Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by KRANTZ (High Stakes)

been waiting all week (and night) for this

tytyty

Still great, but it's getting worse IMO altho I'm watching it

God i love this serie.

Still great, but it's getting worse IMO altho I'm watching it

I actually thought this was one of the best episodes so far in the series, if not the best. Krantz did an awesome job both building on and disagreeing with Ariel's analysis, which was already top notch.

One quick question though: In the hand at 37:15 where you turn the nut straight on the 64K5ddd board and tie fires two block-ish size bets on the turn and river, how is your play altered if on the river he instead fires larger, say roughly 30k? Are you still able to make the same value raise, and how big?

As an offshoot, what if he fires ~2/3 pot on BOTH the turn and river?

The brutality of tha 57dd hand was epic.

You discussed this concept of situations where the opponent has a very narrow value-betting range (for multiple streets), example being something like A on a 2 3 K Q (with additionally perhaps previous action that doesn't make sense for A in the opponent's hand) and thus it being relatively easy to call down lightly on relatively weak hands to the board. So if you know that he's capable of bluffing you can guess that a bluff is actually more likely given the shape of the distribution.

Now, my question is whether anyone in no-limit games fixes this by having some way to make sure that the frequency is not so far out of balance. (Of course you can widen your value-betting range there, but it doesn't necessarily still fix the problem.) In limit hold'em, there's a convenient way to do this as you can figure out your own range and pick a proper amount of hands from that range so that the frequency of bluffs has a more reasonable proportion to the value-betting range. (Not necessarily an "unexploitable" frequency, but something that isn't completely out of line.)

So say, hypothetically, your range for some reason was {23o, 24o, ATo, AJo, AQo, AKo} and the "proper" frequency of value-bets to bluffs was like 2:1 and you'd value-bet AKo and AQo then you should bluff only with 23o even though 24o would be the exact same hand, but with choosing a particular hand you would ensure that the bluffing frequency isn't out of line. And again, I'm not talking about making your play unexploitable, but to make it such that it wasn't super-easy to read as having too high a frequency of bluffs.

In no-limit, of course, it's a bit different as you don't have such a clean game tree and your own range is much fuzzier and the reasons for bluffing are often more situational and dependent on other factors. So my question is whether there are a lot of semi-competent players who are oblivious that they make their range too bluff-heavy and whether you have any mechanism to ensure that the frequency of bluffs in your own play isn't out of line (in situations like this, that is)?

DC needs far more HU videos! When is pr1nnyraiding season 2 coming

I actually thought this was one of the best episodes so far in the series, if not the best. Krantz did an awesome job both building on and disagreeing with Ariel's analysis, which was already top notch.

One quick question though: In the hand at 37:15 where you turn the nut straight on the 64K5ddd board and tie fires two block-ish size bets on the turn and river, how is your play altered if on the river he instead fires larger, say roughly 30k? Are you still able to make the same value raise, and how big?

As an offshoot, what if he fires ~2/3 pot on BOTH the turn and river?

If he bets larger, his range narrows to bluffs/flushes and I'd likely just be calling down. With the small bets, he's really not bluffing anymore, but he also doesn't have flushes (because of the read we had established based on previous bet sizing in similar hands), so the gate is open for value raising.

You discussed this concept of situations where the opponent has a very narrow value-betting range (for multiple streets), example being something like A on a 2 3 K Q (with additionally perhaps previous action that doesn't make sense for A in the opponent's hand) and thus it being relatively easy to call down lightly on relatively weak hands to the board. So if you know that he's capable of bluffing you can guess that a bluff is actually more likely given the shape of the distribution.

Now, my question is whether anyone in no-limit games fixes this by having some way to make sure that the frequency is not so far out of balance. (Of course you can widen your value-betting range there, but it doesn't necessarily still fix the problem.) In limit hold'em, there's a convenient way to do this as you can figure out your own range and pick a proper amount of hands from that range so that the frequency of bluffs has a more reasonable proportion to the value-betting range. (Not necessarily an "unexploitable" frequency, but something that isn't completely out of line.)

So say, hypothetically, your range for some reason was {23o, 24o, ATo, AJo, AQo, AKo} and the "proper" frequency of value-bets to bluffs was like 2:1 and you'd value-bet AKo and AQo then you should bluff only with 23o even though 24o would be the exact same hand, but with choosing a particular hand you would ensure that the bluffing frequency isn't out of line. And again, I'm not talking about making your play unexploitable, but to make it such that it wasn't super-easy to read as having too high a frequency of bluffs.

In no-limit, of course, it's a bit different as you don't have such a clean game tree and your own range is much fuzzier and the reasons for bluffing are often more situational and dependent on other factors. So my question is whether there are a lot of semi-competent players who are oblivious that they make their range too bluff-heavy and whether you have any mechanism to ensure that the frequency of bluffs in your own play isn't out of line (in situations like this, that is)?

Well, the easy answer is that a majority of players are either oblivious that they make their range too bluff-heavy OR that their opponents' range is wide enough where they think (often incorrectly) they will fold enough of the weak hands to offset the bad distribution.

As to the second part of the question... again, the easy answer is to run bluffs when they have a high probable success rate (you have a tight image, for one, you have been in line or the situation is such where they should not expect a bluff), you have established a wide range for thin value betting, and where their hand is defined as weak so you are thus able to employ said thin value betting range.

As I'm sure you're aware, it's not nearly as important in NL to play in(un?)exploitively as it is to just make sure you're not being exploited.

DC needs far more HU videos! When is pr1nnyraiding season 2 coming

Don't worry don't worry

news better than christmas (when i was 5 years old)

I actually thought this was one of the best episodes so far in the series, if not the best. Krantz did an awesome job both building on and disagreeing with Ariel's analysis, which was already top notch.

One quick question though: In the hand at 37:15 where you turn the nut straight on the 64K5ddd board and tie fires two block-ish size bets on the turn and river, how is your play altered if on the river he instead fires larger, say roughly 30k? Are you still able to make the same value raise, and how big?

As an offshoot, what if he fires ~2/3 pot on BOTH the turn and river?

can't really raise if he bets 30k imo. if he fires 2/3 pot on both streets can't raise also

so just out of curiousity what'd he have when you value raised his 1/2 pot bet onthe river w/ the straight on the 3 diamond board

so just out of curiousity what'd he have when you value raised his 1/2 pot bet onthe river w/ the straight on the 3 diamond board

K4

regarding that 93KQdddd hand - you mentioned that "he doesn't bet Ad on the flop because it's got showdown value, figuring he can't fold out much of my range yet", but why wouldn't he bet some lone unpaired Ad on the flop there, because you are probably coming along with many dominated diamonds and there is definitely value in betting? Or it's just that he's got both Ahigh showdown value and flush protection, figuring it'd be easier to extract from weaker diamonds by widening (or it'd be better to say "tangling") his perceived vb range (as in you said there are very few hands that would be betting both flop and turn on a 4diamond board), but then again, it wouldn't make much sense because he wider his vb range gets, the harder it is for you to call down really light in this spot. So i simply can't understand why someone wouldn't bet Ad in that spot.

regarding that 93KQdddd hand - you mentioned that "he doesn't bet Ad on the flop because it's got showdown value, figuring he can't fold out much of my range yet", but why wouldn't he bet some lone unpaired Ad on the flop there, because you are probably coming along with many dominated diamonds and there is definitely value in betting? Or it's just that he's got both Ahigh showdown value and flush protection, figuring it'd be easier to extract from weaker diamonds by widening (or it'd be better to say "tangling") his perceived vb range (as in you said there are very few hands that would be betting both flop and turn on a 4diamond board), but then again, it wouldn't make much sense because he wider his vb range gets, the harder it is for you to call down really light in this spot. So i simply can't understand why someone wouldn't bet Ad in that spot.

A lot of players don't because they have showdown value and don't need to worry about giving up free cards. I'm not probably coming along with many dominated diamonds unless they have a pair with them, in which case he's behind. I'm not saying that players never bet the ace, some players who understand this trick do so (and might even bet the Jd and then vb it on the turn), I'm just telling you what my general experience is on these boards

don't you think you missed a bet with your KK on the left table at around 22 min? he bet the turn and checks the river, so don't you think he never has an ace in this spot?