---

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

omfg

FWF your video commentary and streams of logic always make me realize I continually need to consider alternative options or factors outside of my typical bag of lines/reasoning. Another great immensely helpful video.

I FWF

BOOM!

Amazing video,

Btw where to get the table mod and background? also the circle 1?

Time Link to 00:15:58

Isn't it just best to C/F this flop and move on to the next hand. It just doesn't look like a profitable situation to be putting anymore money in here OOP 3ways vs wide ranges and a fish overcalling. Like easy C/F. Or is this a too extreme and simple way of thinking?

Time Link to 00:14:33

But FOxWoods, if we would be 3betting light and he'd defends with a wide range, wouldn't we barrel this ace most of the time and represent air?

(I think you said hero 3bet because Villain was a nit, so thats not relevant to this hand)

Oh how I missed this

13:40 the AJ- FWF don't we want to be betting turn to balance the times we're barreling air here? Granted the board isn't the GREATEST to barrel w/ air, but still. We also rep the most air by 2 barreling rather than bet/ck/betting, w/ bet/ck/bet isn't our hand always pretty faceup as like weakish TP type hands?

I could listen to FWF talking about hands all day. A ridiculously good video.

my god, FWF making video for SS. love it
pls MOAR

good vid and great analysis, have a few questions:

on the last JJ hand,

why are u discarding sets from hero range? yeah we raise it some of the time, but it's not like an autoraise and since it's a rainbow flop, it's also a pretty good texture to slowplay some sets hoping for villain to barrel overcards...
im also confused about u saying to bet JJ preflop vs MP, don't u feel u need some kind of history to do so? i think when players are in EP or MP, their range are pretty strong or perceived so, i play at 5/10 and i feel most of the regs flat JJ here, and when ppl do 4 bet , they either do it as a bluff or w QQ+,AK and rarely w JJ. Of course the dynamic CO vs btn is completely different and JJ is the nuts there, could u expand more on this and how would u treat AQ on the same scenario ?

FWF vid is good for me.

Isn't it just best to C/F this flop and move on to the next hand. It just doesn't look like a profitable situation to be putting anymore money in here OOP 3ways vs wide ranges and a fish overcalling. Like easy C/F. Or is this a too extreme and simple way of thinking?

I agree, and thought I had said as much in the video. In case I wasn't clear, I don't think this is a good place to bet the flop

good vid and great analysis, have a few questions:

on the last JJ hand,

why are u discarding sets from hero range? yeah we raise it some of the time, but it's not like an autoraise and since it's a rainbow flop, it's also a pretty good texture to slowplay some sets hoping for villain to barrel overcards...
im also confused about u saying to bet JJ preflop vs MP, don't u feel u need some kind of history to do so? i think when players are in EP or MP, their range are pretty strong or perceived so, i play at 5/10 and i feel most of the regs flat JJ here, and when ppl do 4 bet , they either do it as a bluff or w QQ+,AK and rarely w JJ. Of course the dynamic CO vs btn is completely different and JJ is the nuts there, could u expand more on this and how would u treat AQ on the same scenario ?

with regards to sets, i guess he could have them but shoving the river with them would be pretty bad as there's just no reason to think with the board coming down this way that your EV on an overbet is higher than a standard bet which gets called way more often. of course, there's always room for leveling and maybe if you know that he knows that you're repping a narrow range he'll make a hero call, but generally speaking shoving with a set here would be really bad

as to 3-betting JJ: if you're playing in games where 3-betting JJ isn't mandatory, it's because people react to 3bets too weakly. if that's the case and they're only playing back with AK, QQ+ and folding the vast majority of their range (or peeling flops with pocket pairs and check/folding the flop when they miss), you should be 3-betting them more and more. if you do so and they're at all adaptive, you're going to need to start 3-betting JJ for balance.

13:40 the AJ- FWF don't we want to be betting turn to balance the times we're barreling air here? Granted the board isn't the GREATEST to barrel w/ air, but still. We also rep the most air by 2 barreling rather than bet/ck/betting, w/ bet/ck/bet isn't our hand always pretty faceup as like weakish TP type hands?

I don't think you should be barreling this turn too often as you're unlikely to get folds and are committed to 3-barreling. If you think the best way to rep air is to bet rather than check the turn and then bet the river, then you should start bluffing by checking the turn and betting the river; this is superior both because the turn bet is often going to get called by pairs+gutshots that would fold the river if you waited on your second barrel until the river. it's also superior because it enables you to take lines like this with AJ where you get to pot control but still get in one street of value.

basically, i think this is a bad spot to barrel so you don't have to worry about balancing with your barrels too often and your bluff lines (and value lines with marginal hands) should involve check turn/bet river in this spot

"Villian" :')

do you think your powers of deductive reasoning are better, worse, or equal to those of robert downey jr.'s sherlock holmes?

Time Link to 00:44:02

I think ure thought process is sound in this hand, and betting some where between 410-440 is better than an overbet shove. However if the villian has seen hero turn made hands into bluffs before, villians natural adjustment is going to call when hero is repping a small range and villian is on the top of his in this specific situation and thus betting river 410 will be looked up more often and a worse line than checking back with your showdown value probably. If villian has never seen hero turn a made hand into a bluff, this is a pretty good spot to do so for the reasons explained by Ariel, I would also argue that its good EVEN if he gets called, because then he can stop turning made hands into bluffs and start valuebetting and expect to be looked up by a higher frequency(wider range). So whatever the outcome is hero should turn his made hand into a bluff and adjust, to make more money in the future.

I would also argue that its good EVEN if he gets called, because then he can stop turning made hands into bluffs and start valuebetting and expect to be looked up by a higher frequency(wider range). So whatever the outcome is hero should turn his made hand into a bluff and adjust, to make more money in the future.

ariel is arguing that the river bet is the best line, thus it doesn't matter if he gets called or not... results shouldn't matter here. there's not much metagame going on with a line like this outside of "holy shit why did he just jam Q8 what a sicko that's kinda scary"

do you think your powers of deductive reasoning are better, worse, or equal to those of robert downey jr.'s sherlock holmes?

I haven't seen the movie, but I'd guess better than

I think ure thought process is sound in this hand, and betting some where between 410-440 is better than an overbet shove. However if the villian has seen hero turn made hands into bluffs before, villians natural adjustment is going to call when hero is repping a small range and villian is on the top of his in this specific situation and thus betting river 410 will be looked up more often and a worse line than checking back with your showdown value probably. If villian has never seen hero turn a made hand into a bluff, this is a pretty good spot to do so for the reasons explained by Ariel, I would also argue that its good EVEN if he gets called, because then he can stop turning made hands into bluffs and start valuebetting and expect to be looked up by a higher frequency(wider range). So whatever the outcome is hero should turn his made hand into a bluff and adjust, to make more money in the future.

I pretty much agree with this except for the part that it's good to get called and lose because it increases your value betting range: I think that any time you're valuebetting extremely marginal holdings, you have to be so confident that villain's going to make a hero call that you can be sure you're a favorite when called. You can't count on being caught valuebluffing once upon a time to consistently get these light lookups. As for valuebetting hands like decent Ax, you should be doing that anyway in this spot

Hi FWF,
When turning your made hands into bluff to fold out better how do you know when to over bet or bet smaller?
And if you think your possibly ahead like the Q hand early in the vid isnt it better just to call?

And on a side note hows the Law study going?

Happy holidays

Time Link to 00:23:00

I'm interested in the theory behind 4xing vs 3xing from the SB v BB, because there was a video on DC recently where an instructor specifically argued the opposite. I think it might have been one of NoahSD's recent vids.

I'm in the 3x camp as well because 1) 4xing vs 3xing doesn't change most people's calling standards; 2) we'd rather not play bigger pots OOP if we're opening a lot; and 3) we don't give them as good a price on a 3bet.

The key I guess is just how much their calling / 3betting standards vary based on your raise size. I know that once I see someone is 4xing from the SB as a default, and they're not opening a tight range, I see it as more dead money to take down preflop.

Hi FWF,
When turning your made hands into bluff to fold out better how do you know when to over bet or bet smaller?
And if you think your possibly ahead like the Q hand early in the vid isnt it better just to call?

And on a side note hows the Law study going?

Happy holidays

With regards to the bet sizing, you just have to figure it out for yourself: factors include what your (perceived) standard value bet size is so you can credibly represent a VB and what you're trying to get your opponent to fold (some types of hands people only fold for a ton of money whereas some marginal hands people will fold to any bet)

Also, the law studies are going great: the last month was a giant pain in the ass and absolutely miserable with 10-12 hours of studying a day and then a brutal exam schedule, but other than that I'm having a blast.

I'm interested in the theory behind 4xing vs 3xing from the SB v BB, because there was a video on DC recently where an instructor specifically argued the opposite. I think it might have been one of NoahSD's recent vids.

I'm in the 3x camp as well because 1) 4xing vs 3xing doesn't change most people's calling standards; 2) we'd rather not play bigger pots OOP if we're opening a lot; and 3) we don't give them as good a price on a 3bet.

The key I guess is just how much their calling / 3betting standards vary based on your raise size. I know that once I see someone is 4xing from the SB as a default, and they're not opening a tight range, I see it as more dead money to take down preflop.

wrt 1), I disagree and definitely find people peeling more when i 3x than 4x from the SB
2) If you're opening a lot and you think your opponents adjust, tightening your opening ranges, which you should be doing anyway as playing in the SB is a huge disadvantage. As for wanting to play smaller pots, I think you're wrong: given that you're going to play a hand oop, you'd prefer to get as much $ in as possible (up to a limit obviously: you don't want to jam because of the risk/reward, but you want to get 4BB in as opposed to 3BB). This is because position is so important that you want to reduce the value of position by limiting the postflop options of your opponent. There's a lot of ways to put this, but here's the simplest way to demonstrate the concept:
You are playing somebody heads-up. Stack sizes are $1000. You can play a normal match or you can play a match where the blind sizes alternate: when you're on the button they're $5/10, when you're on the BB they're $25/50. It seems fairly obvious you would choose this alternate structure. If that doesn't seem likely, imagine the blinds are $500/1k. You would want that right?

You are playing somebody heads-up. Stack sizes are $1000. You can play a normal match or you can play a match where the blind sizes alternate: when you're on the button they're $5/10, when you're on the BB they're $25/50. It seems fairly obvious you would choose this alternate structure. If that doesn't seem likely, imagine the blinds are $500/1k. You would want that right?

Right. We'd rather be deep in position and create shallower stacks OOP to negate our postflop disadvantage.

Would your thinking change if you knew your opponent wasn't adjusting to the fact you were 3xing rather than 4xing, or does the value of getting more money in preflop still override that?

Thanks.

very good video, you are the best!

thanks for discussing my hand

but one question:
my A2o hand:
I think its grindcore that advices raising only 3BB from the SB, cause he argues that villain has to play back with about 40% of his hands in order to not make it instantly profitable for us.
We could even just c/f any flop and we would show a profit.
And very very rarely people play like 40% of their hands out of the BB vs a SB raise.
Doesn't that make sense also?

And I agree with you that he isn't folding the turn that often, other than with some total air float or hands like J9 that give up their gutshot, but isn't it great for us if he calls with so many weak pair hands which we can barrel him off on the river (assuming he isn't turning weak made hands into a bluff all the time + I would bet bigger on rivers that don't improve me)?
If he calls both on the flop and turn and doesn't raise his range is soooo weak, cause as you said, he would raise most of his two pair+ hands either on the flop or turn, so 2barreling might not be a good idea but 3barreling probably is, especially cause he probably doesn't expect me to triple barrel that often, cause we have some fullring history?

Time Link to 00:35:51

do you think raising the turn is major spew?

it was my first inclination when seeing the hand, cause both players are very unlikely to have a huge made hand, other than wader could have the J9, cause they would raise pretty much every single better hand on the flop, cause of its drawheavyness (I'd expect them to c/raise QT and sets pretty much always).

So the only hand that we don't beat is J9, and (as you said) it would need a pretty non standard line for him to have this.
He will c/r the flop often and if he turns the nuts I'd expect him to donk J9 bigger, cause there are tons of cards that can kill his action (J or 9) or kill his hand (diamonds, prolly spades) and he just gives a super nice price for every FD, which makes it less likely that we raise it on the turn.
Also he would probably just go for a check/shove, hoping you have some two pair/set hands or you are betting the flushdraw again.

And with Q8 we have the same problem as he has with J9: there are tons of horrible cards in the deck.
So wouldn't it be a great spot to raise when its highly unlikely that we don't have the best hand, plus tons of river cards destroy our hand or our action, plus he might do this with hands like T8 and stack off or he just spazz gets it in with a FD if we just raise and don't shove hoping for the best?

very good video, you are the best!

thanks for discussing my hand

but one question:
my A2o hand:
I think its grindcore that advices raising only 3BB from the SB, cause he argues that villain has to play back with about 40% of his hands in order to not make it instantly profitable for us.
We could even just c/f any flop and we would show a profit.
And very very rarely people play like 40% of their hands out of the BB vs a SB raise.
Doesn't that make sense also?

You can't look at it in a vacuum, you have to compare the relative profitability of the two approaches. If you 3x and the guy only plays back 39%, sure it's automatically profitable, but maybe 4xing would make him play back way less and be more profitable. Also, you can't just isolate away the gameplay aspects of the decisions you choose: you're not check/folding every flop, you're continuing to play on in the hand most of the time and if that's the case, you want the pot to be bigger relative to the stack sizes

And I agree with you that he isn't folding the turn that often, other than with some total air float or hands like J9 that give up their gutshot, but isn't it great for us if he calls with so many weak pair hands which we can barrel him off on the river (assuming he isn't turning weak made hands into a bluff all the time + I would bet bigger on rivers that don't improve me)?
If he calls both on the flop and turn and doesn't raise his range is soooo weak, cause as you said, he would raise most of his two pair+ hands either on the flop or turn, so 2barreling might not be a good idea but 3barreling probably is, especially cause he probably doesn't expect me to triple barrel that often, cause we have some fullring history?

I just think that barreling a turn when you KNOW you're going to get called and justifying by saying he's folding the river is optimistic: people make calldowns in the blinds, they could improve and call, etc. It takes a specific read on somebody to bet as an installment plan approach

do you think raising the turn is major spew?

it was my first inclination when seeing the hand, cause both players are very unlikely to have a huge made hand, other than wader could have the J9, cause they would raise pretty much every single better hand on the flop, cause of its drawheavyness (I'd expect them to c/raise QT and sets pretty much always).

So the only hand that we don't beat is J9, and (as you said) it would need a pretty non standard line for him to have this.
He will c/r the flop often and if he turns the nuts I'd expect him to donk J9 bigger, cause there are tons of cards that can kill his action (J or 9) or kill his hand (diamonds, prolly spades) and he just gives a super nice price for every FD, which makes it less likely that we raise it on the turn.
Also he would probably just go for a check/shove, hoping you have some two pair/set hands or you are betting the flushdraw again.

And with Q8 we have the same problem as he has with J9: there are tons of horrible cards in the deck.
So wouldn't it be a great spot to raise when its highly unlikely that we don't have the best hand, plus tons of river cards destroy our hand or our action, plus he might do this with hands like T8 and stack off or he just spazz gets it in with a FD if we just raise and don't shove hoping for the best?

I think if you raise here you only get action from better hands and putting in a lot more money when you have the worst of it to protect from draws/make the hand more playable (which is important, but significantly less so since you haver position and can evaluate the river) isn't worth the risk that he's taking a non-standard line with 9J or a set. People do weird things and you can't just automatically rule out better hands as it's hard either way to make sense of what Wader's doing here

pretty funny to see yourself the first time in a video (a great one btw).

To the 3x vs 4x discussion:
I think it´s highly opponent based if you steal 3,3.5 or 4x.
For example if you want to steal vs me:
I will call 3x opens from the SB with about 60-70% (no joke, i mean you´re getting 2:1 and you are in position), the lower 30-40% are a insta3bet as long as the opponent doesn´t adapt.
Many players out there are having a ridiculous high SB stealingrange (often enough BUsteal < SBsteal) and you can play back on them a lot very profitably.


On the other hand you can steal vs massgrinders and nits 3x easily, and so on.
Vs the most guys it won´t make too much difference but you should try to adapt to certain opponents.

just my 2 cents

pennyyy

the last JJ hand was played by me. I think the reason I didnt 3-bet him pf was because he had a high fold to 3-bet % and id basically turn jacks into a bluff by 3-betting him (Id rather be 3-betting him with trashier hands that had no value flatting).

As for post-flop, basically he was kinda on the nittier scared money side i think and thats why i shoved, i dont think he was the best handreader, but fwf is right -- if he was a good handreader i would have been snapped off and my line makes little sense now that i think about it. I was mostly hoping he was on level 1 thinking and had a marginal hand that would get scared by a river shove.

with regards to sets, i guess he could have them but shoving the river with them would be pretty bad as there's just no reason to think with the board coming down this way that your EV on an overbet is higher than a standard bet which gets called way more often. of course, there's always room for leveling and maybe if you know that he knows that you're repping a narrow range he'll make a hero call, but generally speaking shoving with a set here would be really bad

as to 3-betting JJ: if you're playing in games where 3-betting JJ isn't mandatory, it's because people react to 3bets too weakly. if that's the case and they're only playing back with AK, QQ+ and folding the vast majority of their range (or peeling flops with pocket pairs and check/folding the flop when they miss), you should be 3-betting them more and more. if you do so and they're at all adaptive, you're going to need to start 3-betting JJ for balance.

this was exactly the situation. I just figured I had a +EV opportunity with his 83% fold to 3-bet stat, why waste it now with a good hand when I could always 3-bet bluff him later a few times. Obviously he reacts after a certain number of 3-bets and the +EV situation dissapears. This way I get extra EV from flatting jacks instead of wasting it on 3-bet bluffing which a lot of weaker hands (that couldnt flat) could do just as well.

Can't believe I hadn't watched this video before today. Epic FWF.

watched this whole series over the past 2 days. i heard foxwoodsfiend talking in my head as i was falling asleep last night. i wish i was joking. thanks though FWF.