It's blah234.

I'd say so, I'm usually calling a 3 bet with ATs so why not call vs a reasonable UTG open.

but those are 2 different situations. the player in that hand was playing like 20/16, and I think that he has a prety tight UTG opening range (and I would assume that a lot of tight players go that way).

I think there are 3 other relevant points:
1.) we are CO, so there are 3 players behind us that might squeeze
2.) depending on the range someone opens/3b us, we don't flush over flush him that often (not that important, but something we need to think about)
3.) against a UTG opening range we have like close to all the time a hand we mostly can only go for 2 streets of value, and those times we are in calling-mode

Adding this all up, I don't really see how we can profitable call, unless villain is really bad

but those are 2 different situations. the player in that hand was playing like 20/16, and I think that he has a prety tight UTG opening range (and I would assume that a lot of tight players go that way).

I think there are 3 other relevant points:
1.) we are CO, so there are 3 players behind us that might squeeze
2.) depending on the range someone opens/3b us, we don't flush over flush him that often (not that important, but something we need to think about)
3.) against a UTG opening range we have like close to all the time a hand we mostly can only go for 2 streets of value, and those times we are in calling-mode

Adding this all up, I don't really see how we can profitable call, unless villain is really bad

1. ATs is a reasonable hand to call a squeeze from someone that squeeze a reasonable freqency and if they're not just fold.

2. we don't play poker to try and cooler other people otherwise the fishes would be winning with limp calling and playing fit or fold. Not overflushing someone shouldn't be a consideration

3. Most hands we play we don't want to stackk off. if we can get 2 streets of value that's great for your average hand. Think about if you have average win rate of 8bb/100 so each hand on average only wins .08BB. I can play for stacks when I do hit a flush or a nut straight. We open like 25% of our hands and most of the time we don't want to play for stacks.

Is it Blah1234 as Donny says in the intro, or Blah234 as in the heading?

I also think it is Dani. (pronounced how you spelt it) He shall be mad!

1. ATs is a reasonable hand to call a squeeze from someone that squeeze a reasonable freqency and if they're not just fold.

calling preflop 2 times is tough to get +ev (and if I see someone doing it, I snapnote that), even we might have a small edge on the player that squeezed. and for every time we fold, we loose 3bb of our winrate (or 4bb depending on the opening) which we need to win at least by calling the UTG opening.

2. we don't play poker to try and cooler other people otherwise the fishes would be winning with limp calling and playing fit or fold. Not overflushing someone shouldn't be a consideration

well obv is obv but you didnt get my point there. we have some limited options. if CO opens and we are on the button and call, he can have way more flushdraws/flushes that we dominate which brings a lot of value to a hand like Axs

like I said, we shouldn't overrate this, but to say it is not important isn't true

3. Most hands we play we don't want to stackk off.

right, we play them because we think/know that is it +ev to play them, and this is where the problem is!

if we can get 2 streets of value that's great for your average hand.

we don't get 2 streets of value on average! at best we get 1 street of value on average, and I think that is pretty optimistic, because I don't believe we make that much money if we even get to the flop

Think about if you have average win rate of 8bb/100 so each hand on average only wins .08BB. I can play for stacks when I do hit a flush or a nut straight. We open like 25% of our hands and most of the time we don't want to play for stacks.

Out of 100 hands we play like let's say 25% of our hands, so we play 25 hands, and on average we win 0,32bb on a 8bb/100 winrate. If you would count the times in, when we fold SB/BB it would be more complicated, but what we actually win comes from the hands we play, so we need to win a good amount on average with those hands.

So like I said, I don't see where the value should come from by calling with ATs as CO vs an UTG opening. And calling vs a 3b is a complete different story, so that's not really an argument for doing it. If you are MP and BTN 3b you, you don't call with 33, but if you are CO and UTG opens, you call with it, just to make an example, why it is not the same

It's fine if you don't don't think you can turn a profit flatting ATs, feel free to fold that hand if you don't think you can make the situation +EV. It's villain and player dependent.

Time Link to 00:30:56

I am no sure how cool it is to talk about certain players so I won't say much other than to prompt you. You called this guy a "station" several times in the prior hand vs him, yet you then elect to try and triple barrel him with A high on a board that is much more likely to hit a coldcallers range. What specific stats or situations are you using to build you read?

Time Link to 00:08:13

I agree that donking the turn is definitely bad play but in general doesn't c/calling twice on this kind of very wet board put our range face up as something like JJ, T9s, ATs, QJs? So the best what we can have here is top pair with medium kicker. Doesn't it left us prone to being barreled out of our holding?

Thanks for response

Is it Blah1234 as Donny says in the intro, or Blah234 as in the heading?

Dani* and I'm not sure.

I am no sure how cool it is to talk about certain players so I won't say much other than to prompt you. You called this guy a "station" several times in the prior hand vs him, yet you then elect to try and triple barrel him with A high on a board that is much more likely to hit a coldcallers range. What specific stats or situations are you using to build you read?

When you see someone call down with a hand that's near the bottom of their range you can know tha the calls too much. In this spot I figured because I have 25% equity vs his calling range and combined with the fact that there's a bad player in the pot should make my FE higher when I triple barrel. It's certainly a close spot between triple barrelling or c/fing the flop, but once we start betting the flop I think we're commited to triple barrel on alot of turn or river cards.

I agree that donking the turn is definitely bad play but in general doesn't c/calling twice on this kind of very wet board put our range face up as something like JJ, T9s, ATs, QJs? So the best what we can have here is top pair with medium kicker. Doesn't it left us prone to being barreled out of our holding?

Thanks for response

If you think someone barrel's too much then you can expand your calling range. No one says you must fold any kind of hand by the river. You just need to call with the top x% of your range to make their bluffs 0EV and you're not exploitable vs a good player.

Time Link to 00:36:57

I brought this up before and it wasn't discussed so i will try again. How is it that you came to the conclusion that pocket pairs are not profitable in 3 bet pots?

Ansky seems very irritable/impatient this episode

Good strategic content though!

Ansky, At 23:33 you say "bet 120 and jam river" Where the pot will be 400 if he calls the turn bet and our stack will be 260 on the river. Do you think betting something like 90 would be slightly better so we have more fold equity on river?

I brought this up before and it wasn't discussed so i will try again. How is it that you came to the conclusion that pocket pairs are not profitable in 3 bet pots?

I could be wrong on this and ansky disagrees in the video but here's my throughts on mid pp in 3 bet pots.

When you're bluff catching vs a decent player you just fold bottom x% of your range on each street usually unless you have a read that certain player becomes too honest on a later street. PP never improves when behind so I rather have hands like 2 big cards or suited cards which can flop better bluff catchers or improve with 6-9 outs on later streets vs 2 outter. I never thought I needed mid pp in my bluff catching range. Ansky made a good point though and you shouldn't only 4 bet and stick it in or fold. if someone is polarized with their 3 betting range the calling and bluff catching is fine.

I could be wrong on this and ansky disagrees in the video but here's my throughts on mid pp in 3 bet pots.

When you're bluff catching vs a decent player you just fold bottom x% of your range on each street usually unless you have a read that certain player becomes too honest on a later street. PP never improves when behind so I rather have hands like 2 big cards or suited cards which can flop better bluff catchers or improve with 6-9 outs on later streets vs 2 outter. I never thought I needed mid pp in my bluff catching range. Ansky made a good point though and you shouldn't only 4 bet and stick it in or fold. if someone is polarized with their 3 betting range the calling and bluff catching is fine.

While I don't disagree with your theoretical explanation as to why it might be unprofitable, I was hoping you might look into the actual results using yours or another large database. I am sure that postflop play will creep in to some extent but give it a try and post a screen shot if you can.

RE: ATs - I'd think this call is completely dependent on table dynamics. I can certainly see a ton of spots this is a +ev call.

Ideal situation would be -
*UTG raiser is someone we have a skill advantage on and a solid grasp of their EP opening range and postflop tendencies.
*BU is tight/non-sqzy so we usually will have position on all remaining players.
*Tight regs in the blinds that don't sqz much vs EP.
*Deep stacks (increases skill and positional advantages, increases implied odds of ATs)

Obviously most situations won't be this perfect, but some strong combination of these factors makes ATs an easy call. I think it would be more unusual to have a dynamic where you DON'T call ATs here.

lol wtf, ATs is a snap call MP vs UTG and PPs in 3bet pots are fine, can we discuss shit that matters?

lol wtf, ATs is a snap call MP vs UTG and PPs in 3bet pots are fine, can we discuss shit that matters?

Maybe you can kick it off?

lol wtf, ATs is a snap call MP vs UTG and PPs in 3bet pots are fine, can we discuss shit that matters?

This dude must be pro

Hey guys,

Ansky is discussing the merit of villain calling a 3-bet with 77 in this situation. If we are calling a 3-bet in position with 77+, what stops us from calling with 66-22? from what I've seen most opponents will be calling with 77-99 in the blinds instead of 3-betting, so flatting with a hand like 55 isn't going to much different then flatting 77 right? I guess 77 would have more SD value vs. 22-66 which some villains would 3-bet bluff. Also if we flat with 77 we are going to be folding a shit ton of flops anyhow, possibly almost the same amount as if we flatted 22. Like if the flop comes 843, 22 seems to have almost as much value as 77 in this situation.

You are forgetting that your opponent is so much more likely to have a card under a 7 in his range than a card under 4, or 3, or 2 (lol). So when it comes 834 and you have 22, you still lose when he 3b you with stuff like K4s, 74s, a4s, etc. Not to mention you get counterfitted more (and sometimes they do actually have 77 66 55 etc when they 3b).

Is this really a "standard" call against a UTG opener as CO?

i think so yes.

Time Link to 00:16:12

This is a little bit of an amateurish question but I'd really like if somebody could help me out and give me some advice on this. In this hand example we have QJo in the SB vs a BTN open. Lets say that button defends a decent with some speculative hands and can be stationy so we want to be 3 betting stuff that can flop solid top pairs etc. and value bet with. So we want to flat hands like QJ, KQ etc. some of the time but also 3 bet it some of the time. Would you rather 3 bet the offsuit variety of the hands or the suited variety?

Obviously suited hands play better in both spots, but which is it more valuable? Is it more valuable to have the barrelling opportunities in the 3 bet pot that the suited hand gives us, or is it more valuable to have the backdoor draws etc. in the single raised pots that we can check raise etc. with? My own guess is that we should be generally 3 betting the suited hands because we can use stuff like suited connectors and the likes as check raise bluffing hands in single raised pots and given that we are inflating the pot with a 3 bet we would want to have stronger hands where possible and more options which the suited hands give us. I also think that in a single raised pot we can focus more on flopping decent pairs and just getting to showdown/value betting and so the offsuit hands are fine to flat with.

I also would guess that how often button 4 bets has an impact on our preflop decision as if he is 4 bet bluffing a lot and flatting not so much then it would be a pity to "waste" a hand like KQs or QJs by 3 betting it and getting 4 bet often, so we would prefer to flat it in that case and 3 bet some other stuff.

Sorry if this was rampbly or noobish but I'd really like some advice if possible.

Hi guys,

If you were villain (EVConsultant) and you had 8 9 facing Blah's c-bet, do your prefer floating or raising and why?

-Thanks.

Against teh 100% cbet type in that spot, I'd probably just jam, but vs more controlled players I might flat. I'd also flat and jam turn vs the really crazy guys too sometimes. The more sane they are the more likely i would be to fold to a turn barrel on various cards

I agree that donking the turn is definitely bad play but in general doesn't c/calling twice on this kind of very wet board put our range face up as something like JJ, T9s, ATs, QJs? So the best what we can have here is top pair with medium kicker. Doesn't it left us prone to being barreled out of our holding?

Thanks for response

Sounds like a good reason to call and call again on river...

This is a little bit of an amateurish question but I'd really like if somebody could help me out and give me some advice on this. In this hand example we have QJo in the SB vs a BTN open. Lets say that button defends a decent with some speculative hands and can be stationy so we want to be 3 betting stuff that can flop solid top pairs etc. and value bet with. So we want to flat hands like QJ, KQ etc. some of the time but also 3 bet it some of the time. Would you rather 3 bet the offsuit variety of the hands or the suited variety?

Obviously suited hands play better in both spots, but which is it more valuable? Is it more valuable to have the barrelling opportunities in the 3 bet pot that the suited hand gives us, or is it more valuable to have the backdoor draws etc. in the single raised pots that we can check raise etc. with? My own guess is that we should be generally 3 betting the suited hands because we can use stuff like suited connectors and the likes as check raise bluffing hands in single raised pots and given that we are inflating the pot with a 3 bet we would want to have stronger hands where possible and more options which the suited hands give us. I also think that in a single raised pot we can focus more on flopping decent pairs and just getting to showdown/value betting and so the offsuit hands are fine to flat with.

I also would guess that how often button 4 bets has an impact on our preflop decision as if he is 4 bet bluffing a lot and flatting not so much then it would be a pity to "waste" a hand like KQs or QJs by 3 betting it and getting 4 bet often, so we would prefer to flat it in that case and 3 bet some other stuff.

Sorry if this was rampbly or noobish but I'd really like some advice if possible.

Your question is not amateurish or beginner in the slightest, it is the exact topic I frequently debate my friends on and I don't have a definitive universal answer. The only guidelines I'd have for it is that if the suited version of the hand will be good enough to 5b it, then you should probably 3b the suited and flat the offsuit (assuming it isn't good enough to 5b vs the given player).

Secondly, the weaker a player is, the more liberal I am about the junk I 3b him with, because I think my hand matters less in that spot.. So I will tend to call with my stronger hands and just 3b him with the reallly junky stuff.

Third, these days people are doing all sorts of crazy stuff like min 4bs and shit, so I'd like to have more suited hands for that, and just leave the big offsuit cards for flatting. I'd also prefer to be 3b the suited ones more when we are deep.

Thanks a million for the swift answer Ansky!

This is a little bit of an amateurish question

TheGeek is such a noob.

TheGeek is such a noob.

I truly am. I kind of feel bad that Ansky is taking time away from important stuff like buying 2k trainers to help my feeble uNL mind.

love this format guys keep it up

Against teh 100% cbet type in that spot, I'd probably just jam, but vs more controlled players I might flat. I'd also flat and jam turn vs the really crazy guys too sometimes. The more sane they are the more likely i would be to fold to a turn barrel on various cards

Thank you Dani for responding to both questions, very helpful, great series.

This dude must be pro

There's no point in wasting some one else's time by asking questions you can solve yourself with pokerstove, standard(ish) 6max UTG range 22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,AJo+,KQo vs ATs = 47.817% and CO range 22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,ATo+,KJo+,QJo vs ATo = 47.941%. Flopping small sets in 3bet pots is good, Cbetting 2 outers in 3bet pots vs a range of over pairs and suited over cards is bad = 3betting small PPs is fine as long as you realize you're set mining vs top pairs at an SPR where they're more likely to stack off and balancing your check/fold flop range at an SPR where they're more likely to check behind to reach showdown and give you an additional street of equity. Furthermore, 3betting small PPs is often more of a function of the BB who either A) isn't over calling and giving value or B) squeezing and not letting you see a flop therefore 22 is effectively the top of your folding range and the bottom of your 3betting range based on table dynamics where 22 is a call 100% of the time by comparison in the BB.

@Ansky

In a hypothetical situation where you're in the SB between Sauce123 on the button and AEJones in the big blind, do you think 3bet merging your range vs Sauce123 (i.e. 3bet or fold in the SB) or calling your top polar value range (AK, QQ+ etc.) and unbalancing your 3bet range in order to exploit AEJones is the preferable adjustment? If you think calling the top polar value range is preferable, and considering they know calling the top polar value range is the standard adjustment in their eyes, do you think your perceived check/raising range vs the button is stronger in their eyes as well if you continue to call with a squeezer behind presumably with a wider value range? Do you think 3bet merging as a standard in that line up is advisable, or in general advisable, based on the exploitability of your calling range in that position and inability to balance your calling range for HU without playing a wider range of hands that either makes your calling range more exploitable to squeezing pre-flop and are likely -EV other than for the sake of said balance?

In a second hypothetical situation, where you're on the button, Luckychewy is raising 30% of hands in the CO and Sauce123 and AEJones are in the blinds (i.e. LAGG regular in the CO, squeezers in the blinds) do you think 75s is a profitable call in position or a necessary call in position for balance? Considering some regulars will call here with 75s and some regulars wont, and considering these hands rarely, if ever, go to showdown without either coin flipping on the flop, filling up or turning into a bluff on the river do you think we can still realistically represent them in our perceived range even when we're not necessarily playing with them?

In general, do you bother to increase your calling range vs. UTG raisers when you're in the CO or BB as opposed to MP or SB respectively considering your absolute or relative position improves against the UTG raiser (assume Lucky Chewy, Sauce123 and AEJones are behind your CO for the sake of argument)? What tweener hands or equity categories do you think become playable here if any, does the EV of set mining significantly increase from the SB to the BB for you etc.?

Thanks for answering any of that.

While I don't disagree with your theoretical explanation as to why it might be unprofitable, I was hoping you might look into the actual results using yours or another large database. I am sure that postflop play will creep in to some extent but give it a try and post a screen shot if you can.

I don't have a database with a large sample (since I don't play the small ones to 3bets 100 deep) but I have done math and a pokerazor analysis to show that pure setmining against a 3bet (of various ranges) shows a loss.

I understand that you may not be implying a pure set mine strategy but I thought I'd throw the math on that out there.

I don't have a database with a large sample (since I don't play the small ones to 3bets 100 deep) but I have done math and a pokerazor analysis to show that pure setmining against a 3bet (of various ranges) shows a loss.

I understand that you may not be implying a pure set mine strategy but I thought I'd throw the math on that out there.

Out of curiously, at what 3bet size is pure set mining profitable? Is 9x 3bet vs 2.5x raise with 22 or 8x 3bet vs 2x raise a call? Sorry for asking, I suck at math.

Out of curiously, at what 3bet size is pure set mining profitable? Is 9x 3bet vs 2.5x raise with 22 or 8x 3bet vs 2x raise a call? Sorry for asking, I suck at math.

Will re-run those calcs in a day or so when I have access to my other PC.

Blah,

Please stop interrupting Dani.

I vote for switch it up

Blah,
Please stop interrupting Dani.

well played

Time Link to 00:36:17

from a mtt background, early on ive folded pps like 77 88 in pos to 3bs even when stacks are like this (120bb effective) because to me it seems like its more of a reverse implied odds situation. could your reasoning be comparable to mtts? i know a lot is player read based but just curious to the differences in mtt vs cash play

ps a mtt vid of the 1k MET would be absurdly good to watch

Time Link to 00:44:26

the other game theory reason to c/f K5ss here is that if a cbet fails and it gets to SD it appears you are cb 100% here and way too often with zero equity. it's valuable to convey that you can c/f in spots and it's valuable to avoid giving the impression you bluff in terrible spots.

the other game theory reason to c/f K5ss here is that if a cbet fails and it gets to SD it appears you are cb 100% here and way too often with zero equity. it's valuable to convey that you can c/f in spots and it's valuable to avoid giving the impression you bluff in terrible spots.

It can be desirable to give the impression you bluff in terrible spots too. As long as your image causes your opponent to make mistakes against what you'll be doing from there on, any image is good. Being perceived as balanced is the worst imo.

I am glad to see that DC heard the community and made this vid series. Sincerely thanks for that. The format, content and hosts discussion is interesting so far imo. Thats just a shame that you guys are both often talking at the same time.

It can be desirable to give the impression you bluff in terrible spots too. As long as your image causes your opponent to make mistakes against what you'll be doing from there on, any image is good. Being perceived as balanced is the worst imo.

absolutely. i would say that versus most, though, i would rather avoid this image. more often than not we are going to have weaker holdings/air that we want to win pots w/o SD, so i'd prefer not to encourage my opponents never to fold versus me.

as far as being perceived as balanced - what's wrong with this? it certainly means we won't have to think about being exploited by those who see us this way.

Third, these days people are doing all sorts of crazy stuff like min 4bs and shit, so I'd like to have more suited hands for that, and just leave the big offsuit cards for flatting. I'd also prefer to be 3b the suited ones more when we are deep.

Would you prefer to have more suited hands vs a player who min-4bets so you have more equity with a 5bet, or so you have a stronger hand to call the min 4b with?

absolutely. i would say that versus most, though, i would rather avoid this image. more often than not we are going to have weaker holdings/air that we want to win pots w/o SD, so i'd prefer not to encourage my opponents never to fold versus me.

as far as being perceived as balanced - what's wrong with this? it certainly means we won't have to think about being exploited by those who see us this way.

True.

That's only useful when our opponent is better than us. On average he shouldn't.

Time Link to 00:20:34

I haven't done the analysis myself, but I'm guessing a little combinatorics might suggest his is a c/f spot. I think he has to be hero calling a very wide range on the river for our hand to be ahead of his river calling range.

A bit more dry of a discussion, but still think HH replayer leads to more involved discussion. The unsuccessful bluffs were certainly worth tuning in for, since I just don't see them discussed all that frequently from Hero's perspective.

Read the comments, good stuff. Just a little too drunk right now to respond, but I promise a thoughtful response is coming.

There's no point in wasting some one else's time by asking questions you can solve yourself with pokerstove, standard(ish) 6max UTG range 22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,AJo+,KQo vs ATs = 47.817% and CO range 22+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,ATo+,KJo+,QJo vs ATo = 47.941%. Flopping small sets in 3bet pots is good, Cbetting 2 outers in 3bet pots vs a range of over pairs and suited over cards is bad = 3betting small PPs is fine as long as you realize you're set mining vs top pairs at an SPR where they're more likely to stack off and balancing your check/fold flop range at an SPR where they're more likely to check behind to reach showdown and give you an additional street of equity. Furthermore, 3betting small PPs is often more of a function of the BB who either A) isn't over calling and giving value or B) squeezing and not letting you see a flop therefore 22 is effectively the top of your folding range and the bottom of your 3betting range based on table dynamics where 22 is a call 100% of the time by comparison in the BB.

@Ansky

In a hypothetical situation where you're in the SB between Sauce123 on the button and AEJones in the big blind, do you think 3bet merging your range vs Sauce123 (i.e. 3bet or fold in the SB) or calling your top polar value range (AK, QQ+ etc.) and unbalancing your 3bet range in order to exploit AEJones is the preferable adjustment? If you think calling the top polar value range is preferable, and considering they know calling the top polar value range is the standard adjustment in their eyes, do you think your perceived check/raising range vs the button is stronger in their eyes as well if you continue to call with a squeezer behind presumably with a wider value range? Do you think 3bet merging as a standard in that line up is advisable, or in general advisable, based on the exploitability of your calling range in that position and inability to balance your calling range for HU without playing a wider range of hands that either makes your calling range more exploitable to squeezing pre-flop and are likely -EV other than for the sake of said balance?

In a second hypothetical situation, where you're on the button, Luckychewy is raising 30% of hands in the CO and Sauce123 and AEJones are in the blinds (i.e. LAGG regular in the CO, squeezers in the blinds) do you think 75s is a profitable call in position or a necessary call in position for balance? Considering some regulars will call here with 75s and some regulars wont, and considering these hands rarely, if ever, go to showdown without either coin flipping on the flop, filling up or turning into a bluff on the river do you think we can still realistically represent them in our perceived range even when we're not necessarily playing with them?

In general, do you bother to increase your calling range vs. UTG raisers when you're in the CO or BB as opposed to MP or SB respectively considering your absolute or relative position improves against the UTG raiser (assume Lucky Chewy, Sauce123 and AEJones are behind your CO for the sake of argument)? What tweener hands or equity categories do you think become playable here if any, does the EV of set mining significantly increase from the SB to the BB for you etc.?

Thanks for answering any of that.

First of all, wow.

Secondly, against the 4b happy buttons l'd typically just 3b hands like ATs and 77 so that I could 5b jam them. So I wouldn't be calling too much from the sb if I;m not even calling those. Sauce basically never folds pre, so I'd adjust by 3b big cards a lot, and I'd probably stay away from stuff like 54s.

Regarding the 2nd example, calling vs chewy there would be a disaster with the other 2 in the blinds. Aaron isn't so squeeze happy, but sauce is, and all involved are very good post so I can;t expect to crush postflop with such a crappy hand.

Blah,

Please stop interrupting Dani.

I don't think he interrupts me at ant inappropriate times.

Blah,

Please stop interrupting Dani.

I made a conscious efford to not interrupt Dani on new episode coming out, hope it will be better.

First of all, wow.

Secondly, against the 4b happy buttons l'd typically just 3b hands like ATs and 77 so that I could 5b jam them. So I wouldn't be calling too much from the sb if I;m not even calling those. Sauce basically never folds pre, so I'd adjust by 3b big cards a lot, and I'd probably stay away from stuff like 54s.

Regarding the 2nd example, calling vs chewy there would be a disaster with the other 2 in the blinds. Aaron isn't so squeeze happy, but sauce is, and all involved are very good post so I can;t expect to crush postflop with such a crappy hand.

lol, sorry for the wall of text, but thanks for the answers.

I also think it is Dani. (pronounced how you spelt it) He shall be mad!

my bad

Would you prefer to have more suited hands vs a player who min-4bets so you have more equity with a 5bet, or so you have a stronger hand to call the min 4b with?

Always asking good questions. Ass get to jigglin', I like your commitment.

In the T72ss flop the opponent is 20/16, rather nitty, I'd definitely assume he's going to be folding J9s, A5s etc. He's also probably opening nowhere near 70%, more like 35-40.