Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (High Stakes)

Time Link to 00:04:40

Do you guys think he folds some of his PP combos on the turn? If so, then going for 3barrels get a lot more questionable.

Time Link to 00:08:23

if we had like JT/KJ here and expect his to fold his 77-99 to a river bet a lot, then shouldn't we check back turn and bluff the river? Earlier FWF said we'd be bluffing turn and river with those, but given that he's always calling turn and river with his Ax hands and sometimes with his Qx hands and folding his PP's on the turn a lot, bluffing turn and river seems bad, especially since we can get the same hands (77-99) to fold a lot by checking back turn and betting river, and we risk less/don't waste money vs the part of his range that isn't folding.

I guess we also get some air to fold by betting the turn so we prevent him from bluffing us on the river with that part of his range, but betting twice seems like wasting money.

Time Link to 00:31:14

I think the river is a c/f.

the important key to this hand iMo is the turn. we are betting 400 which we wouldn't do with 2p. it's more likely we have 98s/K9s/FDs+SD(/TT [TT unlikely but possible for some %]). so what does that mean for our options on the river:

shove
I think he might click call, but tbh I think a lot of people are capable of folding QQ on that river. Everything got there and we are only hoping he calls us with a set (I think 2p snapfolds), and given BTNs action, I think that's to optimistic

c/c
it is somewhat funny, because if we check we like always have 98s. that said I don't think a lot of regs will bluff now, because I think they expect us to call with it (close to the same logic why we should b/f AK in that hand before, because people don't bluff with good SD value)

c/f
so overall I think it becomes a c/f.

but pretty interesting spot which depends a lot on the player we are playing against. against the "normal" reg I would c/f, against a weaker reg I would shove (calls with worse hands) and against a good reg I want to call (might turn worse hands into a bluff).

"Yeah, this is a full ring table."
"Oh sweet Jesus."

priceless

great vids btw, keep it up guys

Do you guys think he folds some of his PP combos on the turn? If so, then going for 3barrels get a lot more questionable.

this depends on the turn card of course but the thing is the flop cbet will certainly be -EV if you don't barrel the turn.

if we had like JT/KJ here and expect his to fold his 77-99 to a river bet a lot, then shouldn't we check back turn and bluff the river? Earlier FWF said we'd be bluffing turn and river with those, but given that he's always calling turn and river with his Ax hands and sometimes with his Qx hands and folding his PP's on the turn a lot, bluffing turn and river seems bad, especially since we can get the same hands (77-99) to fold a lot by checking back turn and betting river, and we risk less/don't waste money vs the part of his range that isn't folding.

I guess we also get some air to fold by betting the turn so we prevent him from bluffing us on the river with that part of his range, but betting twice seems like wasting money.

I think betting twice is really standard once that A came on the turn. villain may not always fold a pp to 1 bet and we can get him off some Qx hands now too. Bet once on the turn and c/f is lighting money on fire when villain is repping an obv bluff catcher after he checks turn again.

this depends on the turn card of course but the thing is the flop cbet will certainly be -EV if you don't barrel the turn.

well say on a brick

I think betting twice is really standard once that A came on the turn. villain may not always fold a pp to 1 bet and we can get him off some Qx hands now too. Bet once on the turn and c/f is lighting money on fire when villain is repping an obv bluff catcher after he checks turn again.

I was talking about checking back turn and betting river when we have like KJ/JT instead of betting twice, not betting once on the turn

I was talking about checking back turn and betting river when we have like KJ/JT instead of betting twice, not betting once on the turn

This is an option. Problem with this is that villain can lead river to bluff us with his air (air should still be around 25% of his range) and his bluff catcher gets to see showdown cheaply so he may not fold. Good villain should turn anything he doesn't want to call a river bet with into a bluff by leading the river since they're no different than air. Weaker bluff catchers will lose to our range for checking it down as well.

Pro for checking turn and betting river is that we don't rep a bluff so villain should not bluff catch if he didn't turn his weaker bluff catchers into a bluff.

well say on a brick

on a brick turn under T if you bet I'm sure he doesn't fold most of his pp, especially if a BDFD came in or something.

(air should still be around 25% of his range)

if he has that much air then shouldn't a half pot cbet flop and give up be ok given our equity?

Good villain should turn anything he doesn't want to call a river bet with into a bluff by leading the river since they're no different than air.

not sure I agree with this. If he has 77 and doesn't want to call a river bet, but also thinks we have mostly SD value that will call river if he bets, then he shouldn't turn that into a bluff, he should x/f.

on a brick turn under T if you bet I'm sure he doesn't fold most of his pp, especially if a BDFD came in or something.

guess my point was that even if he doesn't fold "most" of his pp's and just folds like 40% of them on the turn, a river bet is -EV. QTs-QJs, KQ/AQ are 24 combos and he has around the same number of PP combos. If he folds 40% of them on the turn, then his river range is 14 combos of pp's and 24 Qx combos. Our river shove would be like 560 into 880 so would have to work like 38% but only works 36%. Rake also affects the EV.

if he has that much air then shouldn't a half pot cbet flop and give up be ok given our equity?

no villain will not fold 100% of his air. His stronger air might float OOP, for example things that are 3 to a straight like KJ, since it's a dry board and he should expect us to cbet alot. Especially if he expects us to cbet decent amounts of air here with the intention to fire multiple barrels on none bricks.

not sure I agree with this. If he has 77 and doesn't want to call a river bet, but also thinks we have mostly SD value that will call river if he bets, then he shouldn't turn that into a bluff, he should x/f.

leveling spot, when he leads river he doesn't rep bluffs either so we shouldn't call with like TT. IMO leading 77 is better than checking it down and losing almost always or get bluffed on the river vs someone who knows about range construction.

guess my point was that even if he doesn't fold "most" of his pp's and just folds like 40% of them on the turn, a river bet is -EV. QTs-QJs, KQ/AQ are 24 combos and he has around the same number of PP combos. If he folds 40% of them on the turn, then his river range is 14 combos of pp's and 24 Qx combos. Our river shove would be like 560 into 880 so would have to work like 38% but only works 36%. Rake also affects the EV.

Didn't I say in the video the reason I don't bet the flop is because I think it will take 3 barrels to make people fold anything decent pending turn and river cards also that 3 barreling is probably not going to be super +EV which is why I like checking flop better? BTW I don't expect people to fold even 20% of their pp on a brick turn under T so cbetting flop and hope to god turn is not a brick should be -EV also.

Didn't I say in the video the reason I don't bet the flop is because I think it will take 3 barrels to make people fold anything decent pending turn and river cards also that 3 barreling is probably not going to be super +EV which is why I like checking flop better? BTW I don't expect people to fold even 20% of their pp on a brick turn under T.

ya guess I was mainly asking for FWF's opinion on what ppl will do with their pp's on the turn and how that affects our 3barrel decision since he was the one advocating it most.

Time Link to 00:28:44

Great series guys! On the river here I would just jam and hope for the best like Blah did. I think FWF is correct that seansean shouldn't have many Kx's in his range at all - he just happened to have one of the few combos that did. still I think it is more likely that sean decides to call with ridiculous pot odds with a set or 2p than to thin value shove the river when checked to.

I think sometimes in HH review we overestimate our ability, and our opponent's ability to have super deep thought processes and hand read thoroughly. Many of these regs are on a bunch of tables, and when they get checked to on the river here with a set or 2p, they just think 'bleh that got ugly - 4 straight and flush got there, values real thin, cant make better fold, meh i check'

Do you guys think he folds some of his PP combos on the turn? If so, then going for 3barrels get a lot more questionable.

have the same problem with auto3barelling b/c many ppl would fold oftentimes on many turncards a PP already on the turn.
I anyways prefer as a default as well to cbet on the flop (though not hate checking back), just b/c vs. his whole range I cannot rly bluffcatch turn and/or river b/c he should have too many Qx-hands in his range.
On the other side, he can start bluffing hands like JTs, T9s, AJo/s, ATs, KJs, KTs... on the turn, if we checkback.
b/c he has all this hands in his range, i also think that cbetting the flop with 2 OCs pe half PS should be +ev.

Time Link to 00:36:59

The way this hand went down is another reason why I like flatting pre. I'm not totally sold that a nit doesn't just fold AQ pre. I think he does some % of the time. So, are we really stacking AQ if we 3-barrel here? IMO, probably not. I think he finds a fold at some point, so I think our hand is more of a 2 street of value hand. How about just checking the turn? It may get us better value from the middle pair portion of his range, and we get the same value from AQ. AQ may bet the turn and river anyways if we check the turn.

I agree that folding the turn is probably correct.

I agree with Blah that the villain's play is so weird from a range perspective, but nits are often completely unaware of the fact that they are nits. Otherwise they wouldn't be nits. He's not going "well I'm an it and I have no bluffs in my range so I can't shove for value here." I'm sure you guys know this, just thought I'd add it for the members. He just is thinking something like "I have AQ and this guy is full of it. He can't have AK because I have AQ! I can finally stack this lag-tard. I'm not going to fold to the river so to hell with it. All in!"

Time Link to 00:29:30

Forgive me if my analysis here is wrong, but I think you totally missed the point in this hand (don't mean to sound patronizing/arrogant, I myself don't play so high)

My point is, preflop we flat because of the fish on the BTN (as opposed to squeezing). It's clear to us, the value here is the fish, we must also realise others know this too, and know we know.

F: I think this is a standard lead, reg won't get too out of line/cbet super wide, and we really do want value from the most likely passive/cally fish + anyone else who happens to have some OESD or 2pair+ type hand.

T: I understand your thinking with your sizing but I think it's the most terrible sizing. If the fish has a hand he likes but that is really weak, perhaps T9 or something, we want him to feel like he can call. If he has a stronger KQ AQ type hand, we want him to believe he can shove and "protect" his hand from draws. So ultimately I think betting 240 is going to be a tonne better. Another point not mentioned at all, is that when we bet 400, we have no option to reshove after the fish jams, this is REALLY frustrating for us because we now have to play the R OOP vs a reg and there are some quite god damn aweful R's for us. Also, yes when we bet 240, we rep a hand, but actually the reg should realise that we can bet for thinner value when the fish is in the pot, so betting 400 as opposed to 240 does in affect narrow the regs range and thus we miss value. One other point is that by betting 240, he expects that if he calls the fish will overcall alot.

R: For starters, I agree that he has little Kx in his range. But something you kind of didn't mention that I think is relatively important is the relative position in the hand. The fish acts AFTER the reg, given that we will play straightforward in a dead pot on the river, + he is effectively getting better pot odds on the turn knowing fish calls (jams w/e) turn he can probs call T wider making his R range wider. Also another point I think is worth noting, fiend mentions he would shove AK on the turn, yes perhaps sometimes but don't forget that he wants the fish to overcall with all his range, not just stack your TT/89 like he expects to do every time anyway. Finally on the R, I agree he realises we basically never have Kx, and can try to timebank/shove set in order to level us or something similar, however, we are also in agreement that given your assumptions of a tight turn calling range he rarely has Kx, given that he probably only sometimes value bets his sets, but 100% of the time jams Kx and probably levels a call with his sets some of the time, we should probably just shove the river for value? Like don't you expect he will call a set given the superb pot odds more often than he value bets if we check to him?

Thanks

The way this hand went down is another reason why I like flatting pre. I'm not totally sold that a nit doesn't just fold AQ pre. I think he does some % of the time. So, are we really stacking AQ if we 3-barrel here? IMO, probably not. I think he finds a fold at some point, so I think our hand is more of a 2 street of value hand. How about just checking the turn? It may get us better value from the middle pair portion of his range, and we get the same value from AQ. AQ may bet the turn and river anyways if we check the turn.

I agree that folding the turn is probably correct.

I agree with Blah that the villain's play is so weird from a range perspective, but nits are often completely unaware of the fact that they are nits. Otherwise they wouldn't be nits. He's not going "well I'm an it and I have no bluffs in my range so I can't shove for value here." I'm sure you guys know this, just thought I'd add it for the members. He just is thinking something like "I have AQ and this guy is full of it. He can't have AK because I have AQ! I can finally stack this lag-tard. I'm not going to fold to the river so to hell with it. All in!"

I think if someone's range is too tight to 3 bet AKo pre then it's too tight to call. EV of 3 betting doesn't only come from villain calling worse and building a pot with equity advantage. It also comes from the fold, taking 4.5BB with AK is great result. The fact that villain folds decent amount and we have good equity vs his calling range makes it more +EV than flatting. Offsuit hands miss the flop too much and if villain's range is too tight to 3 bet then it's too tight to play back postflop often as wel.

T: I understand your thinking with your sizing but I think it's the most terrible sizing. If the fish has a hand he likes but that is really weak, perhaps T9 or something, we want him to feel like he can call. If he has a stronger KQ AQ type hand, we want him to believe he can shove and "protect" his hand from draws. So ultimately I think betting 240 is going to be a tonne better. Another point not mentioned at all, is that when we bet 400, we have no option to reshove after the fish jams, this is REALLY frustrating for us because we now have to play the R OOP vs a reg and there are some quite god damn aweful R's for us. Also, yes when we bet 240, we rep a hand, but actually the reg should realise that we can bet for thinner value when the fish is in the pot, so betting 400 as opposed to 240 does in affect narrow the regs range and thus we miss value. One other point is that by betting 240, he expects that if he calls the fish will overcall alot.

I think it's bad to bet small on the turn. All you do is price in anything people might have. Any draw has direct pot odds to call if you bet small. Our goal is to stack the fish since anyone aware of ranges realize how strong our range is. Betting small lets the reg and the fish play correctly, they have the pot odds to just call with anything that called the flop with and fold river unimproved. Our goal in this spot is should be to blow all the regs out of the pot and get money from the fish and not trying to trap.

I think sometimes in HH review we overestimate our ability, and our opponent's ability to have super deep thought processes and hand read thoroughly.

Very good point which I think gets overlooked.

I think if someone's range is too tight to 3 bet AKo pre then it's too tight to call. EV of 3 betting doesn't only come from villain calling worse and building a pot with equity advantage. It also comes from the fold, taking 4.5BB with AK is great result. The fact that villain folds decent amount and we have good equity vs his calling range makes it more +EV than flatting. Offsuit hands miss the flop too much and if villain's range is too tight to 3 bet then it's too tight to play back postflop often as wel.

I don't agree with the first sentence. We make his range tighter by 3-betting, while simultaneously not getting that many folds (you obviously probably get 50% or so, sure, but it's not like its 90%). I won't go on too much about this because this is a debate you and I have had before. I know we'll probably continue to disagree and that's cool but it's probably a good discussion to put out here for others to read.

AKo is still a pretty good hand post-flop, and if you have a lot of FE pre then you have a lot of FE on flops too; plus you get a chance to dominate him a lot more. Further, like Ariel said, I don't think you have a ton of FE pre and I don't think you have much implied odds for hitting in 3-bet pots (but you do if you flat). He's not really calling 3-bets with a lot of worse that have equity disadvantages, and most of the stuff that he may fold to a 3-bet is stuff you don't want him to fold as long as you refuse to fold the flop a lot. AK UI has good equity vs a 15% range even when it misses on flops he's likely to c-bet.

Also, if he does have AQ and we both hit, we get similar value because I don't think we actually stack him in 3-bet pots that much. We might get slightly more, but we also allow him to be dominated more often when we call.

I totally agree with not calling if we had AQo or KQo, because they are offsuit hands that don't play as well, but AKo actually plays pretty well. It either hits TP, or it has overs. It has good equity on the flop most of the time. It dominates almost always when it hits. I think it has enough post-flop playability.

vs 15% range it's a fist pump 3 bet with AK, villain has to fold like 80% of that range to get 50% equity vs AK (assuming reasonable range construction AK is in top 3% of hands). I'm more worried about this guy's range is around 10% which makes the 3 bet somewhat questionable. Having overcards vs tight ranges preflop is no good because tight ranges doesn't miss the flop that much. So villain's range connects equally well with any board, J, Q boards villain has more TP/sets and less overpair, lower boards less TP/sets more overpair. Paired hands is a large portion of most tight preflop ranges. OOP we win 2 bets 1/8 times when we dominate and both flop a pair that isn't great implied odds for calling. We must be able to win much more often to make this call higher EV.

For example if someone connects with the flop 50% of the times and they're cbetting even 80% of the times they only got 30% air. c/r 2 overs to get that 30% fold isn't going to be too +EV.

. Having overcards vs tight ranges preflop is no good because tight ranges doesn't miss the flop that much. So villain's range connects equally well with any board, J, Q boards villain has more TP/sets and less overpair, lower boards less TP/sets more overpair. Paired hands is a large portion of most tight preflop ranges. OOP we win 2 bets 1/8 times when we dominate and both flop a pair that isn't great implied odds for calling. We must be able to win much more often to make this call higher EV




For example if someone connects with the flop 50% of the times and they're cbetting even 80% of the times they only got 30% air. c/r 2 overs to get 30% fold isn't going to be too +EV.

Sure... more often, but we're playing HE so nobody every flops anything if they open more than the nuts.

He's not connecting 50% of the time. Give him a 10% range on a board like J72. He only has TP+ 30% of the time. That's a lot of bet/folding. So, we still are realizing that fold equity by c/r'ing a lot of flops, and we can keep a few more dominated Ax. Plus 30% of the time we flop the best hand and get value vs his 55 that would have folded to a 3-bet. We get more value vs his AJ that might have folded.

I think looking for simply having an equity edge doesn't tell the whole story. Pre-flop equity edge is a long way from showdown. There's a lot that can happen between pre-flop and SD that tell us a lot more about our profit than our pre-flop pot equity.

He's not connecting 50% of the time. Give him a 10% range on a board like J72. He only has TP+ 30% of the time. That's a lot of bet/folding. So, we still are realizing that fold equity by c/r'ing a lot of flops, and we can keep a few more dominated Ax. Plus 30% of the time we flop the best hand and get value vs his 55 that would have folded to a 3-bet. We get more value vs his AJ that might have folded.

on J72r you rep nothing so I'm sure everyone will not fold TT 99 those hands to you. We DON't get more value vs AJ that would of folded because we only both flop an A 1/8 times, the other 7/8 times he will cbet and make us fold at least 5/8 times. We get more value from AQ when we 3 bet assuming same number of AJ and AQ so we get more value and we get to make him fold 5/8 times when we both don't flop an A instead. Getting value from specific hand combos is irrelavent though.

Even on J72r even if villain always fold worse than TP to a raise. Assuming his preflop range is 66+,ATs+,KJs+,QJs,AJo+,KQo roughly 10% of hands. He still connected with the flop with 44% of his range on the dryest possible board. Him connecting with the flop 50% of the times on average is not a huge exaggeration.

Great series.

It's really helping me get back into the right mindset, thank you.

Time Link to 00:36:27

I'm still not convinced that the turn should be a fold. Someone that nitty probably isn't good, so I wouldn't rule out AQ. He could also have AK himself.

Great video btw.

Time Link to 00:40:22

Why are hands like T J or 9 T not mentioned. The guy is tight, but I would not be suprised to see him show up with those hands. For this reason and the random factor / own hand strength I would probably snap the turn.

Hey to everyone!

Although being a member of DC for a while now this is my first post. I’m a very lazy poster but an avid forum reader. So when I post, my posts tend to be very extensive. ;-)

Great video, FWF and Blah! Great thread!
Quite some ugly spots in this episode, all of them very interesting and thought provoking! Before I’m going to comment on the hands one suggestion/request: Can you incorporate stats more in your decision process, when reviewing hands? I know, stats aren’t that important, but Blah has a lot of hands on most of his opponents and I’m pretty sure some of the hands should’ve been played a little bit different because of them. It also would be nice to get a quick rundown of Blah’s hud at the beginning of the next episode (most of it is self explanatory, but not all of it).


To the hands:
I.) AK
I think Blah played this one well. I’m not sure, if you had any solid reads whether this guy is really good or just an average reg. Without any great reads the fact he is calling a 3bets oop leads me to think he is just average. I don’t think Blah does get that crazy on the btn to warrant villains PF call oop.
In that spot an average reg has a very narrow unbalanced range, which contains many broadways with a Q and 77-JJ (It would be interesting to know, what his call 3bet oop % is.) That’s about it. I doubt he is balanced enough to slowplay AA-QQ all the time here, (what he really should vs. a competent player, if he doesn’t want to turn his oop calling range face up.)

Flop:
So if these basic assumptions aren’t way off, checking the flop is the right play, imho. Let’s say he has TT+. It’s not very likely he is going to fold such a hand unless an A or a K hits the board, not even to three barrels. I guess he’ll fold 77-99 on the river, if he has these hands in his calling range. (I’m not so sure he has them though.) If you have any proof he calls 3bets with middle PPs oop your basic assumption should be he is a rather call happy guy. So it would be interesting to see this guys “fold to flop, turn and river cbets in 3bet pots” percentage. If these are low as well, I’m pretty sure check folding is the best play on this board, when we don’t improve.

Turn:
Easy bet.

River:
It’s close, but I think in theory the river is a check behind unless we have any proof villain calls with QJ (preflop and on the river). If we don’t, the only worse hands, which are calling, are KQ (if so) and AJ. Maybe he is hero calling with JJ, but that’s about it. 1010 got there. For the sake of balancing we have to bet though. But if we bet, we have to fold to a raise. Our hand is pretty face up and I doubt villain is crazy enough to bluff this river to make an A fold (he rather would hero call), because after the shove the pot odds are just too tempting for a crying call. And no, this guy is not trying to level anybody in that spot.
What is his raise river percentage? I guess it’s pretty low and insanely value heavy. In such a close spot I think it’s better to go for the extra information you get vs. an unkown, when you just check behind. If he shows up with 99 or QJ, this is valuable information and we know we have to bet AK and our air on turn and river the next time in a similar spot.

II.) K9s
Are these only FR stats or combined stats? I assume combined stats, because this would be the loosest FR table I have ever seen since I escaped the micros. I don’t know, what you guys think, but I think it’s very important not to mix up HU, 6max and FR stats.

Flop:
I like the flop check.

Turn:
If we should call or not, depends on his PF call 3bet oop range and what we think about his bet size tendencies. Villian first calls a minraise and then a squeeze oop, which, again, leads me to think, he is just an average player unless proven otherwise. Unfortunately, the board is hitting the average calling range of a reg very hard.
So on this board a pot size bet made by an average player on the turn is very disturbing. It’s pretty much their way of saying “I have a bigger hand than yours”. This guy is obviously afraid that a T, a J, an A or any heart hits the board. From his perspective you cannot have much more than a draw and AQ/AJ/JJ/TT. So he is mainly potting to charge your draws (he probably puked, when he saw the river card), not because he is creative with his bet size.

River:
For the reasons stated above, we should check behind. He told you he has a hand and as correctly mentioned in the video usually average players tank forever to finally click call with it. You give these average guys way too much credit, imho. For him it does make sense to check the river, because he has put you on a draw. On the other hand he is still married to his hand, so he clicks call anyway. Just because someone has reggish stats and plays 5/10 doesn’t mean he is really good. I mean, first he calls a minraise in the SB with KQ, although he really should 3bet it for several reasons, then he calls a squeeze of very strong opponent oop. On the turn he makes a totally unbalanced pot size bet (I’m very confident he is never potting his bluffs there) and then he fails to value bet the river. The average ABC micro and small stakes reg would’ve played this hand exactly in the same fashion. The best way to exploit those players on these boards is to check behind. You are going to win more than your fair share IP anyway, so there really is no need to try to bluff such a guy off AK or K10 (two hands he almost never has in that spot).

Additionally, as in the previous hand, the check behind most likely would have given you a good piece of information, even if he shows up with K10 in that spot. Knowing he calls 3bets oop with such trashy hands is worth much more than a fold by him on this river, I think.


III.) 89s
After two calls I don’t give the reg a set. If he is really, really good and reads Blah’s lead as very strong he might only call with it, because he knows Hero has 89 all the time. But an average to just good reg would almost certainly raise a set on the flop. So he has to have two pairs and K+pair type hands and AK in his flop calling range. When he just calls the turn, AK becomes very unlikely though.

The river is a check fold. Villain is not going to value bet a set in this constellation. As stated he must be a very good hand reader and a very good player to do this and even more importantly think so highly of Blah, that he actually sees a chance to make him fold 89 in that spot while giving him amazing pot odds. If we have no proof he is such a type of player, it’s very unlikely he bets anything than a K and a flush there, especially with a weaker player in the pot, who is allin. What can he really gain by betting a set? There is a decent chance Hero is check/calling 89, because the pot is so big. Additionally there is a very good chance the weaker player has a straight or a flush and villain is going to lose anyway.
It certainly would be awesome for villain to bet a set of tens and make hero fold a better set or 89 and stack the weaker player at the same time. But the thing is, hero really can’t have a set in that spot and the average villain is not going to get tricky here often enough to become a concern for us. If he value bets a set in that situation and wins the pot against the weaker player, so be it. The fold is still correct, because you most likely run into a straight or better 10 times out of 11 in that very spot.


IV.) AK vs. nit

Whether you should 3bet or call depends on his raise first in percentage on the HJ and what you have seen so far. If you think he calls 3bets IP with AQ a flat or a 3bet is fine, I think. If he folds AQ a flat becomes more attractive. Either way it’s very close, because you are oop postflop, but in can’t be much of a mistake to 3bet AK unless villain is opening way less than 10%. In late position a flat becomes superior though.

Flop:
Easy cbet for value.

Turn:
When he raises and has a high fold to 3bet preflop he can’t have many flushdraws. KQs and maybe QJs and J10s. Even if he has them in his range I highly doubt this guy is raising them. If he is a setmining in 3bet pots type of reg I give him the following range for raising the turn: AA, AK, 77, KQs and AQ, if he thinks you are full of sh***t. He can’t really have 88, because normally a nit folds this hand on the flop.
What I learned about nits is, they hate to fold really strong hands. On this particular board AQ is a strong hand and he sees all these “maniacs” around him, going broke with nothing so he says to himself: “This guy is barreling the flushdraw all the time and is hero calling with crazy stuff, so I gonna shove the turn for value.” There are only so many nits around, who understand much about board texture, perceived ranges and so on. A nit on 5/10 has too much money, won a big tournament or is a live player, who thinks 5/10 is the same game online. I just can’t imagine, you can make your way up to 5/10 playing 18/14 unless you are some kind of mass tabling grinder. If you could, poker would be very far from being dead. (And the more I watch mid stakes tables on smaller networks, I believe there still can be made plenty of money).
So if his raising range from above is not totally off, it’s a call, even when you take KQs out of his range, albeit I’m aware it’s not much more than a break even play. I think I would only fold AK, when the turn was a J, a Q or has completed the flush. I might also consider folding, when the board is super dry, because villain wouldn’t try to protect his AQ from a flush (and cannot have a draw in his raising range).


V.) 99

The first thing I would check is his raise first in percantge from utg to determine how wide of a range he has. I’m constantly referring to raise first in stats, because PFR is way less accurate. A 19/16 probably opens around 5-8% from EP, maybe a little less, maybe a little more (when he isn’t aware of position at all).

Flop:
I also always used to check call such boards, but the more I think of it that’s a mistake against a very tight player, who has opened utg. This guy only has overpairs and overcards in his range. Let’s say he has KQ type hand and a none club K hits, you might get action for two more streets, if the flush doesn’t hit. At the same time you lose a lot of action from TT-QQ. Granted, you are going to fold out quite some overcards with a raise, but he is still going to call with 3% of his range, so almost the half of his opening range! He is not going to fold an overpair against a raise. He is not folding overcards with a flushdraw, he even might peel once with AKo. Simply put, against a very narrow range, we should raise, against a wider range we should just flat the flop cbet.

Turn:
If a none club comes, I would check. An average player will put us on a draw all the time and will bet almost his whole range, especially IP. If it’s better to flat or raise his bet is a tough question, I’ll probably would flat and rep the draw, but it really depends on any read I have on my opponent.
If a spade comes, I would donk small (half pot or less) to give villain a chance to call with his small overpairs that contain a club (He’ll call with AA or KK without a spade as well I guess). If we don’t bet, he almost always is going to check these hands behind.

As the hand actually played out I would always raise the turn. If he has air, so be it, if he has a good overpair with a club in it he is still calling, if he has the flush we stack him.
On this river I would bet, check his raise percentage, when he shoves (and most likely realize he almost never is bluff raising the river), curse all poker gods and click call, although I know I’m beat. Such a tight player is never ever bluff-raising this river. I know, there is no way he can have a ten, but in my experience on these boards they somehow always have it, when they raise. The average 19/16 simply doesn’t bluff such boards. That’s why 99 would the weakest hand I would bet here. Maybe the Ah flush, but only very small and I would snap fold to any raise of this guy.



@ Blah: Although you got sucked out quite a bit, you can be happy to have such players on your tables. Some of them made mistakes I wouldn’ve expected from a mid stakes reg and are only dreaming of the level of skill you already have. Just remember, average tight regs do always have it, when they raise the river unless proven otherwise, even on 5/10 as we have seen.
One more thing, why does PTR always show an error, when I try to find you there? I’ve tried for more than a month, but it’s always the same I also asked a couple of friends, they all get the same error message, when they search for your nick (Morgauth). I never have gotten this error message on any other player – maybe some secret agreement between you and PTR so that nobody can see how you crush!? ;-)

@Theads13:
Great comment! I’ve written my post before I read your post and as you can see I came to very same conclusion you did regarding the AK hand vs. the nit. SpewKids comment regarding this hand is also spot on.

@Lolatronshik and Blah:
I like Blahs big bet on the turn. The weaker player is not going to fold many hands he called the flop with on a blank turn. We really don’t have to worry about the reg that much. If he shoves and shows down AK it’s a cooler. I actually think it may be best to just shove the turn. The weaker player is going to call and the reg might level himself into a call, if he happens to have a set (although I don’t think he has one really that often.) And folding out his Kx hands is not the worst thing in that spot.
Why do you guys think villian doesn’t have that many Kx hands in his range anyway? I think the average reg will call a flop lead with all his Kx hands, especially with a weaker player in the hand. Again, don’t give them so much credit unless they have proven you otherwise on several occasions. What Goldseraph has said, is spot on.

@Blah and Threads13:
I think you both brought good arguments in your 3bet or not to 3bet AK discussion vs. a nit. I would check his raise first in stat and go from there. If he is opening 10% or less of his hands I’m 3betting AK as a semi bluff to kinda balance my value range (AA, KK), when I’m oop, and call IP.
When he is opening 15% or more I think we should always 3bet AK, but I doubt a nit opens that many hands from the HJ.

Nice hand with the 89. Villain obviously played it correctly because he knew what card would come on the river and played the whole hand backwards like a real winner does.

Anyway, slightly off topic but applicable to the AKo vs very tight range in this discussion:
Say we have a shortie open with at least two (very tight) callers, we sqz a little smaller to make the shortie reship so as to shut out the previous overcallers and collect some dead money.
Now shortie surprisingly folds and one of the previous callers reships and he never has worse than AK to do this, he always has at least AK or a pocket pair which means we need at least 38% equity to break even (40% if we have AKs iirc). I probably just answered my own question but we should fold unless we have at least 38% pot odds, right?

Can you incorporate stats more in your decision process, when reviewing hands? I know, stats aren’t that important, but Blah has a lot of hands on most of his opponents and I’m pretty sure some of the hands should’ve been played a little bit different because of them.
.

Stats play a very minor role once you get to midstakes. Most people play differently at different tables so stats is just an average. Someone that opens 15% EP could be opening 25% at this table and 10% at the next table for example which makes it not so relavent. I use HUD only to spot obvious leaks in bad reg's games and prevent me from donating to nits while multi tabling.

Epic first post Tolp, tl;dr obviusly because I'm lazy, but still.

On the AK hand, don't you think the nit can have AA also sometimes, that hand was completely left out of the discussion? Obviously it's only one combo and he probably 4bets pre or jut calls the turn the vast majority of the time, but if you think his range for jamming is somewhere between 5-10 combos anyway, might as well include half a combo of that.

But I think it's not reasonable to fold the turn there, his value range is basically 6 combos of 77 and 88, which he may not even call preflop, and probably folds the flop with 88 most of the time. If we're valuebetting the turn to get called by basically only AQ, maybe some AJs, and a couple of combos of flushdraws, I think we have to consider that he's just gonna "what the hell" jam those, for reasons threads13 mentioned, and click call needing only 26% equity.

Stats play a very minor role once you get to midstakes. Most people play differently at different tables so stats is just an average. Someone that opens 15% EP could be opening 25% at this table and 10% at the next table for example which makes it not so relavent. I use HUD only to spot obvious leaks in bad reg's games and prevent me from donating to nits while multi tabling.

I think this is an incredibly useful post regarding stats. I definitely find myself relying on stats too much, this really sums the reasons why we [should] use our HUDs.

Stats play a very minor role once you get to midstakes. Most people play differently at different tables so stats is just an average. Someone that opens 15% EP could be opening 25% at this table and 10% at the next table for example which makes it not so relavent. I use HUD only to spot obvious leaks in bad reg's games and prevent me from donating to nits while multi tabling.

While this is certainly true for really good players, I would be pretty surprised, if all stats lose their meaning as soon you make the jump from small to mid stakes. As you said I’m pretty sure the nits play the same game on every table. So do bad to average regs. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a guy, who thinks stats are the most important thing in poker, far from it, but they help to determine the average range villain goes to the flop with and to spot some leaks in their postflop game. What I believe we should do is to think about these averages and how they correlate to certain table conditions and what we have seen from him and what he has seen from us so far. So in my humble opinion I don’t think that all stats play a minor role, even on mid stakes.

One example:
If I have 3k hands of a guy and his river raise percentage is very low, then he almost never is bluff raising the river on any table. If it’s not very low, then you know he is at least capable to bluff raise the river, when the conditions are right. I think this is valuable information.
It’s true, stats only tell you an average, but when a guy has very low raise percentages, he simply can’t be bluffing unless he slow plays most of his big hands. It would be kinda far fetched to believe such a guy all of the sudden starts to bluff raise, because the table conditions are right.

Maybe this video was an exception, but almost every hand was played rather poorly by your villains. In the K9s hand you and FWF think it’s possible villain holds K10 or middle PPs. Only a very bad reg could show up with such hands in that spot. If he is so bad to play these hands oop in 3bet pots, then he certainly isn’t good enough to adapt to table conditions.
Again, you give some guys way too much credit.


@fizzo:
I don’t want to start a discussion about stats, but there are some useful ones and some less useful ones. For example the good old PFR isn’t really that useful. You also should not mix up FR, 6max and HU stats and stats from different stakes. Also a lot of people make the mistake to mix up stats from tables, that aren’t full, with stats of tables, on which every seat is occupied. Stats tell you, what the average game plan of a player is. Not more, not less. And when we spot a certain leak in a players average game plan like someone almost never raises the river as bluff, then we don’t need to bluff catch, because it’s unlikely villain has changed his game plan exactly for us.
Another example: We see somebody is 3betting on average 20% in late position. Now we are going to give him hell with any decent hand. Really good players like Blah can act by feel and observation, but it doesn’t hurt to double check your observation with your stats.

your example of 3k hands someone raise river % tells you something? people don't face a river bet in 3k hands that much so the variance in that stat is massive. I also said HUD is useful for spotting obv leaks. Never bluffing in some spot or 3 betting 20% would fit in those obv leaks. We assign people a range mostly based on observations and use stats to add or subtract few combo but stats should never play a huge role especially stats like raise river %.

Lets say you got 5k hands on someone he 3 bets almost never, then he starts 3bet bluffing because his game changed(he got a coach that says 3bet bluffing is awesome and he should do it 20% of the times). Now over the next 5k hands stats will average and you will not notice this guy is bluffing more if you give stats lots of weight and his stats will not show that he's bluffing too much until many month later. Those stats that takes long time to converge is even less useful because people's game do change in that period.

I don't really want to start a huge stats argument here. I never said stats are useless they do provide information and any information is better than nothing. FWF doesn't seem to base his thought process much on stats either since he never asked to see stats during the videos so since both of our decision making process doesn't involve the use of stats much it's reflected in our video and not talking about stats much.

Time Link to 00:18:48

You are saying that it makes for Villain no sense to have on this river a C/Call-range.
I somewhat disagree with this because the rivercard is a card which makes it hard for Villain to valuebet some hands such as for example KTs.
So to have here a C/Callrange with top-hands can protect some hands where he now wanna to C/F.
It is furthermore a spot where your perceived range are just some potcontroled Qx,Kx-hands -> all those bluffcatching_hands (unless QJ, KJ) will not be rly able to call on this rivercard because it improves Villain`s turnbettingrange so hard.
If he now perceives you as aggressive, than likely your bettingrange (regards to turned madehands into a bluff) is bigger than your callingrange here.
So imo it makes for him some sense to C/C here sometimes his toprange on the river.

I also think that it is a somewhat obv. "turn_into_a_bluffspot" where you cannot rep too much because of your flopplay.
So i would check here back at least any Kx-hand and maybe only consider to bluff with Qx-hands.

btw.,
what was your plan for the river, should it blank and Villain would have bombed there again?

your example of 3k hands someone raise river % tells you something? people don't face a river bet in 3k hands that much so the variance in that stat is massive. I also said HUD is useful for spotting obv leaks. Never bluffing in some spot or 3 betting 20% would fit in those obv leaks. We assign people a range mostly based on observations and use stats to add or subtract few combo but stats should never play a huge role especially stats like raise river %.

Fair enough.
You are right, the raise river stat probably needs more than 3k hands to become reliable (as far as variance goes), but 3k should be a decent sample size for the flop raise percentage for example.
But we are on the same page, observation and taking notes is the key to success in poker and stats aid us in that process. How much they help is a matter of opinion to some extend. Personally I would never give stats more weight in my decision process than observation, especially postflop. I just use them, when I’m unsure of my opponent’s tendencies in a very difficult spot like the one, when you got raised on the river in the first AK hand. If the overall postflop raise stats are very low I rather click fold and vice versa.

Lets say you got 5k hands on someone he 3 bets almost never, then he starts 3bet bluffing because his game changed(he got a coach that says 3bet bluffing is awesome and he should do it 20% of the times). Now over the next 5k hands stats will average and you will not notice this guy is bluffing more if you give stats lots of weight and his stats will not show that he's bluffing too much until many month later. Those stats that takes long time to converge is even less useful because people's game do change in that period.

Obviously it would be a great mistake to use stats in that fashion. If someone, who never 3bets starts 3betting me I start to wonder. Why? Because I have a note on him (mental or written down) telling me he never 3bets and/or because his frequent 3betting isn’t congruent with the stats I have on him. When multi tabling I can’t count every single time he 3bets me, so I check my session stats and make a note that this guys may have changed his 3bet frequencies considerably.
True, people change their game. Obviously more in mid stakes than in small stakes games, but this could be used as an argument against notes and old observations as well. I don’t use stats older than 6 months and I don’t trust old notes either. We have to stay focused all the time. I think we all can agree to that.


Let’s talk about the hands, that’s more interesting anyway:

K9 hand:
Would you consider turning AQ/Q10 into a bluff on the river? Personally I would just give up about any one pair hand on that board. It just hits the oop 3bet calling range of an average reg too hard. Do you think that a reg will ever fold two pair in that spot in a 3bet pot?
Is calling 3bets oop common in mid stakes? As long someone has a reasonable 3bet range most coaches (like BalugaWhale) recommend not to call a 3bet oop at all. Personally this advice has helped my game a lot.

99 hand:
What do you think about raising the flop?

K9 hand:
Would you consider turning AQ/Q10 into a bluff on the river? Personally I would just give up about any one pair hand on that board. It just hits the oop 3bet calling range of an average reg too hard. Do you think that a reg will ever fold two pair in that spot in a 3bet pot?
Is calling 3bets oop common in mid stakes? As long someone has a reasonable 3bet range most coaches (like BalugaWhale) recommend not to call a 3bet oop at all. Personally this advice has helped my game a lot.

99 hand:
What do you think about raising the flop?

K9 hand I think we should at least think about turning the bottom of our range into a bluff and it doesn't matter if its K9 or QT. AQ should be turned into a bluff before K9 since it wins at showdown less often.

99 hand raising the flop without short term dynamic is bad because we rep a very strong range for playing back given positions and it will be very difficult to stack most competent player. Their playing back range should at least bet the turn anyways if we call. We have the hand locked most of the times so villain has more reversed implied odds than implied odds for seeing turn and river.

K9 hand I think we should at least think about turning the bottom of our range into a bluff and it doesn't matter if its K9 or QT. AQ should be turned into a bluff before K9 since it wins at showdown less often.

So you think there are regs, who are going to fold KJ, KQ, QJ, when you have checked back the flop and shove the river? That's a little bit too optimistic.
What do you think about calling 3bets oop? Isn't that what rather weaker players do? I followed a two+two thread about this topic a while ago and the conclusion was that it's almost impossible to play profitable in 3bet pot oop against a decent 3bet range unless you stop 4betting your value range PF.

99 hand raising the flop without short term dynamic is bad because we rep a very strong range for playing back given positions and it will be very difficult to stack most competent player. Their playing back range should at least bet the turn anyways if we call. We have the hand locked most of the times so villain has more reversed implied odds than implied odds for seeing turn and river.

True, we rep a very strong range, when we raise, but the nit also has a very strong range to begin with. And normally a nit isn't a very competent player and mostly plays his cards. Many turn cards could destroy all your action, while only a few can give you some more. That's why I believe it's better to raise against this particular opponent. The value range that is going to bet on the turn, when you just call the cbet, will almost always call a flop raise. He might even go broke with most of his overpairs and some of his big flush draws immeadiately. But he might not go broke with a big overpair, when the turn completes the flush.
I also don't think this villian has that much more reversed odds than implied odds. If we get lucky and a blank A or K turns and villian holds AK (or AQ) he might go broke. That's about it. If he holds QJ and hits a pair on the turn you'll most likley get only one more bet out of him. That's 4-5 (6 would be too optimistic) outs that might give you some money vs. 2 outs, who boat him up and give him all your money.
I think it's only a call, when raising would fold out his flushdraws plus 2 overs, but I really doubt he is going to fold them to a flop raise, when he is IP. Against a reg with a non nitty utg range a call is obviously the best play though.

Time Link to 00:33:54

You agree that we cannot assume that such a player will with those positions 4bet/C light pre and as well hardly bluff4bet, preflop?
If so,
then imo it would be here pretty ugly to face a 4bet. (actually with the assumptions above you in fact would not be able to play +ev 3bet/5betjam vs. such a Nit).

River:
he can have as well some AK-combos himself regards to his nitty tendencies and the positions.
When you give him a tight range and then add some AK-combos where you split, even ignoring AQ-combos,
then we always have the needed EQ to call it off and folding should be out of the question.

You agree that we cannot assume that such a player will with those positions 4bet/C light pre and as well hardly bluff4bet, preflop?
If so,
then imo it would be here pretty ugly to face a 4bet. (actually with the assumptions above you in fact would not be able to play +ev 3bet/5betjam vs. such a Nit).

River:
he can have as well some AK-combos himself regards to his nitty tendencies and the positions.
When you give him a tight range and then add some AK-combos where you split, even ignoring AQ-combos,
then we always have the needed EQ to call it off and folding should be out of the question.

I'm turbo folding if I get 4 bet.

I'm turbo folding if I get 4 bet.

So Blah, in a sense is AK a 3-bet bluff here then? Like obviously AK is ahead of his calling range, but are you saying he's folding enough pf, and we have enough equity when called to make it +EV to fold to a 4-bet?

So Blah, in a sense is AK a 3-bet bluff here then? Like obviously AK is ahead of his calling range, but are you saying he's folding enough pf, and we have enough equity when called to make it +EV to fold to a 4-bet?

I don't think in terms of value or bluff only in terms of EV. I think 3bet>call>fold in terms of EV in this spot. EV comes from the fact villain will fold with a reasonable frequency and we have good equity vs his calling range. Getting 4bet and fold will happen rarely and I don't expect this villain's 4betting frequency to be high enough for me to worry about folding to be exploitable.

I don't think in terms of value or bluff only in terms of EV. I think 3bet>call>fold in terms of EV in this spot. EV comes from the fact villain will fold a bunch and we have good equity vs his calling range. 3bet/folding AK is exploitable but I don't expect this villain to 4 bet bluff enough for that to matter.

Ok cool that makes a lot of sense.

really good video guys going to watch this one twice. fwf you make me laugh

I'm turbo folding if I get 4 bet.

I agree.
B/c I think that he is so nitty that there is not too much value against his 3bet_Callrange, I would hence prefer to coldcall in this particular spot, only.

Time Link to 00:29:15

I think the only thing for Blah to do here is shove. In the case where WingMan has came long with KJ, KQ, KT, it's his only way to recover some money on the hand from SeanSean. I don't give SeanSean AK here for all the reasons you state. However, with so little remaining behind, isn't he pot commited for the balance of your checks with any 2 pair or set? I think his play looks like a made hand from the flop, a cautous set or AQ. It seems like KQ or KJ should be a distant worry here. The overiding concern is making a profit on your remaining chips when WingMan luck boxed his way into winning the pot. (I've not viewed past this point as of these comments)

GeeBeeQED

What do you think about calling 3bets oop? Isn't that what rather weaker players do? I followed a two+two thread about this topic a while ago and the conclusion was that it's almost impossible to play profitable in 3bet pot oop against a decent 3bet range unless you stop 4betting your value range PF

Posted on 2+2 must be true? What is the argument for never calling 3 bets OOP?

My argument for it's necessary to have OOP calling range is if you never call OOP villain can totally polarize his 3 betting range and reduce his 3 bet sizing to exploit us. If we reduce our 4 bet size in relation to villain's 3bet size then villain has the option to call 4 bet IP, especially slightly deeper than 100BB. If we don't reduce our 4 bet size then each bluff has smaller risk to reward ratio and the EV of each 4 bet bluff and each 4bet/call with the bottom of our range decreases to a point where we can't prevent villain from having +EV 3 bets vs us with a very wide range.

All this only matter if villain is exploiting us and you can choose to never call 3 bets OOP if villain is not.

Time Link to 00:28:37

Very tricky river spot. The good news is this is sufficiently rare and so close at the same time that if we just don't get disconnected and make any decision it won't be too bad. I think c/f is likely the best since a reg bluffing into a protected dry side pot should be downright rare.

I am curious about one thing though. We all have taken AK out of this guys range based on his turn play. FWF and others based this on the fact that he didn't ship it in. So I am wondering if you guys saw him show AK at showdown would you think he is expert, very good, regfish, or real fish?

Posted on 2+2 must be true? What is the argument for never calling 3 bets OOP?

I never said that this has to be true. The basic argument was that it’s hard to balance your 4bet and call 3bet oop range. There are only so many (value) hands you can play, so you turn your ranges face up and it’s hard to make calling a more +EV play than 4bet/folding against a good player. I think BalugaWhale says something along these lines in his book too.
If you don’t start to call with AK, QQ+ in these spots your range becomes incredibly narrow. Something like: AQ, KQ, AJ, KJ, QJs, JJ, TT. (I think it’s very hard to play this range profitably oop against a decent 3bet range of let’s say 8-10% unless villain has a very junky polarized range without many Ax hands in it. And calling with middle PPs cannot be right, because I doubt someone can play them profitable oop against a good, aggressive opponent without initiative.).

I agree with what you say in your second paragraph. Calling 3bets oop becomes way more profitable, when villain starts to unbalance his 3bet range against us (which he has to to exploit us). Obviously I’m going to start calling 3bets oop, when villain starts to make smaller 3bets against me. When we get deeper or 3bets become smaller or villain starts to call 4bets IP variables change and so our initial game plan has to change as well, no doubt about that. I just was referring to hands we get 3bet oop by a good regular with a decent 3bet range about 100BB deep without any special dynamics going on.


What do you think about shoving the turn with your straight in the 89 hand? The weaker player is coming along with any hand he calls a pot sized bet anyway, while the reg might still level himself into call with a set or top two pair.

@surfdoc: I would think he is very good-expert (or a very passive). I mean Blah can't have much else than top two pair or 89 in this spot. Sets are very unlikely, so his hand is pretty much locked and his primary goal should be to keep the weaker player in the hand, who easily could have a pair plus straight draw and might find a fold with such a hand against a huge bet and a shove. When the weaker player calls, the pot is going to be so big on the river that it’s unlikely Blah folds many hands he bombed the turn with. Actually, the more I think of it a call with AK would be way better than a raise in that spot.

@surfdoc: I would think he is very good-expert (or a very passive). I mean Blah can't have much else than top two pair or 89 in this spot. Sets are very unlikely, so his hand is pretty much locked and his primary goal should be to keep the weaker player in the hand, who easily could have a pair plus straight draw and might find a fold with such a hand against a huge bet and a shove. When the weaker player calls, the pot is going to be so big on the river that it’s unlikely Blah folds many hands he bombed the turn with. Actually, the more I think of it a call with AK would be way better than a raise in that spot.

Nice Tolp. I think flatting turn here is better by a pretty wide margin for the reasons you stated. The short stack is going to feel priced in and getting him to put in 48bb on the turn is pretty sweet especially since the pot size and turn bet sizing will almost guarantee Blah stacks any river card. The only issue is hand protection but on this texture 3 ways they are going to be sharing boat/chop outs so often that a slowplay is in order.

I did see that Lola mentioned this earlier but I missed that in the wall of text.

Oh and by the way, since when are we able to label a 27/16/7 guy (120 hands) a fish?

. So I am wondering if you guys saw him show AK at showdown would you think he is expert, very good, regfish, or real fish?

I would think villain has FPS and not thinking in terms of ranges and math so probably "regfish"

Given math the guy with short stack is never going to call 400 but fold for less than 100 more. I've but the him to a decision for his entire stack anyways. My range has no semibluffs or pure bluffs since I put one player all in. My perceived range should have some 2 pair and KQ type of hands which want to blow the reg out of the pot and play for stacks with the SS. Therefore, my bet/folding range on the turn will NEVER ever bluff shove or bet for thin value on the river.

By shoving the turn villain is guaranteed to get it in vs anything that I will bet or call river with which will think about folding on the river such as this river or any river that pairs the board. So villain will stack 100% of my value range by shoving the turn where as he will only stack 70% of my value range by slow playing AK. Then bet/folding range which will never put another bet into the pot sucks out like 10% of the time so villain has only reversed implied odds instead of implied odds by calling.

I would think villain has FPS and not thinking in terms of ranges and math so probably "regfish"

Given math the guy with short stack is never going to call 400 but fold for less than 100 more. I've but the him to a decision for his entire stack anyways. My range has no semibluffs or pure bluffs since I put one player all in. My perceived range should have some 2 pair and KQ type of hands which want to blow the reg out of the pot and play for stacks with the SS. Therefore, my bet/folding range on the turn will NEVER ever bluff shove or bet for thin value on the river.

By shoving the turn villain is guaranteed to get it in vs anything that I will bet or call river with which will think about folding on the river such as this river or any river that pairs the board. So villain will stack 100% of my value range by shoving the turn where as he will only stack 70% of my value range by slow playing AK. Then bet/folding range which will never put another bet into the pot sucks out like 10% of the time so villain has only reversed implied odds instead of implied odds by calling.

I am picking up on some contradictory statements here especially in light of what actually happened in the hand. i.e. you DID bet for thin value on the worst non-pairing river in the deck. I think you are also wrong about this "fish" calling the turn when it goes bet/shove in front of him.

I am picking up on some contradictory statements here especially in light of what actually happened in the hand. i.e. you DID bet for thin value on the worst non-pairing river in the deck. I think you are also wrong about this "fish" calling the turn when it goes bet/shove in front of him.

what happened in this hand doesn't matter at all, villain is playing vs my perceived range and it has more than 1 hand combination. We can't see people's hole cards and can only optimize our play vs their perceived range. I'm sure anyone who plays with 450BB is most likely a "fish" and will almost never call for 400 but fold for 450.

This hand is the very top of my range but if I have the rest of my range ie 2 pair etc where he has 0 chance to get the rest of my money and 100% chance to lose more when I boat up. By not shoving turn he misses value from my percevied range. Hands that b/c the turn like 89 will auto c/f on any board pairing card and I'm thinking about folding this one so that's where the 70% not stacking me comes from.

I am picking up on some contradictory statements here especially in light of what actually happened in the hand. i.e. you DID bet for thin value on the worst non-pairing river in the deck. I think you are also wrong about this "fish" calling the turn when it goes bet/shove in front of him.

I’m with surfdoc on this one.
I understand, what Blah is saying and his math might be right as long he is going to check/fold 89 every time on the river, when a K, a 9 or any card falls, which pairs the board. But in reality this is not going to happen (as seen). The next thing is, we basically can’t have a set on this board, maybe TT, but that’s about it – only a handful of players flat QQ and JJ oop in this spot preflop. Even if we could have them in our range, we have to think about our perceived range. So what hands of our perceived range are actually going to call, when villain shoves? 89, maybe TT (although I think in a vacuum TT is a fold). We definitely have to fold all two pairs unless we think villain is crazy. That’s why I would rather say villain is very good, when he just calls the turn with AK, instead of thinking he has FPS, because there pretty much is no value range you call a turn shove with but fold to a blank river card (especially when the pot odds get amazing). So the main concern of the PF raiser should be to keep the weaker player in the pot.

As surfdoc indicated you shouldn’t underestimate the “psychological” aspect in such a hand. A weaker player might not be able to fold his hand, when the turn goes bet/call in front of him, but might be able to muck his hand, when it goes bet/shove. I know this doesn’t make much sense mathematically, but that’s how weaker players react to certain actions.

As surfdoc indicated you shouldn’t underestimate the “psychological” aspect in such a hand. A weaker player might not be able to fold his hand, when the turn goes bet/call in front of him, but might be able to muck his hand, when it goes bet/shove. I know this doesn’t make much sense mathematically, but that’s how weaker players react to certain actions.

It is not just about the psychological aspect although I assume this is an issue of semantics and we are really saying the same thing. It is about hand reading and bayesian analysis which is how good and bad players decide when their hand is good. It is a very common spot where any of us think our hand may be good enough to call a bet but we can't call a bet and a raise in front of us. This not because of the dollar amount but simply because of the likelihood that are our hand is garbage despite getting more attractive odds on a call. Even a bad player can see this turn get bet then jammed and make a "big laydown" with KJ, KQ, KT, QT, JT, type hands realizing that he may be drawing dead to a chop.

I also want to point out that almost everyone makes the crying river call when they are getting 3047239:1 and the the big river fold is a dying breed in today's online poker climate (possibly for good reason)

It is not just about the psychological aspect although I assume this is an issue of semantics and we are really saying the same thing. It is about hand reading and bayesian analysis which is how good and bad players decide when their hand is good. It is a very common spot where any of us think our hand may be good enough to call a bet but we can't call a bet and a raise in front of us. This not because of the dollar amount but simply because of the likelihood that are our hand is garbage despite getting more attractive odds on a call. Even a bad player can see this turn get bet then jammed and make a "big laydown" with KJ, KQ, KT, QT, JT, type hands realizing that he may be drawing dead to a chop.

That's what I've tried to say. We are on the same page here.

good video.

Time Link to 00:31:51

After his turn flat call, I actually expected him to have either KJcc/KTcc a lot and AK a bit less often (cause that hand might raise the turn) because of the way he played the hand. I really don't think he ever has a set here.

Here's my thought process, and I'd love to hear what you guys think:

First of all, on the flop, his sets would have fast-played because the board is so connected and people show up with broadway hands so often in a 4-way single-raised pot (notice that WingMan had QT here) that its very easy for him to get value by worse. Expecting him to be worried about us having 89 here is too much of a stretch (look what he called us on the flop with), most of the time he's going to put us on 2 pair or pair+draw and will fast play QQ/JJ/TT every time to protect & charge the KQ/KJ/KT hands that we or someone else in the hand might have. At the same time I can see a lot of people peeling once with a K here without even thinking about what our range is.

On the turn when he calls again, it seems really weird to me. At this point I'm even more confident that he would not flat any set than on the flop.... we basically told him that we're never folding after we pot the turn and he's doing great against our range if he has a set, even if we include 89. So he doesn't have QQ, JJ or TT, probably not K9s though that beats us anyway, so that leaves KJcc and KTcc and maybe a stubborn KK. AK is still possible but again that beats us anyway. I know its a stretch to put someone on a super narrow range like that but I just don't see how he could have anything else. Is it a mistake for him to call with KJcc here? Yeah almost definitely, but you can't expect people to play perfectly. It's probably just too tempting for most people to fold a draw with that many outs even if its just one card to come (and WingMan could not re-open the action either). All of that considered we are clearly dead on the river....

On the river I definitely dont like the shove, but I guess you were operating under the assumption that he could still have a set while I personally feel he can't have one. Even if he can have a set though I prefer check/calling over shoving into him. Over both of those I like check/folding...

Interesting hand....

After his turn flat call, I actually expected him to have either KJcc/KTcc a lot and AK a bit less often (cause that hand might raise the turn) because of the way he played the hand. I really don't think he ever has a set here.

Here's my thought process, and I'd love to hear what you guys think:

First of all, on the flop, his sets would have fast-played because the board is so connected and people show up with broadway hands so often in a 4-way single-raised pot (notice that WingMan had QT here) that its very easy for him to get value by worse. Expecting him to be worried about us having 89 here is too much of a stretch (look what he called us on the flop with), most of the time he's going to put us on 2 pair or pair+draw and will fast play QQ/JJ/TT every time to protect & charge the KQ/KJ/KT hands that we or someone else in the hand might have. At the same time I can see a lot of people peeling once with a K here without even thinking about what our range is.

On the turn when he calls again, it seems really weird to me. At this point I'm even more confident that he would not flat any set than on the flop.... we basically told him that we're never folding after we pot the turn and he's doing great against our range if he has a set, even if we include 89. So he doesn't have QQ, JJ or TT, probably not K9s though that beats us anyway, so that leaves KJcc and KTcc and maybe a stubborn KK. AK is still possible but again that beats us anyway. I know its a stretch to put someone on a super narrow range like that but I just don't see how he could have anything else. Is it a mistake for him to call with KJcc here? Yeah almost definitely, but you can't expect people to play perfectly. It's probably just too tempting for most people to fold a draw with that many outs even if its just one card to come (and WingMan could not re-open the action either). All of that considered we are clearly dead on the river....

On the river I definitely dont like the shove, but I guess you were operating under the assumption that he could still have a set while I personally feel he can't have one. Even if he can have a set though I prefer check/calling over shoving into him. Over both of those I like check/folding...

Interesting hand....

Your assumptions in this posts doesn't make sense and what is it based on anyways?

Things like people will fast play sets on wet boards makes no sense because its based on how you will play how people play vs you. Why villain can slow play AK but can't slow play a set? I can say he slow play a set because he's trapping the fish or whatever other reason and we just argue about nothing. You can't say 100% sure villain doesn't have a set so when we assign villain a range we included some combo of sets. I don't see how calling with KTcc is better than calling with a set, equity of a set is much much much much higher than KTcc vs my betting range.