---

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

Time Link to 00:15:59

@Baluga: did u come to any conclusion about this Emil's line here? I would be very interested in it. How do you think would Emil play here with let say QQ - any differently? I doubt he would xC here with it and risk giving a free card.

@Emil: can you please explain your line here. Did you bet here so big to represent big PP and so it looks like you are preparing for a river potsize shove?
If called on turn is there any chance for a big river bluff here or never in a 10^6 years?

Time Link to 00:20:11

Emil, care to elaborate your line here? Much appreciated...

baluga`s as allways on top with him analysis, video quality sucks hard though...

standard for BW to film a really bad video audio/video quality-wise. the content is always good, but seriously you are the only coach that records at unbearable resolutions time and time again, it's getting old.

if you think about it, it's probably not baluga his screen being recorded...

@Baluga: did u come to any conclusion about this Emil's line here? I would be very interested in it. How do you think would Emil play here with let say QQ - any differently? I doubt he would xC here with it and risk giving a free card.

@Emil: can you please explain your line here. Did you bet here so big to represent big PP and so it looks like you are preparing for a river potsize shove?
If called on turn is there any chance for a big river bluff here or never in a 10^6 years?

I've decided its good if our opponent floats a lot AND will often fold underpairs on the turn, because such a small part of his flop calling range includes a T or a set. However, against opponents who either A) don't float a lot or B) don't fold underpairs on the turn, its bad. This seems obvious, but I think I tend to assume the latter facts more than the former ones, which may be a bad assumption on my part. Would like to hear emil's thoughts.

Andrew

love the 'probably maybe' paradox

I still like your conclusion on the 10-turn, baluga

sorry, i see you already did

just wanted to comment that not being able to the names/betsizes well is a killer and really detracts from the video but its not baluga's fault, it was whitelime who made the video and he's just commenting. And baluga's audio is perfectly fine.

whitelime or baluga this is kind of off topic but it relates to the laggy image u guys portray. if we have queens or jacks and 3 bet and the villian jams all in is it a snap call everytime even against tight oponents, or is there a valid reason to fold in 6 max that kind of hand just with 100 bb thanks for your advice

djay206

@Baluga: did u come to any conclusion about this Emil's line here? I would be very interested in it. How do you think would Emil play here with let say QQ - any differently? I doubt he would xC here with it and risk giving a free card.

@Emil: can you please explain your line here. Did you bet here so big to represent big PP and so it looks like you are preparing for a river potsize shove?
If called on turn is there any chance for a big river bluff here or never in a 10^6 years?

I would definitely bet QQ vs some players and definitely not vs. others. I think I'm using that betsize with almost all holdings and I'm giving up on any non-A river if called. Against tighter players, I probably wouldn't even bluff an A river as their range is probably very heavily weighted towards trips+ if they call the turn.

Emil, care to elaborate your line here? Much appreciated...

Blind vs. blind I think he's going to be bluff raising a flop like this reasonably often as the only draw I can have is a flush draw so I wanted to let him continue bluffing by just calling the flop. Also, you want some strong hands in your calling range in that spot as most of the times you call, you will be fairly weak. The turn crai might be a mistake as if he's bluffing, he usually continues on the river but I thought he'd bet-call any K or J that may check back on a scary river.

You speak faster than mak-1 otherwise good vidéo

What is your assumption when deciding to 3bet a hand like 88 otb? That people will call to much OOP, or are you trying to induce a dynamic where you can get those hands in pre-flop? I ask because except against a fish or an overly aggro opponent I don't think I'd ever 3bet that hand so I was curious as to the thought process behind it.

thanks

Lol you say its good that Emil is consistent and always 3bets his 88 and JTs etc and DOESN't vary his play, and make this sound like a good thing. This is so counterintuitive to everything poker is about

Your logic in the hand where Emil checks the flop on a dry King high board with KJ is just horrendous. You say that if your opponent checked to you in Emil's spot, you would be done with pocket nines. By this logic we should just always check as the preflop raiser against "good hand readers" and be able to represent top pair plus.

Obviously at a high level it's incredibly important to balance your ranges, sometimes check really strong hands like this, sometimes just check / fold total air, you seem to not address this stuff at all and just approach everything as though it can only mean one thing.

Lol you say its good that Emil is consistent and always 3bets his 88 and JTs etc and DOESN't vary his play, and make this sound like a good thing. This is so counterintuitive to everything poker is about

no, i say that those plays individually are good in the scenarios where emil demonstrates them. i don't believe in varying ones play for the sake of varying ones play, though-- i believe that in every individual situation there is exactly one play that should be done 100% of the time.

Andrew

Your logic in the hand where Emil checks the flop on a dry King high board with KJ is just horrendous. You say that if your opponent checked to you in Emil's spot, you would be done with pocket nines. By this logic we should just always check as the preflop raiser against "good hand readers" and be able to represent top pair plus.

Obviously at a high level it's incredibly important to balance your ranges, sometimes check really strong hands like this, sometimes just check / fold total air, you seem to not address this stuff at all and just approach everything as though it can only mean one thing.

i believe i addressed why I think it's better for emil to bet KJ than check it there. I also believe that most players will bet their air or c/f it on a flop like that. And, if they're c/f their air, the vast majority of the time they will continue to c/f it on later streets.

However, if you're suggesting that it might be a decent line to give up with air and then fire a later street as a bluff, there actually might be some merit to that. I'll think about it.

Andrew

i don't believe in varying ones play for the sake of varying ones play, though-- i believe that in every individual situation there is exactly one play that should be done 100% of the time.

Andrew

Can you expand on this?

How does this fit with the concept of balance and ranges? If we assume we have perfect information about a persons actual hand and strategy then yes there is one play.
However the best we can have is perfect information about a range (even that's a pipe dream really) so don't we have to play our range against that range and in doing so we need to take different actions at random to make hand reading more difficult for our opponents?

Take the KJ example. If we cbet 100% of our range 100% of the time there then clearly that's exploitable - but only by a thinking opponent. So we need to have a checking range that will be a chunk of air plus some % value, which we can then c/c or c/r.
I totally agree that in a vacuum (e.g. this was the last hand we are going to play against him ever) should use stronger hands in our "value check" range that are not as open to a random 2-5 outer. But if the opponent is our "thinking player" then doesn't this strategy (of having AK+ in our checking range but not KJ-) actually end up giving him a bunch of information about our hand as opposed to a lets check "Top Pair any Kicker Y% here" strategy.

So take AK in place of KJ in that hand, my thinking is that against good thinking players paying attention we should check some % and bet some % (mostly bet I'd guess but any check % is better than 0%) and also mix up our play some percent with air and KJ too.
I'm not talking about going into game theory here, just throwing him a curveball every now and then to keep him on from having an easy time.

hi sounded simple,

so let me get this straight--
a *thinking player* plays back at us so often that we should c/f air sometimes, and thus we shouldn't be inclined to always bet top pair for value. That sounds backwards.

Why can't we just have a betting range and a giving up range? seems to accomplish the same things.

Andrew

so let me get this straight--
a *thinking player* plays back at us so often that we should c/f air sometimes, and thus we shouldn't be inclined to always bet top pair for value. That sounds backwards.

Then we go from having a betting range that's too weak to a checking range that's too weak.

If we bet TP+ for value 100% against said "Thinking Player" then our checking range is too weak no? It's like saying "here, have the pot" every time we check.

The alternative is to bet 100% and then play back with air a certain percent as well, not saying that wouldn't work but thats a whole new avenue.

Why can't we just have a betting range and a giving up range? seems to accomplish the same things.

Because if *thinking player* figures out these ranges then are we not in trouble?
Maybe I'm overthinking and most small-mid stakes villains are not thinking that deep, even those that are good enough to see your range is out of balance are not good enough to see if you adjust and "semi-balance" based on card strength rather than a purely random frequency?

I'm not being twisted just trying to get my head around it

sounded simple,

its much more simple than this.

if we c-bet air, its because its +EV to do so.
if we c-bet for value, its because its +EV to do so.
If we c-betting air is -EV, we don't do it (and thus we give up).
If c-betting air is -EV, then c-betting top pair is super +EV.

trying to balance our giving up range isn't really necessary until you play against the absolute sickest of the sick. there is nothing wrong with saying "hey, you're so ridic loose against my c-bets that im going to make a ton of money when I have a hand, but i don't this time, so ok you can have the pot".

Andrew

whats up w/ the vid quality? just sucks imo

Time Link to 00:19:04

I agree with all of your reasons for 3betting the flop here.

Would you also say that position wrt turn/river action is going to be another reason to favor a flop 3bet? If we call here OOP he has the option to check back the turn when we check to him and at that point effective stacks are still 2x the pot so it's difficult to get it all in on the river.

And if he checks back the turn, we obviously have to lead the river. At best we get him to call a bet with his showdown value hands but miss all of the value against his draws when he folds those on the river.

Time Link to 00:42:24

is the book out yet?