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

congrats fender on your ascension to $5/10. well done.

Super cool seriesss to see some guy moving up trough the limits like Fender does. You guys make for some great content and eventho I am at the microstakes I think I have learned a bit from this video.
Like the explanation about playing your hand according to the villian you are playing. And the outlevel explanation of a hand vs the most logic explanation. Didn't watch it all, 1 hour and 17 minutes is a bit too long for my concentration haha

One thing tho: it's not "the end", its The EEND, which means "the duck". It's a dutch word
So, i would say, ask "the eend' if he is willing to join DC, it's full of ducks here

One thing tho: it's not "the end", its The EEND, which means "the duck". It's a dutch word
So, i would say, ask "the eend' if he is willing to join DC, it's full of ducks here

Yes, but its pronounced ''the ain't''

Yes, but its pronounced ''the ain't''

Although his nickname on a dutch poker forum is actually The End
So The End can't be too wrong

haha this is probably the most worthless discussion ever, i like it tho

You both agreed that you should start leading flops against the_Eend because he did not seem to be c-betting many flops.

It sounds logical that you don't want to allow him to keep the pot small, but leading flops does not really seem like an actual adjustment; surely your leading the flop happens before he can check back. In other words, there is no difference between leading flops against an opponent who doesn't c-bet very often and doing the same against a player who c-bets a lot. However, if your opponent c-bets a lot you seem to prefer the alternative of checking all flops. This means that in that case you believe checking to be more profitable than leading, which implies you believe playing against someone who c-bets a lot is more profitable than playing against someone who doesn't. Conclusion: cbetting a lot against you is a mistake. Is that right?

If you think it (the conclusion) is wrong, then leading flops against a player who checks back a lot doesn't seem correct. Adjusting your check/call and check/raise ranges and starting to overbet lead the turn (assuming he is checking back medium strength hands and air, and not strong hands and/or draws) sounds a lot better.

Looking forward to hear your thoughts

"It sounds logical that you don't want to allow him to keep the pot small, but leading flops does not really seem like an actual adjustment"

Of course leading is an actual adjustment. He's trying to pot control with a ton of hands I'd usually get value from by checking and calling. This includes some semi-strong drawing hands as well as lots of pairs. This puts more pressure on him in general and is a very good adjustment to his lack of cbets. Just call me Donkey Kong vs. a guy that doesn't cbet a lot b/c I'M THROWING BARRELS AT BITCHES ALL DAY!

"there is no difference between leading flops against an opponent who doesn't c-bet very often and doing the same against a player who c-bets a lot"

That's ridiculous! VS. someone who doesn't cbet a lot see the first paragraph, VS. someone who does cbet a lot if we start donking a ton we may miss a ton of value from his air hands (unless we are donking air ourselves in which case that's great). You also have to think about how someone is going to respond to your play, there's no rigid A = B so THAT'S GAME BOYS. They might raise every donk or fold to every donk. Everyone's different.

"Conclusion: cbetting a lot against you is a mistake. Is that right?"

Cbetting a lot against any competent non-robotic player is going to be a mistake. How it manifests itself in the current state of the game is what's important. I think you're trying to define this whole situation in absolute terms, when it's more of an ocean than a blacktop if you know what I'm sprayin'. I'm going to adjust to whatever you're doing, whether it's cbetting a little or a lot.

"Adjusting your check/call and check/raise ranges and starting to overbet lead the turn (assuming he is checking back medium strength hands and air, and not strong hands and/or draws) sounds a lot better."

Again this depends on what I'm trying to accomplish. When I flop TOP TOP with AQ and I'd normally c/r someone that cbets a lot. OF COURSE I want to lead vs. a player who doesn't so they have to float with their pairs and gutshots and make difficult decisions on later streets, they can't get away with the 2 street poker they want to play. If I had air myself and he didn't cbet a lot, I still like donking out a ton because it gives me way more flexibility and balances my range overall since I'm going to be donking a lot vs. a player that doesn't cbet a lot. There's nothing in the books that says I can't lead the flop and overbet the turn anyway.

Conclusion: Be water my friend.

Heh, I'm a little afraid this will turn into a huge debate with the both of us being convinced we're right and telling the other person where he's wrong etc. I would have liked that if I was trolling, but this is pretty interesting, so let me try to sort of do this step by step.

- Let's say there are two the_Eend's: one that cbets relatively infrequently, and one that c-bets quite often (a 'normal' amount). You said (and Krantz agreed with you) that you should start leading against the first one, whereas against the second one you should be checking (your default strategy)

- My point is that leading flops has the exact same expected value against either one of them -- his cbetting percentage is not a factor.

- You seem to believe that checking flops is more profitable than leading flops against the_Eend number 2. This implies that it's more profitable to play against #2.

- Therefore, the c-betting strategy of the_Eend #1 (the actual one in the video) is superior.

Do you agree so far?

I would much rather play against the duck #2

c-betting a lot can be a mistake. Versus players who c-bet too much check-calling and check-raising often has a higher EV than leading.

It's only superior if I don't adjust and start leading And no I don't think it will turn into any kind of crazy debate like you're thinking because my avatar will simply eat yours and that will end it all hahahaha. Honestly though, for your example to be true I have to be non-thinking and unable to adjust. That's not very likely.

I think ClicktyClick makes an interesting point, and think both parties are right. Wrt c-betting strategy there are basically three options you can:

- c-bet too much
- a 'good' amount
- too little

If you bet too much it obviously doesn't make a lot of sense to donkbet very often, since you should give people to option of making the mistake of betting too much. If people bet not often enough leading is certainly correct. For example; if someone checks back almost every single time it would be the same from an information point of view to image that you are in position and that he checks. If someone checks and you are in position you certainly want to bet some parts of your range. So if you know that someone is going to check back, you know that leading should be a big part of your strategy.

If someone cbets a 'good' amount, it probably doesn't really matter if you lead or not. That's why he's playing a good c-betting strategy; he can deal with you leading and checking. But no-one plays truly good, almost everybody c-bets a little bit too much or a little bit too little. But no-one knows what the best frequencies are, so you have to make a guess. If you think that someone is simply not c-betting enough, it's time to start leading.

clickty - i have read your OP a cpl times and i'm still not sure what you're asking - everything you are saying is obviously correct but doesn't run counter to what we are talking about. a better question you might ask is - the_Eend opens in late position, hero flats in one of the blinds. the_Eend does not c-bet often, maybe around 1/2 the time. the flop is Q27r, what parts of your range should you check and which should you lead? why? what about on 678hh?

Time Link to 00:32:57

gotta bet the river, him showing up with KT is an anamoly

- My point is that leading flops has the exact same expected value against either one of them -- his cbetting percentage is not a factor.

the relative ev of leading is most definitely influenced by his cbet % because your comparing the ev of leading vs the overall ev of chk/raising. you can only realize the ev of a chk/raise when he bets. so how often he bets should play a major role in your decision making process.

- My point is that leading flops has the exact same expected value against either one of them -- his cbetting percentage is not a factor.

This is true in an absolute sense if the only difference between players 1+2 is their c-bet % (a highly improbably assumption fwiw). It also doesn't tell the entire story in a relative sense (ie how much EV are we losing with our default strategy against player 1 when we have to ck through TPTK?), so I think you're looking at the EV from the wrong decision point or angle.

Time Link to 01:14:24

i don't understand the difference in the c/r of stillTrippin and RunItTrim??
why are we folding to stillTrippin?

because he is tighter and thus has fewer semi-bluff combos and very rarely pure bluffs OOP??

Time Link to 01:05:12

"Balance the information you are giving," - a nugget of golden advice.

Time Link to 01:15:14

Table 4 - you say that 77 and an 8x are the same thing, but if he thinks your UTG value range is mostly overpairs/toppair type hands then 8x typically has 5 outs whereas 77 typically has 2.

77 and 8x are only "the same" if you range is dominated by 6 out draws (typically two overcards) AND will slow down on the turn/river.

@Krantz:

clickty - i have read your OP a cpl times and i'm still not sure what you're asking - everything you are saying is obviously correct but doesn't run counter to what we are talking about.

What I wanted to know is this:

I would much rather play against the duck #2

... which I think is a little surprising, because your default strategy is checking. You only start leading when you have seen him check back a lot; before that you more or less expect him to mistakenly c-bet too much, even though you consider him a good player.

a better question you might ask is - the_Eend opens in late position, hero flats in one of the blinds. the_Eend does not c-bet often, maybe around 1/2 the time. the flop is Q27r, what parts of your range should you check and which should you lead? why? what about on 678hh?

That's a really tough question, because you sort of have to decide what is worse: letting him check back and control the size of the pot, or giving him certain information about your hand by leading parts of your range and checking the rest. How do you decide? Do you just try something out?

@ Shreddes and n0whereman:

I realise that, but it's irrelevant in that context. I just meant to say that because of that point, it's strange to consider leading an adjustment to someone checking back a lot. It's the other way around: checking is an adjustment to someone c-betting too much.

@FenderJaguar:

He doesn't (or shouldn't) really mind if you start leading.

It's the other way around: checking is an adjustment to someone c-betting too much.

I don't see how making this distinction matters at all for anything, but I disagree with it anyway because I wouldn't consider it an adjustment anymore if it's your default strategy. The decision to make the default checking is an adjustment, but I'm pretty sure 99% of decent or better MSNL+ regs made that adjustment a long time ago. If you see a rando TAG at MSNL+, are they more likely to cbet too frequently or not frequently enough?

Table 4 - you say that 77 and an 8x are the same thing, but if he thinks your UTG value range is mostly overpairs/toppair type hands then 8x typically has 5 outs whereas 77 typically has 2.

77 and 8x are only "the same" if you range is dominated by 6 out draws (typically two overcards) AND will slow down on the turn/river.

Just saying essentially and not literally since he's floating with a 1 pair hand. Obviously what you say is true and should be very common knowledge so no reason to point it out specifically in the context of the situation.

@ClickityClack:

Of course he's going to mind because he has to play more 3 street pots. That's the whole point of the adjustment.

You're trying to run up an icy hill in rubber slippers

I don't see how making this distinction matters at all for anything, but I disagree with it anyway because I wouldn't consider it an adjustment anymore if it's your default strategy. The decision to make the default checking is an adjustment, but I'm pretty sure 99% of decent or better MSNL+ regs made that adjustment a long time ago. If you see a rando TAG at MSNL+, are they more likely to cbet too frequently or not frequently enough?

Well if you assume that leading is correct against someone who checks back a lot, then it's really really weird to see that everyone is almost always checking to the preflop raiser, because that means that everyone is expecting everybody else to (incorrectly) c-bet too much. That's what struck me.

cool video, good and funny talk --> give me more of that !

@ClickityClack:

Of course he's going to mind because he has to play more 3 street pots. That's the whole point of the adjustment.

Yes I understand that (I'm inclined to think you'd be aware of that if you read my posts a little more carefully), but if leading was so great than you wouldn't start out by checking. In general it's not a bad situation for him at all to play against someone who is leading flops.

Also, it's not even close to as simple as you're saying, because you're giving him an information advantage by leading some % and checking the rest. It's awfully complicated to assess the profitability of such a strategy.

In case it's still unclear what I'm getting at: you basically said (and Krantz agreed) "I should start leading against the_Eend so he can't check back", which I thought was a completely insane statement considering how much stuff that implies about general c-betting strategy, and that it makes such a hugely complex issue sound completely trivial

You're trying to run up an icy hill in rubber slippers

What do you mean by that?

Well if you assume that leading is correct against someone who checks back a lot, then it's really really weird to see that everyone is almost always checking to the preflop raiser, because that means that everyone is expecting everybody else to (incorrectly) c-bet too much. That's what struck me.

A lot of people are c-betting way way too much. Some compensate by bluffing more turns and rivers. But that is not really fix.

"Yes I understand that (I'm inclined to think you'd be aware of that if you read my posts a little more carefully), but if leading was so great than you wouldn't start out by checking. In general it's not a bad situation for him at all to play against someone who is leading flops."

It doesn't sound like you do understand that Even after reading all of your posts. Of course I'd start out by checking because MOST PEOPLE by far cbet too much and more importantly on certain boards. YOU are assuming that I check all the time on all boards and leading is JUST an adjustment here because he's checking back a lot (whether or not you agree bla bla) That's not the case at all. I lead a lot, especially on boards where the average reg or general public have low cbetting tendencies.

"Also, it's not even close to as simple as you're saying, because you're giving him an information advantage by leading some % and checking the rest. It's awfully complicated to assess the profitability of such a strategy."

It is indeeeeeeeeeed forrrr suuuuuurre as simple as I'm saying. I'm not giving him ANY informational advantage until he finds out WHAT I'm leading with. He can make general assumptions but he won't really know. I can always balance what he sees if I'm not balancing already. It's not very complicated at all

"In case it's still unclear what I'm getting at: you basically said (and Krantz agreed) "I should start leading against the_Eend so he can't check back", which I thought was a completely insane statement considering how much stuff that implies about general c-betting strategy, and that it makes such a hugely complex issue sound completely trivial"

It's a pretty easy adjustment. What else can be said?

I believe I'm spent on this topic

JARTS ANYONE!?

Well if you assume that leading is correct against someone who checks back a lot, then it's really really weird to see that everyone is almost always checking to the preflop raiser, because that means that everyone is expecting everybody else to (incorrectly) c-bet too much. That's what struck me.

1) It's not incorrect if the opponents don't adjust to it.
2) People don't play perfectly.
3) EVERYONE cbets a ton. This is actually a striking revelation?

A lot of people are c-betting way way too much. Some compensate by bluffing more turns and rivers. But that is not really fix.

Yeah I guess, it's weird though because everyone is also checking to the preflop raiser a lot, which seems to indicate that they know that their opponents are making the mistake of c-betting too much (otherwise they would be leading), yet most of them keep c-betting too much themselves.

Yeah I guess, it's weird though because everyone is also checking to the preflop raiser a lot, which seems to indicate that they know that their opponents are making the mistake of c-betting too much (otherwise they would be leading), yet most of them keep c-betting too much themselves.

we (nlhe players) haven't figured everything out yet! sounds like a good place to explore an edge.

"Also, it's not even close to as simple as you're saying, because you're giving him an information advantage by leading some % and checking the rest. It's awfully complicated to assess the profitability of such a strategy."

It is indeeeeeeeeeed forrrr suuuuuurre as simple as I'm saying. I'm not giving him ANY informational advantage until he finds out WHAT I'm leading with. He can make general assumptions but he won't really know. I can always balance what he sees if I'm not balancing already. It's not very complicated at all

That is a pretty superficial argument. You are leading some of the time and checking some of the time -- even if he doesn't know what your range for either of them is, or if you're randomizing to an extent, it still gives him an informational advantage. You can try to outlevel him all you want, but unless you take the same action with every hand, a player with position on you will have an informational advantage over you (that's why being in position is an advantage). No, he won't know exactly what your hand is. That doesn't mean that he doesn't have an informational advantage. What this advantage is worth or how it will benefit him in practice is not so easy to say, but denying its existence crazy. You are basically saying that being in position on the flop is not advantageous.

[quote] 1) It's not incorrect if the opponents don't adjust to it. [/quote]

This is definitely not true in general -- why do you think it's true in this specific case? (I'm not arguing with you, I'd just like you to elaborate)[/quote]

[quote] 3) EVERYONE cbets a ton. This is actually a striking revelation? [/quote]

No, but thinking it is bad but still expecting a good player to make such a considerable strategic mistake seemed odd.

This is definitely not true in general -- why do you think it's true in this specific case? (I'm not arguing with you, I'd just like you to elaborate)

Again this is semantics (ie your definition of incorrect) - my point is that we shouldn't stop c-betting a lot if our opponents aren't doing anything to counter it.

No, but thinking it is bad but still expecting a good player to make such a considerable strategic mistake seemed odd.

It's not necessarily a considerable strategic mistake.

Again this is semantics (ie your definition of incorrect) - my point is that we shouldn't stop c-betting a lot if our opponents aren't doing anything to counter it.

Ok, but it might not be the most profitable strategy even if our opponents are not necessarily trying to counter it (calling an utg raise with 72o or 63o is bad whether our opponents change their strategy or not). Why do you think people generally play badly against the strategy of c-betting a lot?

It's not necessarily a considerable strategic mistake.

No, but if you say that leading against people who check back a lot is good, then you are implying that not checking back a lot is a strategic mistake against you (since you only start leading if checking is less profitable)

is this ClicktyClick guy forreal?



Note to Krantz/Fend: why not put this series on weekly how it was last season? It is definitely by far my most looked forward to series on the site, and you have been progressing amazingly well. I def vote for putting it back on weekly and NEVER ending either, just keep going and going and going... hell, at 13 episodes this is already the longest running series on DC is it not? it may be not, but either way, LETS SET RECORDS!

gl fend

Time Link to 01:14:40

On table 4 on the 962ss flop, why should we either fold or get it in now if we get checkraised? If we decide to go with the hand, do we just shove or 3bet smaller?

Man...I was starting to go through withdrawals and twitching from no NTMTO videos. Thanks for this

Note to Krantz/Fend: why not put this series on weekly how it was last season? It is definitely by far my most looked forward to series on the site, and you have been progressing amazingly well. I def vote for putting it back on weekly and NEVER ending either, just keep going and going and going... hell, at 13 episodes this is already the longest running series on DC is it not? it may be not, but either way, LETS SET RECORDS!

gl fend

I have so much going on that I just don't have time right now to do 1 vid/week... :-/

Good job

very nice vid guys

Do you have to have table scanner for the multitabling stat to work properly?

Time Link to 00:24:41

Did you say Australians? I think you mean Italians. Ale3fg is Italian, as are all the 5/10 guys on FTP who play exactly as you described: belvolo, giongler, jackbhoff, etc.

def mean australians. there may be a crew of italians that do the same thing but there's def a group of aussies doing it as well (no names atm b/c I'm on a busto comp). who knows maybe it's the same people multi-countrying! lolol. ale is italian!? swear I thought he was aus.

Do you have to have table scanner for the multitabling stat to work properly?

yep. money grabs ftw lol.

lets seee this you guys crush this 5/10 game

nice

Ale is def Italian (or at least, his location says Italy). And the guys who play just like him (limp-reraising small blind, 3betting tiny, cbetting 1/3 pot) are all Italians too.

Bizarrely there a couple of New Zealanders who play similarly in the 5/10 games but I can't think of any Aussies...would be interested to see names.

Great vid btw!

hi

i have a guestion about taht KQ hand @ around 40:00 where fender opend pre cbet KT3 bet an offsuit 8 on the turn and bet 300 into 422 von the river with the second nuts... so my question is IRockhoes jams all in we have to call 490 more... but are we even callen that? it seems to me that i find myself often in those spots where i know i have to bet but i just have no idea what to do if i get raised

any thoughts on that mr. krantz?^^

edit: also why do you muck ATs pre @ 55:45? i think im almost never folding there... can your explain?

Time Link to 00:40:14

In before KRANTZ says "use timestamps".


For the KQ hand where we river the 2nd nuts we represent any flush and potentially air/balls or weak hands we are turning into a bluff. Because we are putting in a lot of dead-money already (we fold our bluffs if raised) you have to consider carefully what your opponent is capable of:

- What hands are the bottom of villains range given all previous action? Does he think that he needs to bluff these hands (instead of calling)? Is he capable of making that bluff-raise?
- And also, can he value-raise worse?

In this spot, it's pretty unlikely that he would be holding or jamming a naked J hand; he would probably just call. He might, however, turn a weak TP type hand into a bluff if he feels that you can bet-fold a small flush. I would say though, in the spirit of the LHE series, that you "shouldn't" fold here because you have the top of your range and a reasonable bluff range he might be trying to take you off.

Theoretically, you should be jamming or checking this river. Give villain a range and work out how to maximise the value for your whole range - you will find that as long as your range is stronger and contains some bluffs that you can jam a wide value range and also a ton of airball/bluff hands.

In before KRANTZ says "use timestamps".


For the KQ hand where we river the 2nd nuts we represent any flush and potentially air/balls or weak hands we are turning into a bluff. Because we are putting in a lot of dead-money already (we fold our bluffs if raised) you have to consider carefully what your opponent is capable of:

- What hands are the bottom of villains range given all previous action? Does he think that he needs to bluff these hands (instead of calling)? Is he capable of making that bluff-raise?
- And also, can he value-raise worse?

In this spot, it's pretty unlikely that he would be holding or jamming a naked J hand; he would probably just call. He might, however, turn a weak TP type hand into a bluff if he feels that you can bet-fold a small flush. I would say though, in the spirit of the LHE series, that you "shouldn't" fold here because you have the top of your range and a reasonable bluff range he might be trying to take you off.

Theoretically, you should be jamming or checking this river. Give villain a range and work out how to maximise the value for your whole range - you will find that as long as your range is stronger and contains some bluffs that you can jam a wide value range and also a ton of airball/bluff hands.

nice post - i disagree with the last paragraph though... given flop/turn action jamming or checking just doesn't seem like it can be as profitable against most players as just betting "normally" with a strong range

Time Link to 00:36:52

that analysis is amazing

good vid

Time Link to 00:08:30

sorry, i dont mean to piss on the parade, but fender, ur talking about highstakes poker like its a formality. i mean i looked at ur opr, which i know is inaccurate, but come on son, 80k hands!!!! get a grip and get a grind on before worrying about how to reach rail heaven. LOL. but great series.

Very nice serie!

Im from Sweden and i have noticed that you think scandinavian players are bad? Like you say in some episode i wish he was from Sweden etc..
What do you base this on? I can think of many worse "poker-countries" .

gl!

Very nice serie!

Im from Sweden and i have noticed that you think scandinavian players are bad? Like you say in some episode i wish he was from Sweden etc..
What do you base this on? I can think of many worse "poker-countries" .

gl!

haha i sweden, you guys are just CRAZY

sorry, i dont mean to piss on the parade, but fender, ur talking about highstakes poker like its a formality. i mean i looked at ur opr, which i know is inaccurate, but come on son, 80k hands!!!! get a grip and get a grind on before worrying about how to reach rail heaven. LOL. but great series.

Don't you worry your pretty lil head I'm very realistic in my goals and don't get ahead of myself or take anything for granted. As for my "OPR" I don't even play tournaments yo. (I know you meant PTR and all that obladeeobladaa)

hmm I don´t get the discussion on the 433 flop? So now we´re supposed to think a good player like irockhoes is in there 3betting the flop for info with a hand like 99? If you say this is normal then you can use that strategy on all hands and I don´t remember seeing anyone good here or anywhere else ever do that?

Time Link to 01:08:59

bottom left.....would this be a good spot to check raise considering dry board and he could be cont. w a wide array of hands

Time Link to 00:29:28

This idea alone made this vid worth watching. New series idea: "A Little Somethin' Somethin', with KRANTZ."

Oh, and the poker stuff was pretty cool too.

Time Link to 00:25:16

Why do you choose to fold ATos UTG, but raise KJs?

Both tables were 5-handed at the time, I would personally raise both 4bb, just wondering why you value KJs higher than ATos...

I have thought of a couple of reasons:

1 - You value your suited cards, for the extra outs and it also gives you reason to stay in the hand as long as the flop contain one of your suited cards so you have at least back door outs.

2 - You value them as suited one-gappers and you generally hit any broadways... Plus, unlike AT, you are much more likely to hit an OESD etc. to stay in the pot.

I dunno, maybe you didn't even realise, maybe I view it different because I play smaller stakes. But, that said, I think both hands have their merits, but really the strengths and weaknesses of both hands I think is around the same.

Lol I like at ~35:00 with the AQ hand how Fender says on the flop that the board is dry texture (Q97ss), then on the river he justifies checking because he thinks his opponent has a ton of missed draws....... conflicting logic ......... not to mention his opponent never has just a draw (90% pair+draw). I dont think he realized he was contradicting himself at different points in the hand which can be a big mistake in the future.