1 reply thread where Rob says it's good > multi reply thread

fwiw I tried to talk a lot more about how I play poker, so while the base of this video is low limit/introductory, i think a lot of more advanced concepts gets splashed around a good amount.

Plus my sissy voice is gone.

Hey Stormdrum,

That's fine. It's fine to be very showdown bound. I probably fold a lot less than you (the more agrro games you're in the more likely this is good). But vs. the guys I was playing against, it was a pretty easy thing to do.

Some players are just not very capable of bluffing. On that hand, with 99, when that guy check/raises the field - he's showing the 1st bit of aggression that he has shown in the hand, so I felt he make have been slowplaying if he was check to check/raise - in fact that'd be the only way that was possible. Of course, you're right in one way because some people would think that they could slowplay 55 on that turn (and what do you know wouldn't even "slowplay" a ten). But I felt that was pretty much out of the realm of possibility for this player.

If I asked you what someone's frequency of bluffing was and all you could do is guess, I would say "go ahead and call down" - because you're not making an informed decision. But some people, just can't bluff. They just call call call and raise when they hit. You've never seen them donk out a flush card withouth having the flush - vs. those guys I can get away from a hand.

Of course, my big concern with advice like this is people overdo it. They start looking for spots to fold, simply because a guy bet out a flush card once. You seem to have taken the advice in the way I hoped most would. I really just wanted you to know it was an option. It's a great line the smaller the pot. And the stronger your read, the more of that bet you're calling is a waste. So if i thought that guy was beating me 49/50 times, well calling would be bad. If I didn't know? Then I'd say folding is bad.

Obviously my goal down the road will be to help you guys know.

And I'll put the chart together and get it hosted after next weeks episode.

I'm kinda side-stepping the specifics here, but I want to comment something about bet/folding.

Say you have a made hand, but not a monster, on the river against a loose/passive player. So you bet, whether in position or out, and you get raised and you're faced with a tough decision. You expect to lose, but you just don't want to fold to a single bet. You might think to yourself that maybe you shouldn't have bet in the first place.

The thing with these situations is that it's, in a sense, more important to get those valuebets in than it is to know how to respond to the raise. Now, I'm not saying that you should just blindly bet and call every time. Or that it's always better to bet/call than it is to check behind (or check/call or check/fold). Only that it is crucially important for your success to get those valuebets in against loose callers. They will call with worse hands all the time and they will call even if the board is just hopeless for their hand.

It's like you separate these two problems in different categories, getting river valuebets in on the other hand and responding and understanding river raises on the other. I'm over-simplifying here and in reality those two (or more) decisions are of course tied together and you should know how to respond to different actions before you choose your whole line. But I want to emphasize that if there's a danger of going overboard with bet/folding, and there is, there is also a danger of starting to miss valuebets, which is as significant factor to your bottom line, if not more, as it is to know when to fold.

(By the way, I haven't watched the video yet and I apologize if I repeat here something you already said in the video. :-)

One final thought. Even though you might feel that other people think somewhat differently than you do, consider this: how many times have you thought of raise-bluffing the river? How many times have you done it? I'd bet it's not that often, if ever. The fact that we can think of it, makes it seem more likely event than it really is. This is just basic human psychology.

alright some replies!

jaj - good stuff on bet/folding - it's important to not stress yourself out at the table too much and you're right, a lot of times you can just bet and not have to worry about that reaction to raise. I've been value betting people's hands for them for years now haha.

Mickey -
That's an OK way to add/delete hands but before I did that I would post it here on DC ("are you winning with KTo in MP?"). After next week I'll have all the preflop concepts complete and we can work on them as a community. That's definitely a fun project. Especially because we'll be able to put our collective DBs together.

"factors that would change these" - with the starting hand chart? sweet. You'll see in later episodes where I change my preflop play specifically because of the nature of the table.

Pre flop
Hero is on the button with for example Ah Qs
UTG limps, CO limps, hero raises SB folds BB calls and limpers call, four players to the flop for 8.5 small bets.

Flop
Jd 7c 3h
BB and UTG check, CO bets
What does hero do in this situation and why?

Before any of the pros reply, I would like to give my line to this hand.

I think you have too much of a hand to fold getting 9.5 to 1.

Since you are going to play this hand, I think raising the flop is better than calling.
By raising you are likely shutting the rest of the field out, and getting the initiative.

If CO indeed have a medium strenght hand, he will likely call you raise and check to you on turn.
You can then decide if you want to take a freecard or bet for a free showdown if you don't improve.

If he bet into you on turn or checkraise your "free showdown" bet, you have a clear fold.

Hey Chuck, thanks for making another great video.

I just wanted to bring up one technical point. When you're discussing hands to play in various positions your notation is a little inconsistent.

For example, you talk about playing KJo+, by which it is clear you mean KQo and KJo, that is, KJo+ means, 'all K offsuit high hands with a kicker of J or higher.'

However, when discussing which hands you can play OTB to expand your range you list 76s+. At first I was confused as I interpreted that as just 76s (e.g. 'all 7 high suited hands with a kicker of 6 or higher'). But then you enumerated T9s, 98s, 87s, and 76s - in other words all the suited connectors that are at least 7 high. But I don't think 76s connotes that. I'm used to reading that range as T9s-76s.

Anyway, not a big deal - I'm probably the only one who was confused by it. And it's clear what you mean anyway since you do an excellent job explaining things comprehensively and clearly.

Kudos on a great video series.

Just skimmed these videos cause I was curious about your preflop reqs. Contrasting them with Stox, couple of questions-

1) Your recommendations are significantly tighter than Stox. Is this an adjustment to the higher rake, or simply to keep your viewers out of marginal spots as they get started in lhe?
2) Stox's recommendations are more skewed towards suitedness while yours seem to value 'big cards' a little more. Is this just your personal preference, or is it more to do with the nature of tough mid/high games vs. low limit games? That is, are these default ranges also solid for bigger, more aggressive games in your opinion.

Just skimmed these videos cause I was curious about your preflop reqs. Contrasting them with Stox, couple of questions-

1) Your recommendations are significantly tighter than Stox. Is this an adjustment to the higher rake, or simply to keep your viewers out of marginal spots as they get started in lhe?
2) Stox's recommendations are more skewed towards suitedness while yours seem to value 'big cards' a little more. Is this just your personal preference, or is it more to do with the nature of tough mid/high games vs. low limit games? That is, are these default ranges also solid for bigger, more aggressive games in your opinion.

Stox's book is not for .5/1 or even for games through 2/4. It has more to do with the difference in the games.

Also, the series was made with the intention of creating a solid foundation. I'm a super loose player myself but I started here - tight/aggro - and this series is a start.

To be frank, the higher in limits you go - the worse a starting hand chart is. If I had to create a spectrum for the different type of games I played at the low stakes, it'd be 1/10 the size of the same thing for games 10/20+. When you're playing those stakes you should be concerned with why you're 3-betting this hand in position. I would (and hopefully will) approach a series like that down the line.

Also - starting hand chart with this week's episode.