---

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

Another awesome video. You two make a great combo! I love the format, slow pace, street by street breakdowns, and I hope to see more.

1 thing to comment on- The set over set hand at the 20:30 mark, river bet, When I see these small river bets, to me they just scream reraise me PLEASE, I DARE you. Is it correct to assume that this player type is trying to induce a shove on the river?

Anyway great video, Thank you Inavacuum and Snappievouz

1 thing to comment on- The set over set hand at the 20:30 mark, river bet, When I see these small river bets, to me they just scream reraise me PLEASE, I DARE you. Is it correct to assume that this player type is trying to induce a shove on the river?

It's possible that's what's happening (and in other scenarios it definitely does happen), however here it may just be that he's trying not to lose his customer. If he doesn't make this size of bet he's getting to the point where he has to size it so that he commits the rest of Hero's relative stack.

where is part one plz?

Awesome! I loved the first video. I'm looking forward to watching this one. Definitely loving this format.

where is part one plz?

Here:

http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/3321-Inavacuum-Yin-and-Yang-Part-1

where is part one plz?

Part 1

If you just click on the videos button, you can search for all kinds of videos on this site using various criteria. For this one, you could have searched using Coach = Inavacuum.

ty both

Time Link to 00:33:07

Shove seems spewy here. Surely you can flat, keep in worse flush draws, and bet the turn when he gives up on his bluffs. Can't really see him betting again on the turn. Or, if you really think he is, we can collect another bet and shove the turn?

Shove seems spewy here. Surely you can flat, keep in worse flush draws, and bet the turn when he gives up on his bluffs. Can't really see him betting again on the turn. Or, if you really think he is, we can collect another bet and shove the turn?

I think that would be just fine, you've thought it out well and it may be a better line in a vacuum. The reason I prefer a shove for myself here is that this is a spot I want to be able to get lights calls in the future. For example, the 99 hand in episode 1 took a number of spots where I took a line like this for him to get fed up and make a mistake at the time where it mattered the most. A huge part of my own game is based on image and this line was/is a stylistic preference for me.

Time Link to 00:07:17

What if villain has a draw here-something like xhxh or 67o/A3o can we take the same line and expect him to stab on a blank turn with these as well? What if he has a small pair?

What I'm basically trying to get at, is what part of his range DOESN'T stab the turn after our missed cbet, and how should we respond as a result?

What if villain has a draw here-something like xhxh or 67o/A3o can we take the same line and expect him to stab on a blank turn with these as well? What if he has a small pair?

What I'm basically trying to get at, is what part of his range DOESN'T stab the turn after our missed cbet, and how should we respond as a result?

I think he would bet all of his draws and air, less often weak showdown value but it certainly happens. I think he can stab 100% of his range but is less likely to stab mid-weak showdown value (remembering that we're assuming he's a fish). If he didn't bet the turn I'd be quite unlikely to try and make him fold the river when he often does have showdown value and it becomes a case of "our A high is good or he's not folding".

Time Link to 00:45:46

I'm really enjoying how you two interact in these videos-Inavacuum does an awesome job walking snappievouz through the thinking process and produces multiple "ahh-ha" moments that many of us learning poker players strive for when we reach out to a coach. Very nicely done.

@ 0:45:40

Inavaccum-On this hand in the 3 bet pot with KQ on Axxtt, are there any turns/rivers where you're not continuing your plan for a 3 barrel bluff? I'm not sure I agree with you that most players will raise a heart draw on the flop (at least not the better ones). I've learned that most REG's will fire 1 and done with their bluffs in 3 bet pots on Axx boards, so if others think as I do, they recognize there's little use for a raise with a flush draw on this board, PLUS it doesn't rep much, as I can really never have AK/AA/A9 and rarely 99. So it's obv player dependent, but if we are pegging this player as good enough to fold JJ on the river to a shove, would we also expect him to have flush draws in his range when he calls our cbet? Therefore, should we shut down on a heart?

Does our plan change at all if we improve to a pair? What about a J on the board (the most likely of his BW cards due to card elim.)

Thanks!

in the 3 bet pot with KQ on Axxtt, are there any turns/rivers where you're not continuing your plan for a 3 barrel bluff? I'm not sure I agree with you that most players will raise a heart draw on the flop (at least not the better ones). I've learned that most REG's will fire 1 and done with their bluffs in 3 bet pots on Axx boards, so if others think as I do, they recognize there's little use for a raise with a flush draw on this board, PLUS it doesn't rep much, as I can really never have AK/AA/A9 and rarely 99. So it's obv player dependent, but if we are pegging this player as good enough to fold JJ/QQ/KK on the river to a shove, would we also expect him to have flush draws in his range when he calls our cbet? Therefore, should we shut down on a heart?

Does our plan change at all if we improve to a pair? What about a J on the board (the most likely of his BW cards due to card elim.)

I don't think he will raise all his flush draws on the flop. It's certainly not what he should be doing without a good reason. But people do it, especially at NL50, and as such I think we can remove 1 or 2 combos of FDs when he doesn't. I do not mean to suggest we remove a FD from his range when he doesn't raise the flop. I would continue on a heart not so much because it's a scare card (it's not really, in a 3bet pot) but because it's a good barrel card when we have the K. I also like a river bet on a 4flush (whether we have a flush or not) because that really is scary and as such our own heart draw is more of a bonus than the only reason we do barrel a heart. To answer your original question, Ax would be a pretty bad turn to continue on, I'd be happy to bet a K, Q or J I think for fairly obvious reasons but if you'd like me to go into more detail I can do.

It's nice to see you making videos. Keep it up!

I'd have a question about the 3bet with A4o starting at 52:20. I wonder is shoving against his raise optimal play on flop? Are we trying to make him fold better hands? As you mentioned, would he make this play with strong aces? And would he fold those hands to a shove once he has raised?

If we're not trying to make better hands to fold, would it be more optimal to raise teasingly to somewhere around 24 which would look more like a "click it back" and then snap call if he shoves? I think he would be even more inclined to shove himself with QJ type of hands than to call our shove.

I'd have a question about the 3bet with A4o starting at 52:20. I wonder is shoving against his raise optimal play on flop? Are we trying to make him fold better hands? As you mentioned, would he make this play with strong aces? And would he fold those hands to a shove once he has raised?

If we're not trying to make better hands to fold, would it be more optimal to raise teasingly to somewhere around 24 which would look more like a "click it back" and then snap call if he shoves? I think he would be even more inclined to shove himself with QJ type of hands than to call our shove.

This line is certainly up for debate, to an extent. I can't advocate a fold when I see villain's bet sizing at micro being a bluff close to 100% of the time. Calling is problematic for a number of reasons, mainly because we seed the initiative with no knowledge of how often he is likely to continue a bluff and turn our hand somewhat face up. It's also probably not going to be profitable to call down if the board gets bad for us, yet again we have no idea as to his bluffing frequency. This in theory gives him the green light to push us off our range on certain turn/rivers. This leaves shoving and raising smaller, both of which have merit. I think I would prefer a smaller raise vs someone I had history with and could use it to allow them to level themselves. Vs a more unknown NL50 player who I think is bluffing or at least doing something because he doesn't understand my flop bet sizing I prefer shoving because I think it's the most likely line to induce a mistake from him - he may view a clickback as extremely strong.

Another great video! Something about the way Inavacuum explains these situations that makes them all make sense to me. In just two videos he has improved my hand reading skills.

I hope they continue to let you make this style of video in the future and I hope it's sooner than later in the year.

I loved being part of the serie, and I love all the great responses Tim and I got. Thank you!

Time Link to 00:55:59

Wouldn't clicking it back be better than shoving here? He's never calling with worse if we shove, and if he does call were in bad shape or slightly ahead against a draw. But if we minreraise he may think were full of it and bluff shove something like QJ or JT or maybe even 99,88 etc.

Wouldn't clicking it back be better than shoving here? He's never calling with worse if we shove, and if he does call were in bad shape or slightly ahead against a draw. But if we minreraise he may think were full of it and bluff shove something like QJ or JT or maybe even 99,88 etc.

I do think he will call with worse, or I wouldn't shove. It's something that I see extremely often vs inexperienced micro regs I have no history vs when they make this betsizing on the flop they're folding air/draws or getting it in with a bad range, which is what we want and as evidenced by the hand this plays out (though I expected him to have showdown value and not such a weak holding). Our play isn't perfect from a balance perspective but that is not necessarily the same as making the most money in a given situation. I have gone into more detail in one of my earlier replies, I'd recommend you view that also.

Time Link to 00:11:05

I think him betting again defines his range further. His range on the flop doesn't change from his bet on the turn but I think his betting range on the turn is much more heavily weighted towards 5's and pocket pairs between 22-99.

After calling the turn the river is very polarized vs this type of player and I think a call is mandatory because I think he never bets a 5 or pocketpair for that amount.

I think that the turn is a lot closer then discussed in the video. I think that A LOT of air just checks the turn

I think him betting again defines his range further. His range on the flop doesn't change from his bet on the turn but I think his betting range on the turn is much more heavily weighted towards 5's and pocket pairs between 22-99.

After calling the turn the river is very polarized vs this type of player and I think a call is mandatory because I think he never bets a 5 or pocketpair for that amount.

I think that the turn is a lot closer then discussed in the video. I think that A LOT of air just checks the turn

Good analyis. I think a key point is that something these fish love to do is bet a small amount on he flop (whether it's a donk or not) and define our range based on whether we call or raise this small bet. When we just call (shackled by the SB) he decides he can makes us fold our range on the turn because it must be weak, and this is why I think he's likely to be firing air again on the turn in this instance. I would say under many circumstances the turn play is a lot closer.

Time Link to 00:26:53

I think its over-leading on the average viewer of this video to say this doesn't make sense with an Ace. Weak aces on the flop are SO COMMONLY doing this on the river. Fish love to bet pot with big hands these days. Very misleading data imo.

Sorry to reply a 3rd time with some not so positive comments but, this video so far is so soul-read-your-face.

I'd like to see this format with sent in HH's where the coach in the video DOES NOT KNOW THE RESULTS. I mean from the way you talk during each hand, its so blatantly obvious that you know the result of the hand. Everything is so clear-cut results orientated and I think some of the information is bad for micro stakes players. This gonna turn a lot of players into monkeys and they are gonna spew off several stacks.

Sorry to reply a 3rd time with some not so positive comments but, this video so far is so soul-read-your-face.

I'd like to see this format with sent in HH's where the coach in the video DOES NOT KNOW THE RESULTS. I mean from the way you talk during each hand, its so blatantly obvious that you know the result of the hand. Everything is so clear-cut results orientated and I think some of the information is bad for micro stakes players. This gonna turn a lot of players into monkeys and they are gonna spew off several stacks.

I think i agree and disagree with your comments. After i watched the first episode i played a session and blew a couple of buy ins in spots shown in the video. But the important thing i forget was I had no history/image. These lines only work when you have history or a read on the villain. Once i took this into account ive seen my results improve

Sorry to reply a 3rd time with some not so positive comments but, this video so far is so soul-read-your-face.

I'd like to see this format with sent in HH's where the coach in the video DOES NOT KNOW THE RESULTS. I mean from the way you talk during each hand, its so blatantly obvious that you know the result of the hand. Everything is so clear-cut results orientated and I think some of the information is bad for micro stakes players. This gonna turn a lot of players into monkeys and they are gonna spew off several stacks.

I know the results of the hands because I played 90% of them and the other 10% were played by my students. I'm also sorry to hear that you misunderstood the concept and also that you don't enjoy it. Nothing about either video has been misleading, but you are most entitled to your opinion and I encourage you to voraciously uphold it. There's a thread in the R&D forum for you to suggest video concepts, perhaps you can get your format idea made a reality.

I know the results of the hands because I played 90% of them and the other 10% were played by my students. I'm also sorry to hear that you misunderstood the concept and also that you don't enjoy it. Nothing about either video has been misleading, but you are most entitled to your opinion and I encourage you to voraciously uphold it. There's a thread in the R&D forum for you to suggest video concepts, perhaps you can get your format idea made a reality.

I know you played them. And I am not indicating your play in them is wrong. I am indicating that the analysis discussed in the video seems totally results orientated. You are obviously right in the sense that these players did do what they did, thats a fact, but I think the percentages and what hands might be in their range, etc are very biased to the result of the hand, but thats just my opinion.

Also, if you are going to go in this way. I think you should include more loosing hands like I mentioned last week, and also more hands that you FOLD. Non-showdown winnings are becoming more and more important.

EDIT::

I do understand the concept. But you are turning general reads that ended up being right into mega ultra soul-reads and you are IMHO going to make people take their reads WAY too far.

With 2 episodes to work with I wanted to include the most interesting spots and this unfortunately didn't leave too much time for other useful spots I'd like to have included. The miniseries was created on the fly to show in particular non-standard play and this is what it achieved. Given the scope for more extrapolation I would very much like to examine a more diverse array of spots under the proper provisos - as such I will certainly take this and all other feedback under advisement when considering future content.

The 88 hand on AQ6cc and fish donking out, I always view it as a draw donk/calling, and donking/calling turn, and river depending on fish. How would you play against that line?

The 88 hand on AQ6cc and fish donking out, I always view it as a draw donk/calling, and donking/calling turn, and river depending on fish. How would you play against that line?

Do you mean what do I do if he calls the flop raise and then donks the turn again? I often see this player type fall into c/c mode once they call the flop raise if they do have a draw, so until I've seen otherwise I may weight him away from this range but we obviously can't discount it. If he does donk the turn it really depends how much he bets. It becomes a less profitable situation when he's donking the turn and the river whether a draw completes or not - it would have to depend on how we view the culumination of all the small pieces of information we have. Does he like to bluff his missed draws on the river? Does he make thin or bad value bets? Often we will have fold equity on the turn and can raise again, often we won't and should fold or call based on how we view his river play.

I think he would bet all of his draws and air, less often weak showdown value but it certainly happens. I think he can stab 100% of his range but is less likely to stab mid-weak showdown value (remembering that we're assuming he's a fish). If he didn't bet the turn I'd be quite unlikely to try and make him fold the river when he often does have showdown value and it becomes a case of "our A high is good or he's not folding".

My problem i run into with delayed c-betting or checking back these type of boards is against people who stab 100% of their range on the turn, but won't c/r bluff unless they have a big draw. Then they'll bet all rivers as well What is optimal here?

Also what if we have 99? Do you like going for 2 streets of value here? or do you prefer to check back the turn and pick off a bluff? Or are you folding a river bet on a bricked river?

Also on the 22 hand is he never blocking bet there with KQ?

My problem i run into with delayed c-betting or checking back these type of boards is against people who stab 100% of their range on the turn, but won't c/r bluff unless they have a big draw. Then they'll bet all rivers as well What is optimal here?

Also what if we have 99? Do you like going for 2 streets of value here? or do you prefer to check back the turn and pick off a bluff? Or are you folding a river bet on a bricked river?

Vs opponents you know will definintely fire turn and river if you check betting the flop starts to become more attractive again, but if you can weigh their range extremely accurately (say, from much prior experience/observance) to be heavily in favour of draws there's nothing stopping you catching both streets on bricks with big Ax and better.

If we have 99 vs, for example, the villain in the AJ hand we can still get our 2 streets on the turn and river (if we're going to get them at all) by betting the turn when he doesn't bet. The bonus of checking back here is that, as with the AJ hand, we keep in hands that would fold the flop. There is a strong argument for betting the flop in the same scenario for protection to go with the value and I see nothing wrong with that, but if I'm checking back the AJ, I will do the same with 99 for the most part.

Also on the 22 hand is he never blocking bet there with KQ?

If he's blocking KQ I actually expect him to fold to a shove. I know he doesn't expect Hero to bluff.

If he's blocking KQ I actually expect him to fold to a shove. I know he doesn't expect Hero to bluff.[/quote]

So you're saying if he's never calling and you're never bluffing you should just be calling? I think this is something in general i'm starting to become awaken to. Will we never lose value from someone who flatted AK vs an EP raiser since there are way more combos of AK than 55.

I know your video made it look like hero call city but in my mind the 8 turn hits a good portion of a calling range but since we didn't bet on the flop his range is basically any 2 reasonable suited cards and small to middle pairs. If he's a loose player even 89+ offsuit 0 gappers. I guess i get a bit lost trying to make these heroic calls and they look good on video and have some explanation but perhaps you have experience in looking up certain bet size frequencies and are just playing a math game with the frequency they are bluffs.

Time Link to 00:52:51

What would you do with k9 if a K,Q,J hit on the river? Instead of the 2. Becuase some straight draws get there and two pairs j10, Q10, k10 and some pocket pairs that hit sets.

What would you do with k9 if a K,Q,J hit on the river? Instead of the 2. Becuase some straight draws get there and two pairs j10, Q10, k10 and some pocket pairs that hit sets.

The only reason to check rather than shove would be if you thought villain would only ever bet the river if he had a straight, which would require some fairly monumental reads.

Time Link to 00:25:02

The comment re. fish betting small then firing again if you just call is so true. Often they fire small, you call then they fire pot on the next street and I find it pretty tilting as you know what they are doing but if you have little/no equity there is not much you can do about it (except exploit it later if they hang around long enough).

What would you do here if you had a hand with little equity or worse showdown value - say Td9d or pocket 3's?

T9 you raise as a pure bluff and give up if called as the fish won't fold even a 6 on this turn?

3's I guess are not much different from T9 here as once he calls the flop raise he has something - you beat only draws (just)?

What would you do here if you had a hand with little equity or worse showdown value - say Td9d or pocket 3's?

T9 you raise as a pure bluff and give up if called as the fish won't fold even a 6 on this turn?

3's I guess are not much different from T9 here as once he calls the flop raise he has something - you beat only draws (just)?

It depends on my reads on the fish. They usually don't change their gameplan, so if they're donking air they're almost always donking air, if they're donking TP they're almost always donking TP, etc etc, and the bet sizing is often an indictator also. For example, some will donk 1/2 pot with draws and bigger with pairs and will stick to those bet sizings or vice versa. If you don't have a read, get one - which means I'm going to be raising the hands you mention in this spot also.

It depends on my reads on the fish. They usually don't change their gameplan, so if they're donking air they're almost always donking air, if they're donking TP they're almost always donking TP, etc etc, and the bet sizing is often an indictator also. For example, some will donk 1/2 pot with draws and bigger with pairs and will stick to those bet sizings or vice versa. If you don't have a read, get one - which means I'm going to be raising the hands you mention in this spot also.

This might be hard to believe for some, but as a regular at 25/50NL, I can attest to observing incredible consistencies in fish/bad regs in my game. I know of one player who only minraises the flop with air (usually overcards) and only minraises the turn with the nuts. I have seen him do it more than 15 times in 1k hands. Another player on my "buddy list" pots with air every time I don't cbet (either on the flop IP or on the turn OOP). I have minrased this bet and gotten a fold every single time, or ch/C with a hand and he occasionally bets the next street for pot unimproved!

Basically, everyone understands the game in a certain way, and they have reasons, logical or not, for doing what they do. As a result, even if they don't realize it, players who aren't actively mixing up their game are going to have habbits and patterns-observe them, take notes, and exploit them!

Time Link to 00:07:15

wow this is a really good play. I'm not sure if I would consider it ABC poker though. I feel like this is more advanced.

Time Link to 01:02:46

Hi Guys,

im new here and i must say really like the site, the videos are of very good quality.

I have a question, in the last hand couldnt the vilain be turning J10, KJ in to a bluff as well?

He could also have played AJ,QJ - there is even a small % having AQ,AA,JJ.

I think the are to many combos that beats us to call this large river bet.

Thanks

Thanks

Are these hands real hands?

Are these hands real hands?

Yes.

Came back from holidays and just watched your video. This series is THE best I ever saw: the format is great, the comments are great, ... My rating is clear: 6/5

Found this video yesterday and from the beginning it was like "WOW! AWESOME CONCEPT! GREAT VIDEO!".
I think you really did a great job inavacuum.
This video is in some points way ahead of many other videos i watched.

- Speed / nice and slow. Perfect to think about it and follow your thoughts.

- 1 table / I really like that cause its possible to watch those videos on an iphone/ipod. Everything is very focused.

- Speech / Very nice low clear speech by both of you.

- Snappievouz / Well, i like his part, cause he takes the position of us all. Kind of "I listen cause i want to improve" (If you know what i mean. Im not a native english speaker... Just a german, doing his best ;-)).
Its much greater than two "monsterskill guys" which are more like "yeah, yeah. and... yeah. of course, yeah".

Finally, i like it. Think this series is as that good as the Joe Tall series which is also really great. Keep up the good work Yin and Yang.

Will there be any more episodes? This is my absolute favorite series

Will there be any more episodes? This is my absolute favorite series

Be on the lookout next season

Be on the lookout next season

/

Time Link to 00:20:34

Regarding NoGluenPlz's range, when the PFR checks, do you honestly believe he has Ax in his range? I disagree based on the fact his turn bet sizing is indicative of a value heavy range, and based on our flop call (3way) i believe his range is weighted more toward Kx, as is ours when we call the flop, we rep Kx 22/55. I am just unsure as to how many people barrel Ax as a bluff when the turn isn't a great card.

I honestly think he has Ax in his range if he's trying to move Hero off a range of pocket pairs by the river. You think his range is more weighted towards Kx. I agree. You don't think people barrel Ax on this turn much. I also agree.

I honestly think he has Ax in his range if he's trying to move Hero off a range of pocket pairs by the river. You think his range is more weighted towards Kx. I agree. You don't think people barrel Ax on this turn much. I also agree.

ty for the response, didn't really expect one as the last response was a loooong time ago. Very interesting videos though.

A coach should always respond to comments on their videos regardless of timeframe as any reply will bump the thread on their 'My DC' page.

Time Link to 00:03:41

By betting you are getting him off his 6 outs with any hand + you get value from his draws (being scared of being raised shouldn't be a large factor here as fish as passive at NL50 in general). So Protection and value apply here as well, even though we have AJ high).

I am not saying that check is not the best play, but the difference in ev against a fit/fold fish will not be significant enough to right out say that checking is a lot better than betting.

Time Link to 00:03:07

What if we have Qhigh here on flop? Check back & fold turn?
What if we are oop vs this villain with AJ?

Time Link to 00:21:49

I think that ABC Tag can CC preflop AK vs utg.
Also what about "mistake-equity"? ; ] Very often you do it (like in A4o hand when you shove in 3bet pot with tp) so why not now?

Time Link to 00:28:11

The bet sizing on river is very "personal" i think.
Some 'weak players' bet pot for value, some of them as a bluff. Without reads i wouldn't be so sure about his weakness in this spot.

Time Link to 00:56:27

Don't you think that we make more room for him to make a mistake when we are calling? If his range is close to 100% bluff then our hand is not very vulnerable so we can make profitable calls in further streets.
When we shove then the only hand with which he can make a mistake is this in vid, but this is very unlikely for regular to make such a big mistake (imo, I never saw something like that- I was playing nl50 8 months).

Time Link to 01:07:42

I think he never have here draw on turn. If he wants cheap river then he just check it back, if he wants FEq then he makes it bigger.I think he can have Jx or weak Ace which is getting thin value from draws.
Without specific read I wouldn't play like that ever I see that so often... reg makes some ridiculous play against me without any history, i make lighter calldowns cuz "only moron would play like that without any history and he looks like a decent reg!" and then BAM they show something stupid that beats me ;

What if we have Qhigh here on flop? Check back & fold turn?
What if we are oop vs this villain with AJ?

With no other equity, yes.

Check fold. Perhaps with some backdoor equity I would sometimes CR.

Also what about "mistake-equity"? ; ] Very often you do it (like in A4o hand when you shove in 3bet pot with tp) so why not now?

Villain's range is far narrower in this spot than in the example you cite.

Don't you think that we make more room for him to make a mistake when we are calling?

No I do not. I understand why most people, but all it really does is turn our hand face up and allow him to play perfectly with his entire range.

Time Link to 00:21:35

Do you think that if, instead of it being 3 handed, the villain opened from the CO and the rest of the action was the exact same, this is an auto-shove on the river? (Obviously we would probably play it different if that were the case...but I feel a lot of micro players play sets in position slow in every spot)

It would certainly make it more of a shove than the spot in question.

This line is certainly up for debate, to an extent. I can't advocate a fold when I see villain's bet sizing at micro being a bluff close to 100% of the time. Calling is problematic for a number of reasons, mainly because we seed the initiative with no knowledge of how often he is likely to continue a bluff and turn our hand somewhat face up. It's also probably not going to be profitable to call down if the board gets bad for us, yet again we have no idea as to his bluffing frequency. This in theory gives him the green light to push us off our range on certain turn/rivers. This leaves shoving and raising smaller, both of which have merit. I think I would prefer a smaller raise vs someone I had history with and could use it to allow them to level themselves. Vs a more unknown NL50 player who I think is bluffing or at least doing something because he doesn't understand my flop bet sizing I prefer shoving because I think it's the most likely line to induce a mistake from him - he may view a clickback as extremely strong.

I too am not really sure about this hand.

You said that you viewed villains betsizing on the flop as being a bluff 100% of the time, but then said that calling would be bad as we have no idea how often villain is going to continue bluffing.

Why is this a bad thing? If he doesn't continue bluffing then we will probably win the hand at showdown, or we could bet for thin value from Kx depending on how the board runs out. If he does keep bluffing then we can keep calling. If his range on the flop is always or almost always a bluff, then that range doesn't change by the turn and suddenly include value hands (unless the hand villain was bluffing with improved obv.)

For these reasons I dislike the shove on the flop as against a villain about whom we have little information I don't think we can expect them to call with worse and they're never folding better.

One more bump.

One more bump.

The problem with calling is that it allows him to play perfectly when we are OOP. Once we call on the flop he knows we have to have something, I don't think anyone floats in that spot with pure air. So it doesn't matter if he thinks we have a made hand or are drawing, he shouldn't make any bad bluffs from that point on, either freerolling the turn when we check, or getting value. I would much, much rather call IP.

Time Link to 00:15:02

on the k25 board where the player flopped a set of 5s,how do you like the line he took,he bet out like 2/3 pot when prf raiser checked and there was a player on button left to act?i was thinking that the board is so dry that he should check it and hope either the button bets with something or tries to steal with air or maybe let opponents catch something on turn.I guess the upside of his bet is if anyone hit a king he's taking them for a ride and even a middle pair probably looks him up for a street or 2.Would you have played it differently in his spot?

Villain plays the hand fine. He's risking missing a bluff from the BTN but if he doesn't think the BTN will bluff or possibly more importantly, if PFR and BTN think he will bluff, his play is fine. He gets value from exactly the same ranges. It's important to also note that PFR usually has showdown value to open and not cbet this flop texture.

Time Link to 00:12:10

Hi guys nices series congratz!!!!
why Do u discount Kx without a FD from his range?? because of his betsizing at the river?
Villian is showing up at the SD with A9. I think this type of Player could easily take any K and decided to take the same line.
If this is the case Villian has more valuehands in his range, and maybe this isnt such a clear call.

Ok its the betsizing if he leads out 3/4 pot-pot u would fold?

Hi guys nices series congratz!!!!
why Do u discount Kx without a FD from his range?? because of his betsizing at the river?
Villian is showing up at the SD with A9. I think this type of Player could easily take any K and decided to take the same line.
If this is the case Villian has more valuehands in his range, and maybe this isnt such a clear call.

Ok its the betsizing if he leads out 3/4 pot-pot u would fold?

You are right that if villain shows up with A9 he can show up with Kx, but that also means that we have to add every other combo of air into his range, which more than makes up for the times he has Kx.

Time Link to 00:45:09

Hi Inavacuum,

damn your bluffingrange is really incedible wide^^. You have to be very sure about his 3b callingrange and that he is able to fold AT if its in.
But I like youre turnbet to get a bigger pot on the river.
But we neeed very very goods reads to do so

ugh this series is going to make me so spewy

ugh this series is going to make me so spewy

If you find yourself spewing, post a HH in the appropriate forum and PM me a link and we'll discuss.

If you find yourself spewing, post a HH in the appropriate forum and PM me a link and we'll discuss.

Thanks. I might just do that. The problem I have is, even if someone's line doesn't make sense, I end up just leveling myself, because people at the micros DO do things that don't make sense, even the seemingly regular players. Then I end up looking back at a session and say to myself, 'well if i hadn't gone with my gut there when the reg minraised me on a wet board or i hadn't bluffcatched in that other hand and so on I would be x buyins better off', which has lead me to just stick to a very ABC gameplan when it comes to facing aggression or weird lines from non-maniacs. Obviously, I do hand read but I would never have the guts to shove A4o in that 3bet pot like you did, for instance. At most i would call and see if he's going to continue his aggression on the turn, or just fold OTF if i wasn't sure how likely he is to continue with a bluff. To me the most you could hope for if he calls your shove in that hand would be some kind of FD or pair + flush draw or FD + gutter or he's someone who's 'seeing where he's at' w/ AQ then decides to call the shove anyway coz he 'doesn't believe you'. To me most of what people do at the micros doesn't make sense so until I have some real solid read on someone I prefer to keep it simple. The highest I've played though is 25nl so... maybe it's a little different at 50nl between regs.. I do like the vids though I just think we need to be reminded that these kind of plays should be reserved for 'special occasions' when we have good reads on our villain(s) or the play they are making is so obviously *whatever* that we can go ahead with our non-standard line, but only then otherwise it just turns to spew. There have been tons of ABC play vids in regards to micros though and since the games are getting tougher, i can see what you're doing here.

cheers,

Andy

Can we have more episodes please, there wasnt many in the 2nd series.

If DC are amenable I will make some more in the new year.

In 48:30 min mark with K9s in 3-bet pot. How would you play ace turn if you had hand like JJ-KK? Are you betting or check-calling?

In 48:30 min mark with K9s in 3-bet pot. How would you play ace turn if you had hand like JJ-KK? Are you betting or check-calling?

Villian doesn't show up with Ax that often, just AsXs and the 2pair combos, which I assume would only be ATs and much less often A9s (if villain is a fish we can add in A2s but I guess we wouldn't have 3bet OOP in that scenario), which means it's pretty safe to check and let villain bet his draws and any floats he may have in his range. Not folding on brick rivers.

Time Link to 00:48:33

Do you have that many Ax here on the turn, cbetting this flop? It doesn't necessarily matter in this spot vs this player but seems like your range is really bluff heavy (semibluffs mostly I guess?)

Well, we can have exactly as many as we can have, which is quite lot if you factor in all AA/AT/AsXs, but as you say if that doesn't matter than it's not worth worrying about in the first place. Assuming we were betting the flop for value with a non Ax hand I don't hate continuing on the turn, it's not like he can have Ax any more often and he's not shoving As. Lets assume we want to be concerned with balance, then betting the turn is a must when only betting Ax or better+draws would be a disaster. I also really don't mind betting the flop with Ax worse than the ones I mentioned above in the first place, if villain is the type to recognise that this flop smashes his range and that he should bluff raise tons, as well as actually raising his value hands and draws then we can check Ax, but if villain is only raising his good draws and 2 pair+ then we're in great shape to win the hand on some street when he only calls.

Would you bet Tx, JJ, QQ, KK, Ax on the turn against a fairly unknown player? And what's your plan on the river if he calls the turn?

Also did you mean that you'd be barreling Ax vs the villain you describe in the last sentence on blank turns/rivers?

I would bet all of those hands and check the river, I don't expect an unknown NL50 player to get to the river and then decide to turn a worse hand into a bluff. The downside is we miss out on a successful bluff sometimes, but we'll be making that bluff every time we have worse hands and still winning a good % when have a hand that doesn't turn itself into a bluff when villain checks back.

I would barrel Ax, yes. I expect worse hands to call again on the turn and I would like to be able to bluff in that spot.