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

Time Link to 00:23:37

If we are going for another street of value with 88 on this board would we not much rather get it in on the turn rather than the river. This way we can get value from 89/78/79/45/47/57 etc.... all his flush draws as well. Obviously we can't get value from these at the river.

Personally I much prefer betting the turn and checking back the river.

Been looking forward to this. Always enjoyed Tubasteve's series, his coaching style is very clear and extremely well done.

Good vid and looking forward to the rest of the series.

I'm clearly biased as it's the stakes I play, but nice to see a 5NL vid.

Wow, 5nl . . really?! Such basic content seems wasted on two good coaches to me. I take it that this series goes higher?

EDIT: Ok maybe that came across as douchey, Its just I'd be surprised if many people playing 5nl were actually DC members. Like if they could afford $30 p/month for a training site they wouldnt be playing 5nl..right?!

honestly...... why do u guys still have tubasteve

honestly...... why do u guys still have tubasteve

One of the most ridiculous comments I've seen on these forums in my short tenure here. Steve's micro videos are legendary amongst micro players. He's in touch with the limit, and honestly, have helped my win-rate immensely.

From The Ground Up is one of the must watch video series' for Micro players, or players just starting out in online poker.

What an ignorant statement.

Wow, 5nl . . really?! Such basic content seems wasted on two good coaches to me. I take it that this series goes higher?

EDIT: Ok maybe that came across as douchey, Its just I'd be surprised if many people playing 5nl were actually DC members. Like if they could afford $30 p/month for a training site they wouldnt be playing 5nl..right?!

Wrong. I'm a broke college student, and can't afford to go bust. Everyone has to start somewhere. I pay for DC so that I can improve as a player, and progress beyond these borderline-pathetic stakes.

Thanks for making this series, guys. It's nice to have some more micro content. I appreciate your putting in all the work to make this happen.

However, I am extremely disappointed with the quality of this video. The audio and visual quality were good, and you were both easily understandable, but I found it lacking in nearly every other area. Steve, I wonder if you reviewed this video beyond checking audio quality before submitting it. If not, I challenge you to watch some of it and see that it is up to neither your nor DC's usual high standards. Also related to production, it's properly "bonsai."

There was a segment in the middle that was intended to have been edited out, but was not. That is mostly amusing, and I would normally overlook small production errors like that, but it served to emphasize the feeling that this video was hobbled together and rushed out.

There was quite a bit of wasted time and dead air. At one point maybe a minute was taken up with "Umm" and "Uh" and a discussion of how long the video had run so far. Again, not a huge deal on it's own, but it noticeably detracts from the useful content.

There is also a feeling of trying to force discussion and drag out spots that don't require it. I have no problem with rambling, or taking up most of an episode with one hand, if it involves getting deep into theory or a lot of "what if" type discussion. But when several minutes are taken just discussion one street of the actual hand, it can get frustrating and boring. Especially when the spot is rather uninteresting to begin with, as most of these were.

I hope this isn't taken wrong. I don't mean to insult your work. I do understand that at these stakes there aren't going to be a lot of really fascinating spots. However, I've been looking forward to this series, and I don't want to see the rest of the videos come out looking like this one.

Time Link to 00:30:52

I disagree that checking the turn with 88 when the board pairs is best. The problem here, is we don't know enough about the villain. Someone playing 63% of hands passively will have a huge range still at this point, and if we check behind and an overcard or spade come and villain leads, we will have to fold.

I believe Bart Hanson refers to these scenarios as the "negative equity slow play" where even if villain has few worse hands that will call a bet, checking with a vulnerable hand allows MANY MORE hands to peel that will only put more money in the pot when they outdraw us on the river.

If we knew more about this opponent, such as his thin value bet and b luffing tendencies after a missed 2 barrel OOP on variable rivers, I can see recommending a check behind. But vs an unknown LP player at 5NL, not betting this turn is probably a leak. Would you suggest a value bet here with JT? I'm quite sure you would, and vs this opponent, there is little difference b/t the two hands (since worse tens and 99 are such a tiny part of his range).


edit: you later suggest a small value bet, which I like better than checking, but it may not maximize value since this player is most likely not paying attention to bet sizes AND if he is and reads it as weak, a small ch/R here could be ultra profitable and force us to fold the best hand. The likelihood a 5NL villain playing 63% of hands is ever going to bluff raise us is extremely small, but it's probably equally unlikely that he treats a 1/3 pot bet different than a 2/3 pot bet.

And as ybother was my coach, he knows how frustrating these levels are for thinking players.

I think you're definitely on to something here-I hope future episodes can go deeper into developing reads and making decisions vs players who are not "thinking." We run into these players constantly at the micros, and everyone just says "vbet,vbet,vbet!" but sometimes, this is not the correct strategy, depending on the villain. IMHO, everyone has "tendencies" even if they aren't "thinking" about ranges, equities, etc. developing skills to recognize these tendencies and exploit them is paramount to beating ANY limit. To do this, however, a live video is really required, unless we can cover more hands in a episode using a vid review. Perhaps 2 consecutive episodes in the future can be a prolonged live session to work on developing reads on players who seem to be making many "mistakes" and not "thinking" like a TAG.

I think calling this river bet is WAY -EV here with AQ. We have a bluff catcher here and the line villain has taken screams value from a fishy player like he is. I dont think he minraises the turn with Jx even with a club or gutter to go with it. So his range on the turn is flush's and sometimes straights. And air. Again i dont think he minraise a hand like QJ. But even if he did, he isnt valuebetting the river on a board this drawy with a bare Jx. So his range on the river is flush's and straights, very rarely a bluff because there arent many hands in his range that he would semi-bluff the turn with that will fire again on this river which could easily hit our range since we called his turn raise. We could have a flush or a straight now ourselves so i think his bet is always value.

Totally in agreement here, from personal experience.

As soon as I saw the min-raise it screamed flush to me, or anything that beats an eventual running top pair good kicker. At these levels a fish raising is a big red flag that he has hit what he sees as something big, unless you have experience that he is capable of bluff-raising. Only the A made it worthwhile to call another bet, otherwise I would have easily folded my AJo for another hand.

Yes, technically you need to be right 25% of time... IF his range was wider to include bluffs. But on the River, what can Hero be beating except a total nutcase bluff? It's a typical Reverse Implied Odds with the A on the River. With the min-raise on the Turn and the underbet on the River, it screams a fish value betting his straight or flush, and thus his range is now so narrrow that it becomes totally -EV even to think about calling this 1$ as Hero's equity is now next to zero.

Fishes do raise... however they have this warped theory that raising more means they'd lose you to a fold, so they want to keep you in because, to them, it's extracting value out of you. Hence the min bets on two streets and the min-raises: That way they give you unbelieve odds unwittingly because you pay to keep yourself in the hand they "know" you cannot likely beat. Keeping you calling on three streets is more important to them than thinking about extracting the maximum value from your possible hand range, hence why they love to check/call their made monsters on the flop to exploit any lack of suspicion that you are betting against a made set, straight, or two pairs. Hence why if at these levels a Villain is check/calling over two streets something is amiss, and in these case I do not mind checking to see what he has, sacrificing further value extraction for information and/or saving my stack for another hand.

Remember that most fishes at 2-to-10NL do not think in relative terms. They mind what they have, not what you may be having. If they hit a flush, any flush, or any hand that they deem superior to unlikely to beat, they'll raise and check/call your bets until the cows come home. If they do not have anything, however, they won't even cede you a single bet on the Flop, even if you underbet. They don't think about bet-sizing, they think in absolute terms about paying money to see something. If they call, it's because there's a reason... from hitting a monster, drawing, or even having hit a third pair on the Flop and disbelieving you have anything.

Trust me, when you see a Villain winning a 0.91$ pot with made quads after checking three streets without a single bet, you know the dynamics are just different from 25NL and over. Yeah, you might say that particular player suck (and I agree), but I see the other side: anyone hitting at least two pairs would have been unwittingly siphoned of his stack if he had interpreted these checks as Villain having air.

^^^^^^Wow, It all makes sence now.

So, now that you did such a wonderful analysis of the phsychology of one of these guys, what is the best way to exploit this.

I think you're being a bit result oriented there. I agree wholeheartedly that some of the recreational players can be trappy, but if you get trapped, make a note.
It's not that common in the long run, and even those times it does happen you usually find that you're getting value cut when you are out of position or you called in position preflop.

It is quite enough common to scrap one's bankroll within a few hundred hands. This is why I put my word of caution.

Being result-oriented is fine at nanostakes, IMHO, because it is transitional poker game. No one in his or her right mind play the nanostakes because it's the level they like to play and they'll make profit off. Most serious players play them to build a bankroll to play the "real" stakes, and thus reaching these results as fast and painless as possible is important, and playing EV all the time despite the results is not. Nanostakes are poker Limbo, nothing more, nothing less. Avoiding costly traps and winning one small pot at a time are huge parts of getting away of this Limbo. Money spared is money won.

That is why I am skeptical that nanostakes can be analyzed like players were in 25NL, it is simply not adapted to non-thinking players, and the aim is different: The aim is not long-term profit, but short-term bankrolling. So playing equity edges is not optimal. Brutally seeking the nuts and winning a sizeable pot, or at best stacking the Villain off his money, is the optimal play. Suspicion that a trap might lay in front of you leads either to a check/call or a quick fold and ultimately money spared.

Also, I do not see the "fishes bet with air" mentality often described in real life experience. They are surprisingly nitty post-flop. What I see is that fishes are very straight-forward: Yes, I did catch bluffs, but I otherwise give a lot of credit to a Villain betting, and especially raising, at nanostakes. Hence why I like to keep the pot small, or at least under control, when I am not certain of where I stand. It is much easier to give up a small 10bb pot in face of a surprise raise, than risking stacking myself off when my fold equity is nil and my equity isn't better. Because before a hidden monster, whatever you evaluate your hand, whatever the range you put Villain on, you real equity remains mathematically next to zero when the hands are revealed.

I am not saying it happens all the time, or even most of the time, or even half the time... all I say is that each time Hero stacks off against a hidden monster because he misjudged the ability of Villain to trap him, it's 100bb (and even more) lost in the drain that have to be either won or deposited back.

Of course, it's my style of playing. But being result-oriented at nanostakes is a sin I am glad, for once, to commit.

hey guys, thanks for your comments and criticisms. matt and i haven't worked together in a while so i agree that the chemistry and flow of the video were a bit poor. we actually have discussed ways to make the series better in the future, including letting matt take the lead on the discussion, and spending less time on each individual hand in order to cover more spots. let us know what you think of the next video!

here in the DC area we just had a wicked storm that knocked out my power and actually caused a few deaths near my house, so i don't know when i'll be able to respond to all the questions but i do intend to once i'm fully operational again. the only reason i have internet access now is because my summer class starts in 40 minutes and i came to campus early.

cheers!

Great vid tuba and ybother.
I actually don't understand the critisism of the chemistry. There are sometimes when you (tuba) cut ybother off but I think thats pretty common in other videos to.

@unstable james: I didn't find it lacking. But you're right about the part with tubas landlord and ybothers dog, pretty amusing, but looks like the vid hasn't been seen after editing.

But all in all I find it a good vid, good discutions, hopefully you get in more hands in the future vids.
Really looking forward to the rest of the series.
Keep up the good work guys.

i honoustly think you can read this negative, or very positive.

I think he means: Why hasn't he been taken from another coaching site for a bigger paycheck?

Then it should be formulated "how do you guys still have tubasteve"

I seriously can't understand if somebody would have anything negative to say about tuba, his the mothaf#%@!ng man!!!

Concepts from FTGU definitely applies at 5NL. Dry flops, either three-tones or two-tones, are definitely great flops to cbet on, especially in-position. And yes, they do fold unless they've hit something. That, I can certify.

Look to Cbet monotone flops and rainbow (3 tone. (not seen that before)) in my opinion. Two tone flops get peel way too much.

You want 1 broadway card showing ideally, and a couple of non connected rag cards.

Ideally you want to be heads up when you make a continuation bet.

Time Link to 00:51:15

You mention that you are not allowed to "play by play" the action - why is that? The biggest problem I have with the video's is that there is no description of what is going on. I like the "play by play"

Wow, 5nl . . really?! Such basic content seems wasted on two good coaches to me. I take it that this series goes higher?

EDIT: Ok maybe that came across as douchey, Its just I'd be surprised if many people playing 5nl were actually DC members. Like if they could afford $30 p/month for a training site they wouldnt be playing 5nl..right?!

Wow, am I the only 5NL player on DC? Probably not; and I'm probably not the typical DC member either. I'm 40yrs old and play poker strictly for recreation. I'm not looking to get rich (I have a lucrative job) I just like playing and improving. I really enjoy reading the forums and watching the videos here on DC; and I'm glad people like Tuba provide content for the rank amatuers like me. Keep up the Good work, Steve!

Time Link to 01:08:31

So did you make that post about the JT hand?

Well actaull I know of at least one person playing 5nl and a member od DC! and that would be me!. Im learning heaps and it has helped my game imensley, lookout 10nl all thanks to DC!!