---

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

Time Link to 00:37:21

Table 1
Why are you cbetting on table 1? Doesn't his calling range oop smash this flop?

Love the format, this makes me want to play NL again. Keep it up.

stop sayin obviously so freakin much plz

nice vid enjoyed it as usual

Table 1
Why are you cbetting on table 1? Doesn't his calling range oop smash this flop?

Yes, you are right.

Then again, I do have 2 overs and a nut gutshot so if there ever was a non sd value hand to bet on this flop it is mine...

stop sayin obviously so freakin much plz

Noted.

Noted.

I thought you didn't say obviously enough.

I really like your videos. Probably the best 6max nl videos out there,,thanks!

I thought you didn't say obviously enough.

Also noted.

Love this series so far. I would appreciate if you could sit at the same seat on every table it makes the action more easy to follow.

Time Link to 00:40:31

Not a big deal, but why are you folding KQ here on BB when there is a reg isolating a limping fish?

Not a big deal, but why are you folding KQ here on BB when there is a reg isolating a limping fish?

I've done this myself a lot in videos. Talking out loud about something else makes you autopilot at half your IQ pretty much. Even if it's not a call for whatever reason, then it should be a 3b since it's definitely the top of your folding range. But I'm 100% sure it was a result from him talking about other stuff.

Why do you 3-bet to 7bb in position, rather than 9bb, let's say? Do you want them to call more and play oop postflop or you think they're not adjusting and folding too much?

I would much more prefer a hand history review, than this mixed style, it was kinda hard to follow.

I like the live sessions videos! Especially if you have hands ready in dull moments Keep it up

Not a big deal, but why are you folding KQ here on BB when there is a reg isolating a limping fish?

Might have been because I was talking about these guys and how they scratch their balls. Also might have been because he made it 24 and I might have not realized that it was a 2b and not a 3b.

Either way, ty that was stupid.

Why do you 3-bet to 7bb in position, rather than 9bb, let's say? Do you want them to call more and play oop postflop or you think they're not adjusting and folding too much?

In theory you should always be 3b less IP. It is harder for them to call profitably OOP, so you lay yourself a better price on the steal and you also keep the pot to stack ratio more favorable to you when they do call.

Time Link to 00:09:29

Do you think the hands like 77-99 are just jamming over your squeeze pre?

Also, would you expect hands like AJs or AQ to get it in pre here a lot or do you think they'll flat?

In theory you should always be 3b less IP. It is harder for them to call profitably OOP, so you lay yourself a better price on the steal and you also keep the pot to stack ratio more favorable to you when they do call.

I experimented with something very similar about a year ago, when you 3bet less than 9bb do you find them significantly increasing their calling range OOP, and with which parts of their range are they calling you with (i.e. are they just set mining or are they calling middle value hands)? Also, do you bother to 3bet a stronger, depolarized range as a default when you do this or a non-dominated polarized range considering those Axs, Kxs hands can become a liability and the SPR is low enough for SCs not to be check jammed on after they cbet and lose their equity share?

Really interested to hear your thoughts on this school of 3betting, because I think it's widely under used.

Time Link to 00:35:20

One reason, and it probably still is not sufficient, for 3 betting 53s is that it was blind vs btn and since you are going to flat more being in position, 53s is never dominated by other no pair hands (it's dominated but not in the KQ vs KT sense). Also I guess if you are deep it wouldn't be as bad because he can barrel and you are less likely to flat your big pairs preflop because it would be harder to get stacks in by the river, making big pairs more likely to be in his range.

Do you think the hands like 77-99 are just jamming over your squeeze pre?

Also, would you expect hands like AJs or AQ to get it in pre here a lot or do you think they'll flat?

I think usually they are jamming, and even if they arent they might fold now. AJs he might have, which also doesnt help me

I experimented with something very similar about a year ago, when you 3bet less than 9bb do you find them significantly increasing their calling range OOP, and with which parts of their range are they calling you with (i.e. are they just set mining or are they calling middle value hands)? Also, do you bother to 3bet a stronger, depolarized range as a default when you do this or a non-dominated polarized range considering those Axs, Kxs hands can become a liability and the SPR is low enough for SCs not to be check jammed on after they cbet and lose their equity share?

Really interested to hear your thoughts on this school of 3betting, because I think it's widely under used.

I think they call with everything more, so far it feels like I am getting 4b the same though. You lost me on that last part, can you explain what you are asking?

Time Link to 00:36:02

Senor Ansky et all,

Please feel free to disregard this but here are my thoughts on 3-betting low suited connector type hands:

I completely agree with you, and not just because you are better at poker than I am. However, I do not 100% agree with your reasoning, IE I feel something was left out. In essence, when we are 3-betting a polarized range the bottom end will invariably contain bluffs. The way one beats a polarized range is to call more often. This much has been discussed at length. The power of hands like low suited connectors comes from their ability to barrel multiple streets, this power is greatly reduced when oop. Further, when we 3-bet this hand our SPR is greatly reduced which makes maneuvering/barreling less effective.

So what hands are good 3-bet candidates? A really great poster on 2+2 named Ronintalken postulated in an article he wrote in the theory forum that hands like weak jacks and queens represent great candidates because they contain blockers to your opponents calling range and allows us to play perfectly against villain more often. When villain raises we can easily dump our hand or, when we have the nuts portion of our range, giggle like a silly goose and shove.

The kickback I anticipate from people who like to 3-bet low suited connectors (and it's very valid, to be honest), is that our hands will play particularly poorly post-flop when we 3-bet Jxss type hands as we'll be dominated quite frequently... But I think this is really making something out of nothing. First, we aren't dominated nearly as much as we think. Second, because our range contains so many blockers to villains calling range we'll see flops less often. Third, this is the part of our range that's supposed to be dominated fairly often, this is our balance, these are our bluffs. Finally, for every hand that dominates Jxss there are 2 hands that Jxss will play better against than 35ss.


That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Time Link to 00:29:00

you were saying this is a great spot to 4B with QJ here. I agree but with ur image vs that villian how good can it really be...I mean u just suked out on that guy with J7s like 14min previous to this.Is there some higher level im not on or not understanding?

Time Link to 00:29:00

Sorry if i come off as a dick here just wanted to know. Very good video so far and loved the first one Thks.

you were saying this is a great spot to 4B with QJ here. I agree but with ur image vs that villian how good can it really be...I mean u just suked out on that guy with J7s like 14min previous to this.Is there some higher level im not on or not understanding?

I don't know what stakes you play but most regs at MSNL are professional players and much less sensitive to this sort of stuff than lower stakes regs. Ansky's play on each street was reasonable and he can just shrug it off as a cooler. And there's also a bit of leveling involved even if he did think we were out of line: would we really do it again after showing it down last time? At lower stakes you're probably right it hurts our image a bit more, but it's somewhat compensated by the regs there being less capable of doing something about it. Also, if our image is so bad, villain might flat pre with his premiums.

I think they call with everything more, so far it feels like I am getting 4b the same though. You lost me on that last part, can you explain what you are asking?

Sure, if villains are calling OOP vs 3bets more based on your decreased raise size, are you depolarizing your 3bet range to include AQ (or other medium value hands) for value vs. their increased calling ranges and defending your AQ vs. their 4bets by calling in position? And for the bottom of your 3bet range, are you using suited blockers like Axs or Kxs or are you afraid that their increased calling range dominates the bottom of your 3bet range and that SCs are a better choice because of their live equity combined with greater stack depth?

Basically, fwiw in 2009 to 2010 at 200nl to 400nl players were only using a depolarized 3bet range in position (3bet/5bet hands like AK and TT+ for value and blockers like A5-2o and Kxs for bluffs) assuming villains would only 4bet/fold or 4bet/call and never call 3bets OOP and assuming there was no reason for them to call 4bets IP. Once you manipulate villains into calling 3bets OOP by decreasing your raise size, those assumptions no longer hold and depolarizing your 3bet range with AQ, prefering live equity vs. dominated blockers and defending your AQ by calling 4bets in position (I'm assuming 3bet/folding AQ and 5bet shoving AQ are terrible alternatives to calling) seem like logical adjustments that should be made.

Categorically, in position every one agreed that blockers were better than SCs as the bottom of your 3bet range because they had all the advantages of decrease your opponent's 4bet range without the worries of being called since calling 3bets OOP was chastized as being terrible on 2p2 etc. and nobody seems to agree on what the best hands are to 3bet OOP be it suited blockers or suited connectors etc. and I'm wondering whether or not "inviting" calls from the opponent by decreasing our 3bet size makes blockers less desirable IP. Do you think the added lines the suited blockers give you, like being able to bet/call vs. flop shoves or check/call with TPNK as PFR OOP are just better than clean equity in every 3bet situation?

Note: AQ is just an example of a value hand that isn't traditionally 3bet in position vs regulars, I'm sure others apply.

Thanks for reading that and I hope it's understable, it's kind of difficult to articulate.

In theory you should always be 3b less IP. It is harder for them to call profitably OOP, so you lay yourself a better price on the steal and you also keep the pot to stack ratio more favorable to you when they do call.

By 3betting that small you create spots where shoving hands like AQ becomes -EV unless villain is 4betting a _really_ wide range and they need fewer postflop skills for a call to be +EV.

8bb - 8.5bb is fine. 7bb is too small.

you were saying this is a great spot to 4B with QJ here. I agree but with ur image vs that villian how good can it really be...I mean u just suked out on that guy with J7s like 14min previous to this.Is there some higher level im not on or not understanding?

What grindcore said.

I believe I have said this in previous videos, but I think a common symptom of my ssnl and msnl students is that they are too focused with short term metagame. Just because you ran a bluff 15 minute ago (which is like an eternity while multitabling), does not mean the guy will be so much more likely to think you are bluffing now.

Senor Ansky et all,

Please feel free to disregard this but here are my thoughts on 3-betting low suited connector type hands:

I completely agree with you, and not just because you are better at poker than I am. However, I do not 100% agree with your reasoning, IE I feel something was left out. In essence, when we are 3-betting a polarized range the bottom end will invariably contain bluffs. The way one beats a polarized range is to call more often. This much has been discussed at length. The power of hands like low suited connectors comes from their ability to barrel multiple streets, this power is greatly reduced when oop. Further, when we 3-bet this hand our SPR is greatly reduced which makes maneuvering/barreling less effective.

So what hands are good 3-bet candidates? A really great poster on 2+2 named Ronintalken postulated in an article he wrote in the theory forum that hands like weak jacks and queens represent great candidates because they contain blockers to your opponents calling range and allows us to play perfectly against villain more often. When villain raises we can easily dump our hand or, when we have the nuts portion of our range, giggle like a silly goose and shove.

The kickback I anticipate from people who like to 3-bet low suited connectors (and it's very valid, to be honest), is that our hands will play particularly poorly post-flop when we 3-bet Jxss type hands as we'll be dominated quite frequently... But I think this is really making something out of nothing. First, we aren't dominated nearly as much as we think. Second, because our range contains so many blockers to villains calling range we'll see flops less often. Third, this is the part of our range that's supposed to be dominated fairly often, this is our balance, these are our bluffs. Finally, for every hand that dominates Jxss there are 2 hands that Jxss will play better against than 35ss.


That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

I don't really agree with this. Are you talking about hands like J5s?

I think you can have a violently aggressive 3b range and still never include j6s or worse. Just always sticking to XYs where you can make a straight, is always going to be a better range to have imo.

And regarding this sentence: Further, when we 3-bet this hand our SPR is greatly reduced which makes maneuvering/barreling less effective.

What exactly are you trying to say? That 3 betting 53s makes it harder to play than if you called with it (or j5s). Clearly I'd rather 3b the hand than flat with it, having a lower spr when you are OOP is better, as it diminishes the power of position (obv theres an inflection pt, and this has been discussed at length a million times).

Sure, if villains are calling OOP vs 3bets more based on your decreased raise size, are you depolarizing your 3bet range to include AQ (or other medium value hands) for value vs. their increased calling ranges and defending your AQ vs. their 4bets by calling in position? And for the bottom of your 3bet range, are you using suited blockers like Axs or Kxs or are you afraid that their increased calling range dominates the bottom of your 3bet range and that SCs are a better choice because of their live equity combined with greater stack depth?

Basically, fwiw in 2009 to 2010 at 200nl to 400nl players were only using a depolarized 3bet range in position (3bet/5bet hands like AK and TT+ for value and blockers like A5-2o and Kxs for bluffs) assuming villains would only 4bet/fold or 4bet/call and never call 3bets OOP and assuming there was no reason for them to call 4bets IP. Once you manipulate villains into calling 3bets OOP by decreasing your raise size, those assumptions no longer hold and depolarizing your 3bet range with AQ, prefering live equity vs. dominated blockers and defending your AQ by calling 4bets in position (I'm assuming 3bet/folding AQ and 5bet shoving AQ are terrible alternatives to calling) seem like logical adjustments that should be made.

Categorically, in position every one agreed that blockers were better than SCs as the bottom of your 3bet range because they had all the advantages of decrease your opponent's 4bet range without the worries of being called since calling 3bets OOP was chastized as being terrible on 2p2 etc. and nobody seems to agree on what the best hands are to 3bet OOP be it suited blockers or suited connectors etc. and I'm wondering whether or not "inviting" calls from the opponent by decreasing our 3bet size makes blockers less desirable IP. Do you think the added lines the suited blockers give you, like being able to bet/call vs. flop shoves or check/call with TPNK as PFR OOP are just better than clean equity in every 3bet situation?

Note: AQ is just an example of a value hand that isn't traditionally 3bet in position vs regulars, I'm sure others apply.

Thanks for reading that and I hope it's understable, it's kind of difficult to articulate.

It is very understandable, and every pt is valid, and it is well articulated.

You are right, obviously. When you are inviting more calls, you have to be more conscious of having straight value hands, and just general good hot/cold equity hands.

That pokerstars thing at the bottom jumping up and down is tilting me. As is the pulling up of old hands during the action. Please review the hand history at the end of the vid, or overlay the audio later so you can pause the action.

Time Link to 01:14:20

Is this not a clear call on the turn on table 1 with the oesd?

Am I making a mistake calling here because of reverse implied odds?

Enjoyed the vid btw.

What grindcore said.

I believe I have said this in previous videos, but I think a common symptom of my ssnl and msnl students is that they are too focused with short term metagame. Just because you ran a bluff 15 minute ago (which is like an eternity while multitabling), does not mean the guy will be so much more likely to think you are bluffing now.

hmmm i said 14min to be nice.. prety sure it was about 10min. And its not like u werent super dupper active on that table.. I can see if you pulled that bluff off if u wernt so active on that table probably would be better but who knows im just a fish lol.

(1)I don't really agree with this. Are you talking about hands like J5s?

(1)I think you can have a violently aggressive 3b range and still never include j6s or worse. Just always sticking to XYs where you can make a straight, is always going to be a better range to have imo.

(2)And regarding this sentence: Further, when we 3-bet this hand our SPR is greatly reduced which makes maneuvering/barreling less effective.

(2)What exactly are you trying to say? That 3 betting 53s makes it harder to play than if you called with it (or j5s). Clearly I'd rather 3b the hand than flat with it, having a lower spr when you are OOP is better, as it diminishes the power of position (obv theres an inflection pt, and this has been discussed at length a million times).

I numbered the quote to make my response/thoughts easier to manage. And if anyone out there is reading this and trying to decide whether to listen to me or Ansky pick Ansky AINEC

(1). I think the equity that our hand has vs our opponent's range is vastly overrated when 3-betting the low end of our polarized range. I think the way our range affects our opponent's possible holdings is vastly underrated when 3-betting the low end of our polarized range. When I, personally, 3-bet polarized it's because villain is a player who is more likely to 4bet/fold than call. I do not want villain calling my polarized range. That alone is the reason I'd rather bet a hand like J5s than 35s. For example, villain will often flat my 3-bet in position when I do this with a lot of suited broadway, 99 JJ, TT, QQ type hands. Both 35s and J5s are completely crushed when called, which is to be expected. The benefit of 3-betting J5s type hands is that villain has fewer hands that he can call with.

(2) This raises a very good point that I forgot to mention. I think people rely too much on implied odds when playing low suited connectors. The real value of the hand comes from its versatility after the flop and specifically its fold equity. This makes it increasingly difficult to play out of position. However, if we feel we have significant skill equity to play the hand out of position then I feel that we should be playing it under circumstances wherein we have the best opportunity to realize our fold equity. A high SPR really reduces this ability in my experience/opinion.

I have a feeling my experience as a live player could be effecting our points of view about 3-betting 35s. Where 3-betting the hand will achieve an SPR of 10-15 online it will create an SPR of 4-5 live. I want a mid-range SPR, if 3-betting achieves that then yes, I would 3-bet a low SC

If I didn't say this before I really appreciate your willingness to discuss ideas and teach. I didn't really get heavily into poker until after black friday but am trying to learn and this site/your series/discussion have been a great resource to me so thank you.

When you 4b w/ KQo in table 2 to 50$ isnt it better to make it like 60 or 65 so the btn has to bluff more likely for his whole stack because there is no room to 5b/fold because he will be pot comitted?

When you 4b w/ KQo in table 2 to 50$ isnt it better to make it like 60 or 65 so the btn has to bluff more likely for his whole stack because there is no room to 5b/fold because he will be pot comitted?

timestamp?

33 minutes in table one, what are your thoughts on this hand?

33 minutes in table one, what are your thoughts on this hand?

elaborate?

I think your thought process is abit off at 23:00 with the K7 bottom left table hand. It's far more likely for villian to have either a pocket pair that is betting river for thin value or some Ax hand that checked the turn for pot control since he is far more likely to bet turn with random suited cards with no showdown value because you just c-bet oop and then turn checked which would be perceived weak. Not sure why but my mind went to AJ instantly when I saw this hand.

I think your thought process is abit off at 23:00 with the K7 bottom left table hand. It's far more likely for villian to have either a pocket pair that is betting river for thin value or some Ax hand that checked the turn for pot control since he is far more likely to bet turn with random suited cards with no showdown value because you just c-bet oop and then turn checked which would be perceived weak. Not sure why but my mind went to AJ instantly when I saw this hand.

You are right, this was donkish. I swear I call here like once in a hundred times and it's always wrong, so then I crawl back into my hole and don't try it again for another month or so.

I think most people are forgetting the big picture here (with all the 3bet discussion).... NLHE is not a predominately preflop game. In other words when you talk about different 3betting hands with regards to domination issues / blockers / barreling potential, polarized or depolarized ranges, it really just doesn't matter THAT much. I know people will argue with me but the simple fact is that money is made in NLHE after the flop where much more information is available to us and our opponents range has narrowed dramatically. Naturally in NLHE we have very little information preflop (except in rare cases), so its hard to make big mistakes at that point in the hand. The thing that kills me with 3/4/5 bet wars preflop is that mostly what it does is increases variance while simultaneously eliminating the edge you could have potentially had against the fish on the flop/turn/river (if you went to the flop/turn/river). If you reduce the game to 2 cards you really just cant have that much of an edge anymore, so there HAS to be incentive to "draw a line" somewhere with the preflop aggression.

What's interesting is that the community always has much more respect for a LAG player than a TAG player ... we think that LAG players win more when that's not really true. Leatherass mentioned in a video at bluefirepoker that he knows a lot of people whose game he really 'respects' (they're LAG) but have much lower winrates than some TAG players he knows that he doesn't think are very strong. Logically this makes sense because the game nowadays is so loose aggressive that it can only be optimal to play tighter relatively speaking. I'm not saying play like a fishy nit, but definitely tighten up some ranges.