Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by BalugaWhale (Mid Stakes)

Is it the last episode already?
Hope a next season comes! learned a ton. gonna watch this one asap

Time Link to 00:30:01

So can we assume that he plays polarized now? I guess that K9s is the top of his folding range and he fights back at our steals/isolation raises by polarizing. And if he indeed is polarizing i guess we should back down at our stealing and depolarize our 3betting range against him?

Great series guys.

GL Kristy keep crushing those fish!!

Time Link to 00:09:55

Great vids Baluga...

Can you explain your bet size concern and decisions? utg $10,cutoff $10 BB $2...she is OOP so pot size raise would normally be about $42; Kristy bets $38.

Thanks

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Don't end!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Don't end!

+1

Great series. I felt a bit confused at one point of the series about 3betting and stuff, but as the series progressed..no problem.

Good luck to Kristy! Will you keep hanging out/blogging at DC?

NO!!!. Say it's not over. This series has been one of the best I've watched so far. It's on par with the coaching tree as far as some great lessons and really helping with my game. Kristy was a great student for a series like this. She asked some great questions and you can tell he really puts a lot of time and thought into the game. Good luck moving up. I hope you guys have a plan you season 2. Make it happen Beluga!

Time Link to 00:51:56

If the river was not a spade is this a bet fol now over a check fold? Or if the river is wasn't a spade is check calling better because maybe he will bet his missed draws?

Time Link to 00:36:43

Re. the Deuces in the SB v BU open-I recall a number of DC vids advocating a fold in this spot, and while I see the merits of 3betting, I can't really agree that the correct order of options in the amount of +ev is Raising>calling>folding. Wouldn't it be Raising>folding>calling? When we call, we are often looking at -ev since we will often get squeezed, will miss the flop often and ch/F and when we hit, we don't have the implied odds to make up for all the times we have to fold after putting money in the pot.

Folding avoids these problems, but also aextinguishes any opportunity for +ev, so I would think it would the 2nd best option.

Thank you for the series!

Sick series, baluga is pretty much the sickest when it comes to videos so I've been really enjoying the whole series. Learned something new with every video. Hope you two make a season 2.
And of course I hope Kristy crushes ssnl + ships bracelet

Re. the Deuces in the SB v BU open-I recall a number of DC vids advocating a fold in this spot, and while I see the merits of 3betting, I can't really agree that the correct order of options in the amount of +ev is Raising>calling>folding. Wouldn't it be Raising>folding>calling? When we call, we are often looking at -ev since we will often get squeezed, will miss the flop often and ch/F and when we hit, we don't have the implied odds to make up for all the times we have to fold after putting money in the pot.

Folding avoids these problems, but also aextinguishes any opportunity for +ev, so I would think it would the 2nd best option.

my thought is this:

1) getting squeezed isn't quite as bad because we have a hand we can resqueeze with (against a light 3better of course, NOT to be done vs a non-light squeezer, BUT if he doesn't squeeze light we dont have to worry about him squeezing now do we!)

2) if somebody thinks we never bluff, then yeah, we should probably not call preflop with 22, but if they do think we bluff, then our implied odds will still be good. Think about it-- when we flop a set and play back, our range is usually nuts-or-air. So, if he thinks we bluff, he'll never fold anything. Hence we get good implied odds even from the other guys marginal hands.

Like I said though, they're close, and I think folding is closest to best when: A) guy plays well against 3bets; B) light squeezer on our left, C) we don't have good implied odds cause our image is that we play like a rock, etc.

Andrew

If the river was not a spade is this a bet fol now over a check fold? Or if the river is wasn't a spade is check calling better because maybe he will bet his missed draws?

Bet/fold, to call the turn and have a 9 splash on the river, most of his draws picked up a pair somewhere along the way.

Andrew

So can we assume that he plays polarized now? I guess that K9s is the top of his folding range and he fights back at our steals/isolation raises by polarizing. And if he indeed is polarizing i guess we should back down at our stealing and depolarize our 3betting range against him?

I'm assuming the guy with the K9s is depolarizing. A hand like 76s would be polarizing.

If he's polarizing, we should call his 3bets lighter. If he's depolarized, we should 4bet lighter and call less lightly.

Andrew

First post. Good job bw and nd. The finale is a grand slam. I'm glad I stuck through the rough spots in the middle.

I love the discourse between Andrew and Kristy. She was just the right level of knowledge and newbness to probe Andrew for the correct way to think about situations, and expose some real jewels of knowledge.

Awesome. Thanks a lot guys!

I really enjoyed this series. I think I will watch it again -- now that I know the ending.

It was fun watching the angles of aggression and bet-sizing. Often, I would be thinking, "No Kristy, don't raise that much! Your hand isn't strong enough." But often, to my surprise, the other guy would fold. My style is that "other guy", fit-or-fold.

Really looking forward to the next Baluga series. This series here will be tough to outdo.

Bet/fold, to call the turn and have a 9 splash on the river, most of his draws picked up a pair somewhere along the way.
Andrew

Andrew, I want to summarize what I understand of the situation. And follow up with some questions.

1) At this point our read is that villain is a loose aggressive regular.

2) Our hand is effectively AA against him. Because villain has a high three-bet %.

3) On the flop if we get raised, we can assume he has 2 pair, a set, straight, OESD, or a combo draw (pair + gutshot). Stove range is "77-33,98s,76s,65s,54s,43s,98o,76o,65o,54o,43o". So if we get raised on the flop, we are a 55:45 dog and we have to fold. He also flats sometimes with the same range to balance his calls.

4) On the turn, nothing changed. We are still a dog against that range. If he raises we have to fold.

5) You've already said that bet-folding a brick river is correct. And check-folding or bet-folding a draw completing river is correct.

Now for the questions:

1) So we raise the very top of our range. A good player flats on the button. A medium coordinated flop comes out. And now we have to bet-fold three streets against him. In other words, the only hands we can give him action with are two pair or better. Surely, this is very exploitable?

2) Isn't this an extrapolation of the cts suggestion -- check-fold the flop?

Kristy and Baluga thanks for the series. I really enjoyed it. It's amazing to me that when I listen to Baluga explain the logic for the QQ hand being a check fold on the river it makes perfect sense. Yet I know being in the spot I likely make the same mistake. It's one of the big leaks I'm trying to fix in my game. Not calling off the rest of my stack when I know I'm behind just because I already put a lot in. (AA vs. an obvious made hand too many times!) So I can definitely relate, Kristy. At least now I know we will (hopefully)both make better decisions in the future! I learned a lot in the series and look forward to another. Best of luck to you Kristy, I hope you keep moving up fast!

Andrew, I want to summarize what I understand of the situation. And follow up with some questions.

1) At this point our read is that villain is a loose aggressive regular.

2) Our hand is effectively AA against him. Because villain has a high three-bet %.

3) On the flop if we get raised, we can assume he has 2 pair, a set, straight, OESD, or a combo draw (pair + gutshot). Stove range is "77-33,98s,76s,65s,54s,43s,98o,76o,65o,54o,43o". So if we get raised on the flop, we are a 55:45 dog and we have to fold. He also flats sometimes with the same range to balance his calls.

4) On the turn, nothing changed. We are still a dog against that range. If he raises we have to fold.

5) You've already said that bet-folding a brick river is correct. And check-folding or bet-folding a draw completing river is correct.

Now for the questions:

1) So we raise the very top of our range. A good player flats on the button. A medium coordinated flop comes out. And now we have to bet-fold three streets against him. In other words, the only hands we can give him action with are two pair or better. Surely, this is very exploitable?

2) Isn't this an extrapolation of the cts suggestion -- check-fold the flop?

if a regular bluff raises the flop, or the turn, or the river, then we're not b/f.

Andrew

Seriously we need more of this...

if a regular bluff raises the flop, or the turn, or the river, then we're not b/f.

Andrew

So we take notes on the regulars and keep track of who's capable of bluff raising. But against an unknown as the board developed, bet-fold flop and turn, check-fold or bet-fold river?

So we take notes on the regulars and keep track of who's capable of bluff raising. But against an unknown as the board developed, bet-fold flop and turn, check-fold or bet-fold river?

probably, or b/c flop is an option too against an unknown (who might be capable of bluffing or v-betting thinly).

Andrew

Hey guys!

Thank you so much for watching. I have learned soooo much from Baluga, and I'm so excited about poker. I can't wait to see how far I can take it.

Here's a blog I posted about it, and included one question for Baluga which is the following:

---Baluga, after a lot of discussion in Ep 7, I’m still a little confused as to what our general bet sizing should be for a c-bet in a three-bet pot? In single-raised pots, I'd do 2/3 and then in 3 bet pots I was doing half pot bets like in Ep 7. Then people were saying I should do two-thirds pot. In Ep 8, I increased my c-bet size a little. What do you think?

Thanks!!

Hey guys!

Thank you so much for watching. I have learned soooo much from Baluga, and I'm so excited about poker. I can't wait to see how far I can take it.

Here's a blog I posted about it, and included one question for Baluga which is the following:

---Baluga, after a lot of discussion in Ep 7, I’m still a little confused as to what our general bet sizing should be for a c-bet in a three-bet pot? In single-raised pots, I'd do 2/3 and then in 3 bet pots I was doing half pot bets like in Ep 7. Then people were saying I should do two-thirds pot. In Ep 8, I increased my c-bet size a little. What do you think?

Thanks!!

I mean, depends on:
-- player type (bad players valuebet as big as you think you can, bluff as small as you think you can, etc)
-- stack sizes (deeper means you can go bigger, not that you have to)
-- board texture/history/etc etc etc

BUT

I'd say given a regular and 100bb stacks, probably 1/2 pot is probably good. At this point, really, bet size is almost entirely for show-- our opponents draws are rarely more than 0EV, so we don't really worry about giving too good pot odds. pretty much just minimizing our own aggressive dead money in general, so small is good.

I think, haha.

Andrew

Spectacular educational content. Andrew (et al), thanks.

Kristy, let me borrow one of your bracelets some day.

Great vids Baluga...

Can you explain your bet size concern and decisions? utg $10,cutoff $10 BB $2...she is OOP so pot size raise would normally be about $42; Kristy bets $38.

Thanks

I"m curious about this as well.

Time Link to 00:52:52

You say here that with our QQ we have to fold once we bet and he raises. However, earlier, you say we can bet small/call if he turns a hand like 88 into a bluff.

If we bet 75/fold and bet 50/call, where is the threshold for folding vs. calling.

Also, how often are regs raising a river like this as a bluff w/ a marginal hand that has no value vs. our represented range after we bet and at what stakes to players start pulling moves like this in a well thought-out way?

Andrew, I want to summarize what I understand of the situation. And follow up with some questions.

1) At this point our read is that villain is a loose aggressive regular.

2) Our hand is effectively AA against him. Because villain has a high three-bet %.

3) On the flop if we get raised, we can assume he has 2 pair, a set, straight, OESD, or a combo draw (pair + gutshot). Stove range is "77-33,98s,76s,65s,54s,43s,98o,76o,65o,54o,43o". So if we get raised on the flop, we are a 55:45 dog and we have to fold. He also flats sometimes with the same range to balance his calls.

4) On the turn, nothing changed. We are still a dog against that range. If he raises we have to fold.

5) You've already said that bet-folding a brick river is correct. And check-folding or bet-folding a draw completing river is correct.

Now for the questions:

1) So we raise the very top of our range. A good player flats on the button. A medium coordinated flop comes out. And now we have to bet-fold three streets against him. In other words, the only hands we can give him action with are two pair or better. Surely, this is very exploitable?

2) Isn't this an extrapolation of the cts suggestion -- check-fold the flop?

The cts story was in a 4way pot, for one thing...

I"m curious about this as well.

the pot size isn't the single determinant of our raise size. stack sizes, player types, etc etc etc. If I was value raising against two fish, maybe pot is good (Bigger is better obv).

But in a squeeze spot, we don't gain anything from the extra money we put in. its pretty basic leverage, trying to find the smallest size that accomplishes what we want.

Andrew

You say here that with our QQ we have to fold once we bet and he raises. However, earlier, you say we can bet small/call if he turns a hand like 88 into a bluff.

If we bet 75/fold and bet 50/call, where is the threshold for folding vs. calling.

Also, how often are regs raising a river like this as a bluff w/ a marginal hand that has no value vs. our represented range after we bet and at what stakes to players start pulling moves like this in a well thought-out way?

i dont think you should call when you bet 50, im saying you need to be aware of how that might change things more towards a call. I think its still a fold both ways in general.
because....
regs are basically rarely if ever turning a made hand into a bluff here. I don't see this move done at all until 5/10 by anyone who's a winner (sometimes bad aggro losing players try it out at lower stakes), and i don't see it really done well until maybe 10/20 or higher. probably 5/10 there are some.

Andrew

Cool, thanks for the replies, Baluga!

As a fellow female player, this was such a great series to watch. I was really able to relate to things that Kristy articulated about her game and her emotional state throughout her progression of moving through levels. I think there are definitely differences in how we women approach the game, but it's not something that can be specifically address in one video. So it was nice to see those differences addressed indirectly throughout the natural progression of her game. Not forced, extracted and overly simplified.

Rock on ladies!

Time Link to 00:06:53

Kill the grandma yo...

Time Link to 00:18:41

Is A9 about the only hand that call and we beat here?

amazing series. i mean i feel like this has helped my game a ton!

Great Series... I learned a ton/ I really hope you're doing a Season 2

First complete series I reviewed as a new DC member.

I've already seen large change in my game and a big upswing in my BB per 100 since watching, studying and applying what I've learned to my game.

There were some things in the video that really made some pieces come together in my game play. Typically I've read so much strategy, that the 'show me' is just never there (or just ineffective) in the written word. Seeing Kristy run into so many typical situations and the thought processes to navigate the situation are well explained by Baluga, this is gold.

Excellent series. Thanks again.
]-[

More please

Why is the video just a green laser show for me? It's like that for a lot of videos on this site, but not all though

Baluga, you're awesome dude!

Time Link to 00:31:10

BW says ..."The problem with big cards is that there are not that many of them"... and then his train of thought gets interrupted when he sees the action on the right table...

Does anyone know where he was going with this comment?

I think I understand the argument up to that point, which goes, if villian is 3 betting an unpolarized range from the blind, then either 4bet polarized or tighten up your three bet calling range so you are ahead of him when you call.

Why is the video just a green laser show for me? It's like that for a lot of videos on this site, but not all though

LSD??

You have to wear 3D glasses for those videos

BW says ..."The problem with big cards is that there are not that many of them"... and then his train of thought gets interrupted when he sees the action on the right table...

Does anyone know where he was going with this comment?

I think I understand the argument up to that point, which goes, if villian is 3 betting an unpolarized range from the blind, then either 4bet polarized or tighten up your three bet calling range so you are ahead of him when you call.

if you are only 3-betting big cards, you can't 3bet that often, because its hard to get dealt big cards.
So, if someones 3betting depolarized/strong, we can play tightly because their 3bet stat is probably pretty low.

Andrew

A solid SB PP flatting range would be 77-TT or JJ. It's very difficult to extract value from 22-66 by flatting because they have so little SDV; however, if you are going to flat them you will need to occasionally play back (c/r etc) to supplement the slightly -EV pre-flop flat. When the board comes J54r we will have at least 50% equity vs his V!'s range. Assuming that V! will be c-betting this board nearly 100% of the time we essentially have 4 options. c/f (neutral EV). c/c (difficult because our SDV is very weak and we are against a competent, aggressive V! that won't hesitate to 2-barrel). Donk bet (we can attempt to actualize our equity and avoid playing another street). c/r (seems best). Our bet accomplishes multiple things. 1. We force V! to basically turn his hand face-up. 2. We only need 68% FE to make an outright profit. 3. We avoid a difficult and most likely -EV c/c'ing situation. 4. We actualize our equity (V! can't call wt ace high)
^^We are using our pair to prevent ace high from winning at showdown.

Time Link to 00:22:49

Methinks the problem with this line of thinking is (1) we are assuming that we have good enough implied odds to profitably mine with such a bad hand and (2) we define our range as not a great hand by limping. This is markedly different from playing a medium strength hand post flop because we flat with a completely undefined range post flop in position. When we start to limp our range is markedly defined.

As NL players our eyes are often wider than our mouths in terms of implied odds. We drastically over estimate how much of our opponent's stack we will get when we hit and drastically underestimate how often we'll get coolered when we're certain we're good

Methinks the problem with this line of thinking is (1) we are assuming that we have good enough implied odds to profitably mine with such a bad hand and (2) we define our range as not a great hand by limping. This is markedly different from playing a medium strength hand post flop because we flat with a completely undefined range post flop in position. When we start to limp our range is markedly defined.

As NL players our eyes are often wider than our mouths in terms of implied odds. We drastically over estimate how much of our opponent's stack we will get when we hit and drastically underestimate how often we'll get coolered when we're certain we're good

methinks youre underestimating our ability to play poker relative to our opponents

methinks youre underestimating our ability to play poker relative to our opponents

Methinks that may be the case. Dunning-Kruger effect is a doozy... That being said, I misread the amount villain had behind when I posted, especially in terms of BBs. I had a brain fart and thought we weren't playing 1/2.

Methinks that may be the case. Dunning-Kruger effect is a doozy... That being said, I misread the amount villain had behind when I posted, especially in terms of BBs. I had a brain fart and thought we weren't playing 1/2.

no worries! welcome to the forums

Andrew

no worries! welcome to the forums

Andrew

Thanks, Mr. Seidman. I'm a huge fan of this series (and your thought processes) and it's taken my game to a different level. I look forward to diving into your other works.