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

Nice vid ! Hopefully we see more of these ? Always helpful to see how Pros construct range on every street...

Great Video. great example of Phil Galfond's "When a Scare Card isn't a Scare Card."

Questions-

1) Did you having the A of spades and not having any reads on how he plays his marginal hands (i.e. whether he bets for protection/dead money or checks back trying to get to showdown) make you reconsider your decision at all, since there are far less missed FD's he can have when you have the As, if he's the type of player to bet for protection/dead money then he can a fair amount of 7x, and a lot of FD combos paired the 8 or 6 (K6ss, K8ss, Q6ss, Q8ss etc), so he may not turn those into bluffs?
- 76, 77, 57s, 47s, T7s, 87s, 97spades, J7spades, Q7spades, K7spades=33 combos, and even if we only give him 11 combos of 7x since we can't assume he will bet the turn for protection every time either without reads, then we'd need around 36 combos of bluffs, and missed spades are like KQ, KJ, K3, K2, Q3, Q2, K4, Q4, Qj, Q9, K9, 32 = only 12, so we'd have to give him like 24 combos of pure floats and/or pairs turned into bluffs, right?

2) If you were in villain's shoes and you knew the BB was a good hand reader, would you be jamming JJ+ here, since 87s pretty much the only 7 he can have?

3) Against someone you didn't think was a very good hand reader, would you be jamming the river with missed spades and/or turn pairs into bluffs in villains shoes?

Time Link to 00:09:56

Why does he 3bet sets and call overpairs? Thats pretty much the same since you can never have him beat at this stage...

Why does he 3bet sets and call overpairs? Thats pretty much the same since you can never have him beat at this stage...

True, but you're assuming that he's thinking on that level. Most regs will not 3bet/get it in w/ sets in this spot at micro/small stakes.

Great Video. great example of Phil Galfond's "When a Scare Card isn't a Scare Card."

Questions-

1) Did you having the A of spades and not having any reads on how he plays his marginal hands (i.e. whether he bets for protection/dead money or checks back trying to get to showdown) make you reconsider your decision at all, since there are far less missed FD's he can have when you have the As, if he's the type of player to bet for protection/dead money then he can a fair amount of 7x, and a lot of FD combos paired the 8 or 6 (K6ss, K8ss, Q6ss, Q8ss etc), so he may not turn those into bluffs?
- 76, 77, 57s, 47s, T7s, 87s, 97spades, J7spades, Q7spades, K7spades=33 combos, and even if we only give him 11 combos of 7x since we can't assume he will bet the turn for protection every time either without reads, then we'd need around 36 combos of bluffs, and missed spades are like KQ, KJ, K3, K2, Q3, Q2, K4, Q4, Qj, Q9, K9, 32 = only 12, so we'd have to give him like 24 combos of pure floats and/or pairs turned into bluffs, right?

2) If you were in villain's shoes and you knew the BB was a good hand reader, would you be jamming JJ+ here, since 87s pretty much the only 7 he can have?

3) Against someone you didn't think was a very good hand reader, would you be jamming the river with missed spades and/or turn pairs into bluffs in villains shoes?

1. I may be missing something with your math, but on the river we only need to be good 32% of the time to break even. Which means if he has 1 bluff combo for every 2 value combos then its a call. Pretty sure there are enough missed draws to make it a call. It is unfortunate that we have the As and makes it much closer, but I think still a call. Note how if we don't have the As then its basically a fist pump call.

2. Yeah, depending on my read of the villain's tendencies for bluff catching I would definitely value bet very light.

3. Yeah, again depending on my read of villain's calling range bluffing is definitely an option. The in both of these examples is also what I perceive their BB calling range and their c/r range, as that very much affects the hands they get to the river with.

1. I may be missing something with your math, but on the river we only need to be good 32% of the time to break even. .

ahh yeah my bad, I must have totally just brain farted. Idk why I was doing the math as if he needed to have twice as many bluffs. I shouldnt do math first thing in the morning lol.

Nice vid ! Hopefully we see more of these ? Always helpful to see how Pros construct range on every street...

this

True, but you're assuming that he's thinking on that level. Most regs will not 3bet/get it in w/ sets in this spot at micro/small stakes.

Are you saying that 3betting/getting it in w/ sets in this spot is a bad play? I guess I just don't understand why you are saying this...an explanation for my feeble mind would be appreciated. Thanks.

Are you saying that 3betting/getting it in w/ sets in this spot is a bad play? I guess I just don't understand why you are saying this...an explanation for my feeble mind would be appreciated. Thanks.

No. First off, I misspoke, I meant to say that most regs won't 3bet/get it in w/ overpairs in this spot. 3bet/getting it in with sets is definitely a possibility.

However, the merit of the play (whether its good or bad) is largely irrelevant to what I'm saying. My point was that I do not believe that most regs would 3bet/get it in w/ overpairs even though its definitely possible with sets. Obviously sets and overpairs have similar value in this spot vs a reg but that doesn't mean that (a) the villain will recognize this and (b) he will adjust accordingly.

(as an aside, I do think 3betting and getting it in w/ sets is likely a bad play on the flop vs most regs after being c/r'd. Their range is full of lots of bluffs and semi-bluffs, so its usually better to just call and let them catch up/continue to bluff.)

Nice vid ! Hopefully we see more of these ? Always helpful to see how Pros construct range on every street...

+1

Between 12:10 and 12:50 you say that we'd have to fold vs his jam on the turn when we have Tx. I'm pretty sure we'd have to bet-call even with JT in this spot, given we'll need only ~ 30% equity to make our call EV+.
With Tx on thet urn imo: check-call > bet-call > check-raise > check-fold > bet-fold.

Between 12:10 and 12:50 you say that we'd have to fold vs his jam on the turn when we have Tx. I'm pretty sure we'd have to bet-call even with JT in this spot, given we'll need only ~ 30% equity to make our call EV+.
With Tx on thet urn imo: check-call > bet-call > check-raise > check-fold > bet-fold.

It'd be pretty hard to construct a range for the villain where bet/calling would be +EV. If we bet the turn here it is almost always with the intention of bet/folding imo. The fact that we have good pot odds likely would not make up for the fact that our equity when we get it in is terrible, likely far less than 30%.

It'd be pretty hard to construct a range for the villain where bet/calling would be +EV. If we bet the turn here it is almost always with the intention of bet/folding imo. The fact that we have good pot odds likely would not make up for the fact that our equity when we get it in is terrible, likely far less than 30%.

On the contrary, when you have ATo it's hard to construct reasonable range where you have less than 30%, this is why I'm sure bet-folding is terrible given how much money is in the pot already.

On the contrary, when you have ATo it's hard to construct reasonable range where you have less than 30%, this is why I'm sure bet-folding is terrible given how much money is in the pot already.

Apparently I'm missing something, given how terrible you say it would be. Can you show me how you came to this conclusion, including the hand range you'd give the villain to bet/call flop and jam turn that gives us over 30% equity?

Whats the worst hand you're calling with on the river? Seems like his range would be pretty polarized when he bets the river with the opportunity to just check and show the hand down.

Whats the worst hand you're calling with on the river? Seems like his range would be pretty polarized when he bets the river with the opportunity to just check and show the hand down.

In terms of the hands that I can show up with on the river, its pretty constricted, but assuming I could have any hand, AT is very similar to A-high in this spot unless he can turn hands into a bluff.

Just became a member today and have watched about 6 of your videos LW and they're awesome. I am looking to improve on hand ranges so videos like this are great. Thanks for taking the time to put them together!

Do you not think its pretty standard for Villain to turn a hand like A4/A5/A8 into a bluff on this river? I see guys do this at like 25nl. If he does this often, then AT is alot different from A high in this spot, dont you think?

PS. Great video, best iv seen for a while.

Do you not think its pretty standard for Villain to turn a hand like A4/A5/A8 into a bluff on this river? I see guys do this at like 25nl. If he does this often, then AT is alot different from A high in this spot, dont you think?

PS. Great video, best iv seen for a while.

Thanks for the comments.

It definitely is possible. And if we find out that he's capable of something like that then it really changes our calling range on the river. However, I don't think everyone fires three barrels with a pair (they fire two barrels a lot of the time). Most importantly, I think his c-betting range will dictate some of this. A lot of guys may not even c-bet A4/A5 on the flop. Furthermore, a lot of guys wouldn't bet A8 on the turn. So, while its possible he could turn those hands into bluffs on the river, I doubt there's enough combos of those hands vs a random reg to make it a big concern. If we have a read, that, of course, changes everything.