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

Time Link to 00:17:15

why on earth would you 3B a great implied odds hand in position in probably the best implied odds situation in 6maxNL (big blind vs small blind)? only reason to 3B here is if he 4B bluffs like crazy

Time Link to 00:20:02

wooo suckoutboys
seriously - nice video, enjoyed!

why on earth would you 3B a great implied odds hand in position in probably the best implied odds situation in 6maxNL (big blind vs small blind)? only reason to 3B here is if he 4B bluffs like crazy

3-betting early to establish some image might be good, but i agree that i would flat it like 75% of the time or more. now if the guy calls lots of 3-bets then c/f the flop often, 3-betting becomes a great play.

Time Link to 00:18:51

a decent player is never c/f here, because when he checks he almost has a showdownable hand that he'd like to pot control. so i really hate a bet unless you're gonna try to barrel him off Ax, which isn't really a great idea in a blind v. blind situation.

http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/950-Surfdoc-3-200NL-4-tabling?seek=1131

Time Link to 00:07:34

400 big bets deep? wtf? aint that 800 big blinds deep?
i mean 1 big bet = 2 big blinds, right? old poker tracker stuff?
anywayzz

Time Link to 00:41:16

Do you really think you can rep a king or a boat here? Would you really c/c flop and then check to him twice with a hand that strong? And then would villain actually think you would play that way? Also wouldn't you cbet QJ?
So I feel like you can't actually rep that much. But then it doesn't matter because he will still fold a ton unless he has QJ, KQ, KJ which should all be pretty rare.

Do you really think you can rep a king or a boat here? Would you really c/c flop and then check to him twice with a hand that strong? And then would villain actually think you would play that way? Also wouldn't you cbet QJ?
So I feel like you can't actually rep that much. But then it doesn't matter because he will still fold a ton unless he has QJ, KQ, KJ which should all be pretty rare.

I was thinking this too but I guess it doesn't matter all that much unless our opponent is good enough to figure this out..?

And like you said if he has enough bluffs/hands he can't bluffcatch with in his range then he will be folding to our raise enough anyway.

I was thinking this too but I guess it doesn't matter all that much unless our opponent is good enough to figure this out..?

And like you said if he has enough bluffs/hands he can't bluffcatch with in his range then he will be folding to our raise enough anyway.

Well if he has enough bluffhands there is no need to raise b/c you have a pair of tens.

oh yeah! ^^

so do we really think he has enough hands in his bet/folding range that beat us to make raise>call? This part of his range consists of Ax if we assume he would have put more action in on some previous street with Kx, QQ, JJ (doubtful that he decides to xb turn and then b/f river with trips, no? Also, do we really expect him to fold a straight here?)

Seems like it comes down to how much of his river b/f range consists of Ax.

400 big bets deep? wtf? aint that 800 big blinds deep?
i mean 1 big bet = 2 big blinds, right? old poker tracker stuff?
anywayzz

We were a little loose with our usage of the terminology. Sorry if that created confusion. We were basically talking about big blinds even though at one point "big bets" was used mistakenly. No real reason to talk about big bets unless we are playing limit. The discussion really was centered around how many big blinds deep would we want to get in KK preflop. The answer is uncertain and player dependent although pretty much everyone agrees that if effective stacks are less that 100 big blinds then it goes in always. I think against most reasonable opponents the line where KK becomes a dog to his range is probably right around 200-250 big blinds although there are a bunch of game flow factors that will become involved.

(10:00) the math of JT vs KK was okay until the irrelevant conclusion at the end. It doesn't matter how big his mistake was vs KK specifically, only our whole range matters. It's still a mistake of course, but saying -$65 just teaches the wrong type of thinking.

Time Link to 00:38:05

Edit2: its the hand around ~42 minutes but the time link did not get into my post

Its said the king does not change much, I tend to disagree. First of all, by check/calling the flop you basically say to him you have a showdown hand that cant take that much heat, if he is any good he should be able to narrow your hand down to almost wat you have after you check/called. With the second king the amount of K combo's he has is reduced and he will probebly realize that betting as a (semi) bluff does not get much done as you will also realize that him having a K in his hand is less likely now and check/call again. By putting your hand face-up on the flop you make it verry easy for your opponent and pretty difficult for yourself if he bets again on the turn/river

Edit: about the river play .. to fancy imho. You say you can credibly rep a King, with what king exactly do you a) check/call the flop and b) not lead the river if you did check/call the flop? I dont think you can get many hands to fold there that he bets for value, he does have air a ton of the time because of the weakness you showed and the K on the turn that prevented him from barreling it.

Good discussion, i like it!

I do agree with the 35s raising on the buttom. Whenever you flop big with these hands you get people playing back at you with a TON of air that you can trap against.

nice vid, good/easy to listen

..and I think you were right in the first place, floating on that Q high board isnt great cause you want to be able to rep more hands not just Qx and sets that didnt raise flop. Also these kind of boards are good to double barrel I guess against floaters.

(10:00) the math of JT vs KK was okay until the irrelevant conclusion at the end. It doesn't matter how big his mistake was vs KK specifically, only our whole range matters. It's still a mistake of course, but saying -$65 just teaches the wrong type of thinking.

While I agree that the cost of the mistake against our range is what matters, I think it is still worthwhile including the cost against a particular hand. The reason is that sometimes I find myself or my students wondering "well just how big a mistake can this be?" In certain spots where we actually can narrow a players range down to exactly what he holds, it is interesting (to me anyway) to know how much of the worst of it we are taking. This becomes relevant when we know we are making a -EV play but (often incorrectly) justify it based on future metagame ramifications.

Not particularly happy about taking 7-8 minutes to figure out 4bet/calling jtss is bad . It'd be pretty darn hard for it to be a good play, and the guy was obviously tilted (hopefully). I like the fact you guys went through the math and everything but 6 minutes on that yuck.

Not particularly happy about taking 7-8 minutes to figure out 4bet/calling jtss is bad . It'd be pretty darn hard for it to be a good play, and the guy was obviously tilted (hopefully). I like the fact you guys went through the math and everything but 6 minutes on that yuck.

Thanx for the feedback. We knew that it was a pretty bad play on his part . We thought the discussion of figuring out how short you needed to be to make it profitable would prove valuable to most people trying to move up from 25 and 50NL. It was also there to generate discussion on stack sizes and when it is ok to take the worst of it and still be a +EV play. A lot of tournament players unfamiliar with 100bb play mistakingly call and shove here b/c they feel they are "pot committed". In future videos we will likely use that concept in other hands and wanted to make sure the audience had a firm grasp of the math behind it.

Very well done video guyz. Got some goot schtuff out of this for sure

I was thinking this too but I guess it doesn't matter all that much unless our opponent is good enough to figure this out..?

And like you said if he has enough bluffs/hands he can't bluffcatch with in his range then he will be folding to our raise enough anyway.

I think this play is really close. I think it is important to think critically about these situations and decide what is your best option. Do you have enough SD value to call or not? I think he is making a thin value bet on the river with Ax a lot and folding to a raise often enough to make turning Q10 into a bluff a +EV play. I usually prefer having more combos of hands to rep but I don't hate it and I definitely think it is a super sick play to have in a your arsenal especially if your on the tight side in terms of style.

Time Link to 00:12:51

seriously wtf is up with talking about a totally uninteresting KK hands for a full 12 minutes and 51 seconds. i never comment on videos but seriously. I think he should be cut altogether, so amazingly overanalysed.

Time Link to 00:50:18

just finished watching, solid good video along my earlier comment

Time Link to 00:18:55

Hi,

http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/950-Surfdoc-3-200NL-4-tabling?seek=1135

Would you never consider 3-barreling here? Without reads, I'd assume that he's always gotten a decent hand but which can't stand the heat of 2 or possibly 3 barrels. With a solid image, it should be +EV in the long-term, shouldn't it?



http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/950-Surfdoc-3-200NL-4-tabling?seek=2233

At this point, do you think, a 3-barrel of him would be good? I mean, it's standard that we don't assume he will 3-barrel. But in my opinion, it should be good against your range because of the same reasons. Even if you're tricky enough to c/c a K, you won't call it thrice against an unknown, wouldn't you?

The video was very solid and you had a nice move in (c/r at river), which's given me some inspiration. In my opinion, you could get a little bit shorter on some standard situation like the KK hand. But basically there just weren't too many thrilling situations, which you obviously can't help.
So, nice vid.

Hi,

http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/950-Surfdoc-3-200NL-4-tabling?seek=1135

Would you never consider 3-barreling here? Without reads, I'd assume that he's always gotten a decent hand but which can't stand the heat of 2 or possibly 3 barrels. With a solid image, it should be +EV in the long-term, shouldn't it?



http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/950-Surfdoc-3-200NL-4-tabling?seek=2233

At this point, do you think, a 3-barrel of him would be good? I mean, it's standard that we don't assume he will 3-barrel. But in my opinion, it should be good against your range because of the same reasons. Even if you're tricky enough to c/c a K, you won't call it thrice against an unknown, wouldn't you?

The video was very solid and you had a nice move in (c/r at river), which's given me some inspiration. In my opinion, you could get a little bit shorter on some standard situation like the KK hand. But basically there just weren't too many thrilling situations, which you obviously can't help.
So, nice vid.

As far as the first spot. I assume you are talking about 66 hand? This is really just a frequency issue. In reality, you can three barrel people off their hands with alarmingly high frequency but the cost when you are wrong is obviously very high. Some tricky lag/tag types will recognize that your hand range is so weak if they flop something huge on AQx boards that they will check to you and let you barrel. What I am saying I guess is you can't rely on the flop check=weakness thinking vs all players.

On hand 2, It is really a similar spot. I check flop and give him the go ahead to start barreling. I actually don't want to get into exactly how I would play a king but if you read the above and listen to my comments on the video you can get the answer.

Thanks for the kind words.