---

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

Glad you're back. Enjoyed the video. I like the topic of focussing our reads/notes to relevant info and interpreting that info in a useful way.

I believe grindcore touched on it but your examples e.g. didn't value bet thinly on the river therefore it polarizes his river vb range etc, were good. Look forward to next week.

Time Link to 00:27:31

In general I totally agree that people don't value bet light enough.
However, I don't think the villain in the 552tt hand with the TT was bad not to vbet the river.

You said you would call with 77 if his range is polarized, but even if he 3barrels ALL his spade draws AND opens all the Axs AND not value bet thin, your call would barely be +EV.
Hand 0: 68.852% 68.85% 00.00% 126 0.00 { KK+, 88, 55, 22, AsKs, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, As9s, As7s, As6s, A5s, As4s, As3s, KsQs, KsJs, QsJs, JsTs }
Hand 1: 31.148% 31.15% 00.00% 57 0.00 { 77 }
So I don't think your call would be very good.

From his perspective, I don't think he can expect to get called by 77 very often (atleast not by an average reg. I don't even think all those hands are peeling the turn in the first place), so vbetting TT would be quite too thin.
If he is not going to get called by worse often, I think it is better for him to induce a bet from your missed FDs.

Obviously it would be mandatory for him to vbet if he has way more bluffs OTT than just the FDs, and he knows that you would be calling light (like I would guess in high stakes).
However at these limits, I wouldn't expect to get called light often, nor would I think people would take advantage that my range would be polarized.

Having said that, I might bet like 1/5-1/3pot myself. What do you think about that? Would it be better to bluffcatch given my analysis?
I don't expect to get bluffraised often, and I think I can get called even by Ax.
Idk, I feel FTP plays a bit different from what I always expect so maybe you are right...

I'm in the top 10% of people who don't have a self-serving bias.

In general I totally agree that people don't value bet light enough.
However, I don't think the villain in the 552tt hand with the TT was bad not to vbet the river.

You said you would call with 77 if his range is polarized, but even if he 3barrels ALL his spade draws AND opens all the Axs AND not value bet thin, your call would barely be +EV.
Hand 0: 68.852% 68.85% 00.00% 126 0.00 { KK+, 88, 55, 22, AsKs, AsQs, AsJs, AsTs, As9s, As7s, As6s, A5s, As4s, As3s, KsQs, KsJs, QsJs, JsTs }
Hand 1: 31.148% 31.15% 00.00% 57 0.00 { 77 }
So I don't think your call would be very good.

From his perspective, I don't think he can expect to get called by 77 very often (atleast not by an average reg. I don't even think all those hands are peeling the turn in the first place), so vbetting TT would be quite too thin.
If he is not going to get called by worse often, I think it is better for him to induce a bet from your missed FDs.

Obviously it would be mandatory for him to vbet if he has way more bluffs OTT than just the FDs, and he knows that you would be calling light (like I would guess in high stakes).
However at these limits, I wouldn't expect to get called light often, nor would I think people would take advantage that my range would be polarized.

Having said that, I might bet like 1/5-1/3pot myself. What do you think about that? Would it be better to bluffcatch given my analysis?
I don't expect to get bluffraised often, and I think I can get called even by Ax.
Idk, I feel FTP plays a bit different from what I always expect so maybe you are right...

Perhaps I misspoke, I do not believe that I would personally call with 77, but 77 is a hand that could call a bet on that river for some opponents. I would have happily folded my hand in that spot.

I think that vbetting AA is the same as vbetting TT vs most opponents except for the off chance he or she has kxs. Plus, just because a call would be bad doesn't mean a value bet would be bad. We make lots of plays on the basis of our opponents making a bad decision. If they only made good decisions we're probably playing the wrong game.

You're right that its probably close in that particular spot. But that particular spot isn't a good bluff catching opportunity given a few factors. I think the point of the discussion was to say if there are situations where his bluffing range could be wider we'd be more inclined to call, given that his value range probably doesn't include thin value bets.

Time Link to 00:27:46

I actually like villains check here, to bluff catch.


Your range here is weighted towards pocketpairs (66-77) and missed flushdraws. All the draws bricked. When he bets you are folding your missed draws and probably folding your pocket pairs too.
When villain checks here he is giving you an opportunity to bluff with your missed draws.

Also a question, would you bet this river if we had 76(no showdown value)?

I actually like villains check here, to bluff catch.


Your range here is weighted towards pocketpairs (66-77) and missed flushdraws. All the draws bricked. When he bets you are folding your missed draws and probably folding your pocket pairs too.
When villain checks here he is giving you an opportunity to bluff with your missed draws.

Also a question, would you bet this river if we had 76(no showdown value)?

While an opponent may bluff with their missed draw the other portion of the range you stated, 66/77 will always check behind. I think that's why there's a value bet to be had. It's probably more opponent specific than anything but there's still merrit to value betting TT in that spot.

I actually like villains check here, to bluff catch.


Your range here is weighted towards pocketpairs (66-77) and missed flushdraws. All the draws bricked. When he bets you are folding your missed draws and probably folding your pocket pairs too.
When villain checks here he is giving you an opportunity to bluff with your missed draws.

Also a question, would you bet this river if we had 76(no showdown value)?

Not sure how many busted draws I have in my range. I know that I would fold most turns with just a naked flush draw and I would assume that most TAGs are doing similar. Perhaps nut flush draws call twice, but those have showdown value, so they are less likely to bluff, and there are like two combos of those (AJs, AQs).

I would not bluff the river for the reasons you stated villain should check. I would imagine his thought process was similar, he wanted me to bet. I didn't check because I had showdown value, I checked because I didn't think I could bluff.

While an opponent may bluff with their missed draw the other portion of the range you stated, 66/77 will always check behind. I think that's why there's a value bet to be had. It's probably more opponent specific than anything but there's still merrit to value betting TT in that spot.

Yes. There are, at most, 2-6 combos of busted draws. There are 18 combos of 66, 77, and 99, which are never betting and possibly could call a bet on an obvious scare card when the draws missed.

Nice vid...

Time Link to 00:37:24

This might be a bit of an illogical jump, but something I like to note in spots like this (usually followed with ?? so I know it's just a hunch) is that villain may be the type to slowplay flopped flushes on mono boards.

The way I come to this potential conclusion is that, in general, players think others play and think the same as they do, and one of the only reasons this villain would be afraid with aces up on this board would be if you could have a flush in your range on the turn, and when he doesn't vbet the river, he clearly still thinks it's possible after you flat the turn and check the blank river (ie you might be slowplaying). It's either this, or he is afraid you have a set or have AK and is planning to fold to aggression (weak/scared, thinks he's always getting coolered) or, more likely, he is some kind of showdown monkey and just wants to hit a hand and show it down, regardless of his relative hand strength. No matter what, his small bet sizes or checking range can include relatively strong hands, so for now, we shouldn't be automatically perceiving these moves as "weakness" from him and bluff raise/float and bet the turn when he checks as we might a typical player.

What I would be looking for now is if this player seems to have the ability to bluff a missed draw on the river after playing the flop and turn passively (i.e. whether his aggression is polarized or always strong) and whether he can fold hands when he thinks he might be beat (ie does he just keep calling with 1-pair hands when he's clearly beat, what is his W$SD% if you have a lot of hands, etc). We should also try to watch if he gets aggro on the turn or river with his flopped nuts or just tries to get to showdown.


While we can't make a generalized assumption about his tendency to slowplay, I still think it's fair to make a note that he may be capable of it. Do you think this is an unreasonable jump in logic, or is it a good idea to note the possibility?

Time Link to 00:43:27

I would definitely take a note on table 1 about villain's weak play with trips good kicker-yet another weak player that doesn't vbet or raise with nut hands and thus has a very polarized raising range and a stronger calling range than normal. However, here we have a much clearer case that he is, indeed, weak since he has a nut hand and he's calling in position- he is obv not slowplaying here, so he's not tricky-just weak/bad.

edit-you mention you should have made this note here later-nice.

This might be a bit of an illogical jump, but something I like to note in spots like this (usually followed with ?? so I know it's just a hunch) is that villain may be the type to slowplay flopped flushes on mono boards.

The way I come to this potential conclusion is that, in general, players think others play and think the same as they do, and one of the only reasons this villain would be afraid with aces up on this board would be if you could have a flush in your range on the turn, and when he doesn't vbet the river, he clearly still thinks it's possible after you flat the turn and check the blank river (ie you might be slowplaying). It's either this, or he is afraid you have a set or have AK and is planning to fold to aggression (weak/scared, thinks he's always getting coolered) or, more likely, he is some kind of showdown monkey and just wants to hit a hand and show it down, regardless of his relative hand strength. No matter what, his small bet sizes or checking range can include relatively strong hands, so for now, we shouldn't be automatically perceiving these moves as "weakness" from him and bluff raise/float and bet the turn when he checks as we might a typical player.

What I would be looking for now is if this player seems to have the ability to bluff a missed draw on the river after playing the flop and turn passively (i.e. whether his aggression is polarized or always strong) and whether he can fold hands when he thinks he might be beat (ie does he just keep calling with 1-pair hands when he's clearly beat, what is his W$SD% if you have a lot of hands, etc). We should also try to watch if he gets aggro on the turn or river with his flopped nuts or just tries to get to showdown.


While we can't make a generalized assumption about his tendency to slowplay, I still think it's fair to make a note that he may be capable of it. Do you think this is an unreasonable jump in logic, or is it a good idea to note the possibility?

Its a reasonable possibility but we need to be careful to not give it as much weight as any other reads given that its just a hunch. As I discuss more in the next video, we don't know why he checked back the hand. He could have misclicked or misread his hand. He could have immediately recognized after the hand that he made a mistake and make adjustments. So any read we need to always consider that its just not a good read. Hunches even more so than that.

Now that being said, we all use hunches (whether we realize it or not, which I talk about in the third and fourth vids), so using it consciously makes some sense. The way I would approach it is if its a close situation you can use the information as a "tie-breaker" when all of the other information is inconclusive. Make sense?

Please use a card mod with the next vid..was very hard to see your cards. Content was very good.

Its a reasonable possibility but we need to be careful to not give it as much weight as any other reads given that its just a hunch. As I discuss more in the next video, we don't know why he checked back the hand. He could have misclicked or misread his hand. He could have immediately recognized after the hand that he made a mistake and make adjustments. So any read we need to always consider that its just not a good read. Hunches even more so than that.

Now that being said, we all use hunches (whether we realize it or not, which I talk about in the third and fourth vids), so using it consciously makes some sense. The way I would approach it is if its a close situation you can use the information as a "tie-breaker" when all of the other information is inconclusive. Make sense?

This definitely makes sense-I did not think about the fact that after the SD, he could adjust, or that it may have been a missclick. I love the idea of only using unsure info as a "tie-breaker." I have definitely made the mistake of over-relying on unsure reads (such as bet sizing/timing after 1 or 2 observations) only to realize that the villain either adjusted or was not as consistent in his sizing/timing as I might have assumed.

Can't wait to see the next vid! Really cool idea for a series and excellent content. Thank you!

Please use a card mod with the next vid..was very hard to see your cards. Content was very good.

It was a vid review of one session, so the next few vids will have the same look. Sorry. Will keep this in mind for future episodes.

This definitely makes sense-I did not think about the fact that after the SD, he could adjust, or that it may have been a missclick. I love the idea of only using unsure info as a "tie-breaker." I have definitely made the mistake of over-relying on unsure reads (such as bet sizing/timing after 1 or 2 observations) only to realize that the villain either adjusted or was not as consistent in his sizing/timing as I might have assumed.

Can't wait to see the next vid! Really cool idea for a series and excellent content. Thank you!

Thanks a lot.

Time Link to 00:23:57

I know you said you were concerned about the low c-bet stat from villain in the AQ hand, but surely a river value bet should be considered? You seemed to snap check back and it seems next to impossible that he ever has AQ beat, while he may pay off with weaker Qs etc when you check back the turn?

Also his low cbet stat should be discounted somewhat because of how old the stats are like you mentioned in the earlier part of the video, right?

I know you said you were concerned about the low c-bet stat from villain in the AQ hand, but surely a river value bet should be considered? You seemed to snap check back and it seems next to impossible that he ever has AQ beat, while he may pay off with weaker Qs etc when you check back the turn?

Also his low cbet stat should be discounted somewhat because of how old the stats are like you mentioned in the earlier part of the video, right?

Not sure how often he cbets qx. I doubt there's enough to be concerned about getting value. But there could be value in betting vs jt. Other than that I'm not sure what else we can reasonably expect value from.

Given the age of the stats we can somewhat discount them but not that much given the sample size and the severity of the stat. If his cbet was like 50ish then it would be less meaningful but even with adjustments it's less likely he would go from that low to a normal level. It's possible but not likely imo. So while we discount it we still give the stat some credit.

I know you said you were concerned about the low c-bet stat from villain in the AQ hand, but surely a river value bet should be considered? You seemed to snap check back and it seems next to impossible that he ever has AQ beat, while he may pay off with weaker Qs etc when you check back the turn?

Also his low cbet stat should be discounted somewhat because of how old the stats are like you mentioned in the earlier part of the video, right?

i was also a little surprised at the quick check behind on the river ... definitely think there's some value to be extracted from (at the very least) QJ and QTs.

good video!

and +1 for making your hole cards a little bigger the next time you record a session

i was also a little surprised at the quick check behind on the river ... definitely think there's some value to be extracted from (at the very least) QJ and QTs.

good video!

and +1 for making your hole cards a little bigger the next time you record a session

given that qx doesn't always cbet and that the maximum number combos of qx is around 10, I think there's definitely less value than you think. You could be right that it may be a value bet, but its definitely super thin if +ev at all.

Thanks for the comments

Time Link to 00:39:45

3x raise ug with 88? is this raise only due to it being 5 handed?

3x raise ug with 88? is this raise only due to it being 5 handed?

No, its fairly standard for me. I am assuming you're commenting on the raise size (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see that making it 4x (or any other size as a standard) is that much better. I prefer to keep the pot small when I do play oop and I don't notice that the raise size drastically affects the calling range of most villains.

Time Link to 00:30:35

I find this section a bit odd. Could someone explain linkwood's comments a bit further - especially the line

If I can call with KT why am I not calling with 98

I understand the fact that if he doesn't make thin value bets then we know he is polarised. Are we just saying that when he does bet, he either has us beat or has a bluff (and so we can call lighter)?

Great video series Linkwood - learnt a great deal in the first two episodes!

I find this section a bit odd. Could someone explain linkwood's comments a bit further - especially the line

I understand the fact that if he doesn't make thin value bets then we know he is polarised. Are we just saying that when he does bet, he either has us beat or has a bluff (and so we can call lighter)?

Great video series Linkwood - learnt a great deal in the first two episodes!

Thanks for the comments. Lets use an extreme example to illustrate the point. Lets say that villain's range is only the nuts or the worst possible hand. So he either has quads or he plays the board (34o). In that case, if we decide to bluff catch on the river calling w/ the second nuts is exactly the same as calling with six-high. Both hands beat all his bluffs and lose to all his value hands. Obviously this is a very simplistic example, but it illustrates the point that the value of your hand should not be in decided simply in relation to the board, but in relation to the villain's hand range.

I hope this helps. let me know if you need further explanation.

v v v good vid.

5*

Oh, I already rated this video lol. Well, now I give it 6*, and the title of probably the best video on dc, cr or leggo. And I'm not exaggerating either

Oh, I already rated this video lol. Well, now I give it 6*, and the title of probably the best video on dc, cr or leggo. And I'm not exaggerating either

Wow, thanks a lot. Glad you found it useful!

Yeah, honestly. I made a post in the cardrunners forums asking for a video/podcast about adjusting in December 2010. And I've been studying every day since. And it's only from this video that I can start to see what adjusting means. And potentially learn how to use the concept in practice.

I dont think I can be called a 'natural' at this game. Still, now I have the starting point to pretend I always was 1.

Yeah, honestly. I made a post in the cardrunners forums asking for a video/podcast about adjusting in December 2010. And I've been studying every day since. And it's only from this video that I can start to see what adjusting means. And potentially learn how to use the concept in practice.

I dont think I can be called a 'natural' at this game. Still, now I have the starting point to pretend I always was 1.

Very few are "naturals". And even the naturals have to work hard to achieve what they are capable of. Keep at it and you will succeed. If there's ways I can help please let me know.

Time Link to 00:53:28

The Mick Flaherty top set hand. Don't you think it might be that he thinks in terms of absolute hand strength ie the difference in his mind between these two hands is that here he has top set whereas before he had two pair, and a set as we all know is better than two pair, right? So he thinks a set is worth a bet on the end whereas two pair is a check, and it doesn't really matter about board texture or action or what you might have (because he can't handread anyway).

I've seen people with this absolute strength thing own themselves bet/calling a set on, say a 4 flush board where their hand is really extremely weak but they'll bet and then call it off because they have a set.

The Mick Flaherty top set hand. Don't you think it might be that he thinks in terms of absolute hand strength ie the difference in his mind between these two hands is that here he has top set whereas before he had two pair, and a set as we all know is better than two pair, right? So he thinks a set is worth a bet on the end whereas two pair is a check, and it doesn't really matter about board texture or action or what you might have (because he can't handread anyway).

I've seen people with this absolute strength thing own themselves bet/calling a set on, say a 4 flush board where their hand is really extremely weak but they'll bet and then call it off because they have a set.

That certainly is a possibility that I wouldn't rule out. Looking at the hand now, his play is just so bizarre. He flats with aces vs two players, then leads with top set on a board where the only draw is a flush draw. This seems somewhat consistent with the type of player you describe I think. He doesn't want to lose a customer pre flop, then doesn't want to give a free card post flop to the flush draw. Seems consistent with non- or minimal thinking player.