Poker Video: Misc/Other by DeathDonkey (High Stakes)

Time Link to 00:24:40

About the hand on the right, J764 after the first draw: Do you advise to keep the J (planning to make a play) even when facing a bet?

Time Link to 00:47:37

Left table.

After having seen villain raise-call preflop earlier in the video with a weak 1-card-draw, I suspect him raise-capping here means a stronger hand. Even with his tendency to pat early, freezing after the 2nd draw looks better than raising.

before i say anything about any of the hands etc, my seat/game selection in general is start games and play whatever runs when i can play

Time Link to 00:32:17

Hey DD,

Nice series of vids, I'm really looking forward to them.

In the last vid, and now in this one too you talk about river bluffing frequencies using your own holecards (like bluffing with top and 2nd pair), while I tend to use a more absolute bluffing frequency (like bluffing a pair of 8s through 5s or something). I know there's just a little difference between this two, but is one better than the other? Or is this just some preference-based decision? I feel GTO-wise the more absolute reading might be better, because by using your method and bluff with the top pair and 2nd pair, let's say I draw to 5432 than I bluff with a pair of 4s, while when I draw to 8762 I don't bluff with a pair of 6s which might skew my ranges a little bit. What do you think?

Thanks in advance,
18orbetter

Time link thing is showing up for me, sorry!

3.00 - LT: I did consider patting the J, but just decided not to this time.

8.00 - LT: i considered basically everything you said. my conclusions were that i had one of the worst hands i could have (may not play 7653 here, and likely would break any/most 98's otf), and that despite the pot being big, i didnt expect lg to bluff very often, if ever.
- RT: i think this is a clear vbet, especially with how little respect he gives me, so id be betting most 9's there.

10.18 - LT: i dont think id b/f there as a default as alot of people will raise #7/8+ and if we do b/f, i think we'd be folding almost 50% of the time. obv this is fine as an exploitative play, but if people can bluff raise ever, folding #8 would be a mistake.

12.05 - RT: ya 83 is pretty meh, but i do have a blocker, and can never make a straight, so for that reason i tend to defend this vs steals. against the better regulars id easily accept that this is bad though.
- LT: note profics play here, 2:2, 2:1, 1:1 and its checked down.

16.58: this wasnt the player, it was profic, mancia is more experienced, just passive/bad. if i had more confidence that my hand was good vs mancia, i would probably bet, but i wasnt sure i had the best hand, even if i was surprised at how strong he was.

17.51: definitely thought about limping too and probably would have in a 1/2 structure. the slightly worse price and with mancia (in my mind anyway) not having a particlarly weak range, i mucked.

23.45 - LT: ya my standard here is to call from 3bet, but i expected him to 3bet alot of crap, which may or may not be true.

25.04 - RT: I think i like your plan, and its something i dont do often enough. when he leads, im not sure i want to take that line though as he will rarely c/f turn, and will actually bet alot leaving us in a crappy spot where we either fold, or raise if we dont catch a good draw, which is only a 2, but we dont want to fold 8764/7643 everytime either as they will be live alot. I also think that c/c 87543 as a standard is bad, but ok now and then.

28.10 - LT: this hand needs some love

33.10 - RT: i agree its a pretty good spot to snow, but i tend to gutshots/9's and/or when i make a pair. this may result in me not snowing enough though, so il look out for that.

36.30 - RT: yep, was concentrating on the big bluff, and didnt realise who i was betting a J against. its not terrible to bet vs him anyway, because i think he'll call 22+ against me and usually bet an 8, but checking is prob better with that hand.

37.12 - LT: i dont think its that close here tbh. I think i can catch a T and win occasionally when he checks and im basically never dead.

41.28 - LT: i think i missed that he posted ingame. i really thought about calling and wanted to, but because i thought UTG limped, i was reluctant and folded.

43.20 - LT: i would normally snapfold this in this position too, but i wanted to play with the 2 bad players, and boro has been pretty tight, and lg is always pretty tight. i dont have anything more profound to say other than that

44.09 - LT: i agree that i could probably 3bet and draw 1, but i think ive preconditioned myself to drawing 2 in MW pots so much that its an auto-reflex now.

47.18 LT: normally again id fold without too much thought, but this guy has made so many big drawing and patting mistakes (many of which DD missed) that i just wanted to play anything kinda playable against him. as played, i so think the turn is pretty close, and against competent V's id freeze everytime with this hand, but he has patted every 9 and some T's already and shown to calldown that i decided to raise.
Rubbishaka, i feel like his cap just means that he's not drawing to a 9 moreso than he has a premium draw
obviously i hate life when he 3bets, but he may just be trying to get allin in which case im not breaking/folding.
RT: i think c/c is too passive here again, and if i want to strengthen my checking range, id prefer to c/r #4/5 or something.

48.28 - RT: i think i should limp, idk why i didnt.

49.16 - LT: i actually c/r that spot alot, i didnt here because im not sure lg would both bet and call a raise with that hand, he may even check back some 86's there!

49.31 - LT: i agree completely. i just wanted to play pots with the bad players. this hand plays really badly MW though, so just folding is best. seeing the hands that get showndown makes me think that i was actually in pretty good shape in 2*:3:3:3 though!

52.09 - RT: i think i could only think about the 87543 hand, and thought that he's be ridiculously strong there to the point that he may only have a few worse 9's and all 87's or something and so checked. i would value bet there close to 100% of the time usually

52.54 - LT: OK, so here is my thoughts. we have seen profic play really rough draws and pat bad hands etc, but lg123456789 has 3bet my UTG (HJ) open, so he is always drawing 1 or pat, esp with the bb still to act. i thought a 2cd 7 would play better vs his range, and because thats the strong range that i have to worry about, i want to play best against that. i also have the predisposition to breaking 87 draws that i mentioned earlier.

53.30 - LT: again if profic didnt have such a wide raising range, i think i would fold here. i also wouldnt have been shocked if he raised and drew 1, in which case i really dont want to fold.

Thanks for the analysis, i look forward to next week!

Hey DD,

Nice series of vids, I'm really looking forward to them.

In the last vid, and now in this one too you talk about river bluffing frequencies using your own holecards (like bluffing with top and 2nd pair), while I tend to use a more absolute bluffing frequency (like bluffing a pair of 8s through 5s or something). I know there's just a little difference between this two, but is one better than the other? Or is this just some preference-based decision? I feel GTO-wise the more absolute reading might be better, because by using your method and bluff with the top pair and 2nd pair, let's say I draw to 5432 than I bluff with a pair of 4s, while when I draw to 8762 I don't bluff with a pair of 6s which might skew my ranges a little bit. What do you think?

Thanks in advance,
18orbetter

in regards to this, if you are bluffing top pair your frequency will be very steady, and only dead cards will alter it. if you are bluffing everytime you make a pair of 5's or worse, at times you will be bluffing an awful lot. for example, when you have 8752, you can catch 3 pairs that you bluff with, which is far too many imo, and conversely (sp?) when you have 7432 you can only make 1 pair that you will bluff with, but there are more combo's of rougher draws (i think) that mean you'll end up bluffing a whole lot more than necessary or what is good.

this with hjd's comments will take a day off to study

in regards to this, if you are bluffing top pair your frequency will be very steady, and only dead cards will alter it. if you are bluffing everytime you make a pair of 5's or worse, at times you will be bluffing an awful lot. for example, when you have 8752, you can catch 3 pairs that you bluff with, which is far too many imo, and conversely (sp?) when you have 7432 you can only make 1 pair that you will bluff with, but there are more combo's of rougher draws (i think) that mean you'll end up bluffing a whole lot more than necessary or what is good.

Thanks for the answer.

I thought about these reasons too, but I feel that since balance is about our range, not the exact hand we hold, but our range, I think there's no reason why we shouldn't bluff more with a busted 8752 than a busted 7432. Of course, our overall range defines the bluffing frequencies, like when I want to bluff when I raised from UTG I'll bet lower pairs than when I raise from the button (since I'll have more 8s, 9s maybe and more straights for sure). I mean game theoratically you want to bluff the worst hands in your range, and not the worst cards you could catch this hand. It kind of feels like if in LHE we put in the 3rd barrel with our busted draws and not with a 7 hi that was just pure bluffing.

However, I can see that the argument is not really useful, since no one will catch on that or adjust accordingly, so it sounds pointless in practice, it's just the theory that I'm interested in.

Once again, thanks for the answer.

frequencies can be many things. you could bluff only when the second in your clock is 10 as harrington did for example doesn't matter what you do as long as you dont do it too often thats why the difference in 7high or busted draw or high pair vs 5+ pair. you just bluff 1/13 times write it down if you want and manually count

Time Link to 00:24:10

if you think wrathchild shouldn't cap the flop with 34578, why would you checkraise 23568 if you were villain here?

If wrathchild should only cap something like 23478+ here checkraising 23568 would be quite suicidal, wouldn't it?

Time Link to 00:35:12

Think the most important think to note is that villain check called the 2:2 flop to draw 1 on the turn making his range (especially his) really weak. Therefore when he 3bets the turn he's usually full of shit.

Also I don't think balance really matters versus villain like this one.

About the hand on the right, J764 after the first draw: Do you advise to keep the J (planning to make a play) even when facing a bet?

Definitely not, I would peel / draw 2

Hey DD,

Nice series of vids, I'm really looking forward to them.

In the last vid, and now in this one too you talk about river bluffing frequencies using your own holecards (like bluffing with top and 2nd pair), while I tend to use a more absolute bluffing frequency (like bluffing a pair of 8s through 5s or something). I know there's just a little difference between this two, but is one better than the other? Or is this just some preference-based decision? I feel GTO-wise the more absolute reading might be better, because by using your method and bluff with the top pair and 2nd pair, let's say I draw to 5432 than I bluff with a pair of 4s, while when I draw to 8762 I don't bluff with a pair of 6s which might skew my ranges a little bit. What do you think?

Thanks in advance,
18orbetter

Agree with HJD's reply to you

if you think wrathchild shouldn't cap the flop with 34578, why would you checkraise 23568 if you were villain here?

If wrathchild should only cap something like 23478+ here checkraising 23568 would be quite suicidal, wouldn't it?

Nice catch, yeah seems like just a call down for villain is best

HJD: thanks for all the comments and the video submission, sorry I didn't have as good a read as I could have and that affected some of my comments, I wanted to try to get through your whole video in 2 weeks so I couldn't be quite as thorough with some of the hands / reads as is possible. You obviously are a strong player and hopefully I added some ideas you can use in the future.

Time Link to 00:52:54

I think I like continuing with our 8732x draw facing 2 cold. Profic has been showing down a lot of cheese, so even though I don't expect him to draw 1 often, I think our draw is still doing really well against his pat range. It sucks when LG is pat, but we still have good position and can make good decisions post.

Not sure its consistent that you arguing for us to cap draw 1 to 8732x pre, but then argue for a fold here.

I listened to it again Slide, I was kinda wishy washy though I said I prefer fold to call, so I do think its close obviously, and yeah I think I did a kinda poor job throughout of really diving into a good player read on Profic that would sway things.

That said I do not think its inconsistent at all to argue to cap draw 1 pre but fold at that spot, for one because since we didn't cap the pot is smaller and our pot odds are worse, and for two because we have a ton of new information including the likelihood that one guy is pat, the other guy took one and may be pat and we get jammed in the middle.

HJD: thanks for all the comments and the video submission, sorry I didn't have as good a read as I could have and that affected some of my comments, I wanted to try to get through your whole video in 2 weeks so I couldn't be quite as thorough with some of the hands / reads as is possible. You obviously are a strong player and hopefully I added some ideas you can use in the future.

Dont worry. this is a situation i think where 2 tables may have been too much, and just the left table would have been fine obviously its hard to know that before i started!

Oh, Evil Teddy, you may or may not make an appearance next week

Time Link to 00:27:32

my timeline comment btn has reappeared, so i want to point out the hand currently playing on the left table, its awesome

Poor boro83 though!

Time Link to 00:15:28

Guy to our left on the right table - iirc, this is the same guy who checked back the 876 and we said he's probably passive on the river. For that reason, I think I prefer betting the J and hoping his bluff-catching range is wider than his bluffing when checked to range. However, since he didn't bet the 876, his river bet when checked to is likely very polarized and probably not balanced, leading to more bluffs than what would be GTO for him. Without any sort of read on how often he bets in that spot though, it seems that betting might be slightly better. Thoughts?

Good question Tecmo - my experience with "too passive" guys is they are super polarized on the end and they don't call you as light as they should, so I like to bluff them too much and let them bluff when I have a mediocre hand. So vs that guy I'd bluff some more pairs than normal and check/call my jacks.

Ok, so you widen your bluffing range against them, but with the top of your bluffing range, you prefer to c/c. So it's something like (random % coming) the lower 75% of your range you lead and the top 25% you c/c.

With that in mind, I'm assuming we need to tighten up our value betting range against this type of player. If they are folding a lot, then it follows that when they do call, their range is stronger. So I'm guessing some of the worst hands you would normally bet for thin value vs a good player (rough 9s?), you might decide to c/c with instead?

I think the "passive, polarized on the river" player type is actually one of the most common, especially in my monthly live mixed game. For that reason, I'm trying to clarify my strategy vs them

i think you're taking one hand where he checked back 87642 in 1:0 (which he could do for a number of reasons) and saying that he is now passive and polarized in 1:1. for now, im happy enough to have the read that he isnt vbetting lightly when pat against a draw in position and probably OOP. 1:1 is a very different situation though.

another thing id like to say is that passive/polarized when checked to otr doesnt really tell us about the players calling range. ive played against passive players that will check back T's and some 9's, and never bluff, but will snap call 33+ everytime when you bet. ive also played against people that will value bet all J's, and bluff an appropriate amount, but will only call with some K's+, flat #10 if you lead and only b/c with 8's. Basically my point is that while you can generalise players into categories, you still should constantly try to develop and further your read on each individual player and to do this well i think you need to be able to notice the subtle differences in similiar spots and realise how these affect your opponents (and both your and your perceived) tendencies. This looks very complicated and long-winded typed out here, but if you think about it and manage to sort it out in your head you should take a big step towards improving reads. the eventual aim is that it kind of becomes 2nd nature and you can act in tempo without having to mentally analyze why this spot is better to bluff than normal etc.

Im not sure if i've actually helped with your question, but hopefully ive helped in some way This would probably come under the heading of game-flow and meta-game as well as reads too.

also, how do you c/c with a part of your bluffing range? dont you have to bet or raise to bluff on the last round before showdown?

also, how do you c/c with a part of your bluffing range? dont you have to bet or raise to bluff on the last round before showdown?

Have to go right now, but will respond to everything later. Just wanted to say that I'll teach you how to c/c w/ your bluffing range for a nominal fee

Have to go right now, but will respond to everything later. Just wanted to say that I'll teach you how to c/c w/ your bluffing range for a nominal fee

ah but once you c/c its now a bluff catching range! and online, you cant c/c with a bad hand hoping someone mucks the winning hand either

Right, great post HJD, I also was confused by what you said about the bluffing range stuff Tecmo.

HJD only thing I'll add is that something I think I am good at is that I am very likely to see a guy do one thing, and make a large extrapolation of other things I then "think" he will do, and start to adjust my strategy, while still trying to gain more information to refine my read. I think people usually need to be hit over the head with a read before they are willing to make an adjustment and I try to just be overly optimistic in my reads, knowing I can always re-adjust again.

Simple example is if I have never seen a guy before and the first hand I observe he raises preflop and fails to get to showdown, I will be *significantly* more likely to think he is a maniac even though I have very little evidence of it. So if he now raises the second hand in a row I will reraise quite light (this is more of a LHE example I suppose) and if he just ends up having had two good hands I will lose a bit of EV and adjust. But often I am right and I am well ahead of some of the other winning players in making adjustments that they are still trying to mentally confirm.

Thanks guys! Greatly appreciated Considering I can only play live TD these days, I've gotta do what I can to stay sharp for the WSOP.

I agree completely DD, and i think and hope i do stuff like that too, but there is only so far you can take it and you have to realise that its only a temporary read and that you need to keep adjusting, and i wasnt sure tecmo was thinking that way.

Time Link to 00:11:04

DD when you say we should b/3b this player 2->pat u mean lead into him when he is drawing 1 and we are pat oop?

Time Link to 00:15:01

why do you like folding this hand getting 6:1 odds ott if he is pat? because his range looks strong cause3 he capped pre?

Time Link to 00:40:56

here we 3bet from the bb and pat right away and this is a common snowline with 4578 type of hands which brick , shouldnt we vbet the river and get called by even jacks from boro which is aware of this?

DD when you say we should b/3b this player 2->pat u mean lead into him when he is drawing 1 and we are pat oop?

I meant in 2:2 spots instead of CRing

here we 3bet from the bb and pat right away and this is a common snowline with 4578 type of hands which brick , shouldnt we vbet the river and get called by even jacks from boro which is aware of this?

Good point, yeah I'm on board w this

I meant in 2:2 spots instead of CRing

is there any time you would lead against an aggrotard who always raises ip when drawing to good draws just to get 3 bets in?

is there any time you would lead against an aggrotard who always raises ip when drawing to good draws just to get 3 bets in?

thats the exact adjustment he suggested that you originally questioned

as far as that #12 vs boro goes, i was betting the river 100% every time

confused hjd sorry. so you do lead sometimes to aggressive raisers 1:2 spot?

not if you're the 2cd. it may work great once, but as a long term (or even 2-3 times+) strategy its terrible. we are talking about 2:2 where we mix up c/r'ing pat hands and leading them, but against guys that raise 1cds habitually we always want to b/3b.

Time Link to 00:03:59

with a T here its easier to bet/pat right? u would never break correct?

with a T here its easier to bet/pat right? u would never break correct?

Would probably bet/fold

yeah thats what i meant terminology is not my strong point

Time Link to 00:20:59

do you c/c here oop if there was a bet and call on the flop?

Time Link to 00:22:56

what are similiar hands? 543 and ? 854 w/ pair?

Time Link to 00:30:36

would you play the 9 when he had more behind as well or only if he checks to you? (draw to 754 vs 1cd)

do you c/c here oop if there was a bet and call on the flop?

Yeah, the price is just too good

what are similiar hands? 543 and ? 854 w/ pair?

Yes and yes, I should have expanded on that, good question - I think it would be fine to 3 bet your entire 3 card range in that spot, the worst hands you will quick pat or snow some (or give up sometimes when he is pat) and it balances you nicely and there is no real problem playing a big pot in position when you both have wide ranges. It will give you a spazzy image but I prefer that anyway

would you play the 9 when he had more behind as well or only if he checks to you? (draw to 754 vs 1cd)

I would play the 4 card 9 in every situation there, our draw is super weak and we should play it for a quick pat / snow / maybe just fold at some point if he shows strength. Tossing the 9 there to keep drawing at 457 I think is a clear equity mistake, and the 457 is so weak there is not an implied odds argument to justify it either.

I would play the 4 card 9 in every situation there, our draw is super weak and we should play it for a quick pat / snow / maybe just fold at some point if he shows strength. Tossing the 9 there to keep drawing at 457 I think is a clear equity mistake, and the 457 is so weak there is not an implied odds argument to justify it either.

i suppose this includes all deuceless 4card 9s including 3489? how about 2789?

Umm I think it would depend a little what I think about villain? Vs spewy type guys I'd break off the 9 on the 2789, we will face a CR too often on the turn I think.