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

Headhunter: Episode Two

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or Sign Up Now
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
 

Headhunter: Episode Two by FoxwoodsFiend

FoxwoodsFiend wraps up his analysis of his heads up session versus WiltOnTilt.

About Headhunter Subscribe to

FoxwoodsFiend presents four 2-part high stakes HU matches against unique, thinking opponents, teaching us the hows and whys of changing our strategies and illustrating why we need to challenge ourselves to get better.

Tags

wiltontilt fwf foxwoodsfiend hunl huhu no limit holdem $10/20 $2000 nl headhunter

Video Details

  • Game: nlhe
  • Stakes: High Stakes
  • 50 minutes long
  • Posted about 4 years ago

Downloads

Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.

Sign Up Today


Comments for Headhunter: Episode Two

or track by Email or RSS

payerikplz

Avatar for payerikplz

70 posts
Joined 02/2009

jjd323

Avatar for jjd323

585 posts
Joined 08/2008

Time Link to 00:31:13

Your reasoning for betting the AA here is pretty awkward, given he is so unlikely to have a hand that can overtake you with one card on the turn. You surely can't be too scared of a 3, 6 or 7 as he is unlikely to have low suited connectors here very often.

If he has naked A hi you should be ecstatic for him to call almost any bet size, as his equity is horrendous.

Do you feel that there is merit to a 3-street betting plan of 625, 1050 then the rest (1750ish) in on the river? It seems to me that betting larger will usually be shutting him out with marginal overs, and the most common result will be helping villain to make a correct fold (and also discourage him from playing back at you with aggression).

The only reason I can think for making the first bet large is if you expect him to peel once and then fold the turn. In this case, you need to get your value NOW. However, it seems likely that Ax would peel twice versus small bets, does it not?

Posted about 4 years ago

I_Am_BeHiNd_U

Avatar for I_Am_BeHiNd_U

15 posts
Joined 04/2009

Time Link to 00:40:55

What do you expect him to call your value bet with here, if you say you don't like his call with QQ? Do you actually valuebet expecting him to make a bad call?

Awesome videos by the way, love the way you explain things!

Posted about 4 years ago

bsidensol

Avatar for bsidensol

22 posts
Joined 05/2007

Time Link to 00:26:36

Hey FWF,

Im kinda curious about why you're leading river here with the A7. You really can't have air here ever. Are you betting out here ever with hands like JT, QJ as bluffs so that he'll have a decision with a weak Ax/Kx hand?

I think i'd be inclined to c/c or make a thin value c/r on this river - it keeps our range wider and lets him either valuebet some weak Ax hands himself, or bluff since our range looks a lot weaker.

It just seems like a spot where I can't see us getting called by many worse hands ever vs a very good player, but he might bluff / value-bet with worse if you check this river to him.

Posted about 4 years ago

bsidensol

Avatar for bsidensol

22 posts
Joined 05/2007

Your reasoning for betting the AA here is pretty awkward, given he is so unlikely to have a hand that can overtake you with one card on the turn. You surely can't be too scared of a 3, 6 or 7 as he is unlikely to have low suited connectors here very often.

If he has naked A hi you should be ecstatic for him to call almost any bet size, as his equity is horrendous.

Do you feel that there is merit to a 3-street betting plan of 625, 1050 then the rest (1750ish) in on the river? It seems to me that betting larger will usually be shutting him out with marginal overs, and the most common result will be helping villain to make a correct fold (and also discourage him from playing back at you with aggression).

The only reason I can think for making the first bet large is if you expect him to peel once and then fold the turn. In this case, you need to get your value NOW. However, it seems likely that Ax would peel twice versus small bets, does it not?



Given how much of FWF's perceived range here is Ax I doubt villain is just gonna float us with overs, regardless if we bet small, just because of how often we're going to barrel.

I think the logic behind betting bigger is to induce wilt to jam his Ax hands, or it more credibly looks like we're betting our own Ax hands, and hope he doesn't fold any pair he didn't feel like shoving pre / hit some equity on this board.

Just my .02c

Posted about 4 years ago

spino1i

Avatar for spino1i

184 posts
Joined 09/2008

Id really like to see FWF go up against jungleman, ike or urNotinDanger2 next. All three of those players have always intimidated me and id like to see how you handle them.

Posted about 4 years ago

FoxwoodsFiend

Avatar for FoxwoodsFiend

345 posts
Joined 10/2007

Your reasoning for betting the AA here is pretty awkward, given he is so unlikely to have a hand that can overtake you with one card on the turn. You surely can't be too scared of a 3, 6 or 7 as he is unlikely to have low suited connectors here very often.

If he has naked A hi you should be ecstatic for him to call almost any bet size, as his equity is horrendous.

Do you feel that there is merit to a 3-street betting plan of 625, 1050 then the rest (1750ish) in on the river? It seems to me that betting larger will usually be shutting him out with marginal overs, and the most common result will be helping villain to make a correct fold (and also discourage him from playing back at you with aggression).

The only reason I can think for making the first bet large is if you expect him to peel once and then fold the turn. In this case, you need to get your value NOW. However, it seems likely that Ax would peel twice versus small bets, does it not?



Yeah, I think you're right and I was distracted by the 45cc hand

Posted about 4 years ago

FoxwoodsFiend

Avatar for FoxwoodsFiend

345 posts
Joined 10/2007

Hey FWF,

Im kinda curious about why you're leading river here with the A7. You really can't have air here ever. Are you betting out here ever with hands like JT, QJ as bluffs so that he'll have a decision with a weak Ax/Kx hand?

I think i'd be inclined to c/c or make a thin value c/r on this river - it keeps our range wider and lets him either valuebet some weak Ax hands himself, or bluff since our range looks a lot weaker.

It just seems like a spot where I can't see us getting called by many worse hands ever vs a very good player, but he might bluff / value-bet with worse if you check this river to him.



a) I can definitely be bluffing here w/missed gutties and sometimes just pure OOP floats to get him off some random pair he's hit which is the main reason why I bet here
b) I don't think I ever have the worse hand and I doubt Wilt is betting this river too often with a hand that doesn't call me on the river

Posted about 4 years ago

FoxwoodsFiend

Avatar for FoxwoodsFiend

345 posts
Joined 10/2007

Id really like to see FWF go up against jungleman, ike or urNotinDanger2 next. All three of those players have always intimidated me and id like to see how you handle them.



The thing is, I expect to be playing most of these guys at some point in the next 6 months and giving away my exact gameplan against opponents I actually play a lot of hands against is something I'm reluctant to do

Posted about 4 years ago

GilgUK

Avatar for GilgUK

141 posts
Joined 12/2008

Time Link to 00:45:04

why is it sometimes necessary to balance your range by raising K9, or do you mean K9+? As surely its better to do it with KJ/KQ. Or is it simply a case of not getting dealt those hands enough?

Posted about 4 years ago

FoxwoodsFiend

Avatar for FoxwoodsFiend

345 posts
Joined 10/2007

why is it sometimes necessary to balance your range by raising K9, or do you mean K9+? As surely its better to do it with KJ/KQ. Or is it simply a case of not getting dealt those hands enough?



yeah i meant K9 when you have it, not only K9. obv KJ/KQ are raises

Posted about 4 years ago

Slowjoe

Avatar for Slowjoe

1117 posts
Joined 01/2010

Time Link to 00:21:13

Very interesting comment on the 84s 4bet "bluff". You state that 84s is right at the bottom of ANY 4bet bluffing range, if I understand you correctly.

My question is, how did you find out or calculate this? Is this the same for other suited 3 gappers and 4 gappers (73s, 84s, 95s, T6s, J7s, Q8s 4-bet-able but 72s, 83s, 94s, T5s, J6s, Q7s never 4-bet-able)?

I'm guessing there might have been a significant amount of pokerstove/excel work below the waterline a la Professor Plotkin.

Posted about 4 years ago

FoxwoodsFiend

Avatar for FoxwoodsFiend

345 posts
Joined 10/2007

Very interesting comment on the 84s 4bet "bluff". You state that 84s is right at the bottom of ANY 4bet bluffing range, if I understand you correctly.

My question is, how did you find out or calculate this? Is this the same for other suited 3 gappers and 4 gappers (73s, 84s, 95s, T6s, J7s, Q8s 4-bet-able but 72s, 83s, 94s, T5s, J6s, Q7s never 4-bet-able)?

I'm guessing there might have been a significant amount of pokerstove/excel work below the waterline a la Professor Plotkin.



well i don't 4bet total unsuited garbage and 48 isn't particularly a good hand, so i figure it's at the bottom of my 4bet range. didn't really do any work to prove that, sorry to disappoint Frown

Posted about 4 years ago



HomePoker Videos → Headhunter → Episode Two