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

Time Link to 00:03:38

Just a note on sizing here with the AA and on sizing in general. In general, I tend to adjust to tighter tables by dropping my PFR size and opening my range. Since people aren't going to be calling as frequently, and since they're going to be folding more, we can get more value by playing a wider range and opting to steal more small pots either preflop or on the flop. (By contrast, at a loose passive table, we obviously want to play tighter and size our bets larger since the majority of our value will come from later streets when people call too light with marginal hands).

The same kind of thinking applies postflop as well. If we had AA on the 2J9 rainbow board against a loose-passive fish, we'd definitely be sizing much larger on each street because

a) He's going to have more Jx hands in his range
b) He's going to be more likely to have TQ and T8 in his range and will call multiple bets with them
c) He's going to be much less likely to read into our bet-sizing and just look at his cards, and either think Jx is good (and worth stacking off with) or that it's fine to call two large bets with a hand like T8.

Here, I assume villain's range is pairs, and probably some nice prospective hands (since he's IP), so I don't think that hands that'll call 3 sizeable bets (that also lose to us) are going to make up a significant part of his range. As such, we size smaller to increase the chance he calls with hands like TJ/QJ/TT. (Of course, now that we know he'll flat KK IP, we can adjust by including more strong hands in his range postflop and adjust our sizing accordingly)

Sorry don't know how to time stamp but table 2 51.20 the AA hand can you please justify which play you think is best you said that you standby your decision but you also said that you probably completely botched it and said that he might call any pair if you time down shove so was left confused. I personally hate the min raise and think any other option of shove,raise bigger or flat is better. Also you didn't mention how the initial opener and caller affected your decision?

Cheers

Time Link to 00:25:02

I really think I should be betting larger on this flop (closer to full-pot than I originally made it). This guy is very loose-passive and I think most of this guy's value-calling range is vulnerable stuff like 77-TT) will hate overcards). In retrospect, I think betting 4 here is optimal on the flop.

Time Link to 00:39:00

I was incorrect here and thought I'd fix that.

55 vs AK is roughly 54-46
TT vs AK is roughly 56-44

Time Link to 00:53:50

I really think I should be isoing here on table 3 with the QTo vs the SB limp

Great Video Disco and Rapid, keep them coming.

Sorry don't know how to time stamp but table 2 51.20 the AA hand can you please justify which play you think is best you said that you standby your decision but you also said that you probably completely botched it and said that he might call any pair if you time down shove so was left confused. I personally hate the min raise and think any other option of shove,raise bigger or flat is better. Also you didn't mention how the initial opener and caller affected your decision?

Cheers

Each of our options has its own set of pros and cons imo.

Flatting:

+ Leaves initiative in the hands of the squeezer, and given the size of the pot, he's almost certainly going to feel compelled to cbet and get it in. Since we have AA, AK/AQ are less likely and it's less likely that than ace will flop (so smaller OPs won't really have a chance to get away).

- Encourages a 4way pot in which our equity share will be significantly smaller (4 ways, vs 3 other PPs, we'd have about 54% equity in the pot. HU, we have 82%)

Jamming:

+ Makes our hand look most like AK to some players and as such, might get called lighter. In my experience, AK almost never makes a small 4bet like we did here.

+ has the best chance of stacking AK

- Might fold out a QQ hand that'd stack-off postflop on a low board

- The best hand that this line works against (AK, imo) makes up only 40% of a range of QQ/KK/AK. It's better to play against the majority of a player's range.


A small 4bet:

+ Gets the pot HU

+ builds the pot to a size where villain will have a REALLY tough time folding an OP

+ gives the villain the opportunity to shove over the top. Our preflop investment is small enough that we could theoretically fold.

+ Might entice a call from villain's bluffs.

- loses value against AK

- looks REALLY strong

- takes initiative away from the original 3bettor

TBH, I didn't really like the small 4bet at first either. However, after considering ranges, and the fact that there was a ton of dead money in the pot AND that there were three other players, I actually think a non-jam 4bet is the play there. However, I think a size where we can just ship the flop would be better (something like...19 preflop)

wow, awesome analysis ITT from rapid. i can barely muster up this sentence and rapid has written a novel!!!

I really think I should be betting larger on this flop (closer to full-pot than I originally made it). This guy is very loose-passive and I think most of this guy's value-calling range is vulnerable stuff like 77-TT) will hate overcards). In retrospect, I think betting 4 here is optimal on the flop.

yeah i think maybe 3.50-4 on this flop is fine. but against these bad players i often times make a smaller bet on flop to induce them to call/do stupid stuff. then just start pounding close to potsized bets on turn and river

Great vid and discussion, tnx!

Really enjoyed the video.

At the 13 min mark you folded to a "6/6" BTN 3 bet with AQ and went on to describe why he can only have aces.

The problem was you were getting way too much info from a very small sample.
At the time you had exactly 32 hands on the guy.

I looked up the guy in my HH DB and it turns out he plays 12/10/3 and 3 bets over 4% from the button over 2000 hands.

The analysis was great but I just think you were drawing some huge conclusions based on very small samples with some of the players.

Really enjoyed the video.

At the 13 min mark you folded to a "6/6" BTN 3 bet with AQ and went on to describe why he can only have aces.

The problem was you were getting way too much info from a very small sample.
At the time you had exactly 32 hands on the guy.

I looked up the guy in my HH DB and it turns out he plays 12/10/3 and 3 bets over 4% from the button over 2000 hands.

The analysis was great but I just think you were drawing some huge conclusions based on very small samples with some of the players.

just trying to come to the best conclusion we can based on the data available to us. if someones playing 6/6 after 32 its probably safe to assume hes nitty, and fold AQ in that type of spot.

just trying to come to the best conclusion we can based on the data available to us. if someones playing 6/6 after 32 its probably safe to assume hes nitty, and fold AQ in that type of spot.

Yes but the irony is his stats went to 9/9 after that one hand which kind of suggests 32 hands is probably a bit light to draw any strong conclusions.

I think any reasonable player could run 6/6 over 32 hands

Yes he may be nitty but he also might have been a bit card dead.
(which turned out to be the case after looking at a bigger sample)

This guy loves to 3bet from the BTN yet is not the type who likes to 3 bet from the blinds very much.

I think its very important to point out to people watching that small samples can be very misleading "especially" with better players.

With poor fishy players stats converge quickly because its almost impossible to run card dead when you play any two cards!

Anyway I still like the fold but with a 4.3% BTN 3 bet range it's a much closer decision than you suggested.

Really enjoyed the video.

At the 13 min mark you folded to a "6/6" BTN 3 bet with AQ and went on to describe why he can only have aces.

The problem was you were getting way too much info from a very small sample.
At the time you had exactly 32 hands on the guy.

I looked up the guy in my HH DB and it turns out he plays 12/10/3 and 3 bets over 4% from the button over 2000 hands.

The analysis was great but I just think you were drawing some huge conclusions based on very small samples with some of the players.

Perhaps we should've gone a bit more in-depth as to why that hand should've been a fold. You're definitely correct in the fact that the hand sample we had wasn't anywhere near significant enough to establish a 3betting range. I'll bring up some other points though.

First and foremost, he's 3betting our UTG raise. In general, our perceived range when we open UTG is going to be pretty damn strong. As such, when he 3bets us his range is even stronger. Think about what kind of range an unknown is going to 3bet a UTG raise with. If we give villain a range of JJ+/AQs+/AK, we've got 30% equity (and I personally think this is a wide range to be giving villain). Add the fact that we're gonna be OOP for the remainder of the hand and the argument for folding becomes even stronger.

As far as his BTN 3bet goes:

I'd be willing to bet that a huge % of villain's BTN 3bets are against LP and MP opens. It's one thing to 3bet ppl who open wide from the HJ and CO when you're on the BTN (since their ranges are wider and they're going to be OOP postflop if they call, it can definitely be profitable). It's a totally different thing to 3bet someone when their range is at its strongest.

Even if villain was 3betting 4% from the BTN regardless of what kind of player was opening and what position he was opening from, that range STILL has 66% equity against AQo (using the top 4% from pokerstove). Add his advantages of position and initiative, and again, it becomes a clear fold.

Overall, I don't think it's at all close, given that we opened UTG. If we had opened from the HJ or CO, I agree that it would've become closer because our perceived range would've been much wider. In a spot like that, we could consider 4bet-bluffing with some frequency. But when you open UTG and get 3bet, your default with AQo should be to fold.

^^^^^

i basically agree with every word you just wrote. obviously you have to include some air in his range, as it is a good spot to 3bet random airballs, but even including air as maybe 1/5 of his range, your hand has horrible equity, and your position is really rediculous. AQ is so hopeless in this spot.

I did not question the fold, I agreed with it.

My point is the guys real stats could have been 20/18 9% 3 bet fom the button. Yet 6/6 over 32 hands.

You based your conclusions in the video on a really small sample.
Thats my gripe, not your conclusion on folding.

Why it struck me as strange is when looking at a villains stats the FIRST thing I look at is hand sample size.
It's far more important than ANY individual stat.
Without decent samples most stats are worthless.

A begining player watching would get the impression that it's OK to base you reads on just a few hands which is clearly incorrect.

I did not question the fold, I agreed with it.

My point is the guys real stats could have been 20/18 9% 3 bet fom the button. Yet 6/6 over 32 hands.

You based your conclusions in the video on a really small sample.
Thats my gripe, not your conclusion on folding.

Why it struck me as strange is when looking at a villains stats the FIRST thing I look at is hand sample size.
It's far more important than ANY individual stat.
Without decent samples most stats are worthless.

A beginning player watching would get the impression that it's OK to base you reads on just a few hands which is clearly incorrect.

Agreed The main reason for the fold was that we were opening from UTG and getting 3bet, and playing the hand would leave us OOP in a bloated pot vs a dominated range, not the guy's 3bet % over that sample.

Agreed The main reason for the fold was that we were opening from UTG and getting 3bet, and playing the hand would leave us OOP in a bloated pot vs a dominated range, not the guy's 3bet % over that sample.

No disrespect intended but that not what was said in the video.

A big deal was made of how tight the guy was and how he probably has aces, totally based on the stats at the time.

I have had three replies now explaining the play when it has nothing to do with my point.

I just dont understand how anyone can use a HUD, and the first stat they look at is NOT "hands"

That just blows my mind. It's THE most important stat.

I really enjoyed this vid. I'm looking forward to the series. You guys interact well and explain things very well.

Thanks for doing this.

RE: The AQs hand vs D 3B: clear explanations are a lot harder when we are in the heat of battle plus trying to make a video at the same time! Given time constraints I think you're explanation during the vid is fine and the explanation in this thread is really good.

Sorry don't know how to time stamp

Cheers

Watch this short video, and leave a time link!

Time Link to 00:13:07

Some good points about this particular hand were brought up about the more important reasons for folding here. We kind of joke about villain being super tight and we really don't have the hand sample size to justify that. What wasn't really mentioned with its due importance was the fact that unless you have reason to believe that someone is capable of 3betting early position raises lightly, you can very safely put your opponent on a very strong range when you open UTG or UTG+1 and they 3bet you. Folding AQo should be a default vs most opponents when you raise it from EP and get 3bet. Further reasoning's in the thread.

You said "I like people who open to 5x" My guess is you didn't see it's an ante table... sorry, no time link.
Because if you open to 3.5x on a regular table... 5x on an ante table is about the same in relation to the pot.

I don't mean to be nitpicking, but like, you know... it couldn't hurt if you try to like cut down on the...

you know

filler words.

because like, it's ok for errrr 15 minutes or so. But after like about 60 minutes.

you know...

I don't mean to be nitpicking, but like, you know... it couldn't hurt if you try to like cut down on the...

you know

filler words.

because like, it's ok for errrr 15 minutes or so. But after like about 60 minutes.

you know...

lol. its tough tho, its hard to fill a 60 minute video with tons of insightful convo when your 4 tabling. so sometimes filler words just happen. and unfortunately its a part of common vocabulary now to say ummmmm and likeeee and you knowwww. but your not the first person thats mentioned this to me. i'll try and tone it down in the future

You said "I like people who open to 5x" My guess is you didn't see it's an ante table... sorry, no time link.
Because if you open to 3.5x on a regular table... 5x on an ante table is about the same in relation to the pot.

In a tournament situations where a decent % of the starting stack goes in preflop, it is very important to force as many errors as possible from your opponent preflop. The crux of the argument for making a pot-sized raise preflop was to force an error from your opponent if you raised with a pocket pair and he called with a hand that had one overcard.

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

164,381,184 games 0.187 secs 879,043,764 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 70.534% 70.34% 00.19% 115631172 313560.00 { JJ }
Hand 1: 29.466% 29.28% 00.19% 48122892 313560.00 { ATs, ATo }

The player holding AT needs 33% equity to call profitably and they don't have that much.

Now...as the stacks get deeper, the errors that are made preflop take a backseat to implied odds postflop. Our goals for raising pre become either to

a) isolate weak players
b) steal the blinds/dead money
c) start building the pot to facilitate getting stacks in

In an ante game, there's more dead money in the pot to start off with...so b) becomes a stronger reason to raise and c) actually becomes easier since the pot will be larger and make it easier for stacks to get in.

If the average player was adjusting to the amount of dead money in the pot by calling lighter and defending lighter, then the incentive to stick with a pot-sized raise (given the $3.30 in the pot at the beginning, a pot-sized raise would be $5.30). If you're at a very loose passive table and are adjusting by playing a tight range, then making a pot-sized raise is probably optimal.

However, most players AREN'T adjusting to the increased dead money in the pot. They're folding just as often. As such, there's no incentive for looser players to increase their bet-size. Keeping their raise size constant is now giving them a MUCH better price. (3.5-3.3 as opposed to
3.5-1.5).

To be more specific, I like LOOSE players who open for 5x. Since their range is wide, it's less often that they'll have a hand strong enough to continue with. Don't you get excited when you're at the table and see a 55/38 open-raising to 12BB every time he raises?


Also, my apologies for all the....errrr....uhhhh....and..like...I talk like that in real life. lol

I very enjoyed this video.I like the good vibes, and a lot of usefull informations. I`m just begining to explore poker (i`m now like common ABC multitable nit ), and you guys how so much to offer. Keep up the good work!

Time Link to 00:47:00

Why is getting it in w AKs better than getting it in w QQ in this spot? You said that you would get it in w AKs here but QQ is very thin. If he isn't getting it in w JJ, then getting it in w AKs is bad, isn't it? If his range for getting it in is only QQ+, AK then AKs is just as bad as QQ, isn't it so?

Time Link to 00:26:02

Great video, I like the small talk/chitchat, don't listen to the haters. Anyways. With the A3s hand you guys talk about calling or folding but against a 24/23; do you ever concider raising here? I think against a range this wide we don't have nearly the implied odds to be calling just for flush/straight value without the inttention of floating.
Thnx

Why is getting it in w AKs better than getting it in w QQ in this spot? You said that you would get it in w AKs here but QQ is very thin. If he isn't getting it in w JJ, then getting it in w AKs is bad, isn't it? If his range for getting it in is only QQ+, AK then AKs is just as bad as QQ, isn't it so?

yeah i did some talking with nlfool and he thinks QQ is better than AK for getting it in. with QQ your a slight favorite like 52/48 over AK. and a huge favorite over JJ. but with AK your never ever a favorite even when your up against QQ/JJ your 48/52 or thereabouts. he would have to be getting in AQ for you to ever be a favorite. so by that logic i would now conclude getting in QQ is better than AK.

Great video, I like the small talk/chitchat, don't listen to the haters. Anyways. With the A3s hand you guys talk about calling or folding but against a 24/23; do you ever concider raising here? I think against a range this wide we don't have nearly the implied odds to be calling just for flush/straight value without the inttention of floating.
Thnx

yeah i think the idea behind calling is not playing fit or fold but floating some flops, semibluffraising some flops etc. however i agree this could be an OK spot to stick in a 3bet given his range is wide and were IP. but i also really dont just mind a fold either. this is a spot where all 3 options have some merit.

A little late, but thanks for the explanation RapidEvolution. That makes a lot of sense.

Random question... where did you get those card mods, and how do you install them?

Random question... where did you get those card mods, and how do you install them?

i really don't know where i got them. theres probably a forum with ftp table mods. you overwrite the current cards in the ftp > graphics > common > cards folder

just joined deucescracked. are there any videos of any value in this entire website? (this question is not rhetorical. please show me a useful video)

not only are the voices and personalities of these commentators retarded, pompous, and annoying, the decisions they agree upon could be disputed to say the least, and could be better (and more time-efficiently) covered in reading twoplustwo forums.

/truth

Why not buy in for full?

really entertaining and educational. favourite moment : the supernit that lost with AA vs the superfish in sb. always yummie when donks suck out vs supernits. more potential $$ for you

just joined deucescracked. are there any videos of any value in this entire website? (this question is not rhetorical. please show me a useful video)

not only are the voices and personalities of these commentators retarded, pompous, and annoying, the decisions they agree upon could be disputed to say the least, and could be better (and more time-efficiently) covered in reading twoplustwo forums.

/truth

jonbaljuce you sir are obviously a hater and probably don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. lol like if Deucescracked has anything to prove amongst trainingsites . what a joke. I hope this answers your non rhetorical question. it's like asking whether Santa Claus is EV+ for a 9 yr old or not.

Agreed, DC is pretty much the holy grail of small stakes training. Spend 20 minutes in the beginners forum of 2p2 and you'll see at least one person suggest this site. It took me a while to figure out what "DC" stood for, but once I did, I thought wow, I need to use this site.