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

Yes finallyyyyyyyyy

Time Link to 00:06:48

I TOTALLY disagree that if he limps he will call 7x iso raise.
I play these games and have experimented with sizing. Most effective raise size, when we want a call is 4.5x or 5x.
I have very, very, very rarely had a caller when i make it as big as 7x. Even a fish can see it reeks strength. However, sometimes that makes them more inclined to call and see if they can hit a big hand.

I would always make it 5x however.

Time Link to 00:16:39

Calling the nitty guy with KTs would you rather not 3bet? i cant see allll that much value in calling a nit although we probably can do some c/r type stuff and win a fair amount...

I really love these videos! Learned so much in this one, thanks alot BW, you are the man!!!
P.S Im not a coach by all means, but I really think Kristy needs a makeover with her bets in general,
I just see alot of 1/2 pot betting in spots where it should be 3/4 +. She is missing alot of value in
so many spots due to the size she is choosing. Bigger is better, esp at these stakes where we are
VBeting alot more than we are bluffing. Keep improving Kristy, cant wait for the next one guys!

1st post and probably the last, just to say:

Andrew Seidman ROCKS!

Good discussion on the KJ hand on A82s where the guy leads turn. However I think most of the discussion was still based on the the thought that Kristy cbet the flop? What are the toughts as played (she checking back and villain leading turn)? I'd still fold and if I raised I would give up after call, is that about right?

I agree so bad about "chops".

Time Link to 01:08:28

Do you suggest folding 1010 here? I think this hand is a great hand for discussion and i think calling down here is better than folding?

His turn lead looks a lot like an 8 that picked up some equity in a flush draw or some smalll suited connectors that picked up a straight draw...

river looks like a call to me, but might be missing something

edit: you talked about it at the end (turn donking) so i guess fold is correct... kinda looks weak in this hand still though..

Yes finallyyyyyyyyy

+1000

Time Link to 00:28:46

didn't you just say earlier that going for 3barrels on Axxr boards is pretty good, since although you might have a ton of air in your perceived range on the flop, by the time you fire 3barrels you get a lot of credit as their hand is face up as an Ace? Why would this be any different other than that they can have sets if the board was dry (and the additional FE we have from being UTG probably counteracts this)?

Time Link to 00:30:01

also, if we bet there with KK, isn't any flop value we get from a flush draw fairly irrelevant? in other words, we aren't firing 2 barrels, and if we bet flop, check back turn, and he leads river on a blank, he's firing all his missed flush draws, yet probably doesn't have enough of those missed flush draws compared to Ax or better for us to profitable bluff catch (Ace of hearts is on board). So despite getting value in a vacuum from a flush draw on the flop, we don't get to realize that value as we'll likely have to fold to that same flush draw later in the hand given how his ranges will be constructed.

thoughts?

Time Link to 00:31:34

i disagree with saying that once you check back flop and he bets, he's betting out into a "likely value range" and therefore ppl aren't bluffing a lot there. IMO it would be more accurate to say that he's betting out into a "medium strength/capped made hand range" (as you would bet flop with all strong Ax and better). And that kind of range generally isn't a bad range to bluff against (obv player dependent though). Sort of how you were talking about the seemingly suicidal bluffs on Axx board when opponent's hand is face up as a weakish/medium Ace (a medium strength/capped made hand).

thoughts?

i disagree with saying that once you check back flop and he bets, he's betting out into a "likely value range" and therefore ppl aren't bluffing a lot there. IMO it would be more accurate to say that he's betting out into a "medium strength/capped made hand range" (as you would bet flop with all strong Ax and better). And that kind of range generally isn't a bad range to bluff against (obv player dependent though). Sort of how you were talking about the seemingly suicidal bluffs on Axx board when opponent's hand is face up as a weakish/medium Ace (a medium strength/capped made hand).

thoughts?

disregard this, I now see that you misread the action

Time Link to 00:30:53

Kristy, if we check back this flop, can't we expect to get led into a lot on the turn? With the FD on board shouldn't we bet our Ax a high % of the time? Now he can rep an A much more credibly than us...ok I played the video before I finished this comment and that's exactly what happened. BW didn't mention that as part of the argument for cbetting, but does that also go into the thought process?

Time Link to 00:35:35

you said that c/r flop vs a passive guy w/AK here is better than c/c flop, donk turn. But a passive player is more likely to check back flop than to bet it. So is it better to just donk flop, bet turn and river instead of checking and hope that he bets?

Time Link to 00:45:19

table 1 - KK:

Can you explain your thought on the fold ? I know that he c/c flop 4ways on a wet flop but since he didnt c/r flop, I think that he is not likely to have overpair, set, 2pair or combo draws. I can just see him having TT here or something like Txdd..

Time Link to 00:40:25

I really think i disagree that a pretty nitty guy will call with pocket AA or KQ if we shove because i mean what are we shoving that he is beating and how much are we bluffing in his eyes...

I really think i disagree that a pretty nitty guy will call with pocket AA or KQ if we shove because i mean what are we shoving that he is beating and how much are we bluffing in his eyes...

its what I think too

Time Link to 01:03:04

table 4 - J9s

Why a c/r is better than c/c here. He is short stack but his stats seems normal. When you c/r, you dont think there isnt that many worse hands that will call you ?

you said that c/r flop vs a passive guy w/AK here is better than c/c flop, donk turn. But a passive player is more likely to check back flop than to bet it. So is it better to just donk flop, bet turn and river instead of checking and hope that he bets?

he'll probably cbet any Ax that he would call 3 streets with if you donked, but c/r'ing allows you to get those 3 bets in by the turn, meaning you leave less room for a flush card to hit and kill your action and you can potentially get another bet in on the river. If he doesn't cbet good Ax, then donking is better.

just my opinion

Time Link to 00:40:20

KQ and AA make up 15 combos. Q8/K8/A8/77/QQ/KK makes up 19 combos, so even if he calls with KQ/AA every time, the value is too thin. it's also not unreasonable that he'd have J8o/87o in his range from the button.

if he doesn't cbet A8 or K8, it's a bit closer, but even then if he's folding KQ/AA with any decent frequency it's still too thin.

Time Link to 00:41:23

a river bluff shove would probably be profitable, but it's a lot closer than you make it seem IMO. there's 19 nutted combos and 20 thin value combos (AA/KQ/AQ) that will fold that he can potentially have (assuming we have QT). the bluff has to work 52% of the time, and he folds 51% if he folds all of his thin value hands. Take some nutted combos out because sometimes he checks back A8/K8 on the flop and the smaller river bet skews his range more toward the thin value part of his range, and the bluff becomes profitable, but still he only needs to be calling with AA or KQ like 1/3 of the time for the bluff to be -EV. And this is assuming he doesn't open 87o on the button.

I do understand the concept you are illustrating though, but this particular spot, and the fact that him being on the button adds a lot more 8x hands to his range than if he were in like MP or CO and we're on the BTN, is a lot closer.

Time Link to 00:43:28

what do you expect him to fold once he checks the turn to you? any FD and any gutshot would bet or c/r the turn, so you're hoping for like AQ/AJ to fold? Do you think that the money we gain from folding out his 12% equity makes up for the money we lose when he calls with 98/87/A8/TT/88 hands?

Time Link to 00:43:42

I think you mean when you have KK on the A82tt board, not when you have K high?

table 1 - KK:

Can you explain your thought on the fold ? I know that he c/c flop 4ways on a wet flop but since he didnt c/r flop, I think that he is not likely to have overpair, set, 2pair or combo draws. I can just see him having TT here or something like Txdd..

turn raise from fishy guy imo. . .

Time Link to 00:47:03

another benefit of flatting with AJ is that the fish is likely to come along, and the presence of the fish will keep the squeezer honest with his cbets, so if he checks you can often still when the pot with a bet when you flop nothing, because you will be effectively cbetting the fish (you talked about this earlier when the preflop raiser checked 3way with the fish in the pot).

given this fact that you will play near perfectly vs the reg and the implied odds you have for being able to value bet the fish post flop, you can still probably call even vs a depolarized squeezing range.

agree/disagree/thoughts?

Time Link to 00:52:06

great point about looking for more information after not knowing what to do in a spot. .

Time Link to 00:54:40

what about any Q,T, or 1 heart hand?

Time Link to 00:56:36

if he could potentially slow play AA/AK/JJ, then by the same logic why can't he have slow played any Jx hand or flush? there a lot more combos of Jx and flushes than the above hands, and a fish is never folding a boat or flush, so why is value raising bad?

disregard my last post, I hadn't gotten to the part where you say raise/folding is the play

Time Link to 01:00:30

"the longer you play the more heated you get, and the more the emotional element clogs up your mental pathways"

awesome points about mentally resetting which I've also found very true. something I've found to be very effective for breaks is a quick ice cold shower. the break itself is good for mentally resetting, and the cold literally changes your physiology. and if you change your physiology from that of what it's like when you're angry/frustrated (faster heart beat/blood flow, higher body temperature etc) to what it's like when you're calm and focused (more moderate heart beat, cool/comfortable temperature etc), your emotional state literally has to change as well.

Time Link to 01:09:32

it can still be helpful to note that someone did in fact do the standard thing imo. .

Time Link to 01:12:23

between 2 very good players though, being aggressive into a strong range can be a very effective bluff, no?

great video, lots of interesting spots/discussion. .

turn raise from fishy guy imo. . .

Yeah but if we put him on a range and analyse the hand, he represent nothing really good except TT here imo. But I understand that he is fishy and will make stupid thing with no sens so maybe its a reason good enough to not think about his range and snap fold..

between 2 very good players though, being aggressive into a strong range can be a very effective bluff, no?

Do it rarely it's called leveling, do it often it's called spew.

Time Link to 00:43:02

with regard to the 77 hand on K95tt, what do you think he's c/r'ing? if it includes AQ/AJ/AT/Ax with a back door flush draw, any gutshot, KT BDFD, then why can't we bet/3bet? wouldn't that put him to a shove or fold decision, and he isn't going to shove with gutshots and A high, so we cbet with the intention of collecting heaps of dead money with a 3bet when he c/r's.

Time Link to 01:07:13

table 1 - 99

Kristy, are you 3betting for value here ? what about a flat preflop ?

regarding your contention that we if a spot is good to run a bluff, we should usually look to play our value hands differently - I generally agree, but aren't there a lot of spots where yes, playing our value hands differently would be the most +EV play in a vacuum, but taking a less optimal-in-isolation line with our value hands is a higher EV from a total game strategy perspective?

a good example of what I'm getting at is the one hand in your recent heads up video you did with Foxwood's Fiend where you were on the river on a 5 straight board and you had a higher straight than the one on board. You bet a standardish 3/4ish size, and Foxwood's Fiend said that yes, for your hand that's the most +EV play since it will get called a lot more often than an overbet, but an overbet is still correct because you will want to be overbet bluffing those boards a lot to lay the opponent bad odds to get him off a chop, and you will have those chop-bluffs way way more often than you'll have the higher straight, so if you play the higher straight differently and the opponent sees that, he can then just look you up everytime you overbet that board.

now a counterargument might be: ok, next time I have the higher straight I'll overbet and I'll bet 3/4 pot when I have the chop. But that doesn't really work because mathematically you will have the chop way more often.

thoughts?

holy crap there are a lot of questions here. imma do the best i can here give me a little

Ass Get to Jigglin should just pick his three most needed questions every video lol

Do it rarely it's called leveling, do it often it's called spew.

very well put Nan

Calling the nitty guy with KTs would you rather not 3bet? i cant see allll that much value in calling a nit although we probably can do some c/r type stuff and win a fair amount...

couldnt be too bad to 3bet him. pretty similar value either way i think (provided we don't pay off a ton postflop)

Andrew

Good discussion on the KJ hand on A82s where the guy leads turn. However I think most of the discussion was still based on the the thought that Kristy cbet the flop? What are the toughts as played (she checking back and villain leading turn)? I'd still fold and if I raised I would give up after call, is that about right?

as played her equity is not *that* great on the turn. flatting is probably better than raising.

Andrew

also, if we bet there with KK, isn't any flop value we get from a flush draw fairly irrelevant? in other words, we aren't firing 2 barrels, and if we bet flop, check back turn, and he leads river on a blank, he's firing all his missed flush draws, yet probably doesn't have enough of those missed flush draws compared to Ax or better for us to profitable bluff catch (Ace of hearts is on board). So despite getting value in a vacuum from a flush draw on the flop, we don't get to realize that value as we'll likely have to fold to that same flush draw later in the hand given how his ranges will be constructed.

thoughts?

well, if he doesn't have *that* many draws, then there isn't *that* much value, so we just shouldn't bet. If he does have *that* many draws, we should call river.

Andrew

Kristy, if we check back this flop, can't we expect to get led into a lot on the turn? With the FD on board shouldn't we bet our Ax a high % of the time? Now he can rep an A much more credibly than us...ok I played the video before I finished this comment and that's exactly what happened. BW didn't mention that as part of the argument for cbetting, but does that also go into the thought process?

we can expect to get led into a lot, but thats not a reason to bet with a weak hand. when we check back there and expect our opponent to lead a lot, its usually cause their hand is usually better than ours and we are just giving up.

Andrew

you said that c/r flop vs a passive guy w/AK here is better than c/c flop, donk turn. But a passive player is more likely to check back flop than to bet it. So is it better to just donk flop, bet turn and river instead of checking and hope that he bets?

even passive players still c-bet a lot. if they don't c-bet, sure, donking is better.

Andrew

table 1 - KK:

Can you explain your thought on the fold ? I know that he c/c flop 4ways on a wet flop but since he didnt c/r flop, I think that he is not likely to have overpair, set, 2pair or combo draws. I can just see him having TT here or something like Txdd..

he's never bluffing on the turn. so, that should answer pretty much all our questions.

Andrew

I really think i disagree that a pretty nitty guy will call with pocket AA or KQ if we shove because i mean what are we shoving that he is beating and how much are we bluffing in his eyes...

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

table 4 - J9s

Why a c/r is better than c/c here. He is short stack but his stats seems normal. When you c/r, you dont think there isnt that many worse hands that will call you ?

tons of worse hands and draws will call us. we also have small reverse implied odds cause stacks are so short.

Andrew

table 1 - 99

Kristy, are you 3betting for value here ? what about a flat preflop ?

value looks good. there are some real benefits to 3b pocket pairs from blinds.

Andrew

regarding your contention that we if a spot is good to run a bluff, we should usually look to play our value hands differently - I generally agree, but aren't there a lot of spots where yes, playing our value hands differently would be the most +EV play in a vacuum, but taking a less optimal-in-isolation line with our value hands is a higher EV from a total game strategy perspective?

a good example of what I'm getting at is the one hand in your recent heads up video you did with Foxwood's Fiend where you were on the river on a 5 straight board and you had a higher straight than the one on board. You bet a standardish 3/4ish size, and Foxwood's Fiend said that yes, for your hand that's the most +EV play since it will get called a lot more often than an overbet, but an overbet is still correct because you will want to be overbet bluffing those boards a lot to lay the opponent bad odds to get him off a chop, and you will have those chop-bluffs way way more often than you'll have the higher straight, so if you play the higher straight differently and the opponent sees that, he can then just look you up everytime you overbet that board.

now a counterargument might be: ok, next time I have the higher straight I'll overbet and I'll bet 3/4 pot when I have the chop. But that doesn't really work because mathematically you will have the chop way more often.

thoughts?

i tend to think that each hand has a singular best play for that hand, and that that choice depends on previous history, and that it contributes to future history, but I'm not as concerned with balancing my total range.

Andrew

value looks good. there are some real benefits to 3b pocket pairs from blinds.

Andrew

If you have some time, can you check this thread. We discuss about 3betting, flatting or folding small to mid PP from blinds vs co open. I would like to have your thought on that.


http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/8-Micro-Stakes-Online-NL/topics/403871-77-good-spot-to-bluff-cat?page=6&per_page=30#post_3487391

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

If it was vs a good thinking opponent, would you considere calling because you know that he wont just c/c flop with sets or 2pairs ?

well, if he doesn't have *that* many draws, then there isn't *that* much value, so we just shouldn't bet. If he does have *that* many draws, we should call river.

Andrew

is it not possible that he could have flush draws AND worse hands that he calls the flop with, making it such that we are greater than 50% vs his flop calling range, but still can't call a river bet.

For example, say he calls flop with 77, 99-JJ, AQ/AJ, and KQhh, KJhh, QJhh, JThh, T9hh, KThh, QThh, and we have KK no heart. If it weren't for the flush draws, we wouldn't be greater than 50% on the flop as there are 24 worse made hands, 24 better made hands, and 7 draws, so the presence of flush draws is the tipping point for whether or not we are able to value bet the flop in a vacuum. But once the turn goes check/check, we can't call the river vs a range of missed flush draws and AQ/AJ, so we are only actually realizing that flop value vs 24 out of 55 combos.

tons of worse hands and draws will call us. we also have small reverse implied odds cause stacks are so short.

Andrew

I dont get your point about reverse implied odds.. How the short stacks affect reverse implied oods here ?

thx for answers and great video, as always!

i tend to think that each hand has a singular best play for that hand, and that that choice depends on previous history, and that it contributes to future history, but I'm not as concerned with balancing my total range.

Andrew

hmm interesting. I guess you just agreed with Ariel because you wanted to keep the video moving and not bog the video down with a long discussion on this in first few hands? do you think that your play of betting 3/4 was still best, despite that now you can't play your bluffs, which you will have the vast majority fo the time, in their most profitable way (overbetting)? I guess since you were only playing a 1 hour heads up match, then your answer will be yes, but if you expected to play against him very often would you still make the same play?

I agree that each hand does have a singular best play for that hand, but you're response doesn't adress the counter argument that it may be possible that the highest EV for that hand isn't the highest EV from a macroscopic perspective in terms of your total strategy.

it's also difficult to know for sure how someone will adjust in the future, which often just becomes a leveling war which is hard to win at. but if you aren't thinking about that and are just thinking about constructing your range in a way that allows you to play most profitably the hands you will have most often, there's no way you can lose the leveling war.

another example is good laggy players or guys like Samoleus who play a ton of hands. There's no way they are making money on all of their hands, so by your argument they should be folding a lot of those hands preflop as that's the best singular EV for that hand in isolation. But this may cause them to get less action on their value hands and also lose metagame EV in that they become easier to hand read against and easier to play against, thus losing macroscoping EV.

again, I do tend to agree with you for the majority of situations. just playing devils advocate a bit to spark discussion as I think this is a very important/interesting subject imo.

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

The c/r bluff got my mind thinking tried it a fair amount vs some of the nityer regs seemed to work ok

Ty best ep so far imo at least for me.

ok then don't c/shove for value, but c/shove bluff literally every time.

Andrew

did you see my post about this? I'll repost below:

"a river bluff shove would probably be profitable, but it's a lot closer than you make it seem IMO. there's 19 nutted combos and 20 thin value combos (AA/KQ/AQ) that will fold that he can potentially have (assuming we have QT). the bluff has to work 52% of the time, and he folds 51% if he folds all of his thin value hands. Take some nutted combos out because sometimes he checks back A8/K8 on the flop and the smaller river bet skews his range more toward the thin value part of his range, and the bluff becomes profitable, but still he only needs to be calling with AA or KQ like 1/3 of the time for the bluff to be -EV. And this is assuming he doesn't open 87o on the button.

I do understand the concept you are illustrating though, but this particular spot, and the fact that him being on the button adds a lot more 8x hands to his range than if he were in like MP or CO and we're on the BTN, is a lot closer."

agree/disagree?

did you see my post about this? I'll repost below:

"a river bluff shove would probably be profitable, but it's a lot closer than you make it seem IMO. there's 19 nutted combos and 20 thin value combos (AA/KQ/AQ) that will fold that he can potentially have (assuming we have QT). the bluff has to work 52% of the time, and he folds 51% if he folds all of his thin value hands. Take some nutted combos out because sometimes he checks back A8/K8 on the flop and the smaller river bet skews his range more toward the thin value part of his range, and the bluff becomes profitable, but still he only needs to be calling with AA or KQ like 1/3 of the time for the bluff to be -EV. And this is assuming he doesn't open 87o on the button.

I do understand the concept you are illustrating though, but this particular spot, and the fact that him being on the button adds a lot more 8x hands to his range than if he were in like MP or CO and we're on the BTN, is a lot closer."

agree/disagree?

fair enough, its close, but the idea is still a good one to consider in situations like this.

Andrew

the vid keeps stop-starting every 10 seconds.. anyone know a reason why?

Time Link to 00:12:28

Hey,
Im rewatching your serie right now and I saw something I didnt notice the first time I watched this video.

Table 2: A3
Can you explain you thought for the river shove. I mean, flop bet is standard, turn too imo because this guy can have lots of draws, PPs, etc in his range. But I dont expect him to c/c flop with Qx so imo, his river range has Ax that split with you, missed draws and maybe some weird PP that c/c flop and turn (but he wont call river shove with these PPs imo). So when you shipped river, what did you expect to get value from ? (Ax split, draw and PPs folds! )

Also, even if Qx are in his range, do you expect vilain to call river often enough to justify a river shove?

Would like to have your thought on that Kristy!

didn't you just say earlier that going for 3barrels on Axxr boards is pretty good, since although you might have a ton of air in your perceived range on the flop, by the time you fire 3barrels you get a lot of credit as their hand is face up as an Ace? Why would this be any different other than that they can have sets if the board was dry (and the additional FE we have from being UTG probably counteracts this)?

I think you didnt answer to that Andrew. I have few point about this hands ( 31:03 on table 3 with KJ).


First, Im little lost because you said earlier that running an occasional 3barel bluff on Axxr board is good because of our NAR. But you just said for this hand that 3barelling here is better than on an A82r board. What I understand is that our NAR is better on rainbow board because we rep less bluff/missed draw when we 3barel than on a two tone board. Am I right ???

Also, I dont understand why cbetting this A82tt and shut down on blank/continue on heart is good here. Once he called flop cbet, his range is Ax, FD and maybe some 99-JJ hands ( sets are discounted because he will c/r them a lot on this tt flop). My question is: Do you think Ax are a bigger part of his range than FD here ? If not, I think its better to continue betting on blank (to not let him catch his flush) and shut down on heart. But if Ax are bigger part, I agree with a 3 barel bluff to make him fold Ax. But Im not sure that there is that many Ax in his range.. Dont expect him to call sb vs utg with low/mid Ax..

I would like to have your thought on that because its the second time I watch this video and I want to be sure I understand correctly the NAR concept !

thx

if he could potentially slow play AA/AK/JJ, then by the same logic why can't he have slow played any Jx hand or flush? there a lot more combos of Jx and flushes than the above hands, and a fish is never folding a boat or flush, so why is value raising bad?

I am thinking the same. Fish love to slowplay, and he could probably have tons of Jx hands (if I recall right he coldcalled 64o earlier?) which he will bet/c with on the river. So why is raiseing bad?

(~00:56:36 KQo)

Time Link to 00:13:47

With AK on the button I think we should also be flatting to keep hands that we dominate in the hand. I recall you talking about this in CK1 and think this would be a fabulous application of that concept.

Time Link to 01:07:04

Aren't you being a bit R.O. here? Seems like you thought 4betting AQ was bad until you saw him call which you couldn't have reasonable assumed he would do before he actually did it. Calling a 4b oop is so rare. Wouldn't it be better to flat the 3bet with position and a strong hand there given we know he is possibly steaming and probably bad? Also vs a 22/20/8 3b reg I assume we still flat?

Aren't you being a bit R.O. here? Seems like you thought 4betting AQ was bad until you saw him call which you couldn't have reasonable assumed he would do before he actually did it. Calling a 4b oop is so rare. Wouldn't it be better to flat the 3bet with position and a strong hand there given we know he is possibly steaming and probably bad? Also vs a 22/20/8 3b reg I assume we still flat?

1) I thought 4-betting was bad because I don't think he flats the 4-bet with worse.

2) if he calls our 4-bet with worse, then its good

3) When he flats, I then think it is good (for future reference-- with no reads, preflop was still bad)

4) If 4-bettings not good (no reads), then flatting is definitely better. However, if he's steaming/probably bad, why would that make us NOT want to raise? Seems like it's usually a good idea to raise into steaming bad players with strong hands.

Andrew

Time Link to 00:41:52

77 on K95shd

So u don`t c-bet coz he is folding any worse like lower PP and 5x and maybe calling( 9x TT Kx) or raising (Fds etc) better.
But what if Kristy has TT u are beting for (thin)value vs 89 T9 66/77?
And 22 33 44 betting as a bluff vs better but not good enought pps and 5x?

21.31: This makes me really paranoid. This also makes me want to spew like crazy vs regs.
I see a big contradixtion with 'people aren't bluffing you as much as you think' and what you just said about suicide bluffs working better nowadays. I am not the only one watching this video. So do I need to throw that mantra out of the window? Are people way more bluff happy then before?

01.07.18: I always call with a hand like 99 when a regular raises on the button. Are we planning to 3-bet and fold when we get 4-bet? So are we then bluffing, or are we 3-betting for value?

That kind of confuses me. The same goes for AQ. We 3-bet it in the blinds versus a late opener, but then we get 4-bet. If we fold, was AQ then a bluff. Can a 3-bet for value turn into a bluff?

21.31: This makes me really paranoid. This also makes me want to spew like crazy vs regs.
I see a big contradixtion with 'people aren't bluffing you as much as you think' and what you just said about suicide bluffs working better nowadays. I am not the only one watching this video. So do I need to throw that mantra out of the window? Are people way more bluff happy then before?

people bluff less than you think (still true); regs fold bigger hands now when facing aggression (thats the newer part)

Andrew

EDIT: Not all regs obviously. Pick your spots.

01.07.18: I always call with a hand like 99 when a regular raises on the button. Are we planning to 3-bet and fold when we get 4-bet? So are we then bluffing, or are we 3-betting for value?

That kind of confuses me. The same goes for AQ. We 3-bet it in the blinds versus a late opener, but then we get 4-bet. If we fold, was AQ then a bluff. Can a 3-bet for value turn into a bluff?

If they 4-bet a lot, then we'd 3-bet for value (and not fold to a 4-bet, usually shoving).

If they don't 4-bet a lot, OR call with a wide range of hands, we prob shouldn't 3-bet.

Andrew

Today I played a session where a 30/20 was on my right, two seats away. He raised a couple of times, and I 3-betted him. He stacked me once where he had AK and called my 3-bet OOP and we both flopped a K.

Now I 3-betted him again and he folded. Right after that hand, he opens again and I have JJ. He 4-betted small I raised and we got it in. He had AA. Is that what I could consider a cooler with the dynamic between us?