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

Very nice first video.

Looks like your going to be another great addition to the DC stable.

At 7:12 would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff, and look weak. As opposed to firing so big and folding out all the hands we want to get value from ?

Also your point about $2. not just a taco, it is 4 BB added to your win rate. Which obviously is huge long term.

At 16:13 When he donks the 677 board. We are discussing how vil would not donk a 7 here, yet if we have AK, AQ, KQ we are almost always folding. So with that said, wouldn't it be profitable to go ahead and donk boards like this when we completely miss ?

At 24:46 I think that is a great point. When we are able to run over someone because they fold so much, it is criminal to give back everything trying to move them off a hand when they do call or make a stand. We can so profitably keep running them over, it is ok to concede 1 pot to them. When they are folding 6 or 7 others.

Looking forward to the discussion on this!

At 7:12 would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff, and look weak. As opposed to firing so big and folding out all the hands we want to get value from ?

to induce action on the reriver, we are in position ;-)

vs. the fish on table 2, don't we give him a far to narrow range?
folding AK seems ok (since we have no idea how he plays AJ AQ, or if minr is his standard for any 3bet, I still don't mind to get it in), but calling to hit a set with 99 vs him seems insane, I would actually like to 3bet for value here.


By the way,thx for discussion on 92 hand, allways good to get a short reminder on an easy but sometimes forgotten gameplan.

At 16:13 When he donks the 677 board. We are discussing how vil would not donk a 7 here, yet if we have AK, AQ, KQ we are almost always folding. So with that said, wouldn't it be profitable to go ahead and donk boards like this when we completely miss ?

first you would have needed to limp call, and then donking only makes sense if you know villain folds A high, most don't.

Hey guys,

Just want to let everyone know I will be responding to every post here shortly.

More 4tabling please
More hands and spots to discuss, so more convesation.

At 7:12 would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff, and look weak. As opposed to firing so big and folding out all the hands we want to get value from ?

Also your point about $2. not just a taco, it is 4 BB added to your win rate. Which obviously is huge long term.

Yea we are in position here, but let's pretend we're not. I think villain would show up with more weak showdown-value type hands, some that had a straight draw to go with them, than pure 6x drawing hands that may or may not bluff. I would still make the small $2-3 bet that gets looked up by almost anything. And your point is correct. These spots may seem like an insignificant amount of money, but they will definitely add up to something meaningful over time.

At 16:13 When he donks the 677 board. We are discussing how vil would not donk a 7 here, yet if we have AK, AQ, KQ we are almost always folding. So with that said, wouldn't it be profitable to go ahead and donk boards like this when we completely miss ?

It's villain-dependent. Against someone who cbets way too often, I'd prefer a check/raise because it gets more respect and makes more money. Against other villains I'd let them check flop and then take the pot with a lead on a lot of turn cards. I prefer donk bet bluffing flops multi-way on boards like this as they tend to look very strong.

At 24:46 I think that is a great point. When we are able to run over someone because they fold so much, it is criminal to give back everything trying to move them off a hand when they do call or make a stand. We can so profitably keep running them over, it is ok to concede 1 pot to them. When they are folding 6 or 7 others.

Yea it's a point I try to really hit a lot because I think it's extremely important. There is absolutely nothing wrong with 3 betting a trash hand or raising very single button if it is a +EV play by itself. What is wrong is making -EV plays on later streets against a strong villain range with your trash hand.

vs. the fish on table 2, don't we give him a far to narrow range?
folding AK seems ok (since we have no idea how he plays AJ AQ, or if minr is his standard for any 3bet, I still don't mind to get it in), but calling to hit a set with 99 vs him seems insane, I would actually like to 3bet for value here.

Well we're talking about two very different scenarios here. Facing a min 3bet from a fish ( I think he 3bet an UTG raise, but I don't remember exactly ) is a lot different than facing that same fish's UTG raise. We're not exactly calling the 99 just for set value. We're calling to keep in the part of his range that is weaker than 99. 3 betting folds all of that out unless he's the type of guy that is just going to spite jam any pair. I believe he had about a half stack, so if I did 3 bet, it would obviously be to get it in. If he had a full stack, I would never be 3betting 99 here unless I had strong reason to believe he will go to the flop with a lot of worse hands.

By the way,thx for discussion on 92 hand, allways good to get a short reminder on an easy but sometimes forgotten gameplan.

There are a couple of things going on here.

1) Don't use a stat where you only have a sample size of 1 or 2, especially something like fold to steal.

2) If you're making a play that is +EV based solely on someone's stat, accept the loss the times when the play doesn't work.

first you would have needed to limp call, and then donking only makes sense if you know villain folds A high, most don't.

If we're limp/calling preflop there are other more pressing issues to address

More 4tabling please
More hands and spots to discuss, so more convesation.

I will probably do more 4 tabling videos in the future once I get better at this whole video-making thing. I was concerned that I would start talking about one hand and completely miss something on another table. I do, however, feel that we were able to get some pretty good discussions going despite only having 2 tables. I actually had to rush a bit at the end because I wanted to cover all of the important hands, but not have the video go over an hour.

just wanted to chime in and give this a monumentally epic thumbs up. calm down spewtards

"2) If you're making a play that is +EV based solely on someone's stat, accept the loss the times when the play doesn't work."

Time Link to 00:08:44

I personally dont like the 2barrel, unless you fire a 3barrel here on any non straightcompleting card, because i just dont see him having that many hands that fold on the Turn here, 66-TT are calling one more time, Ax or A2,A5,A4, also, because he has a gutter (and an ace obv).
-> you talked about betting 2 bucks or something on the river to get value from Ax or 56 or 77, but if those arent folding the turn, is a turn bet even profitable?
Do you think he has enough Overcards in his range?

It's villain-dependent. Against someone who cbets way too often, I'd prefer a check/raise because it gets more respect and makes more money. Against other villains I'd let them check flop and then take the pot with a lead on a lot of turn cards. I prefer donk bet bluffing flops multi-way on boards like this as they tend to look very strong.

What about raising Villians donk bet? If you raise all yours overpairs and two overcards, then villian is guessing and you can adjust, when you're getting a read on Villian tendencies facing a donk raise in these spots.

timeline 23: 32

I don't like the large river bet (on the hand just played on the right), because we're most likely chopping or even though not very likely being SP. I don't think we can get three streets og value by enough hands, that we beating, if any. So imo we are value owning ourselves and burning money with such a big bet OTR.

I personally dont like the 2barrel, unless you fire a 3barrel here on any non straightcompleting card, because i just dont see him having that many hands that fold on the Turn here, 66-TT are calling one more time, Ax or A2,A5,A4, also, because he has a gutter (and an ace obv).
-> you talked about betting 2 bucks or something on the river to get value from Ax or 56 or 77, but if those arent folding the turn, is a turn bet even profitable?
Do you think he has enough Overcards in his range?

I don't like the 2 barrel either if you're planning on giving up on the river unimproved. You are right that we probably shouldn't expect villain to be folding a lot on the turn, but continuing with the aggression sets up a very profitable 3rd barrel on the river on a lot of river cards. If we check back the turn and fire out a bluff on the river, we're going to get a lot more suspicious calls from hands that are not likely to call 3 streets.

When the K comes, I like betting small here to get some value here rather than bomb the river when we actually make what is almost always the best hand. It's very likely villain is not a good hand reader and isn't going to make hero calls on "good bluffing cards" for us on the river. He is much more likely to simply play the absolute value of his hand and fold when the board runs out in this way.

What about raising Villians donk bet? If you raise all yours overpairs and two overcards, then villian is guessing and you can adjust, when you're getting a read on Villian tendencies facing a donk raise in these spots.

A lot of times simply calling the donk bet and allowing villain to check/fold the turn is sufficient. I would raise if I had absolutely no showdown value and villain were a habitual donk bettor with a weak range. With overpairs, I would prefer to just call, especially having no reads on villain's donk betting tendencies. I feel like raising puts you in a pretty gross spot if villain reraises, and prevents villain from continuing with bluffs.

timeline 23: 32

I don't like the large river bet (on the hand just played on the right), because we're most likely chopping or even though not very likely being SP. I don't think we can get three streets og value by enough hands, that we beating, if any. So imo we are value owning ourselves and burning money with such a big bet OTR.

My standard on the river here would definitely be to just bet really small, similar to the KQ hand where we river the K and we're almost always ahead, but against a pretty weak range. What we would need to do is construct a range of likely holdings for villain and compare the EV of betting really small and risk chopping with a lot of Ax hands, or betting larger and possibly folding those Ax hands out. I might play around with that a bit when I'm not at work and have some more time to think about it.

Time Link to 00:22:04

This should definitely be a check on the turn.

Board: Js 4h Ad Td
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 68.831% 67.69% 01.14% 1251 21.00 { 44, AQs-A9s, KJs+, QJs, JTs, AQo-AJo, KJo }
Hand 1: 31.169% 30.03% 01.14% 555 21.00 { As3s }

This should definitely be a check on the turn.

Board: Js 4h Ad Td
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 68.831% 67.69% 01.14% 1251 21.00 { 44, AQs-A9s, KJs+, QJs, JTs, AQo-AJo, KJo }
Hand 1: 31.169% 30.03% 01.14% 555 21.00 { As3s }

I'd add QJos and at least QTs into your range of hands that call another turn bet. Also, I think AQ is 3 betting some percentage of the time, but all that probably isn't going to move the numbers back in our favor. We would also need to take into consideration how -EV it is to check back and give free cards to hands that might fold the turn but still have some outs against us ( J9s, 45s, etc ).

I don't think betting is horribly wrong, and I don't think checking back is wrong either. I would like to add that I think checking back the flop can be good too as it might be easier to get value from worse later on and can induce bluffs and value bets from worse.

Yeah checking back the flop was kind of my first thought TBH

We would also need to take into consideration how -EV it is to check back and give free cards to hands that might fold the turn but still have some outs against us ( J9s, 45s, etc ).

That's a good point. If we check back the turn do you think that we should just fold if villain bets the river?

That's a good point. If we check back the turn do you think that we should just fold if villain bets the river?

Yea I don't expect to be good too often if villain makes a healthy value bet on the river. I would expect him to check most of his weaker pairs trying to get to showdown, and it's almost impossible for him to have pure air.