---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by blah234 (Mid Stakes)

00:29:45 When you overbet the river you say that his play to x/c river is FPS. However, if he's handreading he knows that you probably don't have pure floats (you snapcalled the turn) so it's either busted flushdraws, pp's or Ax. All of you Ax are lower than his (you probably 3bet AJ+) but are going to valuebet anyway and he gives you the chance to do the same with busted flushdraws. He's only losing value to pp's/8x but those aren't the majority of your range and might not even call the river so how can his play be FPS?

00:29:45 When you overbet the river you say that his play to x/c river is FPS. However, if he's handreading he knows that you probably don't have pure floats (you snapcalled the turn) so it's either busted flushdraws, pp's or Ax. All of you Ax are lower than his (you probably 3bet AJ+) but are going to valuebet anyway and he gives you the chance to do the same with busted flushdraws. He's only losing value to pp's/8x but those aren't the majority of your range and might not even call the river so how can his play be FPS?

My percieved range on the river is busted FD, Ax+ and second/third pair and some PP. When he has an A it significantly reduces number of Ax+ combos in my range. When he checks the river he will get a bluff from busted FD and Ax+ but lose money vs rest of my made hand range which will check behind. My perceived range should have way more marginal made hands compared to other things besides I may not bluff with 100% of my busted FD, for example K high FD is checking behind to try and win at showdown.

To maximize our EV we need to optimize vs villain's range. Betting and check is the same about vs Ax+. Betting > checking vs other marginally made hands. Checking > Betting vs busted draw. If marginal made hand part of villain's range is bigger (more combos) than busted FD (villain also has to bluff with them) then betting is higher EV than checking. Checking instead of betting = FPS.

Time Link to 00:11:49

Can you explain further how you would adjust your cbetting range vs him now that he folded to a delayed cbet? I think you got distracted by the AQ hand.

Can you explain further how you would adjust your cbetting range vs him now that he folded to a delayed cbet? I think you got distracted by the AQ hand.

I would distribute more pure air into my delayed cbetting range instead of betting flop and be more happy folding when villain leads turn next time I check to him on the flop.

Time Link to 00:08:17

Slowplaying aces is +ev here. The ev may be worse than 4 betting, but its not actual minus ev.

Time Link to 00:29:53

You lose money by shoving over a river bet if villain bet/calls river with any Ax hand or boat.

Slowplaying aces is +ev here. The ev may be worse than 4 betting, but its not actual minus ev.

you know what i meant

You lose money by shoving over a river bet if villain bet/calls river with any Ax hand or boat.

You're right calling if he bets the river is the highest EV play assuming he calls with only Ax and boats. I said that in the video and it was a mistake in estimating equity during play.

However, I still think shoving the river is highest EV because villain may b/c with more than just Ax+ hands and we have very close to 50% equity vs the above range so doesn't take many combos to swing it in our favour.

You're right calling if he bets the river is the highest EV play assuming he calls with Ax and boats only.

Maybe you misspoke then, or I misheard. Do you think he calls with worse?

you know what i meant

But the people watching who might benefit the most from this video might not.

But the people watching who might benefit the most from this video might not.

No to sound offensive but all of my video should do more harm than good to anyone without a basic understanding of poker concepts, like if it's +EV to call with 1 hand then must be +EV to call with another hand that has more pot equity vs villan's range

They should also understand the next sentence of calculate EV and figure out for themselves once and be done with this spot instead of blindly believe everything I said. I'm sure I said there are probably good and bad advice in most videos, including this one of course. You already found one.

No to sound offensive but all of my video should do more harm than good to anyone without a basic understanding of poker concepts, like if it's +EV to call with 1 hand then must be +EV to call with another hand that has more pot equity vs villan's range

Well if you are going to give bad information then yeah.

The problem with putting the responsibility of filtering the bad information from the good onto the the one watching the video, is that the viewer is rarely able to differentiate between the two. For the ones that can, the value of the information becomes diminished.

To be clear, I don't think you gave bad information because you don't understand the concepts, rather I think you just misspoke while trying to play and explain your thoughts.

The problem with putting the responsibility of filtering the bad information from the good onto the the one watching the video, is that the viewer is rarely able to differentiate between the two

Like I said in this video, I think this should be one of the very first things everyone should learn how to do. Otherwise, improving will be very difficult since no one is perfect. All the coaches are human thus they make mistakes and the reason why people win is not because they make no mistakes or they understand everything. They win because they make less mistakes and understand more than their average opponents. Tommy Angelos calls it recipricality(spelling?) and that's the best way to look at every poker advice from any sources.

Time Link to 00:14:09

In the 4 flush hand if you had the A would it be better +EV to bet bigger like pot to give the impression you are betting a weaker spade and get looked up by other weaker spades? Especially on the turn?

Time Link to 00:34:07

top left, KJo: would love to hear your thoughts about 4betting vs calling here.

I would distribute more pure air into my delayed cbetting range instead of betting flop and be more happy folding when villain leads turn next time I check to him on the flop.

Cool, thanks!

In the 4 flush hand if you had the A would it be better +EV to bet bigger like pot to give the impression you are betting a weaker spade and get looked up by other weaker spades? Especially on the turn?

Whether you want to manipulate your perceived range by betting larger or not is villain dependent. I would not do it vs unknown.

top left, KJo: would love to hear your thoughts about 4betting vs calling here.

4bet/fold is lighting money on fire vs that particular player.

Time Link to 00:41:32

Hi! 3bet pot with KQ. You say his range has many Ax hands and still decide to fire second barrel. Could you explain it, pls. Do you expect him to have enough QQ, KK, Jx hands?

Thanks for the video!

Hi! 3bet pot with KQ. You say his range has many Ax hands and still decide to fire second barrel. Could you explain it, pls. Do you expect him to have enough QQ, KK, Jx hands?

Thanks for the video!

I expect villain to have Jx, and PP + floats so second barrel still + EV. It was never my intention to make villain fold Ax.

7:56 - AA What's the plan if any of full stacked guys raise flop?

14:20 - KQs At which situations would you consider raising > calling on the flop?

7:56 - AA What's the plan if any of full stacked guys raise flop?

14:20 - KQs At which situations would you consider raising > calling on the flop?

AA - depends on their raise size and relative position

KQs- raising is higher EV if you expect villain to 3bet the flop often enough so you can jam over his 3bet.

Please use the time stamps next time.

How do you find playing on William Hill? I have a bonus I can use at a few sites and William Hill is one of them.

Someone on DC was complaining about the lower stakes having bots to make up the numbers but I'm not sure how true this is.

Time Link to 00:03:38

great explanation of a tough concept

How do you find playing on William Hill? I have a bonus I can use at a few sites and William Hill is one of them.

Someone on DC was complaining about the lower stakes having bots to make up the numbers but I'm not sure how true this is.

I don't have too much problems with bots.

Very good video, I enjoyed it. People shouldn't have any doubts whether you are a winning player after watching it

Please record more vids on 200nl iPoker, because it looks like you can get plenty of action here. My few advices for you:
- move HUD showing your stats a little bit down, so you can see the time counting down and avoid timing out
- over half year ago I download a very nice table mod for iPoker, which could be useful for your future vids, PM me if you would like to get it:

http://screenshooter.net/8739124/xalwwdx

- I don't know if you play on this network something more besides coaching videos, but I heard there is a program called "iPoker BetPot", which allows you to use mouse wheel to adjust bet sizing, it also puts bet sizing for you right away into the box, so in practice you can just mostly click "Call" and "Raise" and not waste time on doing it manually

Thanks I will check out the software, it does look better than the default layout.

Time Link to 00:08:24

Wow you did make it sound like putting more money in the pot with nuts (AA) would be -EV. Had hard time believing what I just heard. Fine if you meant that it is less +EV than shipping. It depends and can be debated.

Good point that it is up to the viewer to decide what is good/bad advice. My bullshit detector went trough the roof on this one =)

Time Link to 00:34:44

You say this is a standard 3bet, why is that? Its vs a 13/4 (not sure what the hand sample is). If you didnt notice he was so tight and that changes your mind, why would this be a standard 3bet vs a more tagish opponent?

You say this is a standard 3bet, why is that? Its vs a 13/4 (not sure what the hand sample is). If you didnt notice he was so tight and that changes your mind, why would this be a standard 3bet vs a more tagish opponent?

The 3bet is a little splashy.. But 3betting top 12-15% vs CO open is more or less standard. Why?

Because those are the hands that we can play from the SB vs a 3x open from the CO unless CO is VERY wide. We could call with some of the hands and 3bet a tighter range.. but then we would be splitting our range into two parts.. which makes hand reading a lot easier for our opponents.

So your saying a depolarized 3bet range from the SB of 12-15%, more/less depending on the opponent, is the recommended play as a standard. And eliminate all call range in the sb to make hand reading harder for observent opponents?

So your saying a depolarized 3bet range from the SB of 12-15%, more/less depending on the opponent, is the recommended play as a standard. And eliminate all call range in the sb to make hand reading harder for observent opponents?

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

We use depolarized range providing that Villain responds by folding or calling. If he prefers folding or 4-betting instead, remember to switch into polarized range and 3b/5b something like { 22+, AQ+ }.

We use depolarized range providing that Villain responds by folding or calling. If he prefers folding or 4-betting instead, remember to switch into polarized range and 3b/5b something like { 22+, AQ+ }.

In BB where it is easier for us to split our range and flat some hands vs the CO it is less of a mistake to think like this. But poker is seldom black or white.

We can 3bet trash vs a player that folds way too much pre flop and/or a plays super weak post flop.

But that does not mean that we should start flatting BW hands unless we are also flatting our very best hands.

I'm not a big fan of the terms polarized and depolarized in a pre flop context. That is why I wrote top 12-15%. T5s has more than 35% equity vs any reasonable calling range. So even complete trash has a fair bit of equity.

If we are not 3betting Top X % of hands. Then we are likely 3betting 22+, AQo and the neighbors to the weakest BW hands we flat pre flop. Hands like K8s which has > 40% equity vs a reasonable calling range. Now polarized make no sense.

Edit: I know I have used those terms myself in the not so far past. And I may misspeak from time to time.. but I really think it is counter productive to have the wrong framework for our thought process.

hi nice vid as usual, you repeat several times to calculate ev and several time that an action seems very close from an other (exemple folding or raising river)
can you please take a hand of this video where you think ev is close and do the maths so we could have the right method to do it, because i have to say that even if i am a winning 100/200 player i sometime struggle to find the more ev+ hand with pokerstove and my brain (for something more difficult than calling a river bet given pot odds)
im surely not the only one
thanks and have a nice day

...3betting top 12-15% vs CO open is more or less standard..

hi how did you come to this number?


equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.771% 63.83% 00.94% 270463097416 3976061106.00 { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 1: 35.229% 34.29% 00.94% 145294405172 3976061106.00 { random }

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.444% 63.24% 01.20% 265310552308 5042300084.00 { 99+, A4s+, KQs, A4o+ }
Hand 1: 35.556% 34.35% 01.20% 144119327524 5042300084.00 { random

does that means that top 15% is the same using pairs or AXs to go with nut hands? because im allwaus strugling to chose between small pairs and Ax to 3bet/5bet

hi nice vid as usual, you repeat several times to calculate ev and several time that an action seems very close from an other (exemple folding or raising river)
can you please take a hand of this video where you think ev is close and do the maths so we could have the right method to do it, because i have to say that even if i am a winning 100/200 player i sometime struggle to find the more ev+ hand with pokerstove and my brain (for something more difficult than calling a river bet given pot odds)
im surely not the only one
thanks and have a nice day

Watch the existing math videos on this site to learn to calculate EV. EV calculations by hand takes forever and way too long to post every step in the forum.

hi how did you come to this number?

does that means that top 15% is the same using pairs or AXs to go with nut hands? because im allwaus strugling to chose between small pairs and Ax to 3bet/5bet

3betting small PP is not a super great idea vs CO. We get called too often and villain will have a rather strong range + jamming is a little meh vs CO. That said there are players who 4bet/fold with too high a frequency. All in all I would rather 3bet/5bet the suited aces.

TOP 15% is roughly how wide you can 3bet without having to jam very marginal hands over a 4bet.

Yes and vs 3x and 2.5x from the BTN you 3bet top 15% unless he is minraising. Vs a min raise arguments can be made for a flatting range pre.

please tell me if this range construction is correct for defeing my blindes (at least Sb because its more difficutl to flat with the possibility of being squeezed)
i want to termine which % i have to defend my blindes to improve my game (i know its not the first leak to plug but i fold to steal around 80%..)

we are sb and a btn opens to 3bb, he steals 40% as most regs
he can open any two card if we fold more than 66% so we have to defend 33%
since he steals 40% we have to defend 13.2%
since small PP are much difficult to play postflop oop and we have blockers with Axs we construct a 3bet range of around 13% (more that what i do now + the fact that i sometimes call when i think i wont be squezed)
the 3 bet ranges would be TT+,A2s+,A9o+,A5o-A2o,if he rarely calls but either fold or 4bet
the 3bet ranges is now 99+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,ATo+,KJo+ if he often calls


if he opens 2,5bb he can open any two cards if we fold more than 55% preflop, so we have to defend 45%, since he steals 40% we have to defend 18%...
the 3bet ranges is now 77+,A2s+,A2o+ if he rarely calls but either fold or 4bet
the 3bet ranges is now 77+,A2s+,KTs+,QTs+,JTs,A9o+,A4o-A2o,KJo+ if he often calls

is it the right method? i m suprised that we does not flat anything
it s much difficutl to construc the range for BB

thanks its a good way of improvment, expecting its not too much out of video

we are sb and a btn opens to 3bb, he steals 40% as most regs
he can open any two card

Apparently he is not opening ATC. There is a player left to act so it is not just up to you to defend the blinds.

3bet a range where you are comfortable jamming wide enough to not become too exploitable pre flop because you 3bet/fold too often. Top 15% is not a crazy choice wider if villain folds too much

ok i think i got it (when i wrote any 2 cards that meant he can open any two IF if fold more thant x%..but to construct the range i took the betsize + the fact that he open 40% and not 100%
thanks it seems i will be better in my sb play, i have to think about a calling range in BB

Time Link to 00:42:49

You say that you need x% vs someone's entire range to value bet the river, but isn't it also the case that we use certain bet sizes in order to target certain parts of someone's range? For example, in this hand, can we not bet something ridiculous like 12 bucks on the river and assume he'll look us up with practically any spade?

You say that you need x% vs someone's entire range to value bet the river, but isn't it also the case that we use certain bet sizes in order to target certain parts of someone's range? For example, in this hand, can we not bet something ridiculous like 12 bucks on the river and assume he'll look us up with practically any spade?

you never know what people will do with their range. What if you bet 12 and he jams for example here? Playing vs a part of villain's range is a leak because you're always playing vs their full range and not parts of it. If you think betting smaller will cause villain to call with a wider range which gives you over 50% equity then by all means do it, you'd need a pretty good reason as to why you'd expect that action though, especially vs thinking players since almost no one bluffs with that sizing.

Hi, I renewed my subscription here just to check out your latest content, it's awesome!

I have one question regarding decision making, variable counts in poker, risk vs reward and whether or not that decision is +/- EV.

You 3bet that AQ vs UTG open - it's very simple to understand and it's a one-step plan.

How do you view low EV, high risk multi-street plans that can be very -EV if you have one of your variables wrong (out of many that were involved in the hand) - basically, where your lack of information can induce big mistakes from yourself.

I find that it's very easy to make decisions based on math when the pot is very small and opponents ranges are widest, but whenever I narrow my own range and my opponents range (big pots), I end up spewing, because my assumptions about my opponents range and his reaction to my actions was wrong to begin with (after we got to turn or river). At least on small stakes, turn and river play should be fairly honest in my experience so I like to draw the line that I don't cross on the flop and very rarely deviate from that unless I have good reads on my opponents.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?

Hi, I renewed my subscription here just to check out your latest content, it's awesome!

I have one question regarding decision making, variable counts in poker, risk vs reward and whether or not that decision is +/- EV.

You 3bet that AQ vs UTG open - it's very simple to understand and it's a one-step plan.

How do you view low EV, high risk multi-street plans that can be very -EV if you have one of your variables wrong (out of many that were involved in the hand) - basically, where your lack of information can induce big mistakes from yourself.

I find that it's very easy to make decisions based on math when the pot is very small and opponents ranges are widest, but whenever I narrow my own range and my opponents range (big pots), I end up spewing, because my assumptions about my opponents range and his reaction to my actions was wrong to begin with (after we got to turn or river). At least on small stakes, turn and river play should be fairly honest in my experience so I like to draw the line that I don't cross on the flop and very rarely deviate from that unless I have good reads on my opponents.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?

Lack of information should never lead to a "Big" mistake. We are not only playing vs villain's range but also playing our own range. For example, if we bluff into a villain who only has the nuts then as long as our bluffing frequency is not too high (proper range construction) then mistake will not be that big since the frequency of it happening is fairly low.

Street by street EV is almost pointless because the hand doesn't end on 1 particular street there's always the possibility of the hand to continue. We only care about the EV of our line. So stealing is auto + EV or not on the flop is irrelevant unless villain folds often enough preflop and we can x/f every flop still make profit.

We should always look for the highest EV play. Folding is 0EV so if there's something that's higher EV we should do that instead of folding. Only win small pots is fine as long as we don't lose any huge ones, this is the typical example vs nits. No one can force you to play a huge pot, you are allowed to click fold whenever you want. Reason like I have to call here because <insert reason here> or when I bet the turn, I have to bet the river because <insert reason here> are all just excuse for poor postflop play.

I have another theroy. To sum it up it goes basically like this - if you steal pre flop and on the flop where you are automatically +EV in a vacuum and after that always shut down, never give anything away unless you are at big equity advantage (PE and FE combined) & your opponents steal from you less than you steal from them, you basically end up freerolling with the top of your range and exploit the fact that they put too much money in the pot for no reason. When faced with agression you don't fight for "splits" or "0EV", you just fold and lose nothing, you only fight when you are offering your opponents some kind of reverse implied odds, where he only wins small pots and ALWAYS loses when the pots get big. Does this make sense and should I follow this philosophy?

In many situations both players will have marginal hands with a very high frequency => your strategy is only good if you have not put much money into the pot to begin with. What you are advocating is 3betting a very narrow range and calling 3bets with a very narrow range.. As I hope you can see this leads to a very poor strategy.. What you need is a better understanding of position.

In many situations both players will have marginal hands with a very high frequency => your strategy is only good if you have not put much money into the pot to begin with. What you are advocating is 3betting a very narrow range and calling 3bets with a very narrow range.. As I hope you can see this leads to a very poor strategy.. What you need is a better understanding of position.

I don't understand where you are getting this from. When you have a lot of fold equity you can always resteal, but the idea is to give up spots where at best case scenario, according to your own ability to play poker, the result is breakeven. From early positon only having value oriented opening ranges unless we are specifically isolating a player from the blinds and the table allows us to do so. Late position however we can minraise/fold buttons for example and don't have to worry about playing back vs 3bets. We can for example, tighten our opening range vs players who stop folding... If they players call X % of the time, but fold enough pre to make our open +EV in a vacuum, we are freerolling the times we flop the nuts vs his continuing range and he spews into us. I use this kind of logic pre flop and on the flop very often, when my hands are marginal, but there's some small edge pre flop and profitable opportunities later on (if our opponent folds A LOT we will steal with a cbet, if not, we don't start fighting over a questionable edge, because we have to beat rake etc and can make mistakes ourselves).

We invest X amount of BB-s with a profitable plan in mind (it can be as simple as the EV of our own action in a vacuum, and if it's +EV, we can stop the hand after that if we don't like the future). Post flop again, only take good spots as they get more complex, avoid big mistakes by managing the pot size well with questionable hands, if you can't come up with a plan, you could bet/fold X% of the time to break even vs opponents folding frequency (you are choosing your odds on a bluff).

I really don't like spots WHEN i am not targeting a specific leak of my opponent and I'm forcing myself to call or fold, it's something I completely try to avoid (again, when I'm not targeting a specific leak) and pre flop my choice becomes raise or fold if 3bet is +ev in a vacuum or for example, if my opponent calls 3bets and folds enough to cbets to make that plan +EV. If not, I might just choose folding pre. Post flop if I'm out of position, my options become betfolding or checkfolding in most cases, vs aggressive opponents who bet fold, I may choose to checkraise, based on just the odds. Again, no plan - I'm giving up. With marginal hands after these actions when I considered them +EV in a vacuum, I say I can safely check fold. And when I have huge equity advantage vs my opponents continuing range, I can easily get value. Now if my opponents call me a lot, I punish them by doing it for value only, and if my opponents fold a lot, I slowplay to extract value that way (underrep my hand and they perceive my continuing range to wider still, because they don't know I'm polarizing my calling range to hands that I beat his valuebetting range (this is when I don't have a reason to bluffcatch (if I can't bluffcatch, I can check/fold or bet/fold if opp folds X% of the time - very effective for donkbetting for ex. [these are examples "plans", ofc I have many more complex and very opponent specific types aswell]).

To sum it up... We can end the hand with a bet, when we don't have a reasonably profitable "plan" & we can squeeze out some immediate profit. And if not, we c/f, because we were profitable up until that point.

*Reasonably profitable = We know where we stand in the hand and how it will play out without us making mistakes (we know where our profit is coming from, we have it defined) & we are showing X amount of profit.

This is getting long... but I hope you understand how my though process is by now.

I really don't like spots WHEN i am not targeting a specific leak of my opponent and I'm forcing myself to call or fold, it's something I completely try to avoid (again, when I'm not targeting a specific leak) and pre flop my choice becomes raise or fold if 3bet is +ev in a vacuum or for example, if my opponent calls 3bets and folds enough to cbets to make that plan +EV. If not, I might just choose folding pre. Post flop if I'm out of position, my options become betfolding or checkfolding in most cases, vs aggressive opponents who bet fold, I may choose to checkraise, based on just the odds. Again, no plan - I'm giving up. With marginal hands after these actions when I considered them +EV in a vacuum, I say I can safely check fold. And when I have huge equity advantage vs my opponents continuing range, I can easily get value. Now if my opponents call me a lot, I punish them by doing it for value only, and if my opponents fold a lot, I slowplay to extract value that way (underrep my hand and they perceive my continuing range to wider still, because they don't know I'm polarizing my calling range to hands that I beat his valuebetting range (this is when I don't have a reason to bluffcatch (if I can't bluffcatch, I can check/fold or bet/fold if opp folds X% of the time - very effective for donkbetting for ex. [these are examples "plans", ofc I have many more complex and very opponent specific types aswell]).

Hands are never played in a vacuum and this strategy will lead to a weak/tight game. It's a pretty bad idea to have a polarized calling range...

I don't think it's bad when you only put yourself in that position when you are playing a strong range vs a weaker range (but in this scenario I'm mostly dominating my opponent and people in my experience make big mistakes because they perceive my continuing range wider than it actually is and my range is very strong to begin with).I don't put myself in spots where I'm creating passive dead money and give it away. It only happens as a calculated loss in spots where my investment was +EV overall (stealing small pots etc).

This is getting long... but I hope you understand how my though process is by now.

It sounds very tight weak to me, but I could be misunderstanding something. It seems to lead to a lot of situations where you cannot bet very often on later streets => you will only get cooler action and your opponent will have a very easy time with his marginal holdings. That is the opposite of what you want.
But again I could have misunderstood you.

Hi, great vid, like all other by you.

Sorry for not linking the spot.

14:10
KQs, the 4 flush board.

Don't you expect unknown villain to bluff the river in some % of the time, to makes us higher EV than donking 1/5 pot ?

I think a lot of 200nl regs should bluff there river a fair amount of the time, because they still have some fold equity against bottom of our range, and probably all little bit more aggro regs can bluff their whole range, which has no showdown value.

So i think check/calling can be higher EV there, instead of smallish bet.

All in all I would rather 3bet/5bet the suited aces.

If villain for example have 60% f3b, 25% 4bet and 15% call vs 3bet, you prefer suited aces, because they have almost the same equity as pocket pairs, but also villain has a calling range and suited aces play way more better in 3b pots, than low pockets.

Is this the reason you prefer them to 3bet/5bet ?

Thank you.

@blah234, Don't you expect unknown villain to bluff the river in some % of the time, to makes us higher EV than donking 1/5 pot ?

I think a lot of 200nl regs should bluff there river a fair amount of the time, because they still have some fold equity against bottom of our range, and probably all little bit more aggro regs can bluff their whole range, which has no showdown value.

So i think check/calling can be higher EV there, instead of smallish bet.

What is my perceived range for calling flop and turn? it doesn't matter if you have FE vs the bottom of villain's range a bet is +EV or its not. For example, getting bottom 10% of someone's range to fold by betting 2/3 pot is in the -EV category.

Thank you for answer.

So your percieved range looks like pocket pairs and probably some nut flushdraws, like AsQx, AsJx, AsTx (if not raised turn with) and flushes which not raised the turn.
I think if you check, he can bet his whole no_showdown_value range (i think he has a lot of bluffs, because our percieved range for floating this flop is fairly wide and he has good fold equity with his turn bet, and have a good equity with 2 overs against our turn calling range), because we have to fold all non-flush pocket pairs + lowerst flushes, which should make his bluff on the river +EV, because he has arround 40% fold equity.

Thank you for answer.

So your percieved range looks like pocket pairs and probably some nut flushdraws, like AsQx, AsJx, AsTx (if not raised turn with).
I think if you check, he can bet his whole no_showdown_value range (i think he has a lot of bluffs, because our percieved range for floating this flop is fairly wide and he has good fold equity with his turn bet, and have a good equity with 2 overs against our turn calling range), because we have to fold all non-flush pocket pairs + lowerst flushes, which should make his bluff on the river +EV, because he has more than 40% fold equity.

If my perceived range is PP and some FD then on the river assuming I'd call with every flush then how am I folding more than 40% of my range? Half the pp combos also has a FD. He may think he have good FE with his turn bet then when I call again on the turn what is my perceived range for seeing the river? How does that relate to betting the river?

If most 200nl regs expect unknown to float OOP with a wide range then they are bad at poker because it means they do it themselves and it's impossible to float OOP with a wide range and be +EV vs a competent opponent. Especially given positions on that hand.

If most 200nl regs think that float wide range on the flop = wide range on the river they are bad at poker because people don't call with anywhere near 100% of their flop range facing a turn bet. They are making incorrect assumptions on villain's range.

I made the assumption villain isn't super terrible. I could be wrong. If would take a villain with no idea of hand reading or concept of EV to bet this river with a wide range given the actions.

Thank you for the answer.

We most likely raise the turn with our non_nut flushes and boats in his eyes, and we call 55-77 only with flushdraw, so our turn calling range looks like
{TT-99, 7d7s, 7h7s, 7s7c, 6d6s, 6h6s, 6s6c, 5d5s, 5h5s, 5s5c, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, As7s, As6s, As5s, AsQh, AsJh, AsTh} - total 27 combos on the river 9s.

There we will call with :
{TdTs, ThTs, TsTc, 9d9h, 9d9c, 9h9c, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, As7s, As6s, As5s, AsQh, AsJh, AsTh} - total 15 combos, which means he has 43% fold equity, which makes his bet +EV.

Ofcourse i might be wrong with my assumptions, but i think it's okay to make wrong assumptions.
Ofcourse2, it's impossible for villain to calculate this at the table and he may or may not betting the river, given his overall estimations in real time.

So if there is a chance he thinks, that we can slowplaying the nuts on the turn, we can expect him to not bluff his whole bluffing range on the river.
That depends on our overall observations for 200nl regs, so this spot seems to be superclose on the river, i think.

My standart play there is to check/call, because most ppl thinks that they can bluff this board without showdown value, because he knows we have some random % of our range, which we gonna fold.


Sorry about wasting your time, i appreciate your posts.

what's the point of calling with 55 with the FD and then fold the river when you hit the flush anyways, especially when you assume people will bluff.

Your range is really really bad. You can't assume people will raise 100% of their made hands because its impossible for it to be true. Why would people call with AsQh, AsJh, AsTh but fold the other off suited AsX? It's not like having 1 heart gives you more equity vs villain's range. It's ok to make wrong assumptions but making assumptions that has little to no chance of being true is not ok.

Yeah, you're right, there's not a lot of sence in some of my sentences. I'm gonna think about it.

Time Link to 00:14:07

why do we not raise the turn when we catch our flush OTT?

Time Link to 00:22:05

Why do we flat and not 3bet with A3o? (Top Right)
When you say it doesn't play well in 3Bet pots please can you expand? Surely if we 3Bet if he calls IP We can bluff at most flops.
I understand your reasoning but if you could expand on it that would be great!

Time Link to 00:31:14

with his stack so small surely we can bet and call an all in with our AhKx on a 3h Khigh board?

why do we not raise the turn when we catch our flush OTT?

We rep no bluffs so that makes it a very fishy line.

Why do we flat and not 3bet with A3o? (Top Right)
When you say it doesn't play well in 3Bet pots please can you expand? Surely if we 3Bet if he calls IP We can bluff at most flops.
I understand your reasoning but if you could expand on it that would be great!

A3o is like playing poker with 1 hole card since the 3 does very little. We can bluff at most flops ATC including 72o but the problem is more equity we have vs villain's range for continuing the higher EV our bluff is so little pot equity means lower EV.

Less pot equity means we need more FE to be +EV and FE decreases with shallower SPR, basically same concept as why SC are bad to 3bet with.

with his stack so small surely we can bet and call an all in with our AhKx on a 3h Khigh board?

why? if we have 0% equity vs his range b/c even for 1 bb more is lighting 1 bb on fire

Time Link to 00:36:00

why don t cbet K high i want my money back;-)