---

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

Time link won't pop up for me: 15:20 or so when villain checks back K9o on K43(r)7(fd)Q(o)

You say that A5s becomes much more of a snap call because villains river bets will be more polarized, but I think this is a mistake until we have more information.

We have already seen villain play two pretty clear value hands in a passive fashion (AJ check AQ6(fd)6(o) turn as well as K9) as well as not rebuy in the KJ > QJ hand that happened before the video.

While you are right in that his river bets become much more polarized, I think the mistake is assuming that villain will be standard reg-aggressive when barreling and bluffing. Given that he has already shown to deviate from some pretty standard lines by being passive, I would want to see if he shows that same passivity in other spots rather than assume he is passive when it comes to TP value bets and aggressive with draws and bluffs.

Time Link to 00:35:16

This board is dry enough that he might fire 3 streets with J9, however I don't think he pots the turn with J9 or even QJ for that matter. A big bet on the river imo polarizes his value range to AJ, J7, JJ, 77, 22, QQ-AA

Time link won't pop up for me: 15:20 or so when villain checks back K9o on K43(r)7(fd)Q(o)

You say that A5s becomes much more of a snap call because villains river bets will be more polarized, but I think this is a mistake until we have more information.

We have already seen villain play two pretty clear value hands in a passive fashion (AJ check AQ6(fd)6(o) turn as well as K9) as well as not rebuy in the KJ > QJ hand that happened before the video.

While you are right in that his river bets become much more polarized, I think the mistake is assuming that villain will be standard reg-aggressive when barreling and bluffing. Given that he has already shown to deviate from some pretty standard lines by being passive, I would want to see if he shows that same passivity in other spots rather than assume he is passive when it comes to TP value bets and aggressive with draws and bluffs.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to wait for more info but for me this is all the info I need to adjust, and if I find out later that the adjustment was premature then I'd switch back. Given that he's 2 tabling us and we're 50 hands into the match, I'm pretty comfortable with adjusting now and keeping an eye on these spots for other info. If it was a close spot, then I'd agree with you.

This board is dry enough that he might fire 3 streets with J9, however I don't think he pots the turn with J9 or even QJ for that matter. A big bet on the river imo polarizes his value range to AJ, J7, JJ, 77, 22, QQ-AA

Yea I agree that is his river value range, maybe KJ too, maybe. Also the fact that he bluffed no pair no draw on one of the worst turn barrel cards is another massive read, and probably makes what I said in the A5 hand more true because he can potentially get to the river with even more pure air, and not just the busted turn semibluffs. Food for thought.

Yea I agree that is his river value range, maybe KJ too, maybe. Also the fact that he bluffed no pair no draw on one of the worst turn barrel cards is another massive read, and probably makes what I said in the A5 hand more true because he can potentially get to the river with even more pure air, and not just the busted turn semibluffs. Food for thought.

Eh, I kind of agree with this and kind of don't.

What I would take away from the hand is that villain is simply more random. It would appear that he does not think about constructing ranges the way we do.

For example, when you assigned his semi-bluffing range for x/r on QQJ and then analyze the way it changes his range when the 9 peels off on the turn, I think this villain may play back at much closer to the same frequency with T9 with a backdoor flush draw or with A7o than most tougher villains would, simply because I think he thinks that we are just cbetting air with that sizing and he wants to play back so he raises.

Thus I expect his ranges to be a lot wider in some spots and for him to show up with a lot of non-sensical lines (such as blasting 96o on J722 or checking back AJ on AQ66).

The final thing to watch out for when trying to call down a-high against villains like this is that you are occasionally going to whiff when he bluffs AT or 33. I don't know if this read is strong enough that we *have* to stop calling down in spots like that, but it's something I'd watch for.

Time Link to 00:04:18

Why is checking back better than cbetting K3 here readless ? You can auto-call what turns and rivers ? Or you expect that it just checks down and you win ? I just see us checking and giving up alot on the turn

Time Link to 00:08:20

Villain never bet folds better on K43 ? He never cbets A9 or 77 and does not know what to do vs cr and folds ? And if he bet folds worse isn't it a very good result for us? Not like we are super happy with our sd value with A5.

Time Link to 00:42:27

So the main reason we call AQ on J92cc 6h is because he is a bad at value betting ?

I really enjoy your videos, Wilt!

Why is checking back better than cbetting K3 here readless ? You can auto-call what turns and rivers ? Or you expect that it just checks down and you win ? I just see us checking and giving up alot on the turn

early in the match, i prefer to check weak showdown value and see how he plays these situations, how thinly he can value bet, whether or not he auto bluffs, etc. in other words, i'm not folding many turns and rivers until I get a read in this spot. The more a situation is repeatable and comes up a lot, the more inclined you should be to get to showdown early and often.

Villain never bet folds better on K43 ? He never cbets A9 or 77 and does not know what to do vs cr and folds ? And if he bet folds worse isn't it a very good result for us? Not like we are super happy with our sd value with A5.

no one bet/folds 77 here. A9 he shouldn't cbet in the first place, but if he does, he shouldn't bet/fold it early in the match (not sure if he does). Even if you give him some better Ax that bet/fold, it doesnt mean c/r is the best play.

So the main reason we call AQ on J92cc 6h is because he is a bad at value betting ?

yea that makes calling 2x here with AQ even easier. It could still be a call against a guy who is value betting 9x and Jx too because of the equity we have against those hands + the rest of his range we are already beating, but it depends on how often he purely gives up with air and whether or not he turns Ax into bluff as well. It could get tough on some rivers, however even some of the "bad" rivers might be ok to call on because of all the other draws he can have that bluff those bad rivers, and the hands like 9x might not always value bet on the scary rivers, so he can get more polarized. Against very tough opponents, this situation is not so easy.

I understand the sentiment of wanting to wait for more info but for me this is all the info I need to adjust, and if I find out later that the adjustment was premature then I'd switch back. Given that he's 2 tabling us and we're 50 hands into the match, I'm pretty comfortable with adjusting now and keeping an eye on these spots for other info. If it was a close spot, then I'd agree with you.

yup

brye, think about your options in a bluffcatching spot - call or fold. you're trying to evaluate the ev of a call (a fold is 0ev). if his bluffing frequency increases, a call increases in ev. if it decreases, so too does ev. if we have information that suggests he has fewer valuebets, we still have a gap in information, which you recognize - we don't know the extent of his bluffing frequency.

think about our decision here: as his bluffing frequency increases, so too should our calling freq. just as calling if his bluffing frequency decreases becomes a mistake, so too does folding when he bluffs enough. people worry so much about making 'bad' calls that they forget that folds can be bad, too. it's easy to write off the hand and move on - we capped our loss, we never saw his hand, etc. but in reality, we'd be giving up money not to use the info we have.

this concept is pretty important and is going to be a central topic of discussion in my next series

yup

brye, think about your options in a bluffcatching spot - call or fold. you're trying to evaluate the ev of a call (a fold is 0ev). if his bluffing frequency increases, a call increases in ev. if it decreases, so too does ev. if we have information that suggests he has fewer valuebets, we still have a gap in information, which you recognize - we don't know the extent of his bluffing frequency.

think about our decision here: as his bluffing frequency increases, so too should our calling freq. just as calling if his bluffing frequency decreases becomes a mistake, so too does folding when he bluffs enough. people worry so much about making 'bad' calls that they forget that folds can be bad, too. it's easy to write off the hand and move on - we capped our loss, we never saw his hand, etc. but in reality, we'd be giving up money not to use the info we have.

Nice post.

I think my argument was based more on the overall idea that just because we know his river bets are more polarized doesn't necessarily mean his bluffing frequency is higher. I don't really have a problem with making the adjustment to calling down lighter, I'd just be watching his overall betting frequencies and showdowns to make sure we don't have to adjust back.

Still, good posts. Looking forward to your next series; need a guinea pig?

haha! not sure what you mean as it's not going to be a sweat series or anything, but thank you.

i didn't mean to stretch your point, either. i just want to make sure anyone else reading it recognizes that important concept. while we can't conclude his range becomes more bluff heavy, among his range staying the same, becoming more value-heavy or becoming more bluff-heavy, we can infer that the last one is most probable. it would be prudent (as always) to keep an eye open and try to confirm whether this is actually the case.

no one bet/folds 77 here. A9 he shouldn't cbet in the first place, but if he does, he shouldn't bet/fold it early in the match (not sure if he does). Even if you give him some better Ax that bet/fold, it doesnt mean c/r is the best play.

Does this mean that it SHOULD not happen ever? It does happen at lower limits. I do it all the time. Cbet 77 on K43r for value and feeling very uncomfortable when ch raised. I was looking for a call =( Same with cbetting AK on 332r. If I am brave enough to call the flop I will definately fold to a turn bet.

Does this mean that it SHOULD not happen ever? It does happen at lower limits. I do it all the time. Cbet 77 on K43r for value and feeling very uncomfortable when ch raised. I was looking for a call =( Same with cbetting AK on 332r. If I am brave enough to call the flop I will definately fold to a turn bet.

I think you're probably getting exploited if you are auto bet/folding these hands on these board textures...

Audio issues with the .mp4 anyone? I'm getting popping in the background and the occasional cut.

I think you're probably getting exploited if you are auto bet/folding these hands on these board textures...

I know. The root of the problem is that I don't know wheather to cbet all Ax/TT-55 on K43r.

If you ch back on K43r you need a strong plan for the turn. Which I don't have. If villain checks it is easy ofc, but if he bets for the first time what is the plan with A2/A9/55 etc ? You just info call twice because the situation comes up so often ? Based on that info. Just keep checking back the flop and keep calling when he bluffs too much? And great if he stops and lets us to sd with A2.

Time Link to 00:28:01

though the board is a pretty solid board to cbet air on - > so he might perceive our checkback-range OTF as not too airheavy and as a result not bet on the turn his poor-EQ-air in a high frequency, which he then could decide to bluff on the river after we also checkback the turn...
What you think about this?

Time Link to 00:35:57

Cool vid wilt.

the hand where hero check calls 2 streets with J-10 and Vil gives up with 9-6 on the river.

might sound a bit goofy but what would you think about Vil betting 150% pot on the river? knowing he's polarized but also knowing Hero's hand is face up. It just seems like if Vil overbets Hero gets put in a horrible spot as Vil can have way more nut hands 2-x/7-7/overpairs even strong J-x hands.

Time Link to 00:17:53

You say that we need to check-fold to a turn bet. Do you not think we can profitably call the turn with a gutter and a made hand? And all 6 of our outs are almost always clean. I think it's a very close call -- but given that the Villain doesn't value bet thin, it should probably be +EV. Is my analysis wrong?

Also while I can understand your idea of trying to get an unknown Villain to fold a K to two barrells -- given that the Villain called with pocket 66 on that pretty easy fold in the first hand, why do you want to try and see how he reacts in this situation? Another way to ask my question, how is this situation enough different than the first to warrent betting (it was pretty different in that we had initiative preflop and checked back the flop, so...)

Let's assume that betting and check-calling on the turn are equal EV. Then our only question would be what note is more valuable: seeing how he reacts to a bet.... or seeing how he reacts to a check. How would you evaluate these two choices?

I know. The root of the problem is that I don't know wheather to cbet all Ax/TT-55 on K43r.

If you ch back on K43r you need a strong plan for the turn. Which I don't have. If villain checks it is easy ofc, but if he bets for the first time what is the plan with A2/A9/55 etc ? You just info call twice because the situation comes up so often ? Based on that info. Just keep checking back the flop and keep calling when he bluffs too much? And great if he stops and lets us to sd with A2.

Early, yes, I'm getting to showdown in these spots often. i want to know how thinly they can value bet in these spots and see if I can figure out how he thinks about these various turn/river spots. Typically people will fall into one of three categories: 1) they bet turn a lot and not the river enough. 2) they bet both streets too often and don't value bet thin enough. 3) they don't even bet the turn often enough.

though the board is a pretty solid board to cbet air on - > so he might perceive our checkback-range OTF as not too airheavy and as a result not bet on the turn his poor-EQ-air in a high frequency, which he then could decide to bluff on the river after we also checkback the turn...
What you think about this?

well if it looks like we have sd value on the flop, and we dont bet the turn, then it really looks like we have sd value on the river... so should he really bluff? Some will with this line (def a level spot reg on reg) but typically if people want to bluff they start with a turn bet but I agree with you that it's not always the case.

Cool vid wilt.

the hand where hero check calls 2 streets with J-10 and Vil gives up with 9-6 on the river.

might sound a bit goofy but what would you think about Vil betting 150% pot on the river? knowing he's polarized but also knowing Hero's hand is face up. It just seems like if Vil overbets Hero gets put in a horrible spot as Vil can have way more nut hands 2-x/7-7/overpairs even strong J-x hands.

great question/point. Yes I think that would be a nasty spot for hero and something we should experiment doing more. The only negative I could see here is that given that particular turn, it's not unreasonable to think villain has a ton of Ax and 7x hands in his range and if he's heavily weighted toward those and not willing to fold his Jx then we are significantly more +EV by bluffing a smaller amount, however if we think we get him off Jx (which is def possible for some villains, I would puke against an unknown betting 150% pot here when I have JT) then yea we can just bet 150% and get him off virtually everything.

You say that we need to check-fold to a turn bet. Do you not think we can profitably call the turn with a gutter and a made hand? And all 6 of our outs are almost always clean. I think it's a very close call -- but given that the Villain doesn't value bet thin, it should probably be +EV. Is my analysis wrong?

Also while I can understand your idea of trying to get an unknown Villain to fold a K to two barrells -- given that the Villain called with pocket 66 on that pretty easy fold in the first hand, why do you want to try and see how he reacts in this situation? Another way to ask my question, how is this situation enough different than the first to warrent betting (it was pretty different in that we had initiative preflop and checked back the flop, so...)

Let's assume that betting and check-calling on the turn are equal EV. Then our only question would be what note is more valuable: seeing how he reacts to a bet.... or seeing how he reacts to a check. How would you evaluate these two choices?

If we thought we could have some showdown value with our 6 outs, i'd feel a lot better about calling the turn. Also against a guy who doesn't value bet thinly, all of our outs make the board such that he probably won't bet when we hit our outs, so i'm not sure we have much for implied odds here.

The reason I like to see how he reacts to 2 bets is because this is such a repeatable situation that will come up so often, it's nice to get a read on how he views these spots early so we know what to do later.

Are you counting the river EV when you said they are the same turn EV? One problem here is that often a bet will result in a -ev turn situation setting up a hugely +EV river situation. On the opposite side, a turn c/c could be +EV against his range but we could be hugely -EV on the river (calling or folding too much)...If a good amount of our turn ev for c/c'ing is coming from him not betting the river often enough, then i'd prefer having that read. If most of our EV is coming from him paying off huge when we hit, then i'd probably rather have the read when we bet/bet since that situation is much more repeatable. Hopefully that makes sense, let me know if i should clarify.

great question/point. Yes I think that would be a nasty spot for hero and something we should experiment doing more. The only negative I could see here is that given that particular turn, it's not unreasonable to think villain has a ton of Ax and 7x hands in his range and if he's heavily weighted toward those and not willing to fold his Jx then we are significantly more +EV by bluffing a smaller amount, however if we think we get him off Jx (which is def possible for some villains, I would puke against an unknown betting 150% pot here when I have JT) then yea we can just bet 150% and get him off virtually everything.

yea that makes good sense as to why betting smaller would be more +ev vs some opponents...hadnt looked at it like that...nice one..thanks