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

A8 99-TT Kx, bluffs probably including some 33-44)
I expect a random NL10 to bet bigger with nut type hands

I raise.

The king hit some parts of his range, like you said. But it is also a good scare card for all his bluffs.

Although if he was bluffing he wouldnot use this size.

If he has a full house he could use this size, if he is a thinking player and knows that your range is weak. He definitely use this size if he is valuebetting a king.

But even if we did know his range is a king only (he would bet bigger with fullhouses and bluffs) I dont like raising as a bluff here. Simply because I think a lag at nl10 has a hard time folding a top pair.

So easy fold, imo!

Judging by his river betsizing it looks like villain wants a call. He doesn't really have too many value hands in his range here other than 88,66, and KQ, KJ type hands. He could have picked up a flush draw on the turn with KQ or KJ and then backed into a pair on the river. If he was betting 77 on the turn I think he would probably end up checking this river because a lot of villains will assume the king hit us. I say this because we checked the flop and players at this limit will automatically assume we checked behind w/AK.

I'm having a hard time coming up with hands that decide to bluff the turn and river, I guess he could have busted clubs or a busted straight with the former being more likely. On the other hand if he is a thinking reg he will know we are never strong after checking back the flop and flatting the turn. Our hand should be pretty face up in this spot, allowing him to bluff us off of it. Linkwood, do you think the hand would have played easier if you did decide to bet the flop? Yes we are behind a decent portion of his range but we are also ahead some too. I think we can include hands like J10s and Q10s. I think you're giving the villain a little more credit in his hand selection than he might deserve. Interested to hear what others think.

lets see what the granmaster says, also I think that kangs are discounted as random aggro micro regs 3b AK KJ KQ/fluid value range pf we block KT

A high bluffs, middle PPs, spiked KX, 8Xs or 6Xs (connectors/one gappers/ suited As that called). Most likely he has something w marginal SD value.

I agree that nut type of hands like sets/trips (yes there is 2:s in his range) are not really in his range due bet size. However I fold river, cause these guys dont like folding and we have been passive. Yes K is great card for raising, but...

for the AdTd hand..

I dont really think AJ or KQ are in his range. If he is a semi-aggro reg he will 3bet those hands a fair amount from the blinds against a btn min raise. So I would say easily half of those combo's are out of his range.

As far as the decision is, I think its either raise or fold. I personaly would raise. When he bets the turn I think his range is mostly overs and suited connectors with possibly TT,99,88,77,66,55. I dont think he really has any monster hands on the turn, but definitly has lots of bluffs and semi-bluffs. If he had a monster or good hand he would be betting closer to pot.

When it comes to the river, The 1/2 pot bet tells me he doesnt have 99,66,KQ. With those hands he would bet more for value. If he had A2 which is really the only 2x type hand he can have, he would be betting more on the turn and river.

So because you have showed so much weakness, checking flop, calling turn. I can see him firing away with all his busted flush draws, his busted straight draws and even trying to protect a hand like 77,99. I am not sure he would fold his 99,TT and obviously he wont fold his KT,KJ hands but like I said, he has so many busted flush draws and straight draws that I think a raise will take down the pot more times than not.

I think he has mainly marginal holdings (33-55,77,maybe 99, maybe some 98s/67s combos) that he is trying to get to showdown with cheap. I disagree slightly with raising this as we have to have a read first that he can fold any type of pair hand on the river (a LOT of 10NL regs will never fold a pair, even to a river raise). My instinct says to fold as he will show up with a pair too often to make a call profitable.

Also, I was wondering about what you said regarding 'betting for protection'. Isn't protection just a result of betting for value (i.e. not the reason we ever would bet) or betting to collect dead money? Just a small quibble I know, but its one of the things from Baluga Whales vids that was drilled into my head.

Great idea for a series by the way, looking forward to the next episode!

First of all I think his Preflop calling Range to a minraise is much wider. I would add all pocketpairs, and suitedconnectors from maybe 65s upwards and a lot of Axs type hands. On the Flop he checks all his hands. On the Turn he will bet (given the read that he is agressiv) probably a lot of his air and valuehands and only check his showdownhands like Ax (I would take only the half of his combos) and the poketpairs like 33, 44, 55, 77. He brings so much air to the river that we have an easy call with 3:1 odds, because I think he has not so many Ks in his range. Still his betsizing is looking like a bet for thin-value with a Toppairtype hand. Still I think the odds are really good and we can "buy" a good read on his Preflopcalling range and barreling tendencies for future EV spots.
I prefere to use Pokerstove to visualize a range.
I like you explaination and focus on ranges. Well done.

Great idea for a series by the way, looking forward to the next episode!

+1

We really shud have more interactive series, like "What would Joe Tall do ?".

Well now we have this and seems like Bellatrix is giving homework in Math Attacks-serie, good good...

I'm not sure I entirely agree with your range analysis up to the river so I guess that clouds the answer somewhat. If he is an aggro reg I think AJ+, KQ are in his 3betting range and I actually think he is more likely to call with medium PP's 22-99, SC's 67+, KJs, KTs and possibly some suited aces too - A7s-ATs and maybe even good suited one gappers - T8s, J9s, QTs.

His bet on the turn narrows his range to any of the suited clubs, GS's, sets, A8s, T8s, 98s, 87s, 99 + some random bluffs.

His river bet is interesting. If he had nuts type hands (Kx or sets) he would bet bigger here I think, if he was bluffing he would often bet bigger too, so I think he is mostly betting for value with a marginal not nut hand - A8, T8s, 87s, 98s, 99. This itself you could say is a little odd as most regs at this level can't bet anywhere near thin for value - which might put some weight to it being a cheap bluff on a good river bluffing card.

What can we do about it? Well I guess we could raise but if we do then it needs to be a decent sized raise - to maybe $2.5-$2.8 as a reg is never folding 8x or 99 to a small raise. We can only call if we think there are more bluffs in his range than value bets (obv) but I just don't think there are with that bet size. So it's raise or fold for me & I am not sure how often regs will fold any 8x hand or 99 to a raise here so I probably just fold.

Villain is probably defending wider range from the SB since you minraised I think it's something in the lines of: 22-99, 98s,T9s,JTs,QJ,QTs,KJ,KQ(he might 3bet sometimes),ATs,A9s,AJ(he might 3bet sometimes).

When we check the flop our hand looks like A high or maybe small pocket pair. We are almost always cbetting this flop with our T9s, 76s, QJ, 99-AA, A8s etc.

On the turn he is probably betting almost all of his clubs with the intention of bluffing most blank rivers, he could also be betting this with his total air KJ,KQ,QJ but I think he might be bit more inclined to check this turn with his A high hands just because he has little bit more showdown value. He's value range is probably sets, 98s,99 and maybe sometimes 55,77. Our range for calling looks like some A highs and small pocket pairs we shouldn't have that many backdoor flushdraws in our range because we cbet most of our suited connectors on the flop.

On the river I think this betsize can be both for thin value and as a bluff and maybe he could sometimes bet this small with his stronger hands just to get a crying call out of pocket pairs. But I think he is also going to bet this river with his air 95% of the time and we beat all of his air. And I don't think that I can get him off from his 98s,99 etc.

With that said I think call is probably the best play unless we think he folds his thin value hands.

If we assume you're correct on the range, including removing AJo once he bets the turn we get this:

ProPokerTools Hold 'em Simulation
board: 2S2C8D6CKS

AdTd 40.2597% Wins Hi: 40.2597%, Ties Hi: 0.0000%
88-22,AxJx,KxQx,QxJx-QxTx,Tx9x,KxQy,QxJy-QxTy 59.7403% Wins Hi: 59.7403%, Ties Hi: 0.0000%

Looking purely at the pot odds we're being offered we only need to be good 26% of the time to warrant a call, but we're good 40% of the time according to our range analysis, and possibly a lot more if we include more busted club draws.

We've got three options; call, fold, or raise.

Fold
I think we can rule out folding based purely on the pot odds / equity analysis above. We're folding a +EV spot here if we're right about his range.

Raise
If we raise here we can get him to fold his busted draws, QT, T9, QJ, etc... but I really doubt we're going to get him off of a hand with any showdown equity. Basically we're only folding out the hands we beat and getting called by the hands that beat us.

Call
Based on the odds we're getting, and the fact that we have approximately 40% showdown equity based on our range analysis I think that calling is definitely the right play.

I call in this spot, and expect to be beat a fair bit of the time, but turn a small profit.
EV = (.4026)(1.85) + (.5974)(-.65) = $0.59

I agree with Doc Lemon, Melvis, and spotDespot in that I think his preflop calling range (esp vs a min raise) is much wider. I doubt 10nl regs are folding 22-55 and I think most are calling a lot of Axs hands. I also think that an aggro reg who has been 3betting the hero a lot will 3bet AJ, KQ, KJ a large % of the time.

On the river, I agree with some of the others who said they don't expect this to ever be a nutted hand and rarely a bluff because of the small bet sizing. I think it's either an 8x thin value type hand or like a 77/55 type hand that doesn't really know why it's betting and wants an easy showdown.

So I think this is a raise or fold spot. I don't think he will ever fold Kx to a raise, but I think a lot of his Kx are discounted. And I agree with spotDespot that if we are going to raise to get him off of his marginal showdown value, we need to make it really big because 10nl players don't fold. It may get a decent amount of folds, but it also gives us a bad price on our bluff, and a 10nl player may just call 8x anyway some of the time so I don't like raising that much, which means I probably fold.

We can only call if we think there are more bluffs in his range than value bets (obv) .

spotDespot- he only needs to have 1/3 the amount of bluffs compared to value bets in his range.

I feel that his flat calling range is wider than what you have granted him, including more suited aces, wheel draw aces and suited connectors and one gappers. As he's flatting,he may be trying to encourage a multiway pot with one of these hands.

Because we minraised pre, checked flop, called turn, we aren't exactly demonstrating strength, and could feasably have picked up a club draw on turn that bricks when the king falls.

So that said, I put him on a value range of

22-99, A2s,A2o,A6s,A8s,KJo,KTo,K9s,A2s,A2o,A6s,A8s,87s,76s

And a bluffing range of

QTo, QTs, JTo, JTs,J9s,J9o, 9To, 9Ts, A9o, A9s, A7o, A7s, A5o, A5s, A4o, A4s,A3o,A3s.

If I counted properly, that means he has 128 combo's for value and 127 for bluffs, so too wide to discern.

I would be inclined to call so we can see what the villian is capable of and develop our read on him. I believe that judging by his double barrel stat he could be capable of bluffing two streets, and with his pre flop aggression on earlier hands, and our overall lack of information on villian, we can effectively buy a read on him here, maybe giving insight into what sort of hand is likey to flat (and possibly determine what sort of hand he is likely to 3bet), with a chance of taking down the pot in the process.

Haven't read other comments yet. sorry if repeating stuff.

these are the spots i always have problems with. I mean about what you say calling the turn in a vacuum can be the right thing but a bad play because he may follow through a lot on rivers.
I usually end up just cbetting the flop against players that are good and are capable of double barreling air once i check back flop but I'm not srue about their frequencies on the river.
I knnow of good ways to exploit people that do it a lot or not a lot but find it very difficult to actually get reads on this.

Personally i think you miss assessed his pre flop range. The player in the BB doesnt seem to be 3betting a lot. i think SB range can be much wider once you min raise the button. I would include more SC and even suited one gappers like T8s/J9s/79s/ and things like Q9s/Axs/K8s+ some A8-A9o.

this depends probably on how many tables he's playing but i find guys playing less tables will call this wide more often and 3bet some of these as well.

so a turn donk range for value would be A8/89s/K8s/77?/A2s/A6s?

obv the bluffs can now be much wider on river but he may not be bluffing river often even if he does have air... But even if he decided to Vbet an 8 a 6 or 77 we only have to be right 26% of the time. Also you will gain good reads if he has air or a thin value hand which is extremely valuable given these situations are common.

One thing i will say though are hand looks like what it is that kinda sucks.

I would add some stuff like suited connectors 87s+, maybe a couple of suited aces like A8 - AT; I just think his range is bit wider as you're min-raising on the button.
Also, I also agree that hands like AJ, KJ, KQ can be discounted slightly as you said that he's aggressive, which leads me to believe that he'll 3-bet AJ, KJ, KQ.
Based on his bet size, I believe it's rarely a full house here, which means that his hands for value are basically Kx and some stuff for thin-ish value (A8s, 87s, 89s, T8s, 99, TT)
I think bluffs here include: 97s, T8s, 44, 55, 77, A9s -> I think he's bluffing a good amount here with these hands as the K is a scare card.
My action is probably fold or raise. The stakes scare me a bit as I don't think he'll ever fold Kx and he might call sometimes with his thin-value hands. Therefore, the micro-stakes leads me to fold more than raise, but I am tempted to raise so I can get a quicker read on what type of a player he is.

I would assume villain could be value betting thinly on the river any 8x since our range looks so face up as ax and small pp. If I was villain I would think that we are not chking the flop and calling turn with many kx type of hands only ak. This is a good bluff card for villain since it weakens the strength of our precieved range.

As played I would still fold the river this looks like a thin value bet. I think checking this flop is a mistake yes he may only continue with better hands but getting villain to fold his equity to the pot is good thing in my eyes.

I think that his preflop calling range is wider. Axs for instance.
On the river, I don't think that his value range is larger than something like A8s, 66, 99, KcTc, KcJc.
Bluffs: AJ, AT, AXs, QJs, JTs, QTs, 9Ts.

Everything else he's checking there, imo.

So, I think that there is more bluffs than value hands on his range. But I'm still folding due his bet sizing. I think that he would bet larger with air.

Thanks for the incentive to post, linkwood! This is my first.

I would have cbet the flop since we have a backdoor flush draw. If called, I would give up on any non-diamond, ten, or ace. On an ace, I would check the turn for pot management (added bonus: deception). On a ten or diamond, I would continue betting. If the ten hit, I would probably check behind on the river for pot management, and consider folding to a river lead. On a diamond, if my flush hit, I obviously bet the river. If raised, simply call with our 2nd-nut hand (fold if he goes all-in, but note it).

Having checked the flop, I don't think we can call the turn with the intention of folding to a smallish 1/2 pot river bet if we don't hit. Our implied odds are not great. If we hit our A, we're unlikely to get paid sufficiently, and likely to be coolered if we do get action. The prospects of hitting a T are just slightly better. So either fold the turn (a low risk/reward plan), or call with the intention of making a play on the river if a good scare card comes (a moderate risk/reward plan), or else raise now with the intention of barreling any river (a high risk/reward plan). My gut says start out with the moderate risk plan.

As played, we can only call if we think Villain does this with unsuited overs. In that case, there's enough air in his range that we're getting a good enough price to call. The side benefits we get if we call are marginal: if he does this with unsuited overs, there's a less than 50% chance that we'll find that out by calling.

If Villain does this with suited overs only, then calling is out: he's got way too much medium strength hands, and about as much air as he has monsters. So it comes down to folding or raising. Raising is promising since there are so many hands that he could have that can't beat a pair of kings. A 2x-3x raise size should be sufficient unless he's quite stationy. Since we don't have much history, I prefer maybe, hmm, a 2.5x size because of the side benefit we get to him calling with marginal hands (we find out he's a crazy marginal-hand-protecting station). Another side benefit is we create an aggressive image for ourselves if called.

So, raise > call >>> fold if he has unsuited overs in his range, and raise > fold >> call if he only has suited overs. I raise 2.5x.

board is 2c 2s 8d 6c Ks.
Given his range on the turn of AcJc, KJ, Qj, QT(?), JT, 88,77,66, 55, 44 and the occasional 9Ts. so he probably value bets here with KJ (12 combos) 88(3 combos),66(3 combos) . He could be bluffing QT(16 combos),JT(16combos) and 9Ts (4 combos), and he most likely checks behind 55(6 combos) 44( 6 combos) and AcJc (1 combo)

So we have:

value = 18 combos

Bluff = 35 combos

Checks =13 combos

For Total of 66 combos.

since he didn't check we have to take out the 55 and 44 and AcJc

New total is 53 combos

value = 18/52 = 34.6% of the time

bluff = 35/52 = 67%

He bet .65 into 1.20 giving us 2.85:1 which means he needs to be bluffing 26% of the time for us to call and since we assume he is luffing 67% of the time it is a clear call.

All this being said, the problem I have is I usually don't see the value bet bluff at micro stakes, Also, I think his range of calling pf in this spot is wider, if only because he is playing 10NL if it was near what a normal range should be we probably wouldn't be playing 10NL, Not that that changes all that much since we are still probably taking the same line to get value out of his bluffs, it just means we will probably win more and have to call a river barrel more than we would have. Just my two cents

Linkwood, do you think the hand would have played easier if you did decide to bet the flop? Yes we are behind a decent portion of his range but we are also ahead some too. I think we can include hands like J10s and Q10s. I think you're giving the villain a little more credit in his hand selection than he might deserve. Interested to hear what others think.

If his range is wider we only bet the flop if we expect a call from hands like JT and QT, otherwise when we bet he is only calling with better and folding with worse, we check call to keep these bad hands in and bet into us. I guess what I'm saying is it all depends on his fold to c bet (also his vpip is high but its almost all with him as the pre flop raiser, meaning he is proably not a calling station, meaning he will probably either fold or raise handslike JT and QT and calling a raise is hard for us so it is probably still better to check call even if his range is wider)

So because you have showed so much weakness, checking flop, calling turn. I can see him firing away with all his busted flush draws, his busted straight draws and even trying to protect a hand like 77,99. I am not sure he would fold his 99,TT and obviously he wont fold his KT,KJ hands but like I said, he has so many busted flush draws and straight draws that I think a raise will take down the pot more times than not.

Why would we raise to try and fold busted flush and straight draws? We are already beating most of them and the ones we aren't (AcJc) he is usually checking to get to showdown not betting. The only reason for raising would be if we think he has hands like 99, TT A8s 89s that we can fold out with a raise by repping a K

Firstly, i believe his pre flop range may be slightly wider than what we gave him, because of the min raise on the button, good price for villain to call against our button range. I think we need to look how often he bets OOP when missed C-bet, to see how often he turns his hands into bluffs, or consider that he was planning on check raising most flops, to turn non showdown hands into bluffs.
I think with the line we took on the flop, we should be calling the turn as we are ahead of villains range enough times, and our hand look pretty weak when checked back on an 822 board.
On the river I believe most of the time he's betting 1/2 pot for value and not for bluffs, however, he might believe that he is only getting us to fold our busted flush draws, and give up most times with our A high, and feels that he doesn't need to bet more to accomplish that. His bet sizing feels weak, and doesn't look like a K to me, but more like a blockish/value bet.
That's why I believe calling might be a bit thin, only beating his busted draws. However, raising may be a good option, represeting a Kx clubs or a slowplay on the flop, getting him to fold all the hands we beat (obviously), but also all his marginal value bets, i.e. all 2 pairs worse than kings up.
With the pre flop range we gave him, we are getting him to fold all his hands besides KQ, KJ, 88 and 66, which represents a very small part of his range, thus making it profitable frequently. Although risking more to win the same amount, we are going to win a lot more often with a raise rather than a call.

board is 2c 2s 8d 6c Ks. In position Flop: check check Turn: .35 into .50 River: .65 into 1.20


I think people are having problem with the range we put him on in the video (because this is 10NL) so here's a new one I think people would be more agreeable to. (I caution this range though because his call open is not high, he is playing a lot of hands but he is the pfr'er in those hands. This range may be more suitable for say a 21/14 type of bad 10NL reg)

most people in the comments think he is 3 betting AJ+ KQ and TT+ and that his calling range is much wider because we min raised.

3 betting AJ+ KQ TT+

Calling some 89s 9Ts type hands, any PP lower < TT, JT,QT,JK,KTs Fair?

Flop:
check check, lets say his range stays the same for simplicity. (i.e.not donking small pp's) Also I think it is still the correct play as he is not folding any pp, any 8 and we don't know if he is calling with overs or not. We can be more sure that he will bet air into us on the turn then he will call air on flop.

Turn:
For value he is probably betting 22,66,77,88,99, 89s, he is probably checking 33,44, and 55 to get to showdown and has a bluffing range of 9Ts, JT, JQ, QT, KTs, KJ

River: # of combos in parentheses( )

For value probably betting 22(1),66(3),88(3),99(6) 89s(3), KJ(12), KTs(3), Probably checking 77(6),33(6),44(6),55(6) and may be bluffing 9Ts(3), JT(12),JQ(16), QT(12),


So value = 31 combos

checking = 24 combos

bluffing -50%= 20 combos (It is really 40 combos but I am going to discount by 50% as he is not bluffing two barrels every time he has one of these hands and most people at this level do not value bet bluff like this)

Total combos = 75 Total combos that he is betting into us = 51

For value = 28/51 = 55%

As bluff = 20/28 = 45%

He bet .65 into 1.20 giving us 2.85:1 which means he needs to be bluffing 26% of the time for us to call and since based on the range we give him at this point in the hand he is bluffing 45% of the time then it is +EV to call. So now we know folding is out, but in the comments a few people say to raise. Now we need to find out if a call or a raise is the most optimal play.

So now we need to separate hands that he is pure bluffing. hands that he is bet/folding and hands he is bet/calling.

Assumptions:
1. He is never folding a king or better
2. He is going to fold any hand that is worse then a king.

So pure bluffing hands are 9Ts(3), JT(12),JQ(16), QT(12) which = 40 combos but we are discounting by 50% and are calling 20 combos

Bet/folding = 89s(3) 99(6) = 9 combos

Bet calling = 22(1),66(3),88(3), KJ(12), KTs(3) = 22 combos

Total combos = 51 (its important to note that we are not folding out 77, 33, 44 and 55 because he is not betting them on the river, this is something I think a lot of the people advocating a raise overlooked).

So the pot is 1.20 and he bet .65 into it. If we raise it is going to be about 3x if we want him to fold 89s and 99. So we will be risking 1.95 to get 1.85, so we need him to be folding approx. 52% of the time to break even. out of the 51 combos he is bet calling 22 which leaves 29 that he will be folding. 29/51= 57%. So this is also a +EV play.

So the raising EV calc is .57(1.85) + .43(-1.95) = 1.05 - .84 = +$0.21 profit.

For calling: .45(1.85) + .55(-.65) = .83 - .36 = +$0.47.

So the play is to call based on the range we gave him. Even if we add in TT to his bet fold range it is .61(1.85) +.39(-1.95) = 1.13 - .76 = +$0.37 which still makes calling the most optimal play.

Thoughts?

Worth a free coaching session?

Also If he is folding KT to this raise it becomes more profitable to raise, but I don't know that he is

Based on the bet size I think the SB ha Kx, TT, 99, 8x and maybe some bluffs in his range.

From a purely EV point of view I like folding this river. His bet size looks like he wants a call. I think his bet size with bluffs would be somewhere between 0.65 and 0.85. So I think his hand is weighted towards value but not nut type hands.

I can see merits in calling. We're getting good pot odds to make a call and by folding we learn nothing.

On the river I don't like raising unless you're making it really big. I think that the biggest problems players at 10NL have is not value betting wide enough and calling down too light. So, I don't think that he's going to value bet 77 and I don't think he's folding Kx to a raise. We beat all his bluffs except AcJc.

Also, I was wondering about what you said regarding 'betting for protection'. Isn't protection just a result of betting for value (i.e. not the reason we ever would bet) or betting to collect dead money? Just a small quibble I know, but its one of the things from Baluga Whales vids that was drilled into my head.

I haven't watched the Baluga Whale video but I think what Linkwood is getting at is that villian is betting in order to fold out hands like random overcards that have equity against 77 but won't put more money in without hitting.

An example of this is with 33 in position after calling a bet on a 952r flop and an off suit 2 comes on the turn and we get checked to. I don't expect him to call with AK (although he might) and I don't expect him to fold 44 (although he might), I'd still bet here because I think a large percentage of our opponent's range is 2 overcards which won't put any more money in the pot unless the make a pair on the river.

I think the bet on the river polarizes his range to either a bluff, a K that got there, or a valuebet with weak pp. Given that our hand is very transparent to him he got to think that he can take us of our hand with his entire range when 2 barrelling on the river. You could argue that his bet size is weak which does indicate that he is not bluffing. I think a K would bet bigger especially at this limit where people call more frequently. A pp would probably only be checkcalling, but it can not be discarded that he is making a block bet.

Given that he more often has a weak holding here when looking at bluffing ranges and that he only called preflop and that he would probably be betting bigger with a tight value range, I think the best play is to raise him which he only can call with a K.

spotDespot- he only needs to have 1/3 the amount of bluffs compared to value bets in his range.

ha ha - very true.

I will preface this by saying that I'm really impressed with all the responses ITT, and congrats to Linkwood for inspiring so much participation. I don't feel I have a good idea of how 10nl plays but in general I think that, he has very few Kings in his range, he would probably bet more with a monster (or a king for that matter), and players don't bet for thin value enough, so this weights villain much more to bluffs otr and I would call. Now my first instinct was raise as the smaller river bet makes me want to try to get him off of any hands that he did happen to go for thin value with but I think the pot odds combined with getting the info from the showdown make it a call.

So that said, I put him on a value range of

22-99, A2s,A2o,A6s,A8s,KJo,KTo,K9s,A2s,A2o,A6s,A8s,87s,76s

And a bluffing range of

QTo, QTs, JTo, JTs,J9s,J9o, 9To, 9Ts, A9o, A9s, A7o, A7s, A5o, A5s, A4o, A4s,A3o,A3s.

If I counted properly, that means he has 128 combo's for value and 127 for bluffs
.

Haha, spot the mistake!

I repeated the aces in the value range, and miscounted the bluffs, so it' actually 98 value, 124 bluffs.

I still go with what I said in my last post about calling

As others have said, very impressed with the responses so far. Unless there are specific questions I will hold off on responding until we get some more responses from others. So if there are specific questions for me let me know. Otherwise, keep up the discussion. I will join you all soon.

but I think the pot odds combined with getting the info from the showdown make it a call.

good point. Though I do think an average players would bet bigger if he was bluffing, it's still possible that it's a cheap bluff attempt and calling gives up info about his preflop calling range and post flop play so that may tip the scales toward a call. Though you rarely play with the same regs again at 10nl so I don't know how useful that information will be after this session is over.

Though you rarely play with the same regs again at 10nl so I don't know how useful that information will be after this session is over.

Does the informatioon need to be useful after the session is over? If the table is soft enough, that information could be plenty useful right now. And you can always player search for guys, even with player pools as big as the micros.

As others have said, very impressed with the responses so far. Unless there are specific questions I will hold off on responding until we get some more responses from others. So if there are specific questions for me let me know. Otherwise, keep up the discussion. I will join you all soon.

I have a question, when is our coaching session?

Does the informatioon need to be useful after the session is over?

The less time you play with the guy the less valuable the info is. i.e. if he leaves the next hand and you don't see him again the info has 0 value. If you play with him everyday it has a lot of value. The point is that if your session is only an hour long it's unlikely you will get into a lot of similar spots or be able to use the info that much.

If the table is soft enough, that information could be plenty useful right now. And you can always player search for guys, even with player pools as big as the micros.

who searches for other regs to sit with at 10nl?? If you're table selection at 10nl is based on finding tables where other regs are sitting just because you have a few reads on them, then something is wrong.

good point. Though I do think an average players would bet bigger if he was bluffing, it's still possible that it's a cheap bluff attempt and calling gives up info about his preflop calling range and post flop play so that may tip the scales toward a call. Though you rarely play with the same regs again at 10nl so I don't know how useful that information will be after this session is over.

Yea I think that I just weigh the "not value betting thin" more than the "bet sizing doesn't seem bluffy", which could be wrong in this situation or in general. As far as the getting info goes, I was really just thinking that this is an active player that we would probably be in pots with a decent amount, assuming we both stay at the table. I like to post in the hopes that, if there is a flaw in my logic, someone will point it out and help us all to save/make money in the process, so I appreciate the post =).

Link,

I think your pf bet size allows him to have more speculative hands - scs - in his range, and your checking back the flop allows him to start bluffing the turn because he will not have good equity at showdown vs the Ax hands in your range. I imagine he might also bet PPs that are happy taking it down on the turn.

On the river he will probably check most pps and turn them into bluff catchers. The K is a good scare card, and we have A high, which beats most of his bluffs, so I would call and take a note on what he has, and that he saw you call him down with AT.

I think folding is okay, but I prefer to call to see what he does not 3 bet to a 2x raise pf, and what he bet turn, river with so we can make adjustments.

Raising is my least favorite option because we don't get called by worse, and we lose potentially valuable information.

1)
From the given Range he would bet ( I would consider the same bet size for simplification reasons)

For value:
- KJ, 88, and 66

As a bluff hands that would beat us:
- 55

As a bluff hands that we beat:
- QJ, QT, JT, T9s

Board: 2s 2c 8d 6c Ks
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 64.179% 64.18% 00.00% 43 0.00 { AdTd }
Hand 1: 35.821% 35.82% 00.00% 24 0.00 { 88, 66-55, KJs, QTs+, JTs, T9s, KJo, QTo+, JTo }

Folding is ruled out, even if the range is not completly correct, we only need to be correct 26% of the time.

Now it is a decision between calling or raising to fold hands that beat us.

2)
EV of a call = $1,85 x 52/76 - $0,65 x 24/76 = $1,06

Total Combos - 76, 52 that we beat (QJ-16,QT-16,JT-16,T9s-4), 24 that we lose (88-3,66-3,55-6,KJ-12)

3)
Let's consider we raise the river bet to the santard 3x to $1,95

Now lets make 3 cenarios:

A - He is folding everything except 88, 66, and 1/2 of combos of KJ

EV of the raise =$1,85 x 64/76 - $1,95 x 12/76 = $1,25

B - He is folding everything except 88, 66, and 2/3 of combos of KJ

EV of the raise =$1,85 x 62/76 - $1,95 x 14/76 = $1,15

C - He is folding everything except 88, 66, and all the combos of KJ

EV of the raise =$1,85 x 58/76 - $1,95 x 18/76 = $0,95

Conclusion:
I would raise the river bet, because only if he never folds KJ to a raise the EV of the call is higher than the EV of the raise.
I believe he would fold at least 1/3 of combos of KJ, who would make the EV of the river raise superior.

Here's how I figured this one out...

First I expanded his preflop calling range (always assuming he's a bad reg) A7o-AJo, A2s-ATs, K8o-KQo, K7s-KQs, Q9o-QJo, Q8s-QJs, J9o-JTo, J8s-Jts, T8s-T9s, 76s-98s, 22-88.

On the flop i think he might chek any of those

On the turn let's say he value bets all his 8's and all his monsters
Let's assume he also bets all his 4 flush hands
For the bluffing hands: let's say he bets 1/4 of his non 8 non club kings ( he might want to go to showdown with a king) and half of all his other air hands. (always assuming he's a bad reg...)

On the river I think he shuts down most of his bluffs (lets say half of them because I don't think he's going to double barrel that often) and I also assume that he cheks all his pairs of 8's as well as his club suited aces (showdown value).
For value let's assume he's betting his monsters(full houses & quads) as well as every kings he bet with on the turn.

If my math is right he's now got 40 value combos and 21 bluffs. With our pot odds our EV is about + 2BB for a call. If we raise I think he'll rarely fold any of his value hands (always assuming he's a bad reg :-)).

All things considered, I'd say a call has some merit and is better than a raise, but folding is the best option. Imo, when I do the math estimation (and this word is very important) and come to such a small +EV result, I think folding is better considering that nothing I did is 100% precise.

Let me know what you guys think.

I revised the math I did and it has a few mistakes + I'd give him a little more suited aces as a bluff..

..anyway I did this quickly and it stays an estimation but I think it gives a good idea of a way to solve this problem.

Considering his aggressive tendencies and the fact that you check/called the turn after the flop checked through, your hand looks weak and could be something he might try to get you to fold on the river. Making his river bet 1/2 pot, he could easily be trying a cheap bluff. By calling you gain information either way (if he's vbetting small or if he's bluffing) and can make better decisions later in the session. So I think calling and taking a note is a good play.

I doubt an aggresive guy that been 3betting u alot in blinds are going to flat call with hands like AJ, KQ...

Given that this is NL10, he could easily be value betting any 6x combo or better and he is not folding to a raise.Given the math above I call expecting to be beat a lot.

aggro 3bettor pre flop is 3betting most decent Kx to a minraise from the button. I doubt he calls in the SB with a hand like K9s, but it's pos. Therefore he has few, if any Kx. I agree his calling range is wider pre flop, including some or all suited Ax, SC's and all the small pairs. His vbetting range on the turn is 22/88/A8s/78s/98s and 99/TT if he didn't 3bet them. I can't imagine him vbetting 6x, esp since he can't have a FD with 6x and 10nl players just don't vbet that thin, but we can throw in A6s and 76s just for fun. His bluffing range on the turn is huge. Maybe he is also vbetting and hoping to get called by most Ax...hard to tell with these 10nl guys.

On the river, he is prob giving up with small pairs 33-77/A6s/76s and just hoping to get to SD He bombs river with 2pair+ hoping you show up with AK, so he does not have a monster. That leaves the 8x, 99/TT (which may also check here some of the time) and air, almost all of which you beat (3betting AJ+ and most of his Kx range pre flop). So folding seems out of the question, and if we were going to fold to a river bet on a high freq bluff card like a K, we should have played the hand differently. If we raise, he's getting put in a pretty sick spot with any of the "thin value" hands he sometimes checks with and even if he's a thinking reg, he's going to fold them often. We do get looked up by the few KT/K9s or maybe KJ that he decided to flat with pre flop, but we fold out almost all the smaller 1 pair hands. I think we should raise. I'd make it big since we are trying to get him to fold a pair...something like $2.40-$2.60. If he calls with the middle pairs (A8s/98s/99/TT) we can punish him later with value raises on the river with top pair. If he calls with anything worse, we are not leaving the table until he does We can easily fold if he 3bets.

The bet size is the key factor in this situation for me. It looks like something that wants to be called. The second key is how much weakness we have shown on every street ip. We min open, check back the flop, call the turn. Just about as weak as possible of a line to take and get here. When we spring into a raise we don't really rep much and villain only has to call one bet to look us up which at these stakes is still a mistake even some of the better regs get tempted by.

We have a read that he 3bets some but no read on what that looks like (polarized or depolarized) so I am not quick to eliminate all of these KQs and even an AQ type hand is still a real possibility pre if he is polarized weighted towards bluffs.

On the river I think he has a lot of combos of Kx type hands mentioned throughout the thread along with pocket pairs and 8x hands and finally some bluff stabs (a few like 33-55 which beat us) oh and almost forgot monsters like 88 and 66. My range for this river bet is weighted most heavily towards the Kx because there are so many more combos of hands like KQ KJ K10 than combos of non-set PPs like 99 and 77. Even lower weighted are the 8x hands because they are folded more pre and also might be perceived as too weak to bet as compared to the previous hands. Bluffs come next and those get weighted down because of the sizing issue mainly and mosters are the lowest weight because there just are not very many combos of 88 and 66 or the occasional A2 that called pre.

Overall I think this range is very value weighted and is probably a fold because raising doesn't rep much and he is never folding a K and probably not folding a 99 or 8x type hand given we have shown so much weakness and randomly sprung and he is given the option of a price to see a showdown.

A side note. On its own I think cbetting this flop is a +EV bet and checking back is only more +EV is you have a skill advantage over your opponent which I will go ahead and concede linkwood has in this case. However if you are a breakeven reg or just moving up to 10NL and this type of spot comes up there is merit defiantly in the short run in just opting to make the +EV cbet and avoid these types of more complicated situations.

A side note. On its own I think cbetting this flop is a +EV bet and checking back is only more +EV is you have a skill advantage over your opponent which I will go ahead and concede linkwood has in this case. However if you are a breakeven reg or just moving up to 10NL and this type of spot comes up there is merit defiantly in the short run in just opting to make the +EV cbet and avoid these types of more complicated situations.

I agree that C betting here is profitable, as it usually doesn't help his range. However, C betting 100% of the time on these dry flops can also be exploitable against good players, that's why checking back can also be good, to try and get to cheap SD. Once he takes the line that he chose, we have to assume that our hand is not good a lot of the time, as his river bet looks more like value. I do believe that raising the river can Rep our range, and he is only beating bluffs, which we would usually C bet if we wanted to take the pot down. Therefore, i do believe he is folding most Kx

I agree that C betting here is profitable, as it usually doesn't help his range. However, C betting 100% of the time on these dry flops can also be exploitable against good players, that's why checking back can also be good, to try and get to cheap SD. Once he takes the line that he chose, we have to assume that our hand is not good a lot of the time, as his river bet looks more like value. I do believe that raising the river can Rep our range, and he is only beating bluffs, which we would usually C bet if we wanted to take the pot down. Therefore, i do believe he is folding most Kx

First and most importantly I don't think we are getting folds from Kx with a single raise. Both because we rep very little and because there is a set price to see a showdown which all villains at 10NL want to see. Overall any plan that involves getting someone to fold TP immediately throws up red flags for me even at 100NL

As for cbetting being exploitable. Of coarse cbetting 100% in this spot is exploitable, but i don't think many 10NL regs will adjust correctly if at all. If you are playing 10NL optimal game play against your opponents is going to be extremely exploitable. The entire "value bet and don't bluff" motto of uNL is by definition exploitable. Ask grindcore if TAGs play is exploitable (he will show you a pretty graph with a sick redline).

The entire "value bet and don't bluff" motto of uNL is by definition exploitable. Ask grindcore if TAGs play is exploitable (he will show you a pretty graph with a sick redline).

Please elaborate, I don't really understand.
I do agree that C betting in this situation is more than standard, but the question is once Linkwood takes the line that he did, which was check back the flop repping broadway cards, the best way to win the hand is to keep repping on the river. With a river raise, villain may as well have any 8, as we are not raising QQ for value here. If villain cannot fold small K, then we can hopefully exploit that later, and get extra value from weaker hands.

This is more of an experience thing. Yes I agree if villain faces a raise on the river with K10 he/she probably should fold. An important principal of uNL is should he and will he are two completely different things. Yea Kx is a lot like 8x here. I also think villain calls with an 8 a significant portion of the time. And you are right, we should be able to exploit this by betting for value very thinly here. I would probably raise KJ here for value even if it was just a small raise.

Am I allowed to give it a shot?

I definitely cbet this flop. He seems like a pretty standard slight LAG reg. You don't get a ton of value betting the flop, for sure, but there is value to making him fold his equity share when he has 3-6 outs (plus charge him if he wants to float).Checking also opens you up to being barreled on turn+river because you'd rarely check back that flop with better than ace high. Betting also creates dead money you can capitalize on - you have two overs + backdoor NFD, so you will have barreling power and can easily bet a diamond, ace, ten, king, queen turn and have hand equity + fold equity. I can't think of any player type I don't cbet here against, maybe if I didn't have the ace of diamonds, but we do.

As played I would just fold the turn. You didn't have enough read on this player to be checking back, then bluff catching with AT high two streets. You also didn't pick up a flush draw on the turn or any extra outs. If we must call the turn I would fold this river. His bet sizing is not small enough to price in a cheap bluff catch, nor big enough to be polarized. He is probably betting for thin value against an obviously weak range. Raising is spew imo - he can have some strong hands here that aren't folding (boats, A2s, 99/TT, many combos of Kx), plus your line would look like total BS. You really check back flop, call turn, raise river with AK or KQ here?

So if u are villain, and u got raised on the river would u call any 2 pair? Assuming you're betting for thin value

So if u are villain, and u got raised on the river would u call any 2 pair? Assuming you're betting for thin value

considering the two pairs are counterfeited by the 22 on the flop I need to make sure I understand what your definition of 2pair is, because 63 is technically 2pair.

If the question is would I fold a K a raise for KK22 2pair then yea I probably would fold the weaker Ks at least but AK and probably KQ no because the line doesn't make sense. Also assuming you raise the .65 to $2 for example I need to call 1.35 to win 3.95 so I only need to be good about a quarter of the time.

Now if the question is will I fold K6 for the ever elusive 3pair then no because I beat all of the Ks

Again, we are not playing against what the villain should do. We are playing against what we think he will do. I could be completely wrong here, but I think villain rarely folds a K and probably doesn't fold 87 or better. If someone else disagrees with that assessment of a random 10NL player's bet/calling range here please chime in.

Since its not really what the quiz is about I guess I can discuss the flop and turn decisions, since a couple of you have brought it up.

In terms of cbetting the flop, I think cbetting is standard and definitely fine. Checking back is also fine, depending upon your plan for the hand. I'm fine with it either way. I will say that if we cbet here 100% we need to make a plan for the turn vs regs and a fair amount of fish. I seriously doubt a cbet bluff is +EV vs a reg unless we plan on barreling a lot of turns.

On the turn, unless we think that villain is thin value-betting turn and river with a significant frequency I think that calling the turn is good. I suspect that we get checked to on the river a large % of the time.

What seems to lack in the above analysis is a convincing profile of Villain. We all agree that
his river bet looks valueish but not super strong, but several posters don´t think he´s folding any
top/second pair to a raise. Villain looks at his hand on the river, thinking:" I have top/second
pair here, I will bet half pot and hope to get called by something weaker, oops, a raise, I have
to call because my small bet induced a bluff and I feeeel that he doesn´t have AK." Really?
The Villain who calls a raise in this spot with KT is the type of player who confidently bets
close to the pot with top pair. If he sizes his river bets to induce bluffs he´s not a bad reg
anymore in my opinion, and link´s initial read goes down the drain. If he calls river raises
because he has a pair he´s still not a bad reg, and in both cases our bluff raise is horrible.
Against good players and morons, folding or calling is better, but in this case we assume we
play against a bad reg, and raising is fine? Or?

Great idea for the vid. I think that villians range for betting the turn includes some small pp (44-77). Also he can also have a hand like A2 here very often i think. I think most pp's would bet the turn but would not bet the river. I also don't understand why villian would bet a hand like KJ on the turn. Although it's possible he'd bet to take down the pot and happened to make his hand on the river, his line seems to indicate either a complete bluff, or a big hand like trips or 2 pair... I think . As for calling, I think it's only for information. And I think raising the river is questionable agaist an unknown.

I agree that his betsizing tells hes valuebetting thinly (id expect him to choose bigger size if he was bluffing), and i think if you raise here hes gonna call because hes not gonna find a single hand youre doing that for value with. So you should fold.

This looks like he is begging for a call. It looks to me like he slowplayed a mid ranged pocket pair or found himself with a k high fd on the turn and maybe a pair on the river. It is pretty easy to narrow his range down to only made hands because of the size of the bet. I think he would of made the bet bigger if he was trying to bluff you off the hand. I don't see him bluffing with lets say an A high because he bet on two streets. Two shots at the pot would not make any sense. He definately has a piece of this board so it should be a pretty easy fold.

In terms of cbetting the flop, I think cbetting is standard and definitely fine. Checking back is also fine, depending upon your plan for the hand. I'm fine with it either way. I will say that if we cbet here 100% we need to make a plan for the turn vs regs and a fair amount of fish. I seriously doubt a cbet bluff is +EV vs a reg unless we plan on barreling a lot of turns.

Don't you think at 10NL most bad regs. are more on the Aggro NIT side? I feel they play more hit or miss then trying to float c-bets out of position and then bluff. So going back to what you said why do you think a C-bet bluff is not +EV?

Don't you think at 10NL most bad regs. are more on the Aggro NIT side? I feel they play more hit or miss then trying to float c-bets out of position and then bluff. So going back to what you said why do you think a C-bet bluff is not +EV?

An average reg gets to the flop with pocket pairs, some stronger broadways (KQ, KJ, maybe some worse), and AJ, AT. He probably c/c's with all pocket pairs and most Ax hands, which is most of his range and we are ahead of 0% of that range (although we do have some equity vs a decent amount of the range). If we know his range is wider (i.e. more broadways and/or suited connectors) then it probably is profitable. Given my small raise size he may have a wider than average range, but I wouldn't just assume that he does, I would only consider it as a possibility. I doubt most 10nl regs are adjusting quick enough vs an unknown to make range adjustments like that but I could be wrong.

I havent read through the thread yet, but will once I give my initial answer.


I believe the villain is value betting a marginal hand like A8, 99,TT or KJ. I think he purposely bet small to get value from weaker hands that would normally fold.

I don't think raising is an option, I don't see him folding too many of his value betting hands and definitely not a K.

I'd fold.

An average reg gets to the flop with pocket pairs, some stronger broadways (KQ, KJ, maybe some worse), and AJ, AT. He probably c/c's with all pocket pairs and most Ax hands, which is most of his range and we are ahead of 0% of that range (although we do have some equity vs a decent amount of the range). If we know his range is wider (i.e. more broadways and/or suited connectors) then it probably is profitable. Given my small raise size he may have a wider than average range, but I wouldn't just assume that he does, I would only consider it as a possibility. I doubt most 10nl regs are adjusting quick enough vs an unknown to make range adjustments like that but I could be wrong.

I agree they are not adjusting quick enough but I do think out of position they are folding to most c-bets. Pockets may take a C/C or C/R line on the flop, but everything else is folding enough times to make c-betting profitable.

I agree they are not adjusting quick enough but I do think out of position they are folding to most c-bets. Pockets may take a C/C or C/R line on the flop, but everything else is folding enough times to make c-betting profitable.

In a range of AT, AJ, KQ, KJ, 66-99 if he folds AT and AJ with any significant frequency then yes, its profitable. If regs at 10nl are c/f AJ on dry boards like this then obv not cbetting almost anything is probably a mistake. I'm skeptical that this is the case but haven't played enough hands at 10nl to say with any certainty one way or the other. I know at higher stakes you can't expect them to fold anything but Kx on this flop.

I am not going to comment on alternative plays on any streets besides the river as the question pertains only to the river play. Overall our plan for the hand was to pot control and get to showdown cheaply. Linkwood, part of you reason for calling on the turn was that you thought he would have some broadway bluffs in his range and would often give up on the river allowing us to get to showdown. Inherently, this means we are probably not making a play on the river or calling another reasonable bet.

Another factor is that we have said this is very early in the session and we are presumably up against a bad reg. Our generic definition and plan against a bad reg at the micros is that when they bet they have it, they call too much and we should be value betting them to death.

When the K comes and he makes a bet, my first instinct is that he is not scared of the king. However, after noticing the small bet sizing, I assume his range is pairs 88-TT (I know we didn't put 99 and TT in his pre flop range in the vid but I think it is in there), some weak king hoping to get a call with a small bet, or some kind of weak bluff. Unfortunately it is early in the session and we are pretty much guessing.

Although he should be often scared of the K and a raise, we do not know enough about this player to know he can fold second pair here. because we kept the pot small, we probably cannot raise large enough to get him to fold any pair that he thought was good enough to bet 2 streets. Once again, given our assumption of a bad reg, I believe they often think in terms of absolute dollars and will often call for 'just another dollar'. Lastly, even though he is probably not thinking on this level, when are we checking back flop, calling turn and raising river with AK or KQ?

Given our plan to get to showdown, weakness throughout the hand, lack of read on the player, and general assumptions about who we are playing against I think this is a fold.

In a range of AT, AJ, KQ, KJ, 66-99 if he folds AT and AJ with any significant frequency then yes, its profitable. If regs at 10nl are c/f AJ on dry boards like this then obv not cbetting almost anything is probably a mistake. I'm skeptical that this is the case but haven't played enough hands at 10nl to say with any certainty one way or the other. I know at higher stakes you can't expect them to fold anything but Kx on this flop.

This interests me quite a bit. I currently play 10NL I will be taking note of this and getting back to the forums to let you know how I feel about this vs bad regs(what we are assuming an unknown player is). I feel a bad reg out of position is folding a missing flop to a c-bet but I have no actual proof.

Looking forward to the next video.

This interests me quite a bit. I currently play 10NL I will be taking note of this and getting back to the forums to let you know how I feel about this vs bad regs(what we are assuming an unknown player is). I feel a bad reg out of position is folding a missing flop to a c-bet but I have no actual proof.

Looking forward to the next video.

Yeah, let me know what you find out. I'd be interested.

In a range of AT, AJ, KQ, KJ, 66-99 if he folds AT and AJ with any significant frequency then yes, its profitable. If regs at 10nl are c/f AJ on dry boards like this then obv not cbetting almost anything is probably a mistake. I'm skeptical that this is the case but haven't played enough hands at 10nl to say with any certainty one way or the other. I know at higher stakes you can't expect them to fold anything but Kx on this flop.

In regard to this side discussion, I think 66-99 vs their broadways (I do think there are more broadways in their range than the given strong broadways) are very different to a reg at these stakes based on position. I think on the given flop you will get a lot of check calls with the pps and folds from their broadways, while in position you can expect a ton of floats from that entire range.

I am not arguing for or against cbetting, just adding an observation that you might consider in this discussion.

But.....
what did he actually have ?

Yeah, let me know what you find out. I'd be interested.

I went through my database of 15k hands at 10NL(majority played on 6max). I played around with my filters and narrowed it down to around 150 hands with a showdown on this example. To make sure this is in the interest of learning and to show accurate results my playing style is 20/16 TAG. I found if I bet 3/4 pot or more they would fold a missed Ax, Kx to a c-bet majority of the time. This is assuming they have no open end draws or flush draws, this is also assuming I am playing against a reg.

Hope this helps, its a very small sample size so of course I could be wrong.

On a side note when is the next video coming out?

I went through my database of 15k hands at 10NL(majority played on 6max). I played around with my filters and narrowed it down to around 150 hands with a showdown on this example. To make sure this is in the interest of learning and to show accurate results my playing style is 20/16 TAG. I found if I bet 3/4 pot or more they would fold a missed Ax, Kx to a c-bet majority of the time. This is assuming they have no open end draws or flush draws, this is also assuming I am playing against a reg.

Hope this helps, its a very small sample size so of course I could be wrong.

On a side note when is the next video coming out?

Thanks for the info. Next vid will be out Saturday I'm told.

But.....
what did he actually have ?

The reveal will be in the next vid coming out on Saturday.

Hey all,

Tomorrow the next vid should come out with the reveal and my thoughts. Tomorrow I will also try and post my thoughts in response to the other two options that I opted not to choose. Given the amount of response I will not be able to respond to each specific post but if you have questions about my thoughts or disagree with anything please let me know. I certainly encourage you all to respond to each other's posts as well.

In terms of the free coaching session, I count 40 individuals roughly who posted in the thread. So I will assign you all a number in order of who posted first, second, etc. Then I will use a random number generator (http://www.random.org) to pick the winner. I will announce it in this thread. If there are questions or concerns with this process please let me know.

One other note, in the video that will be released tomorrow there will discussion of the hand of the first video and the beginning of discussion of the next hand. Lets try to keep the discussion of this hand in this thread, so the other vid thread can be devoted to the second hand only to avoid confusion.

PS. I do have to give credit to JK3A and Tecmosuperbowl for the overall idea for these vids and the coaching give away.

The winner of the free coaching drawing is zenben. PM me to set up your session. Congrats!

As I said before, I think everyone did fairly well in their responses. However, I still feel like call is the best play. One thing I want to note is that a few of you mentioned that my assigned range for the villain is not wide enough. You could be right. As I've said in another post, I'm not totally sure how much an NL10 reg will adjust to raise sizes. I suspect that any adjustment will be an over adjustment but we don't know for sure. Really though, I doubt that a wider pf range really affects our post flop decisions that much (except that it makes a cbet better).

As for the river decision, my river play is based upon the fundamental assumption that people do not value bet well. The fact that the villain appears to have value bet us doesn't really change my assumption. I would not assume most regs at 200nl or 400nl to value bet the villain's hand in this spot. I'm not even sold on the idea that it is a good value bet in general, although it is an excellent value bet vs me and players who can hand read well and are very suspicious (the only thing he could have done better is bet bigger).

A few of you noted the bet sizing is suspicious and is consistent with a thin value bet. However, given that the villain is relatively unknown at this point we can interpret the bet size in two general ways - he's making an advanced play (thin value bet) or he's making a very basic play (a silly bluff). It seems to me that we would be making a general mistake to assume that your average unknown 10nl reg is regularly making advanced plays. Therefore, I wouldn't read too much into the bet size until we get some information to the contrary.

So, given all of this information, I assume that the villain is very polarized in his river better range. I also assume that my hand has enough equity to call vs his hand range. This makes a call the best play. If we did not have enough equity to call (i.e. our equity vs his river betting range was less than necessary to make it profitable compared to the pot odds) then raising or folding become the better plays. However, given that we don't expect the villain to be value betting light, that should not be the case.

I hope this makes sense. Let me know your thoughts. Also, I'm interested what people think of the villain's bet. Is it good or bad? What would make it better or worse?

I can't say that I ever like the villain's bet on the river, at 10nl. I don't think even the regs are hand reading well enough and the player pool is so large it is very unlikely that you are getting into real leveling wars. After getting called on the draw heavy turn, I think the best river option is c/c if he believes that you will bet a busted draw, which most micro players can't resist, and if he realizes the K is a good cad for you to bluff. Maybe I am super underestimating a 10nl reg but I think he is button clicking. I'm not sure what you really expect to get called by there.

Looking at it from villains perspective, on the river if hero is checking back all showdown value hands that villain beats, and betting for value all hands that have 77 beat, wouldn't bet fold be the most profitable against our range, hoping we hero call worse 2 pair, or A high which seems more likely with the line taken.
I think his bet sizing allows him to get called by worse. If he bets bigger he's polarizing range, and I'm not sure if that's good for villains hand.
Not sure if that makes sense, let me know....

I think the small bet was "technically" a value bet but it is also known as a defensive bet. He didn't want to have to make a decision whether or not to call so he made the small bet to avoid having to make the call.

A fishy reg would definitely have and probably over use the defensive bet. It's a great note to take on him. An even better note is whether he folds his defensive bets to a raise on the river.

I think the small bet was "technically" a value bet but it is also known as a defensive bet. He didn't want to have to make a decision whether or not to call so he made the small bet to avoid having to make the call.

A fishy reg would definitely have and probably over use the defensive bet. It's a great note to take on him. An even better note is whether he folds his defensive bets to a raise on the river.

This definitely could be right. One thing I'd note though is that if he makes a "defensive bet" on the river, we raise, and he folds we haven't learned that much about his range. So unless we know he can make these kinds of bets with some decent frequency (which we can probably assume now) we don't know for sure if raising is better than calling, since raising might just fold out all of his bluffs.

In general, thinking about villains bet more, I actually don't really like the bet vs your average reg at 10nl. As we discussed regarding the cbet decision, it seems like the general consensus is that 10nl regs will be much more likely to play fit or fold, meaning that they won't make light, suspicious calls. So a thin value bet has much less value, since the villain won't get called unless he runs into someone who can hand read or a calling station like me.

Time Link to 00:16:34

i really like the line of checking back the flop . on a 228 we probably arent getting villian too fold much. I usually use the check back flop bet turn in pos when checked to on turn. It seems to work very well. since we were led into on turn. I would probably dump the hand. this might be very weak. i dunno.
as played on the river i would either be raising or folding. that .65 half pot bet almost looks like 99 or 77 that just got scared of the king on the river. i wonder if we made it like 1.75ish if the villian would fold.

thanks for another good short linkwood

ok i do think when is betting again on the river first think i look at is the size, pretty wick so i will discount kj etc in his range(which his proprably going to bet pot,unless we had a read) i do think he will do that bet with some 109s j10s etc or mostly poket pair lower than 8: 77 44 55 33 so my plan will be to raise big vs his bet on river like 2.45dollars. is a correct plan?

ok i do think when is betting again on the river first think i look at is the size, pretty wick so i will discount kj etc in his range(which his proprably going to bet pot,unless we had a read) i do think he will do that bet with some 109s j10s etc or mostly poket pair lower than 8: 77 44 55 33 so my plan will be to raise big vs his bet on river like 2.45dollars. is a correct plan?

If we think villain is value betting light then raising becomes a good option. However, I doubt we can expect villain to value bet light at these stakes, so I like calling better.

If we think villain is value betting light then raising becomes a good option. However, I doubt we can expect villain to value bet light at these stakes, so I like calling better.

ok but vs raise he will not fold all the poket he have( 77 55 44 etc...) and if he had air u win anyway.
and i agree that people don't make light value often, so should that bet size look a lot like a bluff?

ok but vs raise he will not fold all the poket he have( 77 55 44 etc...) and if he had air u win anyway.
and i agree that people don't make light value often, so should that bet size look a lot like a bluff?

It certainly can be a bluff, although I would concede that the sizing does look like a value bet. For a raise to be better than a call we have to believe that he has enough thin value bets that will fold to our raise to make up for all the times he decides to bluff catch with his weak hands and has monsters. I'm not sure that happens often enough so I would rather call, given that its not hard to show that its a +EV call vs most villains.

all clear thanks