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

Have you ever considered to play in a heavy metal band?

seriously, great video!

Time Link to 00:51:14

What do you think his range is here? My first thought was that the 9 is the worst card to bluff since he can have 9x. He could have mid pp's but I would expect them to fold on the turn.

What do you think his range is here? My first thought was that the 9 is the worst card to bluff since he can have 9x. He could have mid pp's but I would expect them to fold on the turn.

very good question. there are a few things at play here: the most basic is our ranges and the second is the psychology of the spot ('leveling')

so would he check 9x on the flop, and if he did, how many 9x does he actually have?

this is an unusual line with a 9 as the PFR without some special dynamic, so i will assume most of his c/c range is underpairs and ace high.

our range, however, includes a good number of 9x combos. it also includes plenty of air (witness the bluff w/KQo), but we have the value hands to support our bluffs and...

we benefit from the psychology of the spot. it is very tough for him to know how often we bluff here and it also looks incredibly strong at small stakes to overbet shove in spots like this, where players are accustomed to being shown the nuts very, very often. keep in mind still since his range is capped at underpairs, we can shove Tx+ for value here. the value of KTs is the same as A9 or a full house against his range.

further, it looks very strong to shove on such a brick card. while we do have air in our range for reaching the river, most players assume that your bluff frequency will decrease on this particular card.

of course, some are simply call-happy on bricks, so as always, know your opponent!

Have you ever considered to play in a heavy metal band?

seriously, great video!

i have no idea why you ask, but i cannot even play a harmonica.

thanks for the compliment

But if we're going to overbetbluff here a lot, do we also overbet our entire valuerange? (9x,sets, overpairs, TP). Doesn't that make a lot of overbetting?
And do we take this line everytime we have the chance, everytime villain shows weakness with our entire range? Do you expect villain to adjust quickly, or do we just keep going until he adjusts (that is, do we anticipate his calling range getting lighter and bluff less often, and then still, what's less often?

Enjoyed the vid!

I realized the last episode was a primer but this episode was really great and on par with a lot of advanced concepts that CTS discusses in his book.

This is a great series & exactly what I need.
Something I would like is some discussions around how to go about to do work away from the tables. Its is often just said 'do work away from the tables'. It obviously depends on what area one needs work on but I think many people struggle here and dont really know how to go about it or where to start. So some specific examples of how to go about working on some common mistakes from the tables would be good.
For example. Weakness not barelling turns enough. What should one do away from the tables to work on this? Increase understanding of hand/fold equity. Increase understanding of his hand range & combinations vs board & turn card. Know when to fire the third barrell if one fires the second...
I think to go through one or two examples like this and the steps actually taken in a fair bit of detail would be helpful.
Cheers

Time Link to 00:45:10

I just wanted to note that just because AJ is the best hand on the river close to always, that is not enough of a reason to bet it "for value". You have to consider what hands your opponent will actually be calling with.

Audio cuts out on the IPOD version after about 46-47 minutes of this video.

1st thing - looking forward to seeing next episodes

This episode you talk about barreling in this episode, and as far as my limited knowledge from playing NL 100 goes I think it's one of the biggest leaks from regulars - that is mindless barreling an aware opponent. I've made a number of calldowns with A high / 2nd pair type hands when I simply thought that frequency of opponent Cbets with his range is to high for him to have a strong range on the river.
A lot of people are double barreling turn when board doesn't change and there aren't many 2nd pair or weak draws in their opponents range and then fire the river on Q+ and get often looked up if their opponent thinks.
Other thing is that some people also don't think and click call

Also holding back aggression on later streets is also something natural in my understanding since after calling each bet our opponent should have stronger range. And I hadn't really see any regular with growing AFq from street to street.

Awesome video again terp, can't wait for more.

With regards to working on what to do on turn and river cards away from the table I assume that the best way is to just go through your database looking at different flop textures and deciding on the best course of action on different types of turns and constructing some sort of game tree right?

1st thing - looking forward to seeing next episodes

This episode you talk about barreling in this episode, and as far as my limited knowledge from playing NL 100 goes I think it's one of the biggest leaks from regulars - that is mindless barreling an aware opponent. I've made a number of calldowns with A high / 2nd pair type hands when I simply thought that frequency of opponent Cbets with his range is to high for him to have a strong range on the river.
A lot of people are double barreling turn when board doesn't change and there aren't many 2nd pair or weak draws in their opponents range and then fire the river on Q+ and get often looked up if their opponent thinks.
Other thing is that some people also don't think and click call

Also holding back aggression on later streets is also something natural in my understanding since after calling each bet our opponent should have stronger range. And I hadn't really see any regular with growing AFq from street to street.

As a default, at 50NL and below, if I read that someone "has a pair" I won't try and take him off it unless I get help from board to represent a straight or flush. However, if I read that a guy has a pair and then see him tank & fold in a really nitty spot/easy call spot I will definitely note it and start looking for spots where I can push him around.

At 100NL+ I start considering some two-barrel opportunities more as default plays if I suspect someone is a regfish/TAG player. Even there though, the biggest leak most people have is calling too much and so planning a strategy that is dominated by nonSD winnings is probably a fairly decent sized leak.

As a default, at 50NL and below, if I read that someone "has a pair" I won't try and take him off it unless I get help from board to represent a straight or flush. However, if I read that a guy has a pair and then see him tank & fold in a really nitty spot/easy call spot I will definitely note it and start looking for spots where I can push him around.

Yeah but it's SSNL and terp uses NL 200 hand histories so we operate in different environment. But of course learning to spot weak-tight players from smaller stakes is a good thing

At 100NL+ I start considering some two-barrel opportunities more as default plays if I suspect someone is a regfish/TAG player. Even there though, the biggest leak most people have is calling too much and so planning a strategy that is dominated by nonSD winnings is probably a fairly decent sized leak.

You are right but if a guy has cbet of 90/80/66 on flop / turn / river and his CO raise first is 35% if I call from BB with 99 and board comes T64tt and guy barrels this, turn K and river T when flush miss I often just don't believe him based on frequency alone. And it's not about "calling too much" just calling with decent bluff catcher when our opponent is betting each street with his air, and doesn't have enough value hands to balance that.

nice

k

nice

i think in A9 hand your range estimation for villain is inaccurate. some self-confirmation bias. he ck/calls a flop 3way on j54r. he certainly has a lot more combos of JX in his range that you have assigned to him. betting that turn card is going to require a mandatory 3rd barrel a lot of the time and this seems like spew on this type of board. there are def. much more profitable spots to 3xbarrel. we dont evne have any bd equity.

whoever starts doing this will find themsleves scratching their hand when they get to the river wondering how often villain has to fold all non-jx parts of his range to make his bluff profitable. seems like a compounded mistake that can be avoided if we just dont bet the turn.

I think this has the potential to be one of those pantheon threads that draw people to DC because guys like me point it out to people and say "Watch this, try it, watch it again, try it again, and eventually you'll get it."

I would also offer a suggestion. Sometime after the series say a month down the road if they're asking for some standalone videos, a followup to this series that is nothing but hand histories like at the end of this episode would be excellent.

As a default, at 50NL and below, if I read that someone "has a pair" I won't try and take him off it unless I get help from board to represent a straight or flush. However, if I read that a guy has a pair and then see him tank & fold in a really nitty spot/easy call spot I will definitely note it and start looking for spots where I can push him around.

this is a good use of observation reads. keep in mind our observations (as both the aggressor and the non-aggressor!) tend to be biased in non-sd pots. a very good player and friend suggested to me that players likely overestimate our bluff frequency when they fold rather than SD. as well, when we give up and see a pair of some kind, it is very easy to lull ourselves with "he wouldn't have folded anyway." the best advice i can give, other than to see a million hands and keep track of relative hand strength they seem to require, is look for low fold to cbet combined with relatively low WTSD to just obliterate people on the turn and river.

At 100NL+ I start considering some two-barrel opportunities more as default plays if I suspect someone is a regfish/TAG player. Even there though, the biggest leak most people have is calling too much and so planning a strategy that is dominated by nonSD winnings is probably a fairly decent sized leak.

agree, do not plan to make money built around this strat but do take advantage of the opportunities that arise

I just wanted to note that just because AJ is the best hand on the river close to always, that is not enough of a reason to bet it "for value". You have to consider what hands your opponent will actually be calling with.

good point!

if you can conclude your hand is virtually 100% (or some frequency nearing this) you can practically assume as given your opponent will c/r bluff or call enough that you can bet, especially given this line and board - as in, if we can't give reads on our opponent, it means we have so little history that they are not going to take a super tricky line w/ better than AJ.

i could go a lot more into this, but in general, you make a good pt and i should have put some more discussion in the video as above rather than brushing it off.

Awesome video again terp, can't wait for more.

With regards to working on what to do on turn and river cards away from the table I assume that the best way is to just go through your database looking at different flop textures and deciding on the best course of action on different types of turns and constructing some sort of game tree right?

yup, good idea. look at spots where you gave up on the turn or river. in spots where you gave up on teh turn, work on breaking down the turn cards:

what percentage are bricks? semi-wet? wet? pure scare cards? etc

develop turn river plans for all classes!

i think in A9 hand your range estimation for villain is inaccurate. some self-confirmation bias. he ck/calls a flop 3way on j54r. he certainly has a lot more combos of JX in his range that you have assigned to him. betting that turn card is going to require a mandatory 3rd barrel a lot of the time and this seems like spew on this type of board. there are def. much more profitable spots to 3xbarrel. we dont evne have any bd equity.

whoever starts doing this will find themsleves scratching their hand when they get to the river wondering how often villain has to fold all non-jx parts of his range to make his bluff profitable. seems like a compounded mistake that can be avoided if we just dont bet the turn.

i appreciate your response, but i respectfully continue to disagree. i do not expect a tight/nitty player to have many Jx combos. i believe i've named the overwhelmingly most likely ones in the video.

I think this has the potential to be one of those pantheon threads that draw people to DC because guys like me point it out to people and say "Watch this, try it, watch it again, try it again, and eventually you'll get it."

I would also offer a suggestion. Sometime after the series say a month down the road if they're asking for some standalone videos, a followup to this series that is nothing but hand histories like at the end of this episode would be excellent.

thank you. i realize the value of hand histories and will include more in future episodes.

...look for low fold to cbet combined with relatively low WTSD to just obliterate people on the turn and river.

This is great advice for those that aren't doing it yet. I have street-by-street stats on my HUD popup (I don't really have visible HUD stats anymore, I just use popups for each street and overall game - see Grindcore Ep 1.). I would caution that you still need to apply some hand-reading to these opponents - sometimes they don't have a "middling weak/foldable" portion of their range.

good point!

if you can conclude your hand is virtually 100% (or some frequency nearing this) you can practically assume as given your opponent will c/r bluff or call enough that you can bet, especially given this line and board - as in, if we can't give reads on our opponent, it means we have so little history that they are not going to take a super tricky line w/ better than AJ.

i could go a lot more into this, but in general, you make a good pt and i should have put some more discussion in the video as above rather than brushing it off.

I agree. When you are able to read that you have the best hand with near 100% certainty villain can't spaz if you check back or close the action.

i think in A9 hand your range estimation for villain is inaccurate. some self-confirmation bias. he ck/calls a flop 3way on j54r. he certainly has a lot more combos of JX in his range that you have assigned to him. betting that turn card is going to require a mandatory 3rd barrel a lot of the time and this seems like spew on this type of board. there are def. much more profitable spots to 3xbarrel. we dont evne have any bd equity.

whoever starts doing this will find themsleves scratching their hand when they get to the river wondering how often villain has to fold all non-jx parts of his range to make his bluff profitable. seems like a compounded mistake that can be avoided if we just dont bet the turn.

arghh. USE TIMESTAMPS. (please)

Solid video + thread

Great stuff

Time Link to 00:45:47

Hey, I'm a little late to the party but I have a question regarding your river analysis of this hand. Rather, my question is related to the read you provide for this player.

When I see someone check behind rather than value bet, I automatically assume he plays on the passive/cautious or maybe even scared side. The read I would have personally made here is "does not value bet strong holdings on river. River bets are probably very strong hands (ie. 2 pair or better"). Am I wrong to assume this?

You, on the other hand, made an interesting comment about how his river bets are likely to be bluffs. Am I thinking about these situations in the wrong way if I'm assuming the opposite in these spots? Why do you assume his river bets are more like to be bluffs than monsters?

good question

there's a natural relationship between valuebets and bluffs. if we shrink the percentage of times someone bets a value range, the percentage of bets that are bluffs climbs. he could of course also not bluff often, but more often the first read (the one you describe) implies the second read (the one i have just described).

good question

there's a natural relationship between valuebets and bluffs. if we shrink the percentage of times someone bets a value range, the percentage of bets that are bluffs climbs. he could of course also not bluff often, but more often the first read (the one you describe) implies the second read (the one i have just described).

Thanks man. That sounds logical, I'll keep it in mind next time I spot this kind of read.

By the way, for someone who responds to messages so promptly I'm surprised you don't have 1K posts over 3.5 years yet!

Keep up the great vids and ideas!

haha, don't hold to me this pace! and thanks for the compliment - i may have something new soon but i'm still working it out with krantz.

haha, don't hold to me this pace! and thanks for the compliment - i may have something new soon but i'm still working it out with krantz.

haha! See, I'm always doing the math. That's why I have high hopes for this poker schtick.