Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Entity (Micro/Small Stakes)

Entity, it's too bad that you kept picking up decent pocket pairs and playable non-premium hands that are worth a 3-bet - even though your image is borderline maniac!

I noticed that people started check raising you a whole lot once your image became so LAG, but you said you were still going to be 3-betting your usual range for the sake of being put in interesting spots.

Would you usually be folding 55-99 to UTG raises when your image becomes so crazy? Those low PP's get so hard to play on an overcard board when your opponents will be checkraising you with any kind of draw because they think you're out of line. Also, do you usually BTN steal with Q4o and similar hands? Would you say that any 2 suited cards are worth a BTN steal with tight or straightforward players in the blinds? Good video, still have 20 minutes to watch, i'll come back if I have any other questions.

Entity, it's too bad that you kept picking up decent pocket pairs and playable non-premium hands that are worth a 3-bet - even though your image is borderline maniac!

Heh, it was actually moreso that in both of those cases I really thought it was a close decision regardless of whether or not I was a maniac. The 99 hand I legit felt was really close to a fold, and the 77 hand played off of the 99 hand, but would have been close even if I wasn't being so LAGGY.

Also, do you usually BTN steal with Q4o and similar hands?

Normally no, but I think it was a spot worth considering given how I felt about the table at that point in time. Definitely very very marginal though. I'd probably be stealing with ~70%, maybe more, given how I felt at that moment.

Rob

I like the longer vid, and I enjoy all your ramblings entity.

35:15
3 handed game.
We are BB with Q8 on a Q65 board vs the unknown (later to be found out as maniac) player.
You considered 3 betting,then called, why would you 3 bet here?

I agree with the flop play and plan of calling with the idea of raising the turn.
I think we have huge equity here.
the turn decision and specifically "what you see"...interests me.
I see 95% we are crushed, and 5% villain is a drug addict.
I actually "see"...AQ,KQ,6X,55...any thing else in villains range is off in the distance and very foggy.....
(and the part I am trying to correct in my thinking is...villains actual hand never crossed my mind!...an obvious oversight and mistake, even if my conclusion is correct)
He who thinks about more stuff, wins.

1) is what I see not correct?
2) are you calling because adding the "we have no read" math(widening his range), to the "he may be a drug addict" math(widening his range), to the we will get to make a note(read)(not changing his range but of value to us later, metagame), all add up to a call down.
DD once told me that all the factors, reads etc, are part of the math.
So how we manipulate villains range, and THEN ALL the pieces of the equity pie are the crux.
So although I see us crushed, there is enough math/reason here to call?

Teaching note: have you ever tried running a hand on the replayer having pygmy tell you what he "sees", and then allowing pygmy(and the rest of us) to "see what you see".
to me...the teaching part is the difference between the two, and narrowing the gap.
BTW pygmy, I think you play really well, meaning I wish I could "see" what you see.

I like the longer vid, and I enjoy all your ramblings entity.

Can't make them long enough IMO.

Hey Mickey, I'll take a shot at the 35:15 hand. Would've gotten to this sooner but I was without internet for a few days earlier this week.

I think Rob was considering 3-betting PF because:
-it expands a pot that he rates to take down before SD often, by virtue of being IP and more skilled (also remember that we saw the villain defend the last hand from the BB and make a very fit/fold play on the flop),
-over-representing his hand may gain some FE for him on A or K high boards,
-his hand is likely to have decent equity and may be best, and
-even if he's taking the worst of it it's likely only marginally -EV, and may be worthwhile to cultivate a semi-maniacal image. Rob definitely wanted to bully the table a bit when it was really short, and he mentioned a lot of reasons and benefits for this throughout the video.

On the turn I think Rob was very inclined to see SD against the unknown player. There's definitely some value in seeing his hand, and it may be a +EV play (given what we know now I'd argue it is definitely +EV and folding would be awful) since we don't know how inclined villain is to make ridiculous bluffs or just very poor plays. I would also throw in a few intangibles, which, while all fairly small, may add up to a little something when viewed in conjunction: it was Friday night, villain bought in for a highly irregular amount that kind of screams 'case money,' villain's super fast 3-bet was a bit suspicious, and he may have not wanted to let Rob fold him over on two consecutive hands.

Teaching note: have you ever tried running a hand on the replayer having pygmy tell you what he "sees", and then allowing pygmy(and the rest of us) to "see what you see".

If you haven't watched it yet I think you'll be pleased with Episode 3 as this is sort of the form we follow.

BTW pygmy, I think you play really well, meaning I wish I could "see" what you see.

Thanks man!

Just a few notes I wanted to add:

~0
I can't believe no one noticed Rob's first screen shot shows me dragging a pot with 8 high (and three undercards on board). Here's the HH:

Poker Stars $2/$4 Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: Hero is BB with 8 3
UTG calls, 2 folds, BTN calls, SB calls, Hero checks

Flop: (4 SB) 2 5 4 (4 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, UTG calls, BTN calls, SB folds

Turn: (3.5 BB) K (3 players)
Hero checks, UTG bets, BTN folds, Hero calls

River: (5.5 BB) K (2 players)
Hero checks, UTG checks

And yes, I know the turn call might be a little light, but I called because I knew there was a good chance I still had the best hand. I was planning on snap calling the river.

~15
I've received a couple of inquiries about this, so I just want to clarify: this is NOT a picture of me.

~49
I'm really glad Rob watched our first episode from this season and learned that the proper play with mid pairs sometimes involves timing out while trying to articulate your thought process. wp

~77
My comment here was a little ambiguous. I wanted to review the HH to see if BB had raised the flop (I'm referring to BB when I say "he"). Since he did I'm less inclined to give him credit for a FD, meaning I'm less scared when it comes in on the river, making it an easy value bet. I usually have to see something specific from a player before I believe he'll raise with a FD in that sort of spot.

If you're out there Rob,

1:14:08 You mentioned an old thread that involved Schneids (you thought) and Oink. It sounded like Schneids either had AQ or the board was AQx and he gets c/r-ed. I'm not really sure what else happened because you didn't get into it further due to an interesting hand that came up (TPTK but raised on the turn).

Anyway, I didn't realize that we never got back to it. But if you have time to go into it I'd still be interested to hear it.