Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Entity (Mid Stakes)

Time Link to 00:47:21

I still think this is a raise/fold and still want to argue about it.

I almost feel like if we can call this bet, then we can raise/fold, because almost every goofball draw he might be turning into a bluff also has a pair, so even if he's got like 98 or JT that peeled, he ends up with a pair, so he may start out thinking "lol, bluff u!" or even "lol, I beet the Ace and the King" but then we raise and he'll say "I has a pear!" and make a bunch of calls.

It's not like we're calling and expecting him to have A4 here, right? Almost anything he's betting probably has SD value, so I think he can force him to call way more than even he may intend.

I still think this is a raise/fold and still want to argue about it.

I almost feel like if we can call this bet, then we can raise/fold, because almost every goofball draw he might be turning into a bluff also has a pair, so even if he's got like 98 or JT that peeled, he ends up with a pair, so he may start out thinking "lol, bluff u!" or even "lol, I beet the Ace and the King" but then we raise and he'll say "I has a pear!" and make a bunch of calls.

It's not like we're calling and expecting him to have A4 here, right? Almost anything he's betting probably has SD value, so I think he can force him to call way more than even he may intend.

I argued it pretty hard in the video but I agree with you -- at the very least I agree that if you're not considering a raise, you're missing something pretty crucial. Would love to hear the counter-argument some more though.

Rob

I still think this is a raise/fold and still want to argue about it.

I almost feel like if we can call this bet, then we can raise/fold, because almost every goofball draw he might be turning into a bluff also has a pair, so even if he's got like 98 or JT that peeled, he ends up with a pair, so he may start out thinking "lol, bluff u!" or even "lol, I beet the Ace and the King" but then we raise and he'll say "I has a pear!" and make a bunch of calls.

It's not like we're calling and expecting him to have A4 here, right? Almost anything he's betting probably has SD value, so I think he can force him to call way more than even he may intend.

I don't have a counter argument here and I think what you say makes perfect sense. In this particular hand, it was a situation as Rob said, where my read and gut feeling trumped the math of making a raise. When he donked I felt beat. there are players though, whom when they donk here I think it's BS and feel good about a raise.

I don't think raising would be good as a default on this coordinated of a board. I would like to have a little more info as to how the villian will play certain made hands. I realize there are not many combos of spade draws the villian may have, however, It's hands like flushs, QJ, JJ, that players make this play this way. I think it is less likely for the villian to donk AJ here. He could have AQ, less likely KQ. He could have a turned straight and maybe was waiting for the river to CR but decided I may check behind.

OK, maybe this was a slight counter argument. Bottom line, raising should be considered in certain situations against certain villians.

I still think this is a raise/fold and still want to argue about it.

Against a LP donk on that board, I'm good waaay less than 50% of the time here. If we are just calling and seeing a worse hand a lot on that board, our LP read is off.


PS. Dojo = nuts. Thank you for all of the work, Rob.

gg

Time Link to 00:00:27

AHA!

iknewitiknewitIKnewItIKNEWITIKNEWIT!!!

I have literally suspected for months that you were mongidig.

gg

Time Link to 00:00:58

Edit: first link didn't work correctly - try this one.

Super minor point on the question of iso-raising with offsuit aces:

Technically A5 > A6, though it might depend on what algorithm your software is using (e.g., evaluating the hand versus all hands, evaluating the hand versus an average hand, etc.). Generally speaking the ability to make a two card straight tends to outweigh the single pip (i.e., making a pair with the 5 is almost as good as making it with the 6).

Also, in this specific case we should note that the BB took 3 to the face on the last orbit when he was in the BB (we had Q6s, opened OTB, SB 3-bet, and BB called).

Time Link to 00:24:49

motienko, this comment was hilarious. And very reminiscent of danzasmack since you were able to bring food into it.

Time Link to 00:44:54

T8 on the Q767 board - flop gets checked and someone (causabon?) suggests raising he SB's turn donk.

That would be REALLY bad. I'll concede that some part of my reaction is probably because of a read I have on SB from playing against him (so information you didn't necessarily have) and I probably can't entirely separate that out when analyzing this spot. That said, as Rob points out, the guy cool-called the SB PF. And in a 1/3 structure! I just don't think guys who do that are going to be the type to bluff donk here 3 ways.

Time Link to 00:56:33

I think this is a pretty clear river vbet/f. I don't really have anything to add to the conversation, which I thought was good, but I'll admit I was a bit surprised that so much consideration was given to NOT vbetting. I don't know - I guess I maybe feel you over-thought this one.

Time Link to 01:10:57

Just wanted to say nh here on the right. I REALLY like going for the b/3b on the turn. When we miss that I think the river x/r sounds good too.

He could have a turned straight and maybe was waiting for the river to CR but decided I may check behind.

Given his preflop stats, that's highly unlikely.

The reason I'm so insistent on looking at this hand is that I feel you guys are really looking at only one street: the river. And he donked. So you're saying he could have XX, YY, ZZ.

But when we look at the likelihood of him holding XX, YY, ZZ, we need to consider preflop (which is huge), flop, turn, and river. So he needs to have raised those hands preflop, check-called the flop, check-called the turn, and then donked the river -- which doesn't make much sense with straights, though it could make sense with AT and maybe A9.

I'd really like to see all combos that we think he can have and then weight them from there, from both sides on this.

Raising should be considered always, against all villains, even if you only need to consider it for a second. Not considering any play in any situation is a leak.

Rob

I still think this is a raise/fold and still want to argue about it.

I'm pretty sure this is NOT a good raise against this player. The math and hand ranges you guys walked through were very interesting, and in general I think your arguments have a lot of merit. But as far as this specific situation goes I feel raising here would be a losing play. That said, I am basing this primarily off of my experience playing against this exact player, which is obviously NOT the information you all had at the time of this Dojo.

Actually as I was watching the video in real time I said to myself, 'cry call,' in such a dejected way that it honestly made me wonder if this is closer to a FOLD than a RAISE. Yes, I am aware how ridiculous that sentence will read to many. Not that I'm actually suggesting folding here, I'm just trying to explain how strongly I feel about my read. I would have been willing to make a somewhat sizable prop bet that we were not good here.

I'm pretty sure this is NOT a good raise against this player. The math and hand ranges you guys walked through were very interesting, and in general I think your arguments have a lot of merit. But as far as this specific situation goes I feel raising here would be a losing play. That said, I am basing this primarily off of my experience playing against this exact player, which is obviously NOT the information you all had at the time of this Dojo.

Actually as I was watching the video in real time I said to myself, 'cry call,' in such a dejected way that it honestly made me wonder if this is closer to a FOLD than a RAISE. Yes, I am aware how ridiculous that sentence will read to many. Not that I'm actually suggesting folding here, I'm just trying to explain how strongly I feel about my read. I would have been willing to make a somewhat sizable prop bet that we were not good here.

Based on your read, it sounds like folding might be the best play.

Rob

Based on your read, it sounds like folding might be the best play.

Rob

I have to admit, against this player I did feel beat and felt this was closer to a fold than a raise although I didn't consider either of those options. Do you ever make folds in situations like this against players like this when you have this feeling? I have folded playing live but not online with this strong of a hand.


I agree a raise should be considered against most players.

I have to admit, against this player I did feel beat and felt this was closer to a fold than a raise although I didn't consider either of those options. Do you ever make folds in situations like this against players like this when you have this feeling? I have folded playing live but not online with this strong of a hand.


I agree a raise should be considered against most players.

Yeah, you have to be REALLY confident in your read to fold. I just think most of us hit the button that's easiest in LHE (the call button) without thinking it through. What you're saying, read-wise, when you say that you felt REALLY beat is this:

I don't think he plays KQ like this, ever.

I think he plays AQ like this once in a blue moon -- say 10% of the time. Since there are 12 combos of AQ, that means that when you weight it, it looks like this:

10% * 12 = 1.2 combos of AQ
0% * 6 = 0 combos of KQ
0% * 12 = 0 combos of AJ
100% * 3 = 3 combos of JJ
1 combo (100%) of ATss = 1 combo of ATss

So you're behind, in this situation, way too often to raise, but you can still comfortably call.

The biggest thing that I want to make sure people are doing is actually LOOKING at the math involved and figuring out what your reads mean, and trying to keep that in mind in the future.

Rob

Just to be clear I would have called. Among other reasons because there WAS a blue moon this month.

I did really enjoy the analysis on the r/f possibility.

This thread is amazing for a player like myself. This is exactly the analysis I need to be doing.

gg

I'm always continually amazed by the high level of content on DC.

Time Link to 01:02:07

Hey dudes -

Amazing discussion here on the turn check-raising. This is gold. Definitely pried open the poker part of my brain a little bit more.

Time Link to 01:07:00

I'm not really clear on the discussion with check-raising AK on this turn. I'm willing to hop on board this train but I still don't really understand why it's good. Is it just a case of 'mixing it up' over letting him barrel off worse hands on the river? I'm having trouble grasping a big benefit of it other than than for our WTF Factor. You say how he'll likely call down AJ here, but I can't really think of too many other worse hands that he'll call us down with. And what's our river plan with this? A ton of cards, like all other broadways and eights, will lead to some sticky river spots out of position with the betting lead.

Edit: BG just made a good case for it in the video.

Time Link to 00:43:28

We open Jh9h in CO, get 3b by BTN. Flop: 5s2d5d. Why did you c/c there? Did you think you really had the full 6 outs there to peel getting 8:1? I mean, I see good players making these peels all the time and HU it's standard, since ranges are so wide, but BTNs 3b! range here should be really wide and our 6 outs should be heavily discounted, so that I think it's not a profitable call on the flop.

On that raise/fold consideration hand on the river. I'm very against it, and the math that Rob posted above is pretty much how I feel about that situation (the AQ frequency he takes the line with). I feel with his passiveness postflop, he just plays a lot of monsters this way. We miss value against an AQ there, but I feel an AQ (AJ, KQ) combos are less likely than a JJ, QQ and AsTs combos (not the actual number of combos, but the likelyhood he plays them that way). If we aren't good more than 50% of the time, we don't have a profitable raise. I think we're good more than 1/3rd of the time, but NOT more than 50%.

Oh, and you can back up any gut read feeling with some Bayes' handwaving to make it mathematically sound ;-)