---

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

Thanks for the feedback! Didn't expect to have an entire video just for me

For hand one, this is all rough math without taking into account blockers and some other stuff, it seems like against opponents who are almost always giving up on bluffs on the river it could be better to call and fold river than to jam, since we're going to win with king-high a decent amount. Basically the amount we save against better hands outweighs the amount we lose against worse by letting them see the river.

The call only loses 4bbs vs non-Ac better hands assuming they check club rivers, wins 9bbs vs worse hands which jam every river, and gets progressively better against worse hands as the jam fewer rivers (unless they start jamming every brick and never jamming clubs), all the way up to winning ~50bbs if they never jam river. It loses 31bbs against Ac better hands.

A jam requires him to have ~0.9 folding hands for every non-Ac calling hand, and ~1.7 folding hands for every Ac calling hand, to break even, whereas a call requires him to have ~0.45 worse hands which always shove for every non-Ac better hand, or ~0.08 worse hands which never shove for every non-Ac better hand, and ~3 worse hands which always shove for every Ac better hand, or ~.67 worse hands which never shove for every Ac better hand.

So, it seems like calling goes from definitely better if he 1) only bluff-raises worse and never folds better to a jam and 2) never bluffs river (or ideally only bluffs a club river), to definitely worse if he 1) bluff-raises some better hands and folds some better hands to a jam and 2) bluffs river often (or worst of all only bluffs non-club rivers).

I don't really know where the point is where call = raise. I guess there are multiples, since there are multiple variables to consider. I don't think it's thaaaaat unreasonable that calling could be better at a low-stakes full-ring game, although if I were to play the hand again after looking at the math I do think against this player a shove has to be better than a call. I think I saw Phil Galfond make a similar turn call against Eli on HSP actually in season four, I think he had position maybe? I don't remember the hand very well and can't find it.

The other hands I agreed with what you were saying. The point about blowing people off your hand after check/raising a monster draw and hitting was something I hadn't considered, but makes a lot of sense. I really like the idea of a small turn bet - it seems like a spot where the check/raising player almost always wins the pot unless the calling player just binked a flush, so I'm not even sure that it's an "exploitative" betsize. We have so little air in our range after all the draws come in on the turn that we are probably meant to be betting small game-theoretically, since it lets us fold out his equity with all his non-nut hands with our entire range while losing the least to the few nutted hands he has.

Also I felt like I played a lot of these hands pretty badly, so that means you hating my play all the time actually means I'm really good! </esteem-defensive cognitive dissonance>.

The point you made on ATs was really good too. I get carried away thinking about optimal ranges sometimes, and if I were to play 10,000 hands against a guy 3betting me 25% I think I'd definitely want ATs in my stacking off range to balance and allow me to bluff a little more. Against this guy in this spot it's just way way worse than calling though, there's no reason to worry about balancing and having a wider 4bet value range to allow more bluffs.

I sort of wonder if it plays so much better calling that it's not even worth 4betting to allow you to add more 4bet-bluffs to a balanced range too. It's a spot I don't think I understand very well, although I also think a lot of other players are thinking about the spot wrong. The way I think about it is that each value hand I'm adding allows me to add some bluff hands, and so I think about a 4bet with AA as not just being worth whatever 4betting AA is worse, but also worth the +EV value I'm getting from being able to 4bet more bluffs thanks to having AA in my 4bet value range without having him able to ship everything over as a 5bet and having me fold all the time.

The problem though is that if he 5bet bluffs and I call with ATs that isn't even that bad for him, so I'm barely able to add any bluffs to my range for each ATs I add to my value range. There's probably a point where it just stops being worth adding to your 4bet value range because it stops letting you add many bluffs at all, no matter how wide your opponent is 3betting.

" For hand one, this is all rough math without taking into account blockers and some other stuff, it seems like against opponents who are almost always giving up on bluffs on the river it could be better to call and fold river than to jam, since we're going to win with king-high a decent amount."

Insanely optimistic thinking. Not only are you a big dog at showdown when it goes check check, but when he has less than K high he is infinitely more likely to be bluffing the river than with his better hands.

"So, it seems like calling goes from definitely better if he 1) only bluff-raises worse and never folds better to a jam "

Can't see how this can be ever be the case (that these are his tendencies).

" 2) never bluffs river (or ideally only bluffs a club river)"
Would be nice .