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

Jay, not sure I agree with calling the turn. His FD's will almost always also have an overcard or gutshot out against us, and often times have 2 overs so his bluffs have significant equity against us. In addition, his value hands will shove the river most of the time, but we don't know how often his bluffs will. So that means a lot of the time we will be calling the turn ahead but calling river behind or calling the turn ahead and making an incorrect fold on the river. So pretty often either a lot of the bluffs that we beat on the turn still win the pot from us on the river after we've donated a turn bet to them, or we get value towned on the river. Just seems like a classic reverse implied odds spot that sthief09 has talked about in a lot of his videos.

I'd feel much more comfortable using like AT to do this since then we beat and block some of his value combos.

Thoughts?

cant remember my reads on the player was a while ago and i have played a ton of hands since but the comment about expecting him to check wasnt an excuse for making the call it was in my thought process while playing the hand this is completely what lead me to calling down people/reg type players in general check back Ax in that spot not sure if i had a specific read that he does but i expetced him to and for that reason if i float there i check back the turn and bet the river
next time i post a hand ill make sure reads etc are fresh in my mind and put them up

reg type players in general check back Ax in that spot

not sure I agree with that, I think most regs would be more inclined to bet the turn instead of check with any decent Ax hand

Jay, not sure I agree with calling the turn. His FD's will almost always also have an overcard or gutshot out against us, and often times have 2 overs so his bluffs have significant equity against us. In addition, his value hands will shove the river most of the time, but we don't know how often his bluffs will. So that means a lot of the time we will be calling the turn ahead but calling river behind or calling the turn ahead and making an incorrect fold on the river. So pretty often either a lot of the bluffs that we beat on the turn still win the pot from us on the river after we've donated a turn bet to them, or we get value towned on the river. Just seems like a classic reverse implied odds spot that sthief09 has talked about in a lot of his videos.

I'd feel much more comfortable using like AT to do this since then we beat and block some of his value combos.

Thoughts?

I agree with most of this, especially what you're saying about reverse implied odds. It's a shitty situation in which it's way easier for your opponent to own you than it is for you to own him, and using a hand like Ax instead of 9x to call down makes things much easier. I'd be curious how close the EV is between a line where you always call turn and call river vs just folding the turn. By calling the turn sometimes we will win when it goes check/check... but I suppose this whole hand is an argument for making stronger decisions on earlier streets (don't reraise 89o preflop without a great reason, don't call the turn without a great reason) to avoid ugly, tough decisions later.

I'd be curious how close the EV is between a line where you always call turn and call river vs just folding the turn.

I'd be willing to bet that vs. an unknown folding turn is almost always way more +EV or less -EV however you put it.

This just brings back the point that-

a) you shouldn't make hero calls without a good reason to do so
b) you should post all of the reads you have on the villan(on this post there are 0 reads)

No offense to OP, but it just looks like you got lucky on a hero call and wanted to post it on the forums. Please prove me wrong though, post all relevant reads and your thought process behind a play like this next time you make a post similar to this one or any HH post in general. You will get a lot more useful feedback from people and I think that was the reason Jay made this video was to show you that.

cant remember my reads on the player was a while ago and i have played a ton of hands since but the comment about expecting him to check wasnt an excuse for making the call it was in my thought process while playing the hand this is completely what lead me to calling down people/reg type players in general check back Ax in that spot not sure if i had a specific read that he does but i expetced him to and for that reason if i float there i check back the turn and bet the river
next time i post a hand ill make sure reads etc are fresh in my mind and put them up

I wasn't saying you were consciously making excuses for making the call, I was trying to make the point that statements like "reg type players in general check back Ax in that spot" just isn't a useful, objective way to analyze a hand. What is a "reg type player" exactly? I can come up with several different players that play this hand hand differently in villain's position but would still fit that general description. We'll end up talking about what we think TAG regulars do in these situations, and you can already see there's disagreement on what TAG regulars do on the turn w Ax.

My overall meaning here is that we just won't be able to have meaningful discussion about a hand of poker, especially heads up poker, without approaching our opponent as either readless or with detailed reads (and those reads being formed off objective data -- either stats or a history of hands played and actions taken). And that's why this hand is both problematic and interesting, IMO!