Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Threads-

Nice video man. Im very critical of most vids but i think that this was a very good vid. The NFD hand i think the main reason we/ raise call flop is he literally never folds a worse flush draw so just too much value to stack every combo of worse fds. The AK hand the biggest reason its just a flat is that it protects your range and lets you have range flexibility vs regs. Its so nice to have some thin value hands on A high boards or K high boards vs regs. Much ezier to bluff guys in alot of spots imo if they know you flat AK in some spots. Also i think vs that guy its the best way to get value. Assuming he has all combos of AQ and AJ and KQ and KQs its the best way to get value from those hands. The only part i disagree about is just folding the flop if we miss

If we are calling bc we dominate a ton of hands he opens then the likely hood of anyone flopping a pair is decreased. So if he is ever just bluffing the flop we have the best hand. If he cbet into 4 ppl id just fold bc his bluffing range is decreased dramatically. But vs his bluffing range we have him crushed and or likely 6 outs vs his value range so if he bets a 943 board AK should be a fairly ez call.

The hand is ez on the turn his flop bluffing range is wide but turn range is pretty much only value hands so turn is a fold or a check depending on what card hits. If we bet he plays perfect and we are turning our hand into a bluff and if he bets he just has like overpairs and sets.

Anyway hopefully u like my analysis feel free to comment

Threads-

Nice video man. Im very critical of most vids but i think that this was a very good vid. The NFD hand i think the main reason we/ raise call flop is he literally never folds a worse flush draw so just too much value to stack every combo of worse fds. The AK hand the biggest reason its just a flat is that it protects your range and lets you have range flexibility vs regs. Its so nice to have some thin value hands on A high boards or K high boards vs regs. Much ezier to bluff guys in alot of spots imo if they know you flat AK in some spots. Also i think vs that guy its the best way to get value. Assuming he has all combos of AQ and AJ and KQ and KQs its the best way to get value from those hands. The only part i disagree about is just folding the flop if we miss

If we are calling bc we dominate a ton of hands he opens then the likely hood of anyone flopping a pair is decreased. So if he is ever just bluffing the flop we have the best hand. If he cbet into 4 ppl id just fold bc his bluffing range is decreased dramatically. But vs his bluffing range we have him crushed and or likely 6 outs vs his value range so if he bets a 943 board AK should be a fairly ez call.

The hand is ez on the turn his flop bluffing range is wide but turn range is pretty much only value hands so turn is a fold or a check depending on what card hits. If we bet he plays perfect and we are turning our hand into a bluff and if he bets he just has like overpairs and sets.

Anyway hopefully u like my analysis feel free to comment

Awesome. Glad you liked it.

I'd have to double check, but in regards to the AK hand, if I'm flatting a pre-flop raise and folding if we miss it's because I think we aren't good. I would imagine I was referring to seeing the pot multi-way. I agree if we think opponent is c-betting a lot then we peel the flop a lot with AK after flatting pre.

Could you time link me to the NFD hand?

Time Link to 00:46:04

About these 25-40 BB shorts that like to 3b a lot , 11/10,12/10,13/10-11....\
What range you prefer to 4b shove?

About these 25-40 BB shorts that like to 3b a lot , 11/10,12/10,13/10-11....\
What range you prefer to 4b shove?

I'm embarrassed but I haven't worked out a really good range for this as it just hasn't come up a lot for me.

Thinking through it...

Off the top of my head I think something like Axs, PPs, broadways should have enough equity to be good starting point. It depends on stack size a lot as well. If he has 30bb, we open to 2.5, he makes it 8... we're risking 28.5 to win about 10.5. However, even if we only have 20% equity vs his calling range with our hand we are getting about a 12bb discount. So, we are really only risking 16.5 to win 10.5. That means he needs to fold ~60%. With a 30% equity hand we only need about 50% FE. If he's 3-betting us light I wouldn't be surprised if he's already folding enough such that you can ship ATC (or close to it).

Time Link to 00:57:25

Hey, nice to see a hand involving me on table 2!

On the river, hero bet thin for value, guess you are trying to get value from Ax hands?

Hey, nice to see a hand involving me on table 2!

On the river, hero bet thin for value, guess you are trying to get value from Ax hands?

Yep, stuff like AQ.

Time Link to 00:21:13

Hey Threads

ATs vs sqz , Some of your comments have confused me here. For sake of discussion we will be talking 100bb.

You mention that we cannot call given his size , i believe this is a standard sqz size for most , some even make it 14 here , are you saying you wouldnt have a calling range here at all ? i do call in this spot with hands like AQ , AJ , KQs , KJs and i see a lot of other regs do the same , im talking 6max.

You then say we should shove or fold here with ATs , instinctively i was thinking that isnt +EV so i plugged it into cardrunners ev. Villain needs to sqz over 10% if his value range is JJ+,AK , i dont believe his range is that wide in this spot , i dont see many regs sqz that much at this level in my 6max game. I dont even feel comfortable shoving AQ in this spot vs most players. Granted in the video it was his 2nd sqz in a row but arguments could be made for both that being more value or bluff heavy.

Im also finding it is +EV to 4bet / fold a hand like KQo. If we make it 26 are you worried we get called ? I see players sqz/fold to a min 4bet here , i would do the same with my bluffs , although i think i rarely 4bet bluff vs a sqz i do usualy 4bet to 26 with my value range and call it off rather than shove in pre.

Would like to hear more of your thoughts on this spot.

Time Link to 00:21:13

(Ignore the timelink , its from previous post )

Earlier there was A9s on btn where the CO had 3bet an EP/MP open and you advised a cold 4bet here - again instinctively im finding it hard to believe this would be +EV , villain was playing like 14/10 with a 4 or 5% total 3bet stat. Actualy he prob doesnt 3b TT/JJ or maybe not AK here so it might be ok but still very close i would imagine. Perhaps you brought it up more as something to consider rather than thinking this is a good opportunity for it.

Hey Threads

ATs vs sqz , Some of your comments have confused me here. For sake of discussion we will be talking 100bb.

You mention that we cannot call given his size , i believe this is a standard sqz size for most , some even make it 14 here , are you saying you wouldnt have a calling range here at all ? i do call in this spot with hands like AQ , AJ , KQs , KJs and i see a lot of other regs do the same , im talking 6max.

You then say we should shove or fold here with ATs , instinctively i was thinking that isnt +EV so i plugged it into cardrunners ev. Villain needs to sqz over 10% if his value range is JJ+,AK , i dont believe his range is that wide in this spot , i dont see many regs sqz that much at this level in my 6max game. I dont even feel comfortable shoving AQ in this spot vs most players. Granted in the video it was his 2nd sqz in a row but arguments could be made for both that being more value or bluff heavy.

Im also finding it is +EV to 4bet / fold a hand like KQo. If we make it 26 are you worried we get called ? I see players sqz/fold to a min 4bet here , i would do the same with my bluffs , although i think i rarely 4bet bluff vs a sqz i do usualy 4bet to 26 with my value range and call it off rather than shove in pre.

Would like to hear more of your thoughts on this spot.

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of calling here because it essentially use turns my range face up. Big offsuit broadways and suited brodways can call, but now we pretty much tell our opponent exactly what we have. These hands are particularly profitable if our opponent will bluff a lot, but we are simultaneously telling him to not bluff us because our range is strong. Further, we won't have room to do much bluffing ourselves because the SPR is so low.

Maybe 100NL people are still going to bluff all the time because they won't read that your range is strong so the call you could profitably call, but in general once a guy starts 3-betting much 13bb or higher it gets hard to call a lot of 3-bets IP because there is little room to play post-flop.

I think it's fairly likely that this guy will be 3-betting a 10% range. That's pretty normal for people to be that wide.

I've gotten called with some frequency by making it 26 in this spot, so I'm not a super huge fan of that. Further, shoving ATs is essentially like shoving 33 to win the 19 in the pot (because of our equity discount). So, there isn't a huge difference in the FE required between making it 26 and making it 33. If you make it 26 you need about ~58% FE. If you shove you need ~63% FE (a little less if you're shipping AQs). So, it's pretty much the same decision we're making. Personally I like making my 4-bets a shove in this spot. Since our equity is always realized we don't need much more FE.

(Ignore the timelink , its from previous post )

Earlier there was A9s on btn where the CO had 3bet an EP/MP open and you advised a cold 4bet here - again instinctively im finding it hard to believe this would be +EV , villain was playing like 14/10 with a 4 or 5% total 3bet stat. Actualy he prob doesnt 3b TT/JJ or maybe not AK here so it might be ok but still very close i would imagine. Perhaps you brought it up more as something to consider rather than thinking this is a good opportunity for it.

Yeah, I imagine you're right that I was just saying that when a CO 3-bets someone in MP and we hold an Ax hand we have a good candidate hand to cold 4-bet bluff. Then I would check out to see if the other variables are there such that we should. In the situation as you describe it, it doesn't sound like the other variables are there. I agree.