---

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciG-Xs7mBwU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciG-Xs7mBwU

lol nice

nice series at all. But I would like to see the hands in a replayer then in this written form.

Seriously try to construct a range of hands and include them in the powerpoint. Then start eliminating the hands based on the board.

Can someone explain me the hand with 99 (last hand).

PF and flop: standard.

Turn: If feel if we bet here we're kind of turning our hand into a bluff. Villains range is overcards, 7 and 8s, or maybe under an underpair. Check/call seems good here, since we're usually ahead unless he has the ace.

River: He makes a smallish bet that seems like a valuebet. I usually don't think he is bluffing very often here, since the bet is so small. River card (3) is a great card, since it's a complete blank. Could someone please construct a reasonble range and explain to me why this is a good call. Usually people stop bluffing when they're called on the turn.

Hey, concerning the last hand with 99 and the river call, I just think that situation was completely player and read dependent and it'd be hard to construct a reasonable range for a player that is so spazzy and unreasonable, as orange said briefly he was bluffing for unusual amounts in unusual spots etc. Against a reasonable opponent looks like you're getting valuetowned or you're up against a genius value bet bluff but against the player in question, he was just retarded and could show up with air like q10 or who knows, could be value betting an 8 randomly. Don't think it's a standard spot, think it was just illustrating constructing a plan that was opponent specific and like terp mentioned, pretty hard to narrow a fishes range based on what you or a reasonable opponent would do in a given situation, hard to apply logic to lunacy.

great vid!

much more clear and concise discussion and better interplay between the two of you

Hey, concerning the last hand with 99 and the river call, I just think that situation was completely player and read dependent and it'd be hard to construct a reasonable range for a player that is so spazzy and unreasonable, as orange said briefly he was bluffing for unusual amounts in unusual spots etc. Against a reasonable opponent looks like you're getting valuetowned or you're up against a genius value bet bluff but against the player in question, he was just retarded and could show up with air like q10 or who knows, could be value betting an 8 randomly. Don't think it's a standard spot, think it was just illustrating constructing a plan that was opponent specific and like terp mentioned, pretty hard to narrow a fishes range based on what you or a reasonable opponent would do in a given situation, hard to apply logic to lunacy.

I definitely agree that the fish's range is going to be very spazzy in this situation. Perhaps it wasn't the best example. Against a good reg we would obviously do something different- but think about what hands you might choose to do this with against such players. Remember that you're targeting tendencies and competence, not just doing balance. I thought that this WAS a good example of when to check the turn (whereas in the last example we showed it would have been better to bet the turn with QQ on JxxK board) when an overcard came.

And even against a good reg we could consider checking and calling. Alot of his range will include weaker made hands that will float and barrel the turn (and or river). All dependent on how well you think he reads hands.

nice vid terp.

Good vid series so far guys..

In one of your later vids could you guys go over the spot where we make top pair good kicker and our cbet gets checkraised.. In the forums everyone says to call and reeval turn in these spots, which by default is prob the best option. However by doing this I find our hand gets basically turned face up and villians continue w/ their entire value and bluff ranges.. So alot of the time when I fold to their turn barrel (that I was expecting them to make) it seems like my flop peel is just spew.. I'd like to become better at reading hands and constructing multistreet plans in these spots..

He's a couple links to threads I started w/ these types of hands.

http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/8-Beginner-SS-No-Limit-Hold-em/11770-100NL-Facing-cr-of-cbet-w-Toppair?page=1#posts-83672


http://www.leggopoker.com/forums/small-stakes/100nl-cbetting-w-top-pair-getting-raised-4193.html

Good series, really like the thought process about opponents ranges and perceived ranges. I would also like to see the hands in the replayer. Its helps me visualize the situation better then text. Good work!

In the 99 hand at the end are you betting the turn if you're magically in position against the fish?

Also I'd like to see hands in 3bet pots for future videos.

hi river rock,

the situation you described is a common but interesting one. you've noted one of the larger problems that you might have in this spot - your hand is face up.

first let me say that our discussion regarding the AQ hand in video 2 is relevant here. the action is different but the considerations are the same - how do we deal with our hand being face up? do we alter our line to prevent this? or are we so confident of our opponent's tendencies that we are content to continue anyway. this is the most important point; be aware of our opponent's tendencies.

second consider playing other hands in the way you described. if you had a set here, why not try calling the flop? sure, you risk bad cards falling, but against a range that includes many bluffs, who cares? if anything he will try to represent the hands that improved and you will gain additional value in this way. try to balance your ranges not only between nuts and air, but medium value hands and nut ones, too. if you actually have very strong hands in your perceived range, you shouldn't mind peeling and folding later with the weaker value hands in your range. that is, if your opponent will credit you with nut hands, it should reduce the errors you make when you have lesser hands.

stellar work guys

ETA on next vid?

great vid!

much more clear and concise discussion and better interplay between the two of you

+1, much improved over previous vid

Hi,
Cant seem to see why in the hand AsTc hand it is a clear turn bet on a J 2c 8c T board in terms of equity of his calling range. I mean his calling range on flop (or his check raising range in the case where he picked up two pair, or hit his str8) can include either hands containing J, like TJ-AJ (which have drawing to 3 outs)...then hands containing 8 like 78,89,9T,Q9, and also you can throw possibly a hand like KcQc, and 77 into the mix. If you do an equity calc of this type of range against your hand in pokerstove he has a clear equity advantage on the turn. I guess to make things more complicated we can weigh the hands in his range but even doing so in a reasonable way puts him at a equity advantage. I mean all things considered i would probably assign equal weights to his J hands as his hands containing 8...especially given his call out of small blind are probably mostly broadwayish type hands.

Time Link to 00:40:18

After the turn action the pot is $108 and sb had $204 to start the hand so he has $150 behind. If the river is a blank lets say a 4 you value bet $75 or so into $108 and he c/raises all in for $75 more what would you do? Would you be more inclined to fold since you would be getting a good price and you don't think he expects to have fold equity? Is this more about the specific opponent? If he is bluffy do you call if you have no read do you call/fold?

Also Lets the say river is an off suit Ace and he open shoves are you putting him on a slow played set / QTs (even though that's a bit unlikely) AJ, KJ, or maybe A7s / K7s? In this case since he open shoves he might expect to have fold equity?

Both scenarios are against a competent opponent.

I know these are kind of general questions but I am trying to get a feel for how you are thinking through the hand and what might make you call or fold.

Hey guys. Really great job with the series...

My question is, do you think that we can still asume that an unknown Villain sucks, or did the game change to the point we have to assume, that an unknown Villain is good?

Thanks...