Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by sthief09 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 01:05:33

In Aaron and Jared last vid buffalo 3 - there was a 4-bet pot.
And both talk about 4bet ranges neither of them seem to consider KQo or KJo as being likely in their range. Admittedly it was a 200bb eff spot but it was co/btn with aggro dynamic. Perhaps if you shoot them a PM you might get a viewpoint.

just a thought.

I saw that vid and in that spot they were facing a very wide range. When facing that sort of range we don't have to worry about reverse implied odds as we dominate so much of the wide range.

But yeah I do acknowledge that it's rare that someone 3-bets wide enough that we want to 4-bet bluff KQo but that we feel bad taking a flop.
The results of the calculation show that 4-bet bluffing can be ok at times and since it's the simpler play it can be feasible if you are OOP and/or are less experienced post flop.

Here's the spreadsheet that I used to record the approximate calculations:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=8ACCMXLK

Time Link to 00:18:01

One comment on the 4bet-bluff mathematics-after seeing these slides, I am definitely getting the feeling that 4bet bluffing is not as profitable vs a typical TAG as many think (someone with an 8% 3bet or so over a large sample). One thing that was not discussed (at least not yet) was the effect of 5bet bluffs (jamming as a bluff) on our 4bet profitability. If a villain is 3betting 10%, but doesn't jam TT or JJ for value over a 4bet, he can still maintain a 4% jamming range by adding 12 combos or so of bluffs, correct? Therefore we can't simply rely on a read that he flatted a 3bet with JJ and think we have a profitable 4bet bluff situation.

It's so rare to have enough stats on a player to have their 4bet% significant. Can you suggest any other ways to estimate if 4betting may be profitable?

Time Link to 00:36:33

How did you guys determine villain's range of hands in these poker razor calcs? Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze at least 2 different ranges; one that is depolarized and one that is polarized? While depolarization is most common in the blinds, if we have been folding a lot previously or if villain is less aware of optimal 3bet theory, he may be 3betting a very different 10% of hands than if we have been calling frequently or if he has seen us be more selective with our steals, for instance. I realize this was just an example and it's hard to get real detailed in poker razor, but I'd like to know how to adjust the results as his hand selection strategy changes.

profitable vs a typical TAG as many think (someone with an 8% 3bet or so over a large sample).

If his 3b range in that exact spot (late pos steal vs blinds) is truly 8% then there's little you can do except give him credit.
However, if you factor in positional awareness etc. someone with an overall 8% 3bet could have a re-steal % of anything 10-16% or higher.

One thing that was not discussed (at least not yet) was the effect of 5bet bluffs (jamming as a bluff) on our 4bet profitability. If a villain is 3betting 10%, but doesn't jam TT or JJ for value over a 4bet, he can still maintain a 4% jamming range by adding 12 combos or so of bluffs, correct? Therefore we can't simply rely on a read that he flatted a 3bet with JJ and think we have a profitable 4bet bluff situation.

Valid point. Though if your 4-bet range is balanced then you have basically induced a shove from a low equity hand that gives you a very +EV call with the value part of your range.

That's partly why I'm not a big fan of 4-betting against aggro players, the 4-bet 5-bet thing is fairly easily solved, and when two players are good at this game it usually ends up that they just coin flip two near identical theoretical ranges over and over.

That just leads to a variance fest and the site is the only clear winner.

It's so rare to have enough stats on a player to have their 4bet% significant. Can you suggest any other ways to estimate if 4betting may be profitable?

If you don't have the samples I guess it's usually proportional to stats like 3-bet, pfr and CR and other aggressive moves. It should also be proportional to his perception of you.

How did you guys determine villain's range of hands in these poker razor calcs? Wouldn't it make more sense to analyze at least 2 different ranges; one that is depolarized and one that is polarized? While depolarization is most common in the blinds, if we have been folding a lot previously or if villain is less aware of optimal 3bet theory, he may be 3betting a very different 10% of hands than if we have been calling frequently or if he has seen us be more selective with our steals, for instance. I realize this was just an example and it's hard to get real detailed in poker razor, but I'd like to know how to adjust the results as his hand selection strategy changes.

The objective of the spreadsheet wasn't to construct strategies, it was more of a feasibility study to see if one or other of the plays came out way on top.

As a generalisation I felt that calling is clearly better, especially given that the calculations inherently under rate calling due to the "mistakes" in the simple strategy.

I used a kind of mish mash middle of the road range with all the various ranges given some % weight. It takes a long time to run each of these calcs, up to 20 minutes each (and there were 16 of them). So while it would be possible to get more in depth I don't want to get bogged down trying to create precise theory.

We can't forward plan every single action or scenario, what I'm aiming for is some general strategy that I can take to the table that I know is +EV. Then at the table I adjust and tweak as best I can based on what I think ranges etc. are in the moment.

Time Link to 00:22:18

Can you elaborate on how if someone c-bets too frequently in position their positional advantage is deminished? Is this because you can bluff raise more and trap more?

We can't forward plan every single action or scenario, what I'm aiming for is some general strategy that I can take to the table that I know is +EV. Then at the table I adjust and tweak as best I can based on what I think ranges etc. are in the moment.

I appreciate the work that went into these scenario calculations. Great episode; keep 'em comin'!

Time Link to 01:02:21

Just as a note on the timing thing-I recently noticed the most recent HEM update includes a new feature on the HUD that indicates the amount of seconds each player takes before taking an action. This can be found by clicking on the very top line of where the recent hands are listed on the HUD, which opens a window showing the previous actions of the hand currently in play. before or after each action and player name there is a Xs where X=the number of seconds. Keeping an eye on this window during a hand can be very informative if it turns out a player was making a big move, such as slowplaying or bluffing. You could also take a look each time you notice a player 3bet/4bet pre, make note of the time, and watch for the SD to determine if he has a timing tell!

Time Link to 01:24:51

This is nit-picky, but you say here that our indifference point is 66%. It is actually 64%, as displayed in the last slide. 66% was the equity of Th9h vs the "grey range" and since it was greater than the indifference point, we are ok getting stacks in. So this slide should read "Generally if Eq% <64% we want a fold." It doesn't sig effect any of the hands on the chart, but I was confused and had to rewind and caught the slight mistake. Very cool stuff, though! This along with commitment points (as discussed by Baluga) really make understanding proper bet sizing a lot easier.

Can you elaborate on how if someone c-bets too frequently in position their positional advantage is deminished? Is this because you can bluff raise more and trap more?

Sure, if someone has a 90% cbet (in a 3-bet pot) then you effectively know what they are going to do every single time.

Because 3-bet pots are usually played with very low SPRs, once a cbet is made the next bet/raise is either all in or at least puts everyone to a commitment decision. I suppose in effect it makes the SPR theoretically lower by default as the opponent is certain to put in 12-20bb automatically (lower SPRs dinimish position and being all in removes position).

If someone checks back some of their range (with balance) it reduces our potential EV of calling with hands that flop good equity for CRAI, as their cbets are stronger and less frequent. All alluding to the point that the better someone plays on later streets (compared to you) the more you want to make the hand play out on early streets (i.e lean towards 4-bet rather than call OOP against good players).

Zenben - wow, must check that HEM feature asap. Good spot on the 66%, you are right it should be 64%

Yeah great content - just keep paddy on message and not rambling they way he does sometimes

ahahaha sounded simple, awesome to hear fello irish sounding person in poker world talking, im sitting listening, thinking, go on son, tell a paddy joke, aahahahahah!!

what part of ireland or northern ireland you from sir

and awesome content!!

I'm from Derry, I probably don't know any jokes suitable for DC vids lol.

I'm from Derry, I probably don't know any jokes suitable for DC vids lol.

How do you make a Derry man laugh on monday ? tell him a joke on friday

How do you get a Derry man to climb onto the roof of a pub ? tell him the drinks are on the house



Really really good video guys

Up Mayo !!

How do you make a Derry man laugh on monday ? tell him a joke on friday

How do you get a Derry man to climb onto the roof of a pub ? tell him the drinks are on the house



Really really good video guys

Up Mayo !!

What part of Galway is Mayo in again?

What part of Galway is Mayo in again?

I should add that Mayo is in fact one of my favourite counties and only last month I was there on business in Westport. Randomly decided to climb Croaghpatrick on a day off, the view was stunning. Your very lucky to live there.

Time Link to 00:05:35

exactly,
I also have seen it in one of the Buffalo-Part of WoT and JKa3.
But I cannot find it in the Hud-configurations in the HEM to add it into my 3bet-popUp.
Can maybe anybody help?

exactly,
I also have seen it in one of the Buffalo-Part of WoT and JKa3.
But I cannot find it in the Hud-configurations in the HEM to add it into my 3bet-popUp.
Can maybe anybody help?

You could watch this .. http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/4741-Episode-Two
or
if you can add it yourself go to hud config - stats are in the Pre_Vs box on left

You could watch this .. http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/4741-Episode-Two
or
if you can add it yourself go to hud config - stats are in the Pre_Vs box on left

All right, thx^^

Time Link to 00:35:41

Don`t understand me wrong, I find your analyzes very helpful b/c as said, it gives you a startingpoint and then you can make additional assumptions.

For example:
Here you said that raising on dry boards is more +ev, like we can also see on the pokerazor-results.
The problem is that it depends on the type of Wannabe-LAG.
There are guys with let`s say taggy stat like 24/21 who are 3betting 15%+ in the blinds vs. steals and cbetting 75%+.

ok,
Guy1 has a foldCbet_to raise _stat of 60%+ - that is a great target, even on drys boards.

Guy2 has only a FoldCbet_toRaise_stat of 45% and lower -> that shows me that he is more paranoid and do not like to fld o raises vs. his cbets.
And although these guys are playing incredible unbalanced, they will just feel bluffed pretty often on dry boards -> they will B/Cal a wider valuerange (2ndpairs...) + a rebluffprobability is existent (Flop3bets or floating OOP...)

It would have been great if yu would have talked a little bit about your own experiences with this 2 kinds of WannabeLags, especially with Type2.

edit: OOps,
If I only would have waited 2minutes before posting, b/c you then talked shortly about this problem.

But I still do not want to delete my post b/c you rly only touched on shortly on this topic and in general I wanna recommend that it would be great when you sometimes would shortly talk about how you use certain analyze-results in your daily game, how you deviate a little bit, why and in which direction you deviate a little...

But anyways, that is just a very valueable series, I stronlgy believe - so thank you very much

Time Link to 00:52:13

Interesting discussion^^
I would guess that in the vacuum 4bet/Call AA is better vs. a nitty 3betrange b/c of the high coolervalue.
But flatting KK/QQ/JJ to also strength your callingrange vs. more nitty 3bet-ranges seems to be very interesting and senseful for me.

Time Link to 01:01:43

What is this for a book? could you maybe post a link or something?^^
Would be great

What is this for a book? could you maybe post a link or something?^^
Would be great

At the moment it's just rambling thoughts. I haven't actually even started to quantify what "timing" means. What I was saying is that there's situations where we as players perhaps take information from timing without realising it.

I'd love to do something on this but don't hold your breath, it would be a massive project.

At the moment it's just rambling thoughts. I haven't actually even started to quantify what "timing" means. What I was saying is that there's situations where we as players perhaps take information from timing without realising it.

I'd love to do something on this but don't hold your breath, it would be a massive project.

Oh all right - I have heard something that someone of you both (or you both) have read a book where there are lots of discussions about various more uncommon and unpopular topics....

Oh all right - I have heard something that someone of you both (or you both) have read a book where there are lots of discussions about various more uncommon and unpopular topics....

The book I may have mentioned is "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. It's a great read but it's particularly interesting for poker players because it's based on the concept of intuition.

One example he gives is that of a Tennis coach/commentator/expert that could freeze a shot of a player as they throw the ball up and call with uncanny accuracy if they were going to double fault. However he couldn't explain or analyse why he could do this.

Timing might be the same in poker, sometimes you just "feel" something. Or maybe I'm results orientated, I don't know.

The book I may have mentioned is "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. It's a great read but it's particularly interesting for poker players because it's based on the concept of intuition.

One example he gives is that of a Tennis coach/commentator/expert that could freeze a shot of a player as they throw the ball up and call with uncanny accuracy if they were going to double fault. However he couldn't explain or analyse why he could do this.

Timing might be the same in poker, sometimes you just "feel" something. Or maybe I'm results orientated, I don't know.

Seems at least pretty interesting - thank you for answering

Time Link to 01:24:53

So what would be in this example your flopplay when you want to have FEQ (you have vs. the grey-range <64% EQ) without special reads on villain (for instance if he goes crazy vs. small rasies by jamming too much, or if he herocalls too much vs. direct jams...)?


On average,
I would guess that a direct jam is the better play without special reads, when you want to have FEQ?
What you think?

And thx for this part - it was rly great

So what would be in this example your flopplay when you want to have FEQ (you have vs. the grey-range <64% EQ) without special reads on villain (for instance if he goes crazy vs. small rasies by jamming too much, or if he herocalls too much vs. direct jams...)?


On average,
I would guess that a direct jam is the better play without special reads, when you want to have FEQ?
What you think?

And thx for this part - it was rly great

It's kind of a levelling thing but in general small raises are much more likely to get shoved on than jams.
Like if you are up against a QJ gutshot, they just can't ever call a jam (in case you are on ace high) but they can reship to get you off ace high.

I can't recall if I covered it but there are times when you want to induce light shoves or bet/fold cheap. So there's both a value and a bluff range for each.

It's possible to super level some people into paying off if you have the right image.

It's kind of a levelling thing but in general small raises are much more likely to get shoved on than jams.
Like if you are up against a QJ gutshot, they just can't ever call a jam (in case you are on ace high) but they can reship to get you off ace high.

I can't recall if I covered it but there are times when you want to induce light shoves or bet/fold cheap. So there's both a value and a bluff range for each.

It's possible to super level some people into paying off if you have the right image.

All right , thank you very much so far

I guess, in general small R/Folds are more attractive when you have less EQ.
B/c when you have decent EQ (2OCs + backdoors), it could suck to get shoved on...?

hello mr irish poker hero

i love listening to your series and i think intuition is definitely a factor in poker.. although it is just a subconscious expression of your deep knowledge and experience that gives u that feeling

PLEASE ANSWER ONE QUESTION

you say 4bet trash etc and polarize your range.. however at nl 25 you get people who flat 4bs sometimes with even completely random hands... so i think if u don't 4b stuff that sometimes can play welll post flop you will be in trouble...

what do you recommend??? THANKS ALOT...
thesnowflake

you say 4bet trash etc and polarize your range.. however at nl 25 you get people who flat 4bs sometimes with even completely random hands... so i think if u don't 4b stuff that sometimes can play welll post flop you will be in trouble...

Hmmmm, a lot depends on
a) the type of opponent that is actually doing this
b) frequency at which they do it
c) Their nuts/trash ratio

It would be wrong for me to give blanket guidelines without this info but here's how I would approach it:

1) I assume you 4bet in response to a wide 3bet range. If you are talking about playing maniacs then I wouldn't be 4bet bluffing them in the first place. I'd just widen my value/stack off range - so yeah I guess this depolarises.
2) If it's regs doing this then it's very strange, it's not something I see often at small stakes. Maybe I'm out of sync with the games where you play, but it sounds like such a losing strategy to call with trash to a 4bet (without ninja balance and skills) that I'd hazard a guess the rest of their games are also out of whack. Look for the places they are unbalanced and exploit.
3) Check your frequencies on opponents, is this really happening all that often or does the uniqueness of the situation make it seem that way? Also be sure to evaluate their nuts/air ratio, if they have AA/KK with a high frequency then from a GT perspective they can play weaker hands sometimes and you still have to c/f a lot.
4) How do they respond to cbets? if they fold a lot then keep cbetting and lol. For cbet strategy use the same methods outlined for jamming over their cbets I give in this vid.