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

I think this is a great video. Both of you did a great job of explaining your thoughts and going into a deep analysis of every interesting hand.

I especially liked the JTs hand on table 1, and of course the 77 hand at table 4. I have to agree with surfdoc on both spots, but only after he was done explaining his thought process.
I guess my standard play would be to check the turn on that JTs hand, but after hearing your analysis, I have to agree betting is a much better option.
Same with the 77 hand, I was like 'wtf snapcall', but I can see why folding isn't a bad option against that specific player either.

So thanks for this great video, and I hope both of you will team up for more 50NL/100NL videos in the future.

Time Link to 00:45:47

Imo this is much easier fold than you make it sound. We are offering him a practically free showdown with $3 bet and instead he makes a huge overbet shove. He has no reason to bluff. His huge overbet represents only the single card, 5. He's not sticking in 7x pot with A or 67 because it is so easy to have a straight flush on that board. Yes, it's hard to make a straight flush but on this board you only need one card which he is very likely to have given his line. You still have so little invested it's not worth calling.

Really cool vid. You could just try to not repeat "I mean", "like", and "you know" all the time

Have to agree with the above, definitly some interesting spots.

But for future episodes please try to not interrupt each other so often. That kinda drove me insane. And the thought process for the last hand was definitly intersting to hear. But once you concluded it cant be for value it isnt very close. If hero had quads we could atleast consider he was shoving it in with topset for value or something.

for future episodes please try to not interrupt each other so often. That kinda drove me insane.

+1 to that. Really cool video series concept and format, but since there doesn't seem to be much orchestration of who's turn it is to talk when, it can get very frustrating and confusing as a viewer.
also I personally found all the spots "interesting" regardless of whether or not hero/villain made the most +ev move in the video or regardless of the pot size/stack sizes. Part of what makes video reviews like this so useful for us learning players is watching the hero get himself into a tough spot and try to work his way through it with commentary of how the situation could have been avoided and what to do in these unusual or nonstandard spots. Just because the hero didn't make the most +ev move doesn't mean there is no value in reviewing the hand as played.

I thought surfdoc did a real great job analyzing the hands, and mike had some great questions and comments as well. While it is all well and good to disagree on something, the interrupting distracts the viewer, and likely the commentator from the thought process of the hand.

As for content, Something Surfdoc and Mike didn't discuss on the 77 hand at the end was the merit of the small river bet Hero made when checked to on the 4straight-flush/board pairing card with top boat.

It seems our relative strength on this board vs villain's range would indicate a bet/fold as the best action, but would a larger size be more appropriate? It seems hero may have leveled himself into calling the shove due to the concern he induced a bluff with his small bet size-if this is the case and we know we can't beat any of the hands he ch/R for value, would a 2/3-pot sized bet be best vs this opponent? Am I correct in thinking checking the river back would only make sense if we were concerned villain would both be ahead of our hand fairly often AND ch/R bluff the river often enough to make bet/folding unavoidable. Perhaps it was implied that a larger bet would have been better after the turn bet is missed, but I never heard an agreement on the proper play for hero on the river before the ch/R.

I like folding 77 is the only good option here. I like the way villain played the hand too, obviously he has heard what ZEEBO theorem is (and that's the reason why we should fold). 33 = 44 = 77, his overbet range is super polarized here and he never shoves a boat here. It's either quads, straight flush or a bluff. If we call with 77 we have to call 33 too.

I really like how you guys discuss the possible "combos" during the hands.

I do a lot of studying, but trying to integrate these things while playing
takes a lot of practice (to make it automatic).

(still watching video)

Sorry about my use of the word "um." It is a bad habit that I will try and break. Also, my apologies for us talking over each other. We usually have a very good chemistry and I noticed that this time we had a few more accidental verbal head bumps. I think we were both just a bit excited by a few of the cool spots we were discussing.

I have a confession to make. I actually told a few of my friends about this 77 hand and they advised me to tone it down because I had planned to say that it was a super easy fold as well. I emailed that to the hero but didn't really want to beat on him too bad in the video.

+1 to that. Really cool video series concept and format, but since there doesn't seem to be much orchestration of who's turn it is to talk when, it can get very frustrating and confusing as a viewer.
also I personally found all the spots "interesting" regardless of whether or not hero/villain made the most +ev move in the video or regardless of the pot size/stack sizes. Part of what makes video reviews like this so useful for us learning players is watching the hero get himself into a tough spot and try to work his way through it with commentary of how the situation could have been avoided and what to do in these unusual or nonstandard spots. Just because the hero didn't make the most +ev move doesn't mean there is no value in reviewing the hand as played.

I thought surfdoc did a real great job analyzing the hands, and mike had some great questions and comments as well. While it is all well and good to disagree on something, the interrupting distracts the viewer, and likely the commentator from the thought process of the hand.

As for content, Something Surfdoc and Mike didn't discuss on the 77 hand at the end was the merit of the small river bet Hero made when checked to on the 4straight-flush/board pairing card with top boat.

It seems our relative strength on this board vs villain's range would indicate a bet/fold as the best action, but would a larger size be more appropriate? It seems hero may have leveled himself into calling the shove due to the concern he induced a bluff with his small bet size-if this is the case and we know we can't beat any of the hands he ch/R for value, would a 2/3-pot sized bet be best vs this opponent? Am I correct in thinking checking the river back would only make sense if we were concerned villain would both be ahead of our hand fairly often AND ch/R bluff the river often enough to make bet/folding unavoidable. Perhaps it was implied that a larger bet would have been better after the turn bet is missed, but I never heard an agreement on the proper play for hero on the river before the ch/R.

I agree with everything you said. I like videos too where the hands are played by someone capable of making fundamental mistakes.


As far as the proper river play, I think we just put in a standard river value bet size of somewhere around 1/2 pot. That allows us to get looked up by a pretty wide range (AsX, overpairs with a spade, smaller boats) in this size pot. It also has the added benefit of us not leveling ourselves that we induced some spazzy play that we now need to call and make an enormous mistake.

On the 77 hand to say a TAG reg will not fold the A spades here is quite ridiculous to me, TAG regs at 50nl can fold here probably even 25nl for that size of a bet, it is seriously a huge overbet and is a fullhouse at the very worst imo. Your beat every single time you call that bet with A spades and its not even close. Your waaay discrediting how a TAG reg thinks at these stakes.

Youmikou probably thinks hurtfeelings is either blocking or trying to induce. Now if he thinks he's blocking then there is no way he makes it this size he'll just c/r to a standard size because the chance hurtfeelings will rebluff with some blocking hand is slim to none. Now if he thinks he's betting to induce and he has the nutz then he can stick it in here, I don't think youmikou is looking for a call from As sure if he does then that's great, he's hoping hurtfeelings has exactly the hand he has some sort of boat and is not good enough to lay it down.

I think this is a fold, people at 100nl just won't pull a bluff such as this for that size, they'll make it smaller imo. This is the nutz almost always, I don't see how its much different to considering folding a K high flush 2nd nuts when someone jams a huge overbet in repping the A high flush?

I think this is a fold, people at 100nl just won't pull a bluff such as this for that size, they'll make it smaller imo. This is the nutz almost always, I don't see how its much different to considering folding a K high flush 2nd nuts when someone jams a huge overbet in repping the A high flush?[/quote]

You are nuts, at 100nl this is a snap call unless you are super sure of who you are playing against. Ive seen far far far weirder things. I would never fold that hand esp on cake.

Really liked the video. The last hand was very interesting. I agree it's a fold, but not sure I would have been able to make it.

On that last hand what do you think of villain's line of check-raising all-in on the river. Surely he is only getting value from possibly the As or a boat or 66 for quads. This is obviously a very small range. Would it not have been better to have just bet the river for value, instead of c/r all-in?

Really liked the video and hope to see more of them.

You are nuts, at 100nl this is a snap call unless you are super sure of who you are playing against. Ive seen far far far weirder things. I would never fold that hand esp on cake.

The question is not really if you have EVER seen someone do this as of course it does happen. The question is how often this happens versus a decent regular.

Excellent video -- loved the commentary on the 77 and the JT hand.

For the 77 though just a few thoughts from my perspective (as I play with the youmikou guy all the time)

One thing you mentioned was that I'm calling with 44 if I'm calling with 77. When I played this hand, my thought process was of course to induce a raise from garbage (I definitely didn't expect this).

That being said, when I have 77, I beat 67 44 64 33 63 etc. When I have 44, I only have 33 beat.

In this spot, I think I probably would have found a fold with 33 or 44. That being said, my notes on this guy are pages long (the reason you guys didn't see me type in notes is because I use a word document for regs) -- and full of hands where we stack off extremely light against each other. TBH, this guy would probably expect me to call with the As.


Anyways, that's just a little backinfo on this guy. My real question is:
A) I actually just started incorporating this 'gaybet' thing after I saw zachvac do it during his 15k propbet. Is this the kind of spot to induce? Or do we just go for a normal $16 raise or whatever.

B) Are we folding 66 here too? The only difference between 66 and 77 is that one more combination (77) is added into the mix of hands we beat. Seems like a 66 should be a snapfold as well.

C) If I do make a normal bet here (16) and he raises to say, 60, then are we more inclined to call?

The question is not really if you have EVER seen someone do this as of course it does happen. The question is how often this happens versus a decent regular.

Yea that was my point the read that we were given was he's a decent thinking reg. If he's some unknown retard of course it's a snapcall.

"That being said, my notes on this guy are pages long (the reason you guys didn't see me type in notes is because I use a word document for regs) -- and full of hands where we stack off extremely light against each other."

Do you have a single hand where he does this kind of huge overbet this deep? I only see this stuff on tripped boards with quads wanting to stack a full house that can't fold.

Time Link to 00:08:27

@9:18

If you had a hand like AA,KK,10,66,88 here on the turn would you be betting $15 or $20 as advocated? I agree with the bet. However, I am curious if we should be keeping the bet sizing aligned with other parts of our range?

Excellent video -- loved the commentary on the 77 and the JT hand.

For the 77 though just a few thoughts from my perspective (as I play with the youmikou guy all the time)

One thing you mentioned was that I'm calling with 44 if I'm calling with 77. When I played this hand, my thought process was of course to induce a raise from garbage (I definitely didn't expect this).

That being said, when I have 77, I beat 67 44 64 33 63 etc. When I have 44, I only have 33 beat.

In this spot, I think I probably would have found a fold with 33 or 44. That being said, my notes on this guy are pages long (the reason you guys didn't see me type in notes is because I use a word document for regs) -- and full of hands where we stack off extremely light against each other. TBH, this guy would probably expect me to call with the As.


Anyways, that's just a little backinfo on this guy. My real question is:
A) I actually just started incorporating this 'gaybet' thing after I saw zachvac do it during his 15k propbet. Is this the kind of spot to induce? Or do we just go for a normal $16 raise or whatever.

B) Are we folding 66 here too? The only difference between 66 and 77 is that one more combination (77) is added into the mix of hands we beat. Seems like a 66 should be a snapfold as well.

C) If I do make a normal bet here (16) and he raises to say, 60, then are we more inclined to call?

Glad you liked the video.

A. I don't mind using weak leads in certain spots against players who have overaggro tendencies. This can occur in a variety of spots particularly against regs who may think they have a good feel for your tendencies. This particular spot is just a terrible spot to induce. Save it for when you will know what to do when you get the response you are hoping for. I think a standard VB here is better for reasons I have already stated.

As an aside, I think the term "weak lead" is better than "gaybet." Not so much for PC reasons but because the turn gaybet was first used to describe an out of position/tempo bet but this has now been completely taken over by the use of the term "donk bet."

B. I think 66 is emotionally harder to lay down but probably still a fold.

c. We are always more inclined to call in spots where we are getting better pot odds but I think any (large) raise on this board is still very likely to be the nut nut.

Very entertaining video lads.

just have to say that Hudless Horsemen is a superb series title

77 hand is such an easy fold. I dont know what the big deal is. Yeah its a sick spot that you prob wont see again but come on, NO ONE bluffs there. If they do its not some insane overbet.

77 hand is such an easy fold. I dont know what the big deal is. Yeah its a sick spot that you prob wont see again but come on, NO ONE bluffs there. If they do its not some insane overbet.

It really isn't. Especially with the dynamic mentioned with that player.

It really isn't. Especially with the dynamic mentioned with that player.

I just really feel like hes trying to stack you with the nuts here. The pot is so small and his hand is so big that he'd rather try to get you to level yourself into a call than to go for a small value bet. Do you really think he has air here? Do you think he ever has anything inbetween air and the nuts?

I just really feel like hes trying to stack you with the nuts here. The pot is so small and his hand is so big that he'd rather try to get you to level yourself into a call than to go for a small value bet. Do you really think he has air here? Do you think he ever has anything inbetween air and the nuts?

He never has air, but he can definitely show up with any worse full house.
That isn't to say he does it often enough to make it a call, but there is a big diff between thinking about calling here with top FH and a weaker FH. I'd be mucking a lower FH instantly, but its about deciding how much of his range has those weaker FH in it themselves.

I agree it is a fold, but its by no means easy.