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

Time Link to 00:12:44

Not to sure about the river bet. I think i like a shove better, it looks more fishy more of the time. I think a small river bet might even look more like a "scared" Ax at this level, more than a bluff. Plus you just CR him and fired turn and river, and now you bet all streets. He might start thinking you are running him over. I don't think you can really rep anything on the river that doesn't beat his likely one pair. But I would argue that hes hand is one pair, and he probably thinks you know that. I think people are almost just as likely to call 38 as they are the rest of your stack. People at these levels get very very suspicious with a line like bet bet shove when you can really only rep a flush, at least in their mind. What do you think?

Not to sure about the river bet. I think i like a shove better, it looks more fishy more of the time. I think a small river bet might even look more like a "scared" Ax at this level, more than a bluff. Plus you just CR him and fired turn and river, and now you bet all streets. He might start thinking you are running him over. I don't think you can really rep anything on the river that doesn't beat his likely one pair. But I would argue that hes hand is one pair, and he probably thinks you know that. I think people are almost just as likely to call 38 as they are the rest of your stack. People at these levels get very very suspicious with a line like bet bet shove when you can really only rep a flush, at least in their mind. What do you think?

yea i think what i said in the vid still applies. vs a tough player who can hand read well, ship def is better than smaller bet. his read was that his opponent would view that river 4 straight as an even scarier card. if he's viewing that card as a bad card for KK or whatever he has, then he's probably not the type who is going to be on the level of polarizing our range when we shove. In order to get paid off here by anyone, you have to give them an "excuse" to call. Vs tougher opponents, I feel like shoving is more balanced, reps a more polarized range, and therefore their "excuse" is we might not be capable of value shoving Ax here therefore they click call. Vs less advanced players, you have to give them a different excuse...and many times that excuse is the more obvious one... "pot odds".

It just comes down to what your read is on the player and how you think he will view it.

WoT

I got to thinking about this hand later on, and I thought a really tiny river bet is best, pretty much what you said. Like really small, who folds a pair when your getting 4-1

Time Link to 00:01:47

If we think he is super polarized in his 3bing. Is that a good reason to start 4bing him? Or is flatting more 3bs better?

Time Link to 00:24:13

You said here that he is only going to call 1 street w/ 99.

How often do you bet super small (like $8) into a 4b pot like this? At 50nl I think I got shoved on almost every time I bet that size into a 4b pot. I wouldnt worry about balancing it w/ bluffs at this level. I have about 60k hands at 50nl and only maybe 10-15 times have I ran into this situation. Just bet something like $8 when ever you plan to call a shove and be prepaired to pick your jaw up off the ground when you see their hands.

I mean it is so bad that even in this situation Im b/calling AJ+ if the flop was T84

Time Link to 00:24:39

I am a bit curious about the "just getting one street of value" discussion. I can definitely get on board with the fact that we are often just giving 2 outers a chance at our stack. I just wonder how often we get bluffed at with total air on the turn or get 99 to fold on the flop when he beats absolutely nothing in our 4 bet value range.

If we think he is super polarized in his 3bing. Is that a good reason to start 4bing him? Or is flatting more 3bs better?

sure 4b is a good adjustment, but A4s is too good of a hand to do it with, i think.

You said here that he is only going to call 1 street w/ 99.

How often do you bet super small (like $8) into a 4b pot like this? At 50nl I think I got shoved on almost every time I bet that size into a 4b pot. I wouldnt worry about balancing it w/ bluffs at this level. I have about 60k hands at 50nl and only maybe 10-15 times have I ran into this situation. Just bet something like $8 when ever you plan to call a shove and be prepaired to pick your jaw up off the ground when you see their hands.

I mean it is so bad that even in this situation Im b/calling AJ+ if the flop was T84

cbetting 1/3 pot is my standard in 4b pots. if i think it's going to cause them to react some undesirable way though, i won't do it...but IME it seems to be the best strat and its something i've done a lot in videos.

I dont necessarily always agree there's 1 street of value vs 99, but thats what oneillsurfer said... i trust his read since he played the dude.

I am a bit curious about the "just getting one street of value" discussion. I can definitely get on board with the fact that we are often just giving 2 outers a chance at our stack. I just wonder how often we get bluffed at with total air on the turn or get 99 to fold on the flop when he beats absolutely nothing in our 4 bet value range.

In order for a check to be good here, villain has to be a maniac and someone who can't read hands. see why?

You say 99 beats nothing in our value range if we bet. I say 99 beats nothing in our value range if we check How does 99 do vs our bluff range in each scenario? How is our range weighted overall?

In order for a check to be good here, villain has to be a maniac and someone who can't read hands. see why?

You say 99 beats nothing in our value range if we bet. I say 99 beats nothing in our value range if we check How does 99 do vs our bluff range in each scenario? How is our range weighted overall?

Of course I see why, but in order for us to get another dollar out of him post flop he has to be a terrible hand reader or at minimum very suspicious/lagfishy. I see your point that 99 does better against our betting range than it does out checking range but I think our range overall will be heavily skewed toward value hands in 4 bet pots (or at least I hope so). And, it seems to be more important how villain perceives the check and what level he is on. I see plenty of opponents who convince themselves the flop check is a "showdown value" type hand that doesn't have an ace and will bomb at least one street to try and fold hero off JJ-KK and sometimes empty the clip.

Of course I see why, but in order for us to get another dollar out of him post flop he has to be a terrible hand reader or at minimum very suspicious/lagfishy. I see your point that 99 does better against our betting range than it does out checking range but I think our range overall will be heavily skewed toward value hands in 4 bet pots (or at least I hope so). And, it seems to be more important how villain perceives the check and what level he is on. I see plenty of opponents who convince themselves the flop check is a "showdown value" type hand that doesn't have an ace and will bomb at least one street to try and fold hero off JJ-KK and sometimes empty the clip.

Anyone who bombs one street when you check is not a good hand reader and i'd put them into the maniac/non-hand reader that I described above. That doesn't even take into consideration flat calling 99 oop to a 4bet in the first place.

Why do you hope our 4bet range should be heavily skewed toward value if people are auto shutting down with worse hands in a spot like this?

Certainly if you play in games with loads of people who call a lot oop to 4bets and recklessly bomb 1 street (and even sometimes bomb 2) it would have to happen at an pretty high frequency for me to want to check behind specifically AQ here. Why could that be?