---

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

Wow,

Out of schedule?

n1

Sugar Nut

I love Fridays

I love Fridays

Saturdays are nice too (FwF)...

i would like to see a live session against these types of players or better yet against a solid hu player who can switch up gears...wilt, i have a hard time with the q8 hand due to doubling up a maniac if wrong and after the play not showing the hand when successful in the bluff...maybe that's a leak of mine but stone cold bluffing such easy guys otherwise is something i shy away from

Lou, your wish is our command.

Next episode is krantz sweating me play and the grand finale is me sweating the master himself as he works his magic.

WoT

Also Lou, why don't you like the show ?

Also Lou, why don't you like the show ?

i didn't think you showed, if you did show then i only dislike the play somewhat

i hope you guys got some good opponents with some tough spots

btw, i saw a new fish on ub this week playing 5 10 with the sn of dj sensei, that's my tip for the week

In the A9 hand where you induce the bluff raise on the river you don't talk about your timing on the call. Of course part of you wants to fist-pump-snap-call, but doesn't this let the guy know you trapped the hell out of him?

It seems in this case you can gain about 600 quanks of meta by waiting 14 seconds before calling, making him believe that you had a tough decision with top and middle pair, thereby encouraging him to continue bluffing.

Does that make sense?

In the A9 hand where you induce the bluff raise on the river you don't talk about your timing on the call. Of course part of you wants to fist-pump-snap-call, but doesn't this let the guy know you trapped the hell out of him?

It seems in this case you can gain about 600 quanks of meta by waiting 14 seconds before calling, making him believe that you had a tough decision with top and middle pair, thereby encouraging him to continue bluffing.

Does that make sense?

quanks is an amazing word

ship da quanks

i dont remember the timing though, but you make a valid point

Hmm, I am contemplating if I get more or less action as a result of this =)
66 hand is bad in retrospect, I can't really credibly represent anything on that board.
No comments about A2o defense. I kinda disagree with your logic in the hand. IMO the A on the turn kinda skews both players hand ranges, so you can't really expect a river fold if you get called on the turn. If the stacks were deeper or it wasn't an A, I don't object. I guess I don't mind the turn bet as a cheap bluff though.

Btw, FWIW, you outleveled me completely in the first half of that session. I was pretty stoned, so it took me some time to adjust =)

loved to video, stacked two tags today using the 3bet on dry boards concept you talked about when I had monsters!

i think another important thing to note when playing laggy players is whether they can value bet thin/ if their bet size changes when they are value betting thin or not.

the bad lags bluff big a lot but their (thin) value bet sizes don't match their bluffing bet sizes.

good video. i also like playing lags..

I love the series so far. I have seen a bit of myself in almost all of the players you've played so far so my question is how do you catagorize yourself(ves) as players and what defenses do we use against those that have watched these vids and adjust enough to avoid being "classified"?

I love the series so far. I have seen a bit of myself in almost all of the players you've played so far so my question is how do you catagorize yourself(ves) as players and what defenses do we use against those that have watched these vids and adjust enough to avoid being "classified"?

I don't categorize myself at all and I might even go so far as to say that's a bad idea. Learn to play every style and learn how every type of player thinks about the world (of poker). Think about how your opponent classifies you, though, and then use that to out-adjust him. In other words, if he thinks your a TAG and you can guess his standard counterstrategies against you, then play looser or nittier or don't 3-bet your draws all the time.

The second question is trickier. You'll usually find that the people who can adjust their way out of classification are going to be world-class players. I wouldn't play these people unless you're able to intuit their adjustments before they happen and outplay them. Otherwise, from a game theory POV, they're playing unbeatable poker.

In the A9 hand where you induce the bluff raise on the river you don't talk about your timing on the call. Of course part of you wants to fist-pump-snap-call, but doesn't this let the guy know you trapped the hell out of him?

It seems in this case you can gain about 600 quanks of meta by waiting 14 seconds before calling, making him believe that you had a tough decision with top and middle pair, thereby encouraging him to continue bluffing.

Does that make sense?

Yes, QFT.

Thhank you so much =)

** Game ID 2031824743 starting - 2008-05-29 23:05:16
** Brand New Car [Hold 'em] (1.00|2.00 NL - $ Cash Game) Real Money

- villain sitting in seat 1 with $198.00 [Dealer]
- hero sitting in seat 2 with $446.20

villainposted the small blind - $1.00
hero posted the big blind - $2.00
** Dealing card to hero: Q of s, K of c
villain raised - $6.00
hero called - $6.00

** Dealing the flop: K of s, 2 of c, 9 of d
hero checked
villain bet - $12.00
hero raised - $28.00
villain raised - $62.00
hero called - $62.00

** Dealing the turn: J of s
hero checked
villain went all-in - $131.00
hero called - $131.00

** Dealing the river: 5 of d
villain shows: 7 of d, 6 of d
hero shows: Q of s, K of c
hero wins $397.00 from the main pot

End of game 2031824743

Zippo - Excellent! :-)

WoT

I don't fully understand that T2s hand fully. First of all you(WoT) 3bet preflop and say 'don't try this at home' and Jay agrees that it's pretty bad, but you don't really explain why. I understand you likely have the worst hand, but if you think you have good Fold Equity both preflop and on the flop, is it really horrible still? Can you, Jay exlain it a bit? I guess WoT had some reasons for it. I don't 3bet T2s myself tho, don't worry.

And when you bet the turn you(WoT) were trying to get him off a PP and planning to bluff shove the river right? Then on the river you get 2nd pair and you shove it in anyway with the reason that you likely have the best hand. (right?) That seems very contradicting and it seems like you turn your (likely good) hand into a bluff if he folds PP's so often. I really doubt worse hands call once you bet/raised every street + there's an ace on board. Where am I wrong?

Mattie,

3betting T2s is bad because there's just not a lot working for the hand. we don't feel good if we hit a pair, and we only have one speculative draw we can make... and well, we just have ten high. In general, we can really only 3bet this hand profitably if we expect one of 2 things, either

a) the guy plays super tight to 3bet preflop and making this 3bet will turn an automatic profit because the risk/reward of us making it 22 vs his 6 means he will fold often enough to make the raise in and of itself profitable (with any two cards)

b) the guy plays super straight forward on the flop... he will call with his medium strength hands, raise with his big hands, and mostly fold when he doesn't connect, so then the times A succeeds + the times we take the pot on the flop = profit

or I guess c) some combination of a+b or he plays real loose on the flop and super tight on the turn, ie he peels flops a lot and folds a lot of turns, which is fairly common of many ssnl HU players.

Regardless, we had no reason to believe any of these were true and mostly the reason i was 3betting in the match was just to try to create a maniac image and get into some neat leveling spots for the video.... which is essentially what this hand turned into, a leveling spot.

so on the turn i'm betting to try to get him off his medium pocket pairs, and on the river i just have the best hand so often because I don't expect him to peel me with A high on the flop that often (i think he'd bluff it more than just float it, look how he played the 66 hand previously turning a made hand into a bluff) also did you notice how i said in the previous hand example that the way he built that stack was through me bluffing so much? We've been playing a match that has had a leveling war, so this is just another spot where it's fairly unlikely i have the worst hand, added to the fact that he's seen me make monster moves and he knows that the turn A is the best 2 barrel card etc, it's conceivable he could try to snap me off with the worst hand some % of the time. Now that said, when he calls, will he have a worse hand > 50% of the time? That could be debatable, so it might be a slightly -EV shove, however I think in the context of the match and given that I should have the best hand quite often here, I was willing to take a slight risk that this time he didn't have me beat and jam it in.

Also there's some benefit in taking the pot w/o him seeing my hand... and if I do check the river and he shoves, what do i do ? Do I put him on an A that peeled or some sort of slowplayed hand? Do I put him on 55 turning his hand into a bluff as we've seen he can do ? If I do check here I also open myself up to being bluffed off the best hand.

hope that helps
Aaron

in the kq hand you mentioned not about time banking like you had 99 or something. Well what is your plan if you did have 99 or TT on that board vs a lag thats is a bit more competent than elsobado?

HAHAHAHAHA... dee snyder...

Time Link to 00:25:44

With the 3bet/call shove hand with AJ vs 96o, what hands are you calling with here?

Let's say he rebuys to 50bb, and 3bet shoves on of the next 3 hands he has in the BB, what would your calling range be there?

I can argue for switching to Ax/Kx/22+, but I was wondering if there is a more scientific way of adjusting

With the 3bet/call shove hand with AJ vs 96o, what hands are you calling with here?

Let's say he rebuys to 50bb, and 3bet shoves on of the next 3 hands he has in the BB, what would your calling range be there?

I can argue for switching to Ax/Kx/22+, but I was wondering if there is a more scientific way of adjusting

My calling range would be any hand I 3-bet, which would be a widened value range of any pocket pair, good ace or big Kx. If he wins the AI the game changes.

My calling range would be any hand I 3-bet, which would be a widened value range of any pocket pair, good ace or big Kx. If he wins the AI the game changes.

Thanks for replying.

Is that before or after seeing the the 96o? I assume the 96o changes things, right?

Thanks for replying.

Is that before or after seeing the the 96o? I assume the 96o changes things, right?

yah, i'd play significantly tighter at first and prob 3-bet/fold weak Ax if he had 50bb and pay a lot of attention to how often he calls/folds/shoves over my reraises as i make my adjustments

Time Link to 00:31:26

Is it bad to just flat here? I wouldn't often have this villain calling with much of his range there (given that we don't give him much credit for a K) as spewy as he is, but if an A, J or blank comes on the river he's likely firing again. Also I think he's capable of check/calling the river with pretty much any pocket pair if he thinks we can bluff the river (despite it being a weird line to take) and there is a very very slim chance of any hands in his range improving to beat us on the river or any cards that kill our action.

Is it bad to just flat here? I wouldn't often have this villain calling with much of his range there (given that we don't give him much credit for a K) as spewy as he is, but if an A, J or blank comes on the river he's likely firing again. Also I think he's capable of check/calling the river with pretty much any pocket pair if he thinks we can bluff the river (despite it being a weird line to take) and there is a very very slim chance of any hands in his range improving to beat us on the river or any cards that kill our action.

if we call twice it's hard for us to have a bluff. Really when we jam the turn it is also hard for us to have a bluff. He has so little left that usually I prefer getting the rest of the $ from his turn semibluffs compared to hoping he ships the river as a bluff for $56 in a ~300 pot or trying to get him to bluff catch for the last 56$ after we call the flop and turn.

Time Link to 01:00:20

This is a bit off topic- However. Here you say you only have to be good about 28-29% of the time for it to be profitable. I just want to make sure I am not missing anything because I calculate the pot odds at 2.5 to 1 roughly which is about 40 % so for it to be profitable you pretty much have to be good every other time right? I really love the videos you guys have made and I am not trying to nit pick I just want to make sure I am figuring this out correctly. Thanks for your time and I think that these videos are amazing.

This is a bit off topic- However. Here you say you only have to be good about 28-29% of the time for it to be profitable. I just want to make sure I am not missing anything because I calculate the pot odds at 2.5 to 1 roughly which is about 40 % so for it to be profitable you pretty much have to be good every other time right? I really love the videos you guys have made and I am not trying to nit pick I just want to make sure I am figuring this out correctly. Thanks for your time and I think that these videos are amazing.

2.5:1 is 1/3.5 = 28.5%

Wow amazing response time and I was just logging back in now because I realized my mistake. Thank you.

Time Link to 00:08:52

I only ask because I know both of you have experienced these situations with such frequency that you may be able to answer this in general terms.

Rosenkrantz states that players who see you calling down their bluffs thinly are usually aware enough not attempt a similar play 'immediately thereafter.'

Assuming that the typical lag players we're discussing are thinking players to the extent to which at least the above statement is true, is the converse also true?

If a particular bluffing spot has worked for your opponent in the past, is it similarly just as likely that a typical (not quite maniacal) lag opponent will attempt the same bluff immediately given the next opportunity in a similar situation?

Given the premise earlier outlined that the lag style is so difficult to play that it's rare to find a strong lag (especially at small stakes I'd assume):
I'm also interested to know what your opinion is regarding how a typical small or lower-mid stakes tag would play in the same scenario after a successful bluff.

This is obviously highly player dependent, but I'm curious about combating a standard General strategy. Would you be comfortable bluffing a tag in the exact same way repeatedly without yet knowing how quickly he will adjust? He hasn't given you a reason not to, after all........

(sorry if I missed the answer to my last post if it was in one of the episodes -feel free to just tell me to rewatch it if I did. I'm going to be watching them again regardless..)

I only ask because I know both of you have experienced these situations with such frequency that you may be able to answer this in general terms.

Rosenkrantz states that players who see you calling down their bluffs thinly are usually aware enough not attempt a similar play 'immediately thereafter.'

Assuming that the typical lag players we're discussing are thinking players to the extent to which at least the above statement is true, is the converse also true?

If a particular bluffing spot has worked for your opponent in the past, is it similarly just as likely that a typical (not quite maniacal) lag opponent will attempt the same bluff immediately given the next opportunity in a similar situation?

Given the premise earlier outlined that the lag style is so difficult to play that it's rare to find a strong lag (especially at small stakes I'd assume):
I'm also interested to know what your opinion is regarding how a typical small or lower-mid stakes tag would play in the same scenario after a successful bluff.

This is obviously highly player dependent, but I'm curious about combating a standard General strategy. Would you be comfortable bluffing a tag in the exact same way repeatedly without yet knowing how quickly he will adjust? He hasn't given you a reason not to, after all........

As you mentioned, it really depends on the player, but in general after a successful bluff in a small/medium pot I'd expect most (and I would myself) continue to to hammer away at it even if the spot came up relatively quickly thereafter. The only exception I can readily think of might be preflop with 3bets and 4bets where it's somewhat important to temper the aggression there as to not force them to adjust. Also an exception would be in big pots where people just get fed up such as in 3bet pots where you triple barrel on some "standard" barreling run outs. The second time people might be a bit less to run the river bluff if the first worked correctly since the opponent might be getting more frustrated. Of course it's very hard to know this. Knowing when someone is about to crack is very much an art and is hard to quantify.

It's worth thinking about what might be going on when repeatedly bluffing in some recurring small/medium postflop spots. Them folding might reflect a few different things: 1) show a weakness in their game plan or 2) indicates how they hand read or 3) simply that they do not give you credit for being able to take it to another level higher or 4) they simply had a hand with no showdown value. It's hard to know which one, but a good place to start is seeing certain lines you take with value hands where you never seem to get looked up.

That's interesting. The earlier in the hand, the quicker even the worst players may adjust. Thus it's still advantageous to hammer successively at their weak post flop spots.

It's worth thinking about what might be going on when repeatedly bluffing in some recurring small/medium postflop spots. Them folding might reflect a few different things: 1) show a weakness in their game plan or 2) indicates how they hand read or 3) simply that they do not give you credit for being able to take it to another level higher or 4) they simply had a hand with no showdown value. It's hard to know which one, but a good place to start is seeing certain lines you take with value hands where you never seem to get looked up.

Very clearly said, thanks *copy/pastes into episode notes.* I agree. It's taking me a while for me to integrate all of this analysis in-game. In the metagame of heads up each of these concepts seem to branch off into more details about their play that are defined by progressively more specific situations. It's a lot to think about. This is the type of thinking that separates the experts from the other players.