Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Joe Tall (Mid Stakes)

Nice, Always good to be able to bust a new move.

Time Link to 00:29:10

I like checkraise turn but what will you do on blank river or T? Do you will barrel river try make him fold somethink like 67 with 7 clubs?

I'm loving the OTR15 videos.

Side note: re-tag this as small stakes

Nice I liked the discussion of X/Ring the turn with the QT flush/straight draw. Good equity + not good SD value + lots of credible value hands in your range + lots of hands in villain's range he can get away from + you're calling anyways so might as well put in one extra bet = great spot to semibluff. I think I have been missing some of these spots. Also, OTR some of the spots where you liked cbetting the flop OOP but would X/C the turn when you hit TP or otherwise had decent SD value. This got me thinking that barrelling off with the best hand when OOP HU doesn't always get max value. Thanks guys!

Time Link to 00:43:16

I'm trying to figure out how OTR can be so critical of a flop c/r here. Is this opponent dependent, or is it just dumb to c/r here because of something else?

In this session, Joe is following a "don't 3 bet OOP HU" strategy preflop. Most people who advocate that strategy justify it by saying that they will then c/r almost all flops and thus get the same amount of money in while disguising their hand.

I'd consider this a pretty good flop for A-hi and yes, it's true that a c/r on T34 will get a lot of folds from worse hands but the alternative is to hope that your opponent bets his worse hands for you.

It's definitely a tricky board to milk maximum value from, but I'd like to hear more about OTR's justification for a c/r here being so terrible.

I'd consider this a pretty good flop for A-hi and yes, it's true that a c/r on T34 will get a lot of folds from worse hands but the alternative is to hope that your opponent bets his worse hands for you.

Right. They will. Inducing here is so much better than targeting an extremely tiny range of hands we can get value from. We are pretty far behind any sane opponent's continuing range, especially when we c/r and blow him off all his bluffs.

And people who don't threebet out of the BB do so because they get to make better decisions on different flop textures, not so they can blindly threebet any flop the dealer rolls out

Nice video, I think you 2 work well together.
I've a quick question about the whole c/ring of the T34 flop.
If we had the note that this guy was as SD bound as he ends up being (calling down w QKo) before the hand (assuming he's also calling down with as low as say K9o) would you then consider check raising your best A-highs like AJo through to hands like 22/A3 on the flop or would you still bluff catch with all of these?
(I'd think if we knew he was barrel happy with most of his range it'd be a call down esp. with the pot being small but against someone who's barrelling tendencies arn't yet known I'm not sure).

Good luck with the rest of the series

I like checkraise turn but what will you do on blank river or T? Do you will barrel river try make him fold somethink like 67 with 7 clubs?

If we check raise, we might have to give up. A Ten I might check/call, anything else, I check/fold. The most likely scenario to these type of hands is the river is checked through so I can likely see a free showdown with my Ten, and it's also one of the reasons why I have to bet a Q on the end. The one hand you mentioned 7c6x is such a small portion of his range, if it is even in this range at all.

Time Link to 00:44:16

He's not folding KJ here... like, get real joe!

Like, Get Real Joe! would be sucha great name for a band. Also, I agree with OTR that this is an awesome spot to let people valuetown themselves hu. You'll get 2 streets of random bets from the goofiest stuff.

This was an excellent video and a great idea for a series. I wish the whole series was gonna be Jer and Joe, though (imo).

If we had the note that this guy was as SD bound as he ends up being (calling down w QKo) before the hand

This is a good observation. In my opinion, it's still better to induce because he has so much random junk here that just can't call. It's a much wider part of his range than the hands we can get value from. You lose a little value the times he woulda called down with worse than A9, but gain a ton the many more times he has far less.

Great vid.

For someone looking to learn LHE coming over from other mixed games, what is a good starting point? I don't want to play at a level that really isn't going to help me b/c gameplay is so sloppy, but I also don't want to light fire to my money by playing at the same levels I do in other games(not that its all that high...lol).

Time Link to 00:30:12

Do you call a river raise here Jeremy?

Rob

This is a good observation. In my opinion, it's still better to induce because he has so much random junk here that just can't call. It's a much wider part of his range than the hands we can get value from. You lose a little value the times he woulda called down with worse than A9, but gain a ton the many more times he has far less.

Yeh generally without any further knowledge on how he plays I'd do the same and just look to c/r on improvement. Maybe vs a good player though who is pretty showdown bound but can check back some turns/rivers and wont go apeshit with draws which may otherwise cause us to end up folding the best hand before showdown it'd be a better play on a dry board like this.

This is a good observation. In my opinion, it's still better to induce because he has so much random junk here that just can't call. It's a much wider part of his range than the hands we can get value from. You lose a little value the times he woulda called down with worse than A9, but gain a ton the many more times he has far less.

You also lose less when you are behind and preserve your implied odds for when you bink the ace on the turn like a JoeTall is wont to do.

Do you call a river raise here Jeremy?

Rob

I assume you mean in the QT hand. I'd think we should fold against the villain in question.

Time Link to 00:21:05

can we make a case for trying to bluff here with the topish end of our folding range because we are accidentally value betting sometimes?

I mean, if we're just going to fold to a bet, we can stab and win a pot we were otherwise going to lose, or we can possibly get value from random undercards which would be pretty neat imo

can we make a case for trying to bluff here with the topish end of our folding range because we are accidentally value betting sometimes?

I mean, if we're just going to fold to a bet, we can stab and win a pot we were otherwise going to lose, or we can possibly get value from random undercards which would be pretty neat imo

I mean we're either value betting or bluffing. I don't think it can be both.

on defending the bb multiway:

Q7 and worse play pretty horribly multiway especially when the raise is coming from UTG. If you're calling Q7, you may as well call Q2. 4-5 way, pair of 7s is pretty weak and you're not really going to outkick Q6 very often.

Your river analogy isn't applicable either because when you call one bet on the river, you can't lose more bets. When you call a weak off suit hand from the bb, there's a very good chance you will lose more bets.

on defending the bb multiway:

Q7 and worse play pretty horribly multiway especially when the raise is coming from UTG. If you're calling Q7, you may as well call Q2. 4-5 way, pair of 7s is pretty weak and you're not really going to outkick Q6 very often.

Your river analogy isn't applicable either because when you call one bet on the river, you can't lose more bets. When you call a weak off suit hand from the bb, there's a very good chance you will lose more bets.

Right I'm not saying it's like an ideal situation but sometimes you're just getting 10:1 and you should play anyway.

Also of course Q7 is better than Q2, especially in a lose passive game like this. So basically I agree that my river analogy isn't perfect, but it's certainly applicable and becomes more and more applicable a. the looser the opener is and b. the better we play postflop relative to our opponents.

Right I'm not saying it's like an ideal situation but sometimes you're just getting 10:1 and you should play anyway.

Also of course Q7 is better than Q2, especially in a lose passive game like this. So basically I agree that my river analogy isn't perfect, but it's certainly applicable and becomes more and more applicable a. the looser the opener is and b. the better we play postflop relative to our opponents.

obv Q2 is worse, but they're closer in value multiway than they would be hu. This is one of those spots where your hand becomes worse at a faster rate than your pot odds increase.

You're also in a situation where you can't leverage your skill much. I think if we play well, it makes our call not as bad, but the opportunities to outplay our opponents given the nature of the pot are limited.

obv Q2 is worse, but they're closer in value multiway than they would be hu. This is one of those spots where your hand becomes worse at a faster rate than your pot odds increase.

You're also in a situation where you can't leverage your skill much. I think if we play well, it makes our call not as bad, but the oppurtunities to outplay our opponents given the nature of the pot are limited.

When people say "outplay" they usually mean winning pots you usually wouldn't win. When I think about "outplaying" our opponents in this particular spot, it's putting in the appropriate amount of action when we flop a marginal hand, which given the nature of our hand, will be most of the time we continue.

My point about a skill advantage is that we'll get a lot of chances to play better than our opponents on a Q2Jr board and less of a chance on a 239r board.

Your point about our hand becoming worse as our pot odds increase in this game can't be right. Think about it this way: someone loosish opens utg. His range dominates our hand even though he's pretty loose. We should fold. Now a loose passive enters the pot. His range is like any connected any suited and some bigger cards. Our hand just got better. Our hand will get better each time one of these guys enters the pot because we're rarely dominated by their ranges.

well we're certainly not winning many pots we shouldn't win given that it's 5 way. As for putting in the correct amount of action, it's not that easy oop. You're pretty handcuffed.

Adding players to the pot does hurt your equity quite a bit. There are diminishing returns though. The 4th player isn't as bad as the 3rd player for example. It's not a matter of domination though, it's a matter of each additional hand cutting into our equity and making it less likely that a pair of queens will win the pot.

well we're certainly not winning many pots we shouldn't win given that it's 5 way. As for putting in the correct amount of action, it's not that easy oop. You're pretty handcuffed.

Adding players to the pot does hurt your equity quite a bit. There are diminishing returns though. The 4th player isn't as bad as the 3rd player for example. It's not a matter of domination though, it's a matter of each additional hand cutting into our equity and making it less likely that a pair of queens will win the pot.

I mean your argument is kinda silly. Of course more people in the pot makes it less likely we win the pot, that's true of any hand, but they are weak players and will frequently be calling/raising/folding when they should be doing something else, and that's good for us.

Of course with this particular hand we'd rather be getting 10:1 with two others in the pot, but that doesn't happen, does it? I'd still rather play it in a 5 way raised pot than if UTG opens and it folds to us in the big blind.

Your first paragraph is dead on. It is difficult. That's why a skill edge is vital.

While it is true of any hand, it's quite a bit worse for offsuit hands

While it is true of any hand, it's quite a bit worse for offsuit hands

What about AKo?

What about AKo?

especially AKo

especially AKo

What about AAo?

What about AAo?

what about it?

Time Link to 00:18:53

Is check-raising this board texture with a PFR raiser betting and a SB cold caller coming along really an option? Why? and how would you play the rest of the hand out?

Time Link to 00:46:23

If we're going to play A9 as a bluff catcher (i.e. cc,cc,cc etc.) on this hand, what kinds of turns and rivers would be willing to give up?

Time Link to 00:47:49

You said earlier in this video that 1/2,2/4, and 3/6 are rake traps.

Is there a case to be made for folding marginal hands like this, and even 96o, because of the rake effect?

I'm also guessing we're folding hands like this in a 1-3 blind structure of 3/6?

Is check-raising this board texture with a PFR raiser betting and a SB cold caller coming along really an option? Why? and how would you play the rest of the hand out?

Yeah of course. The preflop raiser and cold caller both have wide ranges and if we c/r two players in this spot, we'll tend to get more credit for a hand. That being said, our equity is so poor that I think we should forgo a c/r in this particular spot.

If we're going to play A9 as a bluff catcher (i.e. cc,cc,cc etc.) on this hand, what kinds of turns and rivers would be willing to give up?

No turns at all and very few rivers. Maybe some bad turn/river combos like J/Q or something like that.

Time Link to 00:39:47

KQ5

Our hand 68. BB defense vs BTN raise

OTRs comment: change one of those diamonds to a heart and I'm check raising for sure. ... standard

Could you elaborate on this please OTR?

Once I've posted this reply I'll go grab considerators comment from earlier in this thread as maybe it applies here and I can answer my own question.

(EDIT:
[false] Good equity
[true] not good SD value
[true] lots of credible value hands in your range
[maybe?] lots of hands in villain's range he can get away from
[false] you're calling anyways so might as well put in one extra bet

[false?] = great spot to semibluff.

No, this doesn't seem to answer the question so why is this standard OTR?
I think understanding this will really help further my game.
)

1) It may be part of a balancing act in order to make sure we're not bluffing too much on this kind of board to amke calling down profitable.

2) With 2 diamonds on the board it makes it much easier for our opponent to continue with single diamond hands or re-bluffs and may make him more likely to think about calling down light becasue there may be more semi-bluffs in our range when compared to a rainbow board.

3) The heart does give us a small amount of backdoor equity if we are called on the flop to go with our backdoor gutter.

Add all the above together and you change it to a potential bluff...

Oh and...

4) This is a bluff, not a semi-bluff , semi-bluff implies our hand has some value. [/nit]

1) It may be part of a balancing act in order to make sure we're not bluffing too much on this kind of board to amke calling down profitable.

2) With 2 diamonds on the board it makes it much easier for our opponent to continue with single diamond hands or re-bluffs and may make him more likely to think about calling down light becasue there may be more semi-bluffs in our range when compared to a rainbow board.

3) The heart does give us a small amount of backdoor equity if we are called on the flop to go with our backdoor gutter.

Add all the above together and you change it to a potential bluff...

Oh and...

4) This is a bluff, not a semi-bluff , semi-bluff implies our hand has some value. [/nit]

Sorry I just saw this. First of all every hand is either ahead or behind. If we're behind with cards to come and are trying to get our opponent to fold we're semi-bluffing. You can't pure bluff unless you're on the river as far as I'm concerned.

You also need to consider that if you don't semibluff with some of these better equity air cards, you become very very easy to play against on certain turn and river cards.

As a rule of thumb, your opponent should be incorrect to fold his or her entire bluff catching range on any turn/river combo that you barrel. If he's not, you're doing something wrong.

Time Link to 00:03:00

Rake at 1/2, 0.50/1.00...

Do you think that playing full ring (and thus tighter) instead of 6-max would sort of be a way to help avoid the micro/low-stakes rake trap?


TY

Rake at 1/2, 0.50/1.00...

Do you think that playing full ring (and thus tighter) instead of 6-max would sort of be a way to help avoid the micro/low-stakes rake trap?


TY

Since the rake system has changed at Full Tilt, this idea might be more inclined to work, however, the overall effect cannot be large enough to avoid the rake trap.

Focus really hard, be VERY selective at the tables and you seat and move out of 1/2, 2/4, 3/6 as quickly as your bankroll limitations allow you.

Just pointing out that this video has no intro for the series, thought you might like to make it snappier


To the point of the rake, on the 5/T level its kinda the same as at 2-4 and 3-6; 8/16 and above gets lighter though

I wish I would've seen these videos before donking off my entire bankroll to Germy!

Shane

Jeremy you had quads twice today stop lying