Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by sthief09 (Mid Stakes)

Solid info in this vid imo

here are some files, both the configuration ones and the conditions.txt file that contains all the ranges I set for episodes 3 and 5. there's also a bonus A98 two-tone board in there. if you overwrite your conditions.txt file, you'll lose all your saved conditions. I think you can append them though.

http://www.yousendit.com/download/Y1RxSkhlYSt0TWwzZUE9PQ

I'm interested in hearing any comments, especially about whether or not you believe in the results. I think the majority of people would usually 3-bet 100bb deep with AK after being raised on a 976 flop in a single raised pot by an aggro TAG regular.

awesome video, learned a lot here

I think this is probably the most content-filled series DC has ever run. I like it a lot.

At the end of your video you missed an opportunity to consider a check/call strategy on the flop (hoping for a check behind). If you consider the choices available to villain, when we bet a hand like TPTK or an overpair, he will tend to fold all worse (bottom pair, underpairs) and raise with better made hands and strong draws (which may include some weaker made hands such as TPMK and middle pair + draw). We are rarely getting pure value from a hand like TPNK with no redraws simply because these hands make up so little of his range.

Constructing a suitable range to check/call is not easy. It depends larely on the villain, as some will check behind draws whilst others will always bet any piece; some will check a draw on the flop and still call a pot sized donk on the turn (which is massively valuable for us). Others will play very overly aggressive on the turn and give us profitable bet/3bet on certain cards with hands that may have been a bet/fold on the flop.

I think this is probably the most content-filled series DC has ever run. I like it a lot.

At the end of your video you missed an opportunity to consider a check/call strategy on the flop (hoping for a check behind). If you consider the choices available to villain, when we bet a hand like TPTK or an overpair, he will tend to fold all worse (bottom pair, underpairs) and raise with better made hands and strong draws (which may include some weaker made hands such as TPMK and middle pair + draw). We are rarely getting pure value from a hand like TPNK with no redraws simply because these hands make up so little of his range.

Constructing a suitable range to check/call is not easy. It depends larely on the villain, as some will check behind draws whilst others will always bet any piece; some will check a draw on the flop and still call a pot sized donk on the turn (which is massively valuable for us). Others will play very overly aggressive on the turn and give us profitable bet/3bet on certain cards with hands that may have been a bet/fold on the flop.

If I didn't even suggest checking as an option, I should've. Still, there are some reasons I don't like foregoing my opportunity to c-bet. The #1 reason for me is that most of villain's range has equity vs. us. When we bet, there are plenty of worse pairs, pair+draw, naked flush draw type hands that can call. Even if he folds on a 9c7h6c flop, he might have folded something like KT, the Ac, or 64s that has significant equity and the ability to potentially bluff us later. Even if there's not a ton of value, protecting your equity is still important.

The other problem with checking is you give your opponent control of the hand. You have a hand that's capable of getting 2 or 3 streets of value by betting. Checking lets your opponent decide when he wants to bet, how big, and on what turn/river cards he'll fire again. Even with AA, you can't be too happy with your opponent having both position and initiative.

So depending on the opponent, it definitely does make sense to think about checking but there is also a pretty big downside that needs to be considered imo. I'd like to be able to put this into Pokerazor, but I think it gets too complicated. For one, we haven't yet even found the value in a c-bet. That depends on how the turn/river play out on each turn/river card against different villains. The same goes after you check/call.

I agree that checking does make the hand harder to play sometimes, but the alternative is to simply fire 100% or always be giving up when we check on a board like this, which seems just as bad as protecting our equity the times we have a hand that figures to get some value from betting.

Obviously the tree to figure this mathematically for all turns and rivers is impossibly complex. I just felt it was important for people to consider what hands we might be checking here, and why we might be checking them.

Also, I'm not sure how valid the argument for protecting our equity is if we expect our opponent to raise or fold a vast majority of the time. I also don't know how easy turn and river play will be if we simply get flat called; it seems we either have to barrel or check/call almost all turn cards with a hand like AA. When we c-bet this will be in a larger pot than that if we had checked the flop; a larger pot with just as little information suggests to me that bigger mistakes could be made.

I agree that checking does make the hand harder to play sometimes, but the alternative is to simply fire 100% or always be giving up when we check on a board like this, which seems just as bad as protecting our equity the times we have a hand that figures to get some value from betting.

If we are up against thinking solid opponents and we fire this board 100% we are going to get totally owned all the time we have air since even when we have AA its tough.
So a lot of the time it's going to be c/f.

That does bring up the point that we need to have something to strengthen our checking range IF we feel the villain has a pop at this everytime we check. My first range to so this with would be AK/AQ combo flush draws that dont really mind seeing a turn card but can CR just as happily.

I'd be less inclined to attempt a cr with an overpair unless we are totally sure they are going to bet for us - there are some opponents that this is true for, "Bet vs missed c-bet" stat can give us a clue.
If we knew they bet 100% when checked to then betting any value hand would make no sense and actually this lets us off the hook with our over pair since the pot is now big and the dead money compensates for the thin equity.

I'm also confused by the 100% firing thing. Do you mean we're firing AA 100%, or firing with 100% of our range? I think an important point about AA here is that it's not really at the top of our range. T8s, 99, 77, 66, 97s, 96s, 76s are all well within our range. As are the myriad combo draws that we will be 3-betting on the flop. Considering I'm hardly ever c-betting this board without some equity (like with KT, but I'm prob not c-betting KQ), our range is pretty strong and we shouldn't be just getting auto-raised. AA is probably only in the top 75 or 80% or so of our c-bet range if I had to guess, and the results of this vid say you're happy stacking off with it. So I really don't think we're too exposed here as long as we're not auto c-betting.

Also, I'm not sure how valid the argument for protecting our equity is if we expect our opponent to raise or fold a vast majority of the time. I also don't know how easy turn and river play will be if we simply get flat called; it seems we either have to barrel or check/call almost all turn cards with a hand like AA. When we c-bet this will be in a larger pot than that if we had checked the flop; a larger pot with just as little information suggests to me that bigger mistakes could be made.

re: protecting equity - if you get him to fold a 5 outer, you're getting him off something like 20% equity. Even if he's raise/folding, there's still value in making him fold hands with 20% or sometimes even 25 or 30% equity. If you have JJ and bet him off KT, that's 7 clean outs.

re: the turn after you've bet - I actually think this is often going to be a fairly easy spot on the turn. Granted, there aren't a ton of brick cards but if the turn does brick you effectively have the nuts. People just about always fastplay on flops like this. If the turn is a club, 5, or T you can probably fire again and c/f the river. It's harder than I'm making it out to be, but I don't think it's a sick spot by any means.

I'm also confused by the 100% firing thing. Do you mean we're firing AA 100%, or firing with 100% of our range? I think an important point about AA here is that it's not really at the top of our range. T8s, 99, 77, 66, 97s, 96s, 76s are all well within our range. As are the myriad combo draws that we will be 3-betting on the flop. Considering I'm hardly ever c-betting this board without some equity (like with KT, but I'm prob not c-betting KQ), our range is pretty strong and we shouldn't be just getting auto-raised. AA is probably only in the top 75 or 80% or so of our c-bet range if I had to guess, and the results of this vid say you're happy stacking off with it. So I really don't think we're too exposed here as long as we're not auto c-betting.

I was assuming that jjd323 meant firing 100% of our total range which some players do but is clearly super exploitable. The exception being against a tight/passive fit or fold type that will never bluff and just get scared by the board.

I certainly think that against an unknown or against most opponents we should be firing overpairs for value/protections as a default.
The argument for checking overpairs is to exploit players who stab 90% plus on this board when checked to, the villain figures (usually correctly) that most peoples range for checking this flop is total air since no-one checks wet flops as PFR with a strong hand.

It's true that checking gives up control, but against an aggressive TAG who's in position, we have to check a lot anyway. Nearly all missed overs should check (except maybe AcK for a bd fd), so our checking range is super weak. To extend your insight that equity is equity (regardless or made hands or draws), perhaps an optimal checking range should include the weaker made hands like QQ-TT and A9 that can certainly call a bet balanced with some medium draws. I think the bare nut flush draw would also be a great candidate for including in our check calling range, since the villian can never put us on the nuts if we c/r a flush turn (which he would often barrel if he bets vs. a missed c-bet).

It's true that checking gives up control, but against an aggressive TAG who's in position, we have to check a lot anyway. Nearly all missed overs should check (except maybe AcK for a bd fd), so our checking range is super weak. To extend your insight that equity is equity (regardless or made hands or draws), perhaps an optimal checking range should include the weaker made hands like QQ-TT and A9 that can certainly call a bet balanced with some medium draws. I think the bare nut flush draw would also be a great candidate for including in our check calling range, since the villian can never put us on the nuts if we c/r a flush turn (which he would often barrel if he bets vs. a missed c-bet).

These are all good points. It's very common in NLHE where we have to decide between either checking a stronger range to induce bluffs, or being willing to commit a lot of chips with a wider range. I agree that the naked NFD is the ideal draw to c/c with, but it's also a hand that likely has enough equity to bet/3-bet. So I'm not sure I want to just sacrifice it as a c/c hand, since our range is so light on bet/3-bet hands to begin with. If villain is raising the flop at an exploitable frequency, it's likely more profitable in a vacuum to bet/3-bet the NFD. I'm not sure we need to balance our c/c range with draws, as long as we're sometimes calling down when the 3-flush hits.