Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Entity (Micro/Small Stakes)

I think what I'll really take away from this episode is that I made a fairly significant error against the player PDL83 (the villain for a few of the hands where I called down with just a high card).

This is the fourth time I've seen these hands (session review after playing, recording this video with Rob, further review on my own, and watching the video), and I have to admit that I just totally got outplayed by that player. She/he may or may not be a better player than me, but that doesn't really matter. I exacerbated the situation by not playing my best game - I certainly think I could have played correctly against him the third time we butted heads.

What I'm not yet certain about is if I misplayed because I mis-read this specific player, or if it's a more general schema-failure. What I mean is that it's possible I failed to adjust to how the player was playing and value betting. However, it's also possible I put the player into a more bluffy-LAGgy group than they belonged. From subsequent review I'd say they were more tight-sensible than I gave them credit for.

In either event, I definitely made the severe error of underestimating my opponent here.

Hero has AQ in SB and 3 bets the 77, hand.

we are ahead of villains range PF.(and as stoved for entire hand)
however where we stand on the flop is determined by our estimate of villains calling specs.
Can we categorize the flop calling standard of our opponents into 3 categories?
1) almost any two, very loose peel
2) a reasonable, but somewhat loose peel, considering normal pot odds maybe somewhat incorrect
3) fit or fold, in this case meaning Kx,6X,3X,45, any PP,AQ,AJ, maybe broadway suited's with a BDFD, most of which are going to SD.

without regard to the turn and river cards, can we then play the hand vs these calling standards?
Using more VB against 1 and 2 type players. And a more passive line vs type 3?

the turn decision here is difficult. the board is,if villain plays a fairly tightish range, all blanks. A king, some 6x, some PP's or a FD and some % of air is likely to raise us on the turn.
Making the turn decision in spots like this, difficult(even if we had position).
what factors make up our turn decision?
1) how often is villain likely to raise this turn card or any turn card?(especially true for type 1 peelers, and aggro type 2 peelers)
2) will villain now fold many of his holdings?(especailly true for type 1 and type 2 flop peelers)
3) can I decipher a call enough to know how to proceed on the river?
4) Do I have to SD this hand? meaning if I check, am I giving up or showing down?
5) can I/should I B/f here, trusting opponents raise?


the river....
Vs most aggro opp. We need to Sd most of the time here.
Vs fit or fold peelers, I think we can find a fold somewhere here.

Being in the lead either as the PFR'r or as the 3 bettor OOP and missing.
How to effectively proceed.
I think these decisions are manditory to understand at the 2/4 level and beyond.
players just dont fold as much, so firing aimlessly loses its punch.
I would go so far as to say, If you understand spots like these you can move up.
I dont understand them, but I keep working.

It gets even more tricky when we add more flop callers.
I tend to fire twice and pray.
I think thats a major leak.

any thoughts or comments are appreciated.

Entity....excellent video.

PygmyHero...I am jealous..lol
You are playing 30/20 and have the game to back it up.
I wish I could play like you!

A question about the KJ hand (raised from Bb vs Btn open limp).
Once we get called on the flop is the turn bet standard? I understad the pygmyhero's reasoning about him not having an ace rarely.
It still is a dry board, only the flush draw available.
Ugh spot.
It is off course opponent dependant but my decision would swing between Chck folding and Chck calling and river action would depend on the opponent.

A question about the KJ hand (raised from Bb vs Btn open limp).
Once we get called on the flop is the turn bet standard? I understad the pygmyhero's reasoning about him not having an ace rarely.
It still is a dry board, only the flush draw available.
Ugh spot.
It is off course opponent dependant but my decision would swing between Chck folding and Chck calling and river action would depend on the opponent.

If his opponent a) calls with a flush draw and doesn't raise it, b) doesn't have Ax often, and c) maybe sometimes folds 4x, it's a great bet. You can check-fold if your opponent is super passive and predictable but keep in mind that you're making money on a bet when he has a flush draw.

Rob

A one spot Hero has pocet 77 at river OOP and Rob says that we need over 50% equity to make value bet. I though that we just need hand with SD value to make river bet profitable cus some worse hands will call us and better hands will almost always bet when we have checked.
Maybe you assume villain will almost always bet only very strong hand cus he is to passive to bet some of hands that he should.

Mickey, thanks for the compliment. I owe a lot to Rob for helping me improve my game and I hope some of that improvement comes through in the videos (as I often feel we just showcase a bunch of hands I totally messed up).

The AQ hand...
I was just way off on this opponent. They were somewhat LP as I thought (think open limp 54s OTB), but actually played tighter and better post flop than I gave them credit for at the time. On later analysis I think I could have c/f-ed the river as I don't believe he bluff bets the river. I'm actually even wondering if c/c-ing the turn would have been better as he appears to not peel the flop as lightly as I thought. Also, the PFR should have alerted me that I needed to weight PP's more heavily in villain's range. Basically I just failed to adjust to this villain.

bassline, the KJ hand...
Against this opponent maybe I shouldn't have bet turn. But I still like betting the turn as the default line. A big problem in that hand is that I'm OOP. I don't know whether or not I have the best hand. When I have the best hand I don't want to give a free card. If I check I don't know if I can trust villain's bet (again, against this opponent I probably can) enough to fold. In my mind betting solves a lot of these (since getting raised at least gives me information).

Intuiting/Feeling Aggression:

Minute 62: Hero 3-bets preflop from the SB against a button raiser with AT and sees a 3T8 flop with backdoor flush draw.

This brought to mind something I've thought about on a number of occasions while watching this series. Namely, aggression is more effective when you feel it and intuit than just knowing that it's the "right thing to do."

Please don't take this the wrong way, but PygmyHero's approach to the hand should be cringe-inducing to someone who has internalized an aggressive approach. When I watched
this it hurt, because I wanted to see the hero go to war in this spot. More than just knowing it at an academic level, it's important to have the feel to know that this is a time
to step on the gas pedal.

It's obvious from this series that Entity is a masterful teacher, but I don't think he's inculcated that feel within PygmyHero, and as a result he doesn't intuit his aggression.
If this post came across the wrong way, I'm sorry, but this felt like a Tommy Angelo-esque point that might be of use.

Intuiting/Feeling Aggression:

Minute 62: Hero 3-bets preflop from the SB against a button raiser with AT and sees a 3T8 flop with backdoor flush draw.

This brought to mind something I've thought about on a number of occasions while watching this series. Namely, aggression is more effective when you feel it and intuit than just knowing that it's the "right thing to do."

Please don't take this the wrong way, but PygmyHero's approach to the hand should be cringe-inducing to someone who has internalized an aggressive approach. When I watched
this it hurt, because I wanted to see the hero go to war in this spot. More than just knowing it at an academic level, it's important to have the feel to know that this is a time
to step on the gas pedal.

It's obvious from this series that Entity is a masterful teacher, but I don't think he's inculcated that feel within PygmyHero, and as a result he doesn't intuit his aggression.
If this post came across the wrong way, I'm sorry, but this felt like a Tommy Angelo-esque point that might be of use.

I think this is a good point, but I do think you internalize this "feel" by lots and lots of practice. I wasn't an aggressive player when I started playing LHE -- I was actually a bit on the weaktight side. Now I can be a nutcase in either direction (passive or aggressive) depending on what I've learned to feel based on board texture, etc.

I think you'll actually be quite surprised as you move through the series to see the progression of Mike. We'll be picking up these videos in the future (not sure exactly when, but in the next season or two I think) to follow up on the next levels of his progression -- but a lot of the aggression that wasn't quite internalized way back when we started has been internalized (and then some) now.

Rob

Excellent, I can't wait to see the next set of videos. Luckily I still have episodes seven and eight to watch.

japolin, I appreciate your comment and definitely take no offense. Having me make mistakes and trying to learn from them is honestly an integral part of this series. I know I did the former well and I hope I did the latter well also. We're all here to improve our games and I made a mistake here. It's good that it's pointed out so I can get better.

This video shows my first hands at 2/4 (well, I had played it a little bit a few years ago), and it's obvious from review that I was not 100% comfortable at the new limit. I'm okay with admitting that as I think it's a very natural thing and something a lot of other players probably go through as well. Again, we're just trying to portray a typical journey up through the limits and I believe we did that, my flaws and all.

I'll be interested to hear what you think after the next episode or two. As I stated in the thread, I think episode 7 may have been my best play to date. And I am very pleased with how I did in episode 8 against a very very tough table.

Hi Entity!

Min ~58ish. I still don't get why why can't c/c on the river. There are so many cards that bluff or semibluff this board. Unimproved A-highs (maybe with the spades) and so on we can count as pure bluffs, but BB may decide his A6 is good and "value bet" it. People only look at their hand and ofter do weird value bets, at least at these stakes. His hand reading ability may go to the point of "I beat AK!" So I really do think we need to c/c the river if it is bet by the BB. Not so sure about the button...

Hi Entity!

Min ~58ish. I still don't get why why can't c/c on the river. There are so many cards that bluff or semibluff this board. Unimproved A-highs (maybe with the spades) and so on we can count as pure bluffs, but BB may decide his A6 is good and "value bet" it. People only look at their hand and ofter do weird value bets, at least at these stakes. His hand reading ability may go to the point of "I beat AK!" So I really do think we need to c/c the river if it is bet by the BB. Not so sure about the button...

I think you're probably overestimating how often BB can actually show up with a bluffing hand there or a 6x hand that he will valuebet, and also how often he bets it when the pot is 3-ways. I think one of the bigger mistakes I see a lot of players making is inducing bluffs too often in spots where bluffs just aren't as likely to show up, and this is one of those spots.

Basically this is one of those spots and board textures where I think that if you are the one doing the betting, a bet going in on the river is fine, but I don't think you are significantly likely to be faced with a bluff -- and you get put in some really ugly spots by checking as well, like when BB bets and BTN calls, or when BB checks and now Button bets. You really can't expect a hand like 77 to be good there very often, but I do expect to get called by a lot worse by at least one of my opponents when I fire off for value.

In addition to all that, by far the most likely player to bet here on the river given the flop/turn action is Button, I think, and not BB -- when BB bets here I think it's a "coming to life" bet a lot more often than a bluff given that he's firing into two people and he hasn't taken any aggressive actions yet.

Rob

In addition to all that, by far the most likely player to bet here on the river given the flop/turn action is Button, I think, and not BB -- when BB bets here I think it's a "coming to life" bet a lot more often than a bluff given that he's firing into two people and he hasn't taken any aggressive actions yet.

Yeah, considering he's been passive throughout this hand without a read, you are right that BB bet is "coming to life". Normally when a likely draw comes in, it's an insta-muck in this situation, but also on this board texture, I can see how BB only bets hands that are likely good against 2 opponents that have been showing aggression.
So, if you have a very aggressive opponent in the BB, you would consider inducing a bluff? Or still b/f?