Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by Gman (High Stakes)

Well, this should be good.

Great video, really looking forward to the next episodes.
Why do you 3bet small pocket pairs so often?

Time Link to 00:10:56

this is def not a good board to check back a hand as strong as QT - it is near the top of your range in a situation that should have you c-betting a lot of your air. check back A5 or even 77 (i would personally bet all of these but given that you like checking back a lot you should check back those hands) and bet your queens. the biggest mistake a good player is going to make against you when they're OOP in a single raised pot is either calling you down to the river too lightly or shelling off with a bluff they start on the flop.

Time Link to 00:13:03

raise>fold>call imo

That was awesome, looking forward to pts 2 and 3.

Time Link to 00:50:26

You say you get paid a lot in this situation, and he makes a disciplined fold because 'you don't represent anything'. Would you ever bluff in this spot (against a player on his thought level), he knows you don't represent anything, but you know you don't represent anything, and he knows you know you are not representing anything... So it would be really stupid to bluff, and his fold would be pretty standard.
or can this go a level deeper for villain while you aren't that deep? (he thinks you are bluffing a ton here because you know you are never bluffing here because you are representing nothing; while you are thinking you are never bluffing here because you don't represent anything. Or is that railheaven material).
I'm clearly a level 9000 thinker obv

Time Link to 00:13:29

this is def a cbet, hes gonna call w any Ahigh+
i usualy check this back only when the guy its a fitorfold nit postflop.

Great video, really looking forward to the next episodes.
Why do you 3bet small pocket pairs so often?

Ty. I have discussed this a bunch in other videos, but to put it simply, I think 3 betting 22-55 has a higher EV than flatting when playing against an opponent who folds to a reasonable amount of 3 bets (60%+).

For one, these hands are generally fairly easy to play in 3 bet pots in that you either flop a big hand or your hand is only a bluffcatcher/air. Also, these hands are great ones to 5 bet shove for equity reasons.

In single raised pots, it is often difficult to win with these hands. In the 88% of the time you don't flop a set, the vast majority of those flops will not be profitable to c/c because a) he sometimes already has the best hand b) He can easily blow you off your hand on later streets and c) He almost always has at least 25% equity even if he is behind.

With that said, I still flat small PP sometimes and often against players who don't fold to 3 bets. In that case, I turn these hands into bluffs some % of the time postflop.

this is def not a good board to check back a hand as strong as QT - it is near the top of your range in a situation that should have you c-betting a lot of your air. check back A5 or even 77 (i would personally bet all of these but given that you like checking back a lot you should check back those hands) and bet your queens. the biggest mistake a good player is going to make against you when they're OOP in a single raised pot is either calling you down to the river too lightly or shelling off with a bluff they start on the flop.

I agree w/ this mostly. Yes I will c-bet my air v often here, and I very rarely look to check back hands near the top of my range in single raised pots. Against a good opponent, I will check back a hand like TPTK+ essentially never w/o a good reason, a hand this strong maybe 5-10% of the time, and check back a weaker Q maybe 15-20% assuming he isn't doing anything too irregular.

I think there are def situations (which coincidentally come up in parts 2 and 3) where checking back really strong hands not only has merit but can be best. You will see later on in this match he starts betting virtually every turn I check back and overbetting every single river. In these situations, I think it's pretty important that I check back hands that are ahead of some of his likely thin value betting range in that spot. The problem w/ a hand like 77 or worse in that situation is he's v v unlikely to value bet worse there, so our hand is essentially the same as a much weaker bluff catcher aside from some additional equity we have in the pot.

There are also a lot of regulars on these Q52r boards who v v rarely c/r w/ air, and as such their c/f range there is very high. Yes he will peel w some Ax some % of the time and a few other hands, but giving him an opportunity to make a 2nd best hand/bluff the turn has a lot of merit imo since much of his range whiffs this board.

I guess overall we see it a little differently in that a) I think he has less hands willing to call 1 let alone 2 or 3 streets than you do and b) I think many good players don't even c/r bluff this texture often and if they do, it's one they will shut down on the turn a good amount because there hand is often one w/ minimal equity against our flop b/c range

Thoughts on all that?

raise>fold>call imo

Def thought about that, but forgot to mention it in the video. I kinda feel like my longterm image sucks a little too much to make this play, but I def agree raising and folding are >> than calling here.

You say you get paid a lot in this situation, and he makes a disciplined fold because 'you don't represent anything'. Would you ever bluff in this spot (against a player on his thought level), he knows you don't represent anything, but you know you don't represent anything, and he knows you know you are not representing anything... So it would be really stupid to bluff, and his fold would be pretty standard.
or can this go a level deeper for villain while you aren't that deep? (he thinks you are bluffing a ton here because you know you are never bluffing here because you are representing nothing; while you are thinking you are never bluffing here because you don't represent anything. Or is that railheaven material).
I'm clearly a level 9000 thinker obv

Good question. And unlike some HS players, I put lots and lots of stock into leveling. My experiences are that with the image I often have, even v good players have a lot of trouble folding in this spot because a) I'm just so crazy! b) I don't rep anything and c) He really can't decide what level I'm on. FWIW, against most avg./above avg regulars, I will almost never bluff here.

Once I notice a tendency for my opponent to fold when I don't rep anything, then yes I will start bluffing more often in these kind of spots.

this is def a cbet, hes gonna call w any Ahigh+
i usualy check this back only when the guy its a fitorfold nit postflop.

See lengthy explanation of me defending my honor above

Thoughts on all that?

I am with you that there are a few situations where it's best to start checking QT (and that it's prob going to be the right adjustment in the next cpl of videos), I just don't think you had that really good reason to start doing it at this point in the match and usually won't against most good players early in a match.

Also - the reason a lot of regulars v v rarely c/r a dry board like this with air is that you're not c-betting enough. The fact that they are checking and folding a flop like this often is not necessarily a bad thing for you and definitely not unrelated.

I am with you that there are a few situations where it's best to start checking QT (and that it's prob going to be the right adjustment in the next cpl of videos), I just don't think you had that really good reason to start doing it at this point in the match and usually won't against most good players early in a match.

Also - the reason a lot of regulars v v rarely c/r a dry board like this with air is that you're not c-betting enough. The fact that they are checking and folding a flop like this often is not necessarily a bad thing for you and definitely not unrelated.

Agree that in that exact spot, it was probably unnecessary to check there. Not exactly sure if your basing my lack of c-betting on this vid or a bunch of them, but on a texture similar to this I am cbetting air essentially 100% until given a reason not to. I always yell at my students for checking in these spots w/ air w/o solid rationale.

Time Link to 00:56:28

If you want another (off-the-wall) interpretation of what he could be doing here.. couldn't he be betting to induce?! With the history you guys have he might think that you are unbalanced in this spot and will shove enough bluffs in this spot that he can bet-call!

There aren't too many two pairs in your range and if he thinks you have no top pairs in your range when you shove then your entire range consists of flushes and air (bear in mind you tend not to just peel small pairs in 3b pots afaik so set combos are v rare also). Furthermore if he is aware of his range it looks pretty weak in this spot conventionally despite his efforts to balance passive lines... would he really not double barrel most of his FDs here on the turn?

I know it's a pretty wacky thought to throw out there, but thought it might be worthy of consideration with two high-level players with a lot of history. Given the detailed reads you have on his game it stands to reason he could have a few on you! "Likes to bluff-shove rivers with polarized range in 3B pots facing weak lines" might be enough to tempt him... After all, you have to have found out the fact that he balances passive lines in this spot the hard way, so I would surmise you have shoved into the nuts in similar spots before!

If you want another (off-the-wall) interpretation of what he could be doing here.. couldn't he be betting to induce?! With the history you guys have he might think that you are unbalanced in this spot and will shove enough bluffs in this spot that he can bet-call!

There aren't too many two pairs in your range and if he thinks you have no top pairs in your range when you shove then your entire range consists of flushes and air (bear in mind you tend not to just peel small pairs in 3b pots afaik so set combos are v rare also). Furthermore if he is aware of his range it looks pretty weak in this spot conventionally despite his efforts to balance passive lines... would he really not double barrel most of his FDs here on the turn?

I know it's a pretty wacky thought to throw out there, but thought it might be worthy of consideration with two high-level players with a lot of history. Given the detailed reads you have on his game it stands to reason he could have a few on you! "Likes to bluff-shove rivers with polarized range in 3B pots facing weak lines" might be enough to tempt him... After all, you have to have found out the fact that he balances passive lines in this spot the hard way, so I would surmise you have shoved into the nuts in similar spots before!

Although an interesting thought I think this is highly unlikely because
a) I could bluff shove worse for value
b) I personally think he knows my game well enough to know that it is actually pretty unlikely I would shove in this type of situation where I can't rep much of anything
c) He knows my flop + turn line can include plenty of semi/very strong hands as he is very likely to know I can play v tricky and protect my ranges well in this type of situation.
d) He should know that his bet here looks pretty strong and he may be aware that I know he is pretty unlikely to bluff taking this line.

Because of d more than anything else, I think he was simply turning a made hand into a bluff, which as I mentioned in the video, I wasn't the biggest fan of.

Time Link to 00:40:01

I think this is a really good point and this is an issue that I definitely struggle with. It is extremely easy to feel like you are getting run over when in fact villian is just running good - looking forward to the next episode to see him run hot and your responses to it.

gman,

could you elaborate on the idea of protecting your ranges?
I understand that you don't want your range to always be weak in any given spot because an observant opponent will pick that up. However, the reason that it's very common for a lot of players to have unbalanced (weak) ranges in certain spots is because you usually give up EV if you try to make your range stronger.
Betting the nuts is almost always better than checking it back; you might decide to check it back sometimes just to protect your range but it seems to me that will be irrelevant because you'll do it so seldom that your opponent can still assume you can't have the nuts. If you do it more often, you'll give up a lot of EV.
How do you approach this problem?

gman,

could you elaborate on the idea of protecting your ranges?
I understand that you don't want your range to always be weak in any given spot because an observant opponent will pick that up. However, the reason that it's very common for a lot of players to have unbalanced (weak) ranges in certain spots is because you usually give up EV if you try to make your range stronger.
Betting the nuts is almost always better than checking it back; you might decide to check it back sometimes just to protect your range but it seems to me that will be irrelevant because you'll do it so seldom that your opponent can still assume you can't have the nuts. If you do it more often, you'll give up a lot of EV.
How do you approach this problem?

Good question. You are 100% correct in saying that unbalanced ranges against most players in most situations yield the highest EV.

There are 2 ways you can argue in favor of protecting your ranges in certain situations. Lets use an example of a hand that I played in this match, although I think it happens later on.

I open w/ KTo OBT, he flats.

Flop comes J9x rainbow. I c-bet, he raises, I flat. Turn comes gin for me w/ the Q. He checks and I elect to check back. Now there are a million things that can be discussed here, but let's just focus on the positives of checking back here.

1) If this hand does get to showdown and my opponent is observant, he will realize that my ability to check the nuts here makes betting a hand like Jx (and maybe even something better) on the river not nearly as good. Overall this is a good outcome for us in that his betting range will be more polarized in the future when the action goes bet, raise, call; check, check; and then he leads the river. It will allow us to get to showdown easier w/ our 9x type hands for example.

2) This is the logic that will apply to most of your opponents and the logic you should be using most. Checking here in some situations may be the highest EV play! Maybe your opponent takes this line and bets the river w/ air too much. Maybe your opponent is liable to bet the river thinly, and when the river bricks he will use basic hand reading to convince himself that you are turning a weak made hand into a bluff. Or maybe when he checks that turn (which is what happened in the actual hand), we will realize that his hand range is v v weak so we give him a card to try to catch up.

So in short, I won't check KT on the turn there often at all, but when I do, it's almost always because I really do think it's the highest EV play.

Good question. And unlike some HS players, I put lots and lots of stock into leveling. My experiences are that with the image I often have, even v good players have a lot of trouble folding in this spot because a) I'm just so crazy! b) I don't rep anything and c) He really can't decide what level I'm on. FWIW, against most avg./above avg regulars, I will almost never bluff here.

Once I notice a tendency for my opponent to fold when I don't rep anything, then yes I will start bluffing more often in these kind of spots.

Hey Gman, it's Burak here. This is a spot I take this line as a bluff at that point of the game if I built a solid image. You can't say that you're not repping anything, there are tons of hands you can have here (55s, 45, J5, T5 and a reasonable amount of flushes that you decided to check back on the turn) You haven't repped a narrow range before (or maybe you did on the A high river with the overbet but I can't call that narrow cause you would bet the same with Ax's probably all the time) and this is not an extremely narrow range neither. I don't understand how can you expect a call from a top pair here. My bluffs here have never been called with something worse than a two pair. But probably it's all relative to your crazy and my nitty image.

Great video, one of the best I've seen man keep it up.

Hey Gman, it's Burak here. This is a spot I take this line as a bluff at that point of the game if I built a solid image. You can't say that you're not repping anything, there are tons of hands you can have here (55s, 45, J5, T5 and a reasonable amount of flushes that you decided to check back on the turn) You haven't repped a narrow range before (or maybe you did on the A high river with the overbet but I can't call that narrow cause you would bet the same with Ax's probably all the time) and this is not an extremely narrow range neither. I don't understand how can you expect a call from a top pair here. My bluffs here have never been called with something worse than a two pair. But probably it's all relative to your crazy and my nitty image.

Great video, one of the best I've seen man keep it up.

Hey Burak. I agree I can def rep some hands here, but I mean technically I can almost always rep some hands when the line goes c/b/c, c/c, b/r in single raised pots.

But ya, mostly my opponents will make too strong of assumptions like a) he will never check back a FD on the turn cause he's so aggro b) He just has so few combinations of 2 pair+ hands here when compared to how often I think he's gonna bluff raise this river and c) (which is the worst of them all) QJ is near the top of my range here.

In short, I do a pretty good job of convincing my opponents that I am a lot spazzier than I really am. I think this is a fine spot to bluff w/ a good image.

Time Link to 00:19:35

You go over why you think his call here is bad briefly in the vid, but could you expound on it a lil bit more Gman?

Just seems like raising here on the river when you polarize your range with your betsizing is really only going to be called by hands that chop or better hands that will shove. And I don't know the history between the both of you, so there may be leveling reasons for why raising would be far more optimal, just curious.

You go over why you think his call here is bad briefly in the vid, but could you expound on it a lil bit more Gman?

Just seems like raising here on the river when you polarize your range with your betsizing is really only going to be called by hands that chop or better hands that will shove. And I don't know the history between the both of you, so there may be leveling reasons for why raising would be far more optimal, just curious.

He should know that when I bet 120 into 140 there, I can do that with my entire value range which includes any two pair hands and maybe even a few worse hands. Also because he can only rep a v v narrow range of hands, there is certainly a reasonable chance I may call a raise w/ many of my value hands. Finally, if he doesn't raise there w/ the second nuts, balance becomes an issue as he can't ever raise the river w/ air.