Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Oink (High Stakes)

You are too hard on yourself Oink it wasn't boring at all. I always learn something from your vids. Thanks for the fantastic series and a glimpse into how a tough midstakes reg kills it.

Oink,
It was a good vid, you ARE too hard on yourself.
There is plenty to be learned in normal, run of the mill hands.
You are a natural teacher, its easy to follow your thinking, even on difficult subject matter.

OK, I am going to ask for something thats long overdue here IMO.
I would like to see you and DD together, do a series or if you cant fill a series then, two vids.
One "ranges"...and "reading boards". (and I will even suggest another one..."reading players")
I am not talking about playing although that might be worked in. I am talking about taking the student from beginning ranges....to expert/high stakes level ranges....etc...
And I dont think its too elementary, I bet you can find a 20/40 player in your games Oink, or DD can find a 100/200 live player who could use work in this part of his game.

I also have a question on the vid.
You mentioned you are trying not c-betting 100%, because as you move higher you are facing more c/r on the flop. It seems to me, facing a c/r is only a problem if its also 100%(which might not be such a bad counter-strategy to your 100% c-bet IMO). The actual play of a "normal" hand starting with...we raise, villain calls, villain checks, we c/bet, villain raises...and the REAL play of the hand begins with our decision either to 3 bet or call(course no one ever folds..lol).
my point is....not factoring in either players actual cards or the flop.....is c-betting a good play 100%, IF villain knows we are c-betting 100%...doesnt the c-bet become just a meaningless bet?
and as you point out, perhaps exploitable?

To be clear. Its not because i run in to more c/r as I move up but because a certain type of player in my games will be c/r'ing a lot. So its very much player dependent and not stake dependent.


The additional c/r'ing is not just a problem if he c/r 100%. Its always a problem if we get raised a lot when we bet with less than our fair share of equity. The more aggro a villain is the less you can put in bets as bluffs and semibluffs because he will make you pay

In particular when hero has a hand with SD value vs villans c/r'ing range will it be an idea to check behind when faced with a lot of c/r'es.

Finally, mind you in the hands I check behind its a combination of villain c/r'ing loose AND having a range that hits the board hard AND me having a hand with too much equity to b/f. So its not something thats gonna happen a lot.

I adore your series Oink.
You are very good at explaining your thought processes and how you go on at evaluating different situations vs. different player types. This series has a lot of value for me.
I don't think this episode was boring at all. In fact, the opposite is true: there is no need for tons of action, and lots of money for it to be a good educational poker video.
Good or tough games, and lots of marginal situations, and how good players think in those spots is a lot more interesting and more valuable material then getting dealt good hands and winning standard pot after pot.

Thank you for this great series, and please bring us more.

Good video - QQ_four_t really put you in some tough decisions throughout the session. Also - do you ever consider 3 betting someone who check raises you on the flop? (possibly semi bluffing with a draw like in that J9 suited hand where the check raiser folds the river) What's the worst hand you would 3 bet vs. a check raiser? Is it wrong to do that with 2nd pair on a drawy board vs. an aggro player? I think that J9 hand was around 25:00 or so.

Between getting 4 bet by Qx and the fact that I should expect him to 3 barrel missed draws I dont think there is enough value in 3-betting the J9 hand.

I do 3-bet often c/r'es. Often tho I wait for the turn but it depends on the hand and the board and positions and villain (It always depends )

I love the fact that you were put in soooo many bad spots in this series - so you had to give your reasons for the right move. Because of that I think this is a series that people can always come back to about so many situations. Like the previous poster said - betting your made hands is boring. The decisions involved in messed up spots is where things really get interesting.

Oink,

First of all, thanks for the great series. I wonder if you could tell about the rake in party mid stakes? So, how much are you paying and how much do you approximately get back via different kinds of promotions? I've started to think that party tables could be good addition to my European based mid stakes games.

Travolta

VIP program is about $5/100 hands at 10/20 through 20/40 if you are top tier.

I dont get rakeback

Rake at 10/20 is a little steeper than stars. (It drops faster)
At 15/30 to 30/60 though its lower

Oink,

About 15 minutes into episode 5 you just call on an all spade board with second pair J. You said there was no need to raise since you are putting the bettor on a spade draw, therefore, you don't have to protect your hand from other spade draws. It seems that you should still be raising since there are other draws out with the K and J on board and you could possibly get someone with a low spade to muck those times the person betting into you doesn't have you beat and doesn't have a spade. Just curious what you think.

About 22 minutes into this same episode you cc from SB with J6c. This seems incredibly loose to me. Is this a standard call for you?