---

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

Hi Threads

Table 1 we face a 3-bet with A7o vs. the SB here and we are close to 100 effective. Over 64 hands villains hud doesn't show he is too aggressive. What would you're 3-bet calling range here be?

JJ+, ATs+, AK, AQo maybe?

Against someone 3-betting maybe 6% or more...

99+, T9s+, A9s+, AJo,AQo?

-Thanks.

Time Link to 00:30:26

Thanks for the analysis with cold calling the baby pockets in Position. Do you think we could still defend with the baby pockets if we opened UTG and had a perceived tighter range?

-thx

Thanks for the analysis with cold calling the baby pockets in Position. Do you think we could still defend with the baby pockets if we opened UTG and had a perceived tighter range?

-thx

It's pretty close, but I think we can call vs guys who we know have a tight range 100bb deep. So, a known ABC TAG 3-bets your EP raise, you can probably set-mine there. If you make us a little deeper it's probably no longer that close. Say like 125bb+.

Time Link to 00:06:27

Here is the time link to table one when we face the 3-bet Threads. Yeah, so like stated above, 3-bet defense call vs. Nit, and Non-Nit.

-Thanks.

Time Link to 00:46:19

Excellent analysis of 3-betting frequencies with our bluffing hands on table 1.

Time Link to 00:51:47

Hi again, Table 2 the nit opens and we 3-bet the Q6s, If we were in the nits shoes, what type of 3-bet calling range can we construct for ourselves here...

Earlier in the vid we ruled out 55-22 for defending oop.I'd imagine 77-88 and possibly 99 can go into that folding category oop.

Getting in JJ-TT at micros feels like suicide especially when we open from an earlier position and we'd actually just be bluffing by 4-betting without some type of aggressive dynamic. So I'm wondering what the merit of calling is, or if in general we are still going to get owned calling oop.

AK, AKs I'm fine just calling as well or getting it in with a 4-bet in an aggressive dynamic. AQo I can dump vs. a tight 3-bettor. AQs I can call I suppose.
Suited broadway, dunno.

-any thoughts? Thanks.

Here is the time link to table one when we face the 3-bet Threads. Yeah, so like stated above, 3-bet defense call vs. Nit, and Non-Nit.

-Thanks.

I'd typically call with PPs, suited broadways, Axs, and stuff like J9s, T9s, T8s, 98s vs non-nit regs as a default. I think we just hit equity often enough.

The question in this situation is do we flop profitable hands, and do we profit often enough, to invest the money in a pre-flop call. You'll note that all of these hands hit chunks to bluff with a lot and/or strong SD (often with backup draws), or the nuts a high % of the time (as far as flopping the nuts in HE goes ).

Hi again, Table 2 the nit opens and we 3-bet the Q6s, If we were in the nits shoes, what type of 3-bet calling range can we construct for ourselves here...

Earlier in the vid we ruled out 55-22 for defending oop.I'd imagine 77-88 and possibly 99 can go into that folding category oop.

Getting in JJ-TT at micros feels like suicide especially when we open from an earlier position and we'd actually just be bluffing by 4-betting without some type of aggressive dynamic. So I'm wondering what the merit of calling is, or if in general we are still going to get owned calling oop.

AK, AKs I'm fine just calling as well or getting it in with a 4-bet in an aggressive dynamic. AQo I can dump vs. a tight 3-bettor. AQs I can call I suppose.
Suited broadway, dunno.

-any thoughts? Thanks.

Interesting question that is definitely good for learning to think in theoretical situations. It shouldn't come up often as we shouldn't be nitting it up that often. However, perhaps the cards and situations have created a nitty image, so in theory it could come up.

I always jokingly say that nits aren't very good at being nits. If we're a nit, we should assume that people aren't 3-bet bluffing us (particularly when we open in EP/MP), so we should be able to set mine (assuming players won't adjust to readjust to that strategy by 3-bettin AK/AQ/JJ for value). If people are re-nitting us (see what I did there? ), which is pretty typical, we can just flat with something like PPs and AK, AQs, KQs.

As far as AK goes, if we're a nit we pretty much don't have an aggressive 4-bet dynamic ever, and since we're getting 3-bet for value exclusively, 4-betting AK sounds like a good way to give people money. You're unlikely to get it with anything you ever crush if you're a nit. Further, you're not getting much fold equity. This just all means you don't have a lot of equity (fold or pot). Not having a lot of equity means you won't actually win more a lot when you play the hand this way. That means investing a 4-bet into a pot that you're rarely going to win is going to be a losing proposition (well not rarely, but not often enough to make it +EV). What's funny is that nits will actually get AK in with you pre-flop in some really bad spots (where I'm sitting there going... dude I only have AA). It's what I mean by saying nits aren't good at being nits.

Your equities (both fold and pot) are worse for JJ/TT than AK, so getting it in with them is even worse.

I'd typically call with PPs, suited broadways, Axs, and stuff like J9s, T9s, T8s, 98s vs non-nit regs as a default. I think we just hit equity often enough.

The question in this situation is do we flop profitable hands, and do we profit often enough, to invest the money in a pre-flop call. You'll note that all of these hands hit chunks to bluff with a lot and/or strong SD (often with backup draws), or the nuts a high % of the time (as far as flopping the nuts in HE goes ).

Thanks, that range gives me something to work with. I'd throw in AQo too, maybe fold AJo unless he's pretty wide I suppose.

Interesting question that is definitely good for learning to think in theoretical situations. It shouldn't come up often as we shouldn't be nitting it up that often. However, perhaps the cards and situations have created a nitty image, so in theory it could come up.

I always jokingly say that nits aren't very good at being nits. If we're a nit, we should assume that people aren't 3-bet bluffing us (particularly when we open in EP/MP), so we should be able to set mine (assuming players won't adjust to readjust to that strategy by 3-bettin AK/AQ/JJ for value). If people are re-nitting us (see what I did there? ), which is pretty typical, we can just flat with something like PPs and AK, AQs, KQs.

As far as AK goes, if we're a nit we pretty much don't have an aggressive 4-bet dynamic ever, and since we're getting 3-bet for value exclusively, 4-betting AK sounds like a good way to give people money. You're unlikely to get it with anything you ever crush if you're a nit. Further, you're not getting much fold equity. This just all means you don't have a lot of equity (fold or pot). Not having a lot of equity means you won't actually win more a lot when you play the hand this way. That means investing a 4-bet into a pot that you're rarely going to win is going to be a losing proposition (well not rarely, but not often enough to make it +EV). What's funny is that nits will actually get AK in with you pre-flop in some really bad spots (where I'm sitting there going... dude I only have AA). It's what I mean by saying nits aren't good at being nits.

Your equities (both fold and pot) are worse for JJ/TT than AK, so getting it in with them is even worse.

Ok that's great, so against a RENIT, lol, we call AK, AQs, KQs, and set mine the PP's....Perhaps we even setmine with QQ in this exact spot?

Ok that's great, so against a RENIT, lol, we call AK, AQs, KQs, and set mine the PP's....Perhaps we even setmine with QQ in this exact spot?

Yeah, 4-betting QQ is a bad idea there.

Time Link to 00:12:23

On Table 1, why are double barrelling? The flop is very wet and I can't imagine Q OTT changes much, if he's calling OTF, he's calling OTT.

Time Link to 00:34:36

On Table 3, I agree that flatting AK is better than 3betting, but what happens if we do not flop TPTK? Do we put our opponent on a weaker A and small/mid pp and expect him to cbet a lot of flops? If so, do we call one street and expect him to give up OTT or bluff raise when he double barrels?

What happens if we do flop an A? Do we call down hoping he has AQ/AJ, if we raise OTF/OTT won't we just turn our hand face up?

Time Link to 00:53:48

On Table 4, how do we know there's a decent amount of air in the opponent's range?

On Table 1, why are double barrelling? The flop is very wet and I can't imagine Q OTT changes much, if he's calling OTF, he's calling OTT.

I don't like the thought process of "if the turn card changes nothing, then don't barrel". It doesn't really get into reading our opponents hands. It's too shallow of thinking. It implies that our opponents never call flop and then fold the turn. There's plenty of times that happens.

In this spot we have a decent decent amount of outs, and we could potentially have been peeled by somethingl ike 77-22 that was calling with the intention of folding to future heat. The turn card doesn't have to change anything for us to get those hands to fold. Those hands are folding on bricks, so a brick is fine to barrel if those hands are a big part of your opponent's range.

On Table 3, I agree that flatting AK is better than 3betting, but what happens if we do not flop TPTK? Do we put our opponent on a weaker A and small/mid pp and expect him to cbet a lot of flops? If so, do we call one street and expect him to give up OTT or bluff raise when he double barrels?

What happens if we do flop an A? Do we call down hoping he has AQ/AJ, if we raise OTF/OTT won't we just turn our hand face up?

I would peel or raise a lot of flops to bluff off small PPs later, and we also get him to fold hands like AK/AQ that we chop and crush respectively.

Very situational what we do when we hit. If we have an aggressive image we can consider raising because we may induce call with less than TP and rebluffs. Otherwise I'd tend to flat and hope he value cuts himself with AQ.

On Table 4, how do we know there's a decent amount of air in the opponent's range?

It's BvB and the board J44s. He should have a reasonably wide pre-flop range and most of it misses this flop.


AT-A8, A6s-A5s, A3s-A2s
KQ, KT, K9s, Kk8s
QT, Q9s
T9-54s, T8s-64s, T7s-96s

All of these have to be non-diamonds, but they are non-diamonds 3/4 times on average.

Conveserly to "hit" this board he needs:
AJ, KJ, QJ, JT, J9s, J8s
TT-22
any two diamonds.
maybe AT

He misses this flop a vast majority of the time.

I don't like the thought process of "if the turn card changes nothing, then don't barrel". It doesn't really get into reading our opponents hands. It's too shallow of thinking. It implies that our opponents never call flop and then fold the turn. There's plenty of times that happens.

In this spot we have a decent decent amount of outs, and we could potentially have been peeled by somethingl ike 77-22 that was calling with the intention of folding to future heat. The turn card doesn't have to change anything for us to get those hands to fold. Those hands are folding on bricks, so a brick is fine to barrel if those hands are a big part of your opponent's range.

Perhaps I'm being too nitty but I would c/f OTF and make a smaller mistake than a potentially bigger mistake. I think that double barrelling, even just single bet on the OTF would be a bigger mistake in the long term; here's why:

1) I agree that OTF the opponent could have 77-22 but I think the majority of his calling range would be 10x, 9x, random broadways SD's. If we're unimproved, we're losing to trips, made pairs or K/Q high. Even if we are improved, we could be losing to higher straight or a slowplayed full house.

2) We only have 8 hands on our opponent so we don't know his player type yet, but even if he's a calling station calling down w/ 77-22, would we make a straight by the river enough times to show a profit in the long term?

3) If we assume he's more of a thinking player, would he really call one street w/ 77-22? If he's a thinking player, he would know that 77-22 are very susceptible to overcards and by peeling one street he would expect the potential for more overcomes to come in the next two streets. It would seem silly to call OTF and not expect more overcards to come later. So I would imagine a player like this would fold 77-22 OTF.

Perhaps I'm being too nitty but I would c/f OTF and make a smaller mistake than a potentially bigger mistake. I think that double barrelling, even just single bet on the OTF would be a bigger mistake in the long term; here's why:

1) I agree that OTF the opponent could have 77-22 but I think the majority of his calling range would be 10x, 9x, random broadways SD's. If we're unimproved, we're losing to trips, made pairs or K/Q high. Even if we are improved, we could be losing to higher straight or a slowplayed full house.

2) We only have 8 hands on our opponent so we don't know his player type yet, but even if he's a calling station calling down w/ 77-22, would we make a straight by the river enough times to show a profit in the long term?

3) If we assume he's more of a thinking player, would he really call one street w/ 77-22? If he's a thinking player, he would know that 77-22 are very susceptible to overcards and by peeling one street he would expect the potential for more overcomes to come in the next two streets. It would seem silly to call OTF and not expect more overcards to come later. So I would imagine a player like this would fold 77-22 OTF.

We have an OESD on a board that doesn't hit that many ranges given that it's paired. C/f'ing the flop is way too tight. Betting is certainly +EV.

We also shouldn't fall into the process of "waiting for betting spots" which it kind of sounds like you're going down that road here. Sorry if I'm off with that assumption. That logic really applies to tournaments, but not cash games. In a tournament you can be in situation where the EV is so thin that you should not make the play because the EV of staying alive is higher.

The more I think about it, the more I'm ok with c/f'ing the turn on this particular card, but definitely not just c/f'ing the flop. I think it's really close on the turn. I'll flesh out my thoughts in response to your points.

1) I think there's a decent amount of 77-22 just from a combinatoric standpoint. There's 39 combos of 77-22 if he always call the flop with them. There's not that many Tx. AT, KT, QT, JT, T9s, T8s = 34 combos. 9x is A9, K9s, Q9s, J9s, 98s, 97s = 27 combos. Thats 39 combos of 77-22 and 61 combos of Tx and 9x. So if we expect him to fold 77-22 100% and never fold 9x and Tx then we'd get (39/(39+61)) 39% FE. The problem with this turn card is that he also has some QJ that's never folding, and he could also have hit with KQ is he is calling wit that. That puts us pretty close, and into the 35% FE range. That makes it really close on a 2-barrel. Sometimes we raised on the turn and sometimes we hit the wrong end of this straight and lose another bet. I would say we get right around 25% FE on the turn... so it's pretty close. (Double-check my combo counting... a lot of opportunites to mess up)


2) I'm wouldn't expect to get called twice here vs those hands, but if he does have those hands then we'll likely showdown unless we make a straight, and in which case we win. We have a lot of outs vs those hands so it's not the end of the world if they call - thought we obviously prefer they fold. We can put in a fudge factor in the above analysis to account for this. So, instead of always folding 77-22 let's say he folds them 80%. Instead of 39 combos of those hands folding, we now have 31.2 (39*80%). Now he folds (31.2/(31.2+61)) 34% FE. Plus he has some QJ that's not folding, so maybe more like 30% FE. He also has some random hands like 76s and 86s and AK that might consider folding the turn. I think it kind of washes out a little bit in decreasing our FE a few points. If we 2/3's it on the turn that isn't quit enough on pure air, but we do have some outs that reduces our FE required. Pretty close! There's also something to be said for checking the turn is definitely +EV because we do get a free card from time to time and then hit a straight. Seems like a check to me now.

FWIW, if we do end up showing down this hand there's some EV attached to that because it gives us information for relatively cheap that we can use in the future.

3) Giving a player at 25NL a lot of credit for thinking is likely a mistake. On average most guys are pretty ABC or they are fishy. This player looks fishy. Given this guys stack size I expect him to be a pretty weak player, so I wouldn't go very far along that train of thought.