Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Mid Stakes)

Yeeeesssssssss!!!

My 2 favourite full ring coaches with different styles this should be very interesting indeed.

Nolan more of these SS-MSNl live vids please

hey guys,
great video!
would it be possible for me to get exactly the mod you use (black table, black background, stars avatars showing)?

22:00 i think shoving AKs on the button facing a shortstack UTG+1 minraise is slight spew. i don't remember the last time i saw a TAG shortstacker raise/fold or raise/call AQ/weak pairs from UTG+1. more likely than not hands like AQ are not even in his opening range - so by 3betting you're just getting it in virtually 100% of the time as a 43/67 against his range. you're not even really getting any kind of pot odds because the rake will almost negate the blinds, so you need like 48-49% equity. seems like a slight losing play. nothing to lose sleep over, but maybe like EV = -2bb.

i mean, you can see he tanked so i think it's reasonable to think he was scared to get it in with jacks. i shove or fold as much as anyone against shortstacks, but thoughts on calling since you're suited, you're in position, and he minraised?

also, more please.

Time Link to 00:18:01

OH HO HO, MUST BE NICEEEEEEEEE

Another excellent video.

I learn something new virtually every time I watch a Nolan video.

As someone who probably plays too ABC I am constantly looking for spots to improve my game.

The AJ hand vs AK on the monotone flop was an excellent example of a perfectly played hand.
Extracted the most value from his range without getting in an awkward spot.

The discussion at the end on checking back an A high flop with an A is an example of a weakness in my game.
I can't help myself, I bet there most of the time and get in some hairy spots.

I c-bet too much in general, especially in position.

I think I need more work when I have a decent but not great hand.

The best video I have seen in a long long time.

hey guys,
great video!
would it be possible for me to get exactly the mod you use (black table, black background, stars avatars showing)?

Thanks, man.

Yeah, it's all out there. The files for the DC mod are in this thread.

http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/7-Research-Development-/1415-POKERSITE-SKINS

As far as making the background black... that's something you do in PS, itself. You just need to great a .jpeg or something that is just straight black and then select that as your background.

I was think about backraise shoving with anyPP bc how often does the person who squeezes has a higher PP? It is mostly likely a flip. The only thing is out of the two times I tried it I got called by AA & KK not sure if it was unlucky or if the villain is not squeezing a wide enough range. Any more thoughts on that?

22:00 i think shoving AKs on the button facing a shortstack UTG+1 minraise is slight spew. i don't remember the last time i saw a TAG shortstacker raise/fold or raise/call AQ/weak pairs from UTG+1. more likely than not hands like AQ are not even in his opening range - so by 3betting you're just getting it in virtually 100% of the time as a 43/67 against his range. you're not even really getting any kind of pot odds because the rake will almost negate the blinds, so you need like 48-49% equity. seems like a slight losing play. nothing to lose sleep over, but maybe like EV = -2bb.

i mean, you can see he tanked so i think it's reasonable to think he was scared to get it in with jacks. i shove or fold as much as anyone against shortstacks, but thoughts on calling since you're suited, you're in position, and he minraised?

also, more please.

You can see that this guy opens like 16fcv % of his range in EP and folds to 3-bets 80% of the time. I think it's a pretty easy 3-bet at this point. We are ahead versus his range and he will make mistakes. I think shipping it in versus him is definitely the play and the I'll shove the math below.

Let's say that his calling range is TT+/AK. That is pretty standard in this spot, imo. We have 47% equity versus that range. (This is a great exercise in looking at hands/ranges in terms of equity and not in terms as "my hand is a value bet or a bluff". This is a perfect example... are we bluffing with AK here because we aren't the favorite in the hand when called? No... absolutely not. Bluffing versus value-betting is a continuum. It's not black or white... bit I digest). So, since we have 47% equity when called we are risking 6%(53-47) of every BB that goes into the pot. Say we are shoving 20BB to win 2BB(subtract the blinds as rake). We are only risking 6% of that 20BB. So we are risking 1.2BB to win 2BB. Thus we are getting laid about 2-to-1 on our play. That means we only need about 33%-ish FE when we shove for this play to be profitable. A calling range of TT+/AK is only 2% of all hands. He opens 16% and calls with 2%. That means he calls 1 time in 8 so we have 88% fold equity against that calling range. So this play is certainly profitable.



It would be a good idea to take Pokerazor and experiment with different opening/calling ranges. You can see that AK becomes easy to shove as it has good equity versus most calling ranges so we have to pick up very little FE for the play to be good.

You can see that this guy opens like 16fcv % of his range in EP and folds to 3-bets 80% of the time. I think it's a pretty easy 3-bet at this point. We are ahead versus his range and he will make mistakes. I think shipping it in versus him is definitely the play and the I'll shove the math below.

Let's say that his calling range is TT+/AK. That is pretty standard in this spot, imo. We have 47% equity versus that range. (This is a great exercise in looking at hands/ranges in terms of equity and not in terms as "my hand is a value bet or a bluff". This is a perfect example... are we bluffing with AK here because we aren't the favorite in the hand when called? No... absolutely not. Bluffing versus value-betting is a continuum. It's not black or white... bit I digest). So, since we have 47% equity when called we are risking 6%(53-47) of every BB that goes into the pot. Say we are shoving 20BB to win 2BB(subtract the blinds as rake). We are only risking 6% of that 20BB. So we are risking 1.2BB to win 2BB. Thus we are getting laid about 2-to-1 on our play. That means we only need about 33%-ish FE when we shove for this play to be profitable. A calling range of TT+/AK is only 2% of all hands. He opens 16% and calls with 2%. That means he calls 1 time in 8 so we have 88% fold equity against that calling range. So this play is certainly profitable.



It would be a good idea to take Pokerazor and experiment with different opening/calling ranges. You can see that AK becomes easy to shove as it has good equity versus most calling ranges so we have to pick up very little FE for the play to be good.

I want to talk about the AK hand.

Although you had 400 hands on him his PFR stats were totally strange and may have been affected by sample size.
He was opening 16% from EP yet only 20% from the BTN?

His PFR% was 14% total from EP yet only 4 % from the BTN ???????

This either suggests he is a total idiot (possible but I would expect a higher VPIP) or that we might have some sample size issues.
VPIP/PFR come together quickly but per position stats take much much longer.



I think a good rule of thumb when you have say 400 hands and a 13% PFR overall is to assume a much tighter range UTG open 4-8%

A lot of ratholers don't widen their range the same way a full stacked player would positionally...

A lot of ratholers don't widen their range the same way a full stacked player would positionally...

I dont know what to think because his stats were really really strange.

The 14% from EP and 4% from the BTN makes me lean towards someone who has been getting a few big hands in EP over a smallish sample.
(and not getting many on the BTN)

His 17/13 stats over 400 hands will probably be fairly close to his long term stats, which suggest he is not very good but also not that loose either.

If you think 17/13 is pretty close over a 400 hand sample I don't see how you can give him a 16% range UTG?

The better short stackers seem to play a 9/8 to 13/12 style mostly, most have a 4-6% EP range from my limited experience.

I dont know what to think because his stats were really really strange.

The 14% from EP and 4% from the BTN makes me lean towards someone who has been getting a few big hands in EP over a smallish sample.
(and not getting many on the BTN)

His 17/13 stats over 400 hands will probably be fairly close to his long term stats, which suggest he is not very good but also not that loose either.

If you think 17/13 is pretty close over a 400 hand sample I don't see how you can give him a 16% range UTG?

The better short stackers seem to play a 9/8 to 13/12 style mostly, most have a 4-6% EP range from my limited experience.

Wow. Yeah... I didn't look at the sample size when responding to the question and I agree that the sample size could totally be an issue.

Also, I just noticed that I made a few mistake in the math above and we actually have 41% equity versus a calling range of TT+/AK(not 47% as I said). Also, a range of TT+/AK is a 3.5% range, not 2%. (I'm not sure how I made all those mistakes... my only excuse is lack of caffeine when trying to do math first thing in the morning ).

This actually changes the math pretty drastically. This means we are LAYING about 3.4-to-2(1.7-to-1) on our play instead of getting laid 2-to-1. We then need about 63% FE(instead of 33%) for the play to be good versus this calling range of 3.5%. This works out to him needing to open about 10% from EP which is certainly too wide to expect most of these types of players to be opening, imo.

Honestly I'm actually a little bit surprised now that I look at these numbers. Even if we constrict his calling range to JJ+/AK we are still needing him to be opening too wide of a range for us to just be shoving AK here. If we constrict it to QQ+/AK then we actually start getting it close, but even then it's only cose.

This is really fairly interesting to me so I'm going to take some time to let it stew.

Hi there,

With all the math above, have you taken into consideration the rake that is involved? $3?

Wow. Yeah... I didn't look at the sample size when responding to the question and I agree that the sample size could totally be an issue.

Also, I just noticed that I made a few mistake in the math above and we actually have 41% equity versus a calling range of TT+/AK(not 47% as I said). Also, a range of TT+/AK is a 3.5% range, not 2%. (I'm not sure how I made all those mistakes... my only excuse is lack of caffeine when trying to do math first thing in the morning ).

This actually changes the math pretty drastically. This means we are LAYING about 3.4-to-2(1.7-to-1) on our play instead of getting laid 2-to-1. We then need about 63% FE(instead of 33%) for the play to be good versus this calling range of 3.5%. This works out to him needing to open about 10% from EP which is certainly too wide to expect most of these types of players to be opening, imo.

Honestly I'm actually a little bit surprised now that I look at these numbers. Even if we constrict his calling range to JJ+/AK we are still needing him to be opening too wide of a range for us to just be shoving AK here. If we constrict it to QQ+/AK then we actually start getting it close, but even then it's only cose.

This is really fairly interesting to me so I'm going to take some time to let it stew.

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote.

I do agree with Nolan when he snap ship/calls a CO/BTN raise from a SS when you have something like ATo/AJo

Against a pro-SS they are never normally opening over 6% form UTG.

This guy isn't a pro-SS in my opinion but he also isn't a complete spaz fish either so it's no surprise to see him turn up with JJ

With any luck in April the whole SS problem may go away at Stars as it has at FTP.

nolans deep hate for ratholers is amazing

Wow. Yeah... I didn't look at the sample size when responding to the question and I agree that the sample size could totally be an issue.

Also, I just noticed that I made a few mistake in the math above and we actually have 41% equity versus a calling range of TT+/AK(not 47% as I said). Also, a range of TT+/AK is a 3.5% range, not 2%. (I'm not sure how I made all those mistakes... my only excuse is lack of caffeine when trying to do math first thing in the morning ).

This actually changes the math pretty drastically. This means we are LAYING about 3.4-to-2(1.7-to-1) on our play instead of getting laid 2-to-1. We then need about 63% FE(instead of 33%) for the play to be good versus this calling range of 3.5%. This works out to him needing to open about 10% from EP which is certainly too wide to expect most of these types of players to be opening, imo.

Honestly I'm actually a little bit surprised now that I look at these numbers. Even if we constrict his calling range to JJ+/AK we are still needing him to be opening too wide of a range for us to just be shoving AK here. If we constrict it to QQ+/AK then we actually start getting it close, but even then it's only cose.

This is really fairly interesting to me so I'm going to take some time to let it stew.

yeah with AKo it's a pretty easy fold for me so i was surprised when you guys decided to just fistpump shove AKs.

A lot of ratholers don't widen their range the same way a full stacked player would positionally...

most decent shortstackers that i've encounted on Stars, like thomas41on1, pimpmyspeed etc. have absurdly tight ranges in EP and have insane steal numbers so based on my experience i tend to disagree and would be curious to see this statement backed with numbers or facts or whatnot.

nolans deep hate for ratholers is amazing

you a rat or something?

you a rat or something?

LOL no. 100bbs for me

nolans deep hate for ratholers is amazing

It's the only thing keeping me from ratholing myself. I just know Nolan will find out somehow and eat my soul.

Uuuh..anyway...great vid and some great entertainment value as well

Nolan cracks me up. Some decent info in the vid as well.

Time Link to 00:36:28

Just want to say this was really great, I never would of thought to play it this way. Call with worse and possibly fold better, sick.

great video, i have a general question: are these average 2/4 tables or were they specially bad? I mean tons of shortstackers and a lot of solid-tough regs + one bad player at the table.

I guess this is standard, so can you give your idea of a general game plan (besides trying to stack the fish): Do you try to focus on the weaker regs (maybe by analyzing their stats/hand in HEM and find out where they have leaks) and try to avoid the better ones?

great video, i have a general question: are these average 2/4 tables or were they specially bad? I mean tons of shortstackers and a lot of solid-tough regs + one bad player at the table.

I guess this is standard, so can you give your idea of a general game plan (besides trying to stack the fish): Do you try to focus on the weaker regs (maybe by analyzing their stats/hand in HEM and find out where they have leaks) and try to avoid the better ones?

I recall them being somewhat typical. Having said that, a lot of these tables I wouldn't sit at normally. I just stayed at them because I'm recording a video. Having a little bit more difficult tables can be more educational.

I do tend to try to take an edge on the weaker regs. A lot of my game is geared to that in the first place. Aside from that I try to table select to make sure the real pains aren't sitting in the two seats to my left. That makes blind stealing (and opening from the CO and HJ... the other two money making positions) less profitable. Essentially, I want to be able to use the fact that I play position well to it's fullest advantage and I can't do that if I have guys who will use their position on me more often. This just puts me OOP more.

I will go through HEM and try to pick up reads on players I play often.

On that note... I find that many intermediate TAGs overestimate their edge versus other TAGs. It's pretty small in most cases. If you are sitting at a table like this your best bet is to leave the table. There are often better tables.