Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by Entity (Mid Stakes)

Hey guys, here's what we're going to do regarding results: if you want to know them take the hand you're interested in and write a competent analysis of some aspect of the hand. For example, you could assign the villain a range, tell me why you believe certain hands are and aren't in their range, and do a Poker Stove. Or you could write an analysis comparing the EV of two different lines I could have taken. Do something like that and I will reveal the results for that hand. If one person does each of the seven hands I will post all seven results.

8675309 is a prime number, true story.

On the second 85o hand, I like a check/raise of the turn for value *under the assumption that we know how to react to a 3bet* (either b/c we can safely fold or b/c we have a good chance of inducing a bluff 3bet). I think there's just too much value from getting A high calldowns as well as calls from worse hands, and we only lose to 44, 88+, Kx, A8 at the moment. It doesn't really matter whether he calls with J9, QT, etc. We are happy if he folds his live six outer, but we don't mind getting value from it. He calls down worse pocket pairs and the rest of Ax range always.

As for metagame, I doubt this will make him think much. It may make him mad at us for playing a marginal hand strongly when he does call down and lose, and it might induce him to spew multiple bets later on because he thinks we overplay our hands. That said, I doubt there will be much of a metagame affect here. We are simply going to get value from our weak opponent. (I do think it is close though.)

8675309 is a prime number, true story.

Great analysis. What result do you want?

So seriously no one's even the least bit curious to get the results for any hand?

So seriously no one's even the least bit curious to get the results for any hand?

I think we're just lazy. I'd like to know the results of the second 85o hand if you won (so I can tell Rob I was right), but you don't have to post them if you lost the pot.

I didn't really do a poker stove, but there as many (and probably significantly more) Ax hands as Kx hands, about as many underpairs as overpairs, and we're better off forcing his hands with two cards between Q and 9 to either fold immediately or pay more to outdraw us *unless* he's going to bluff them and a bunch of other garbage on the river. Also we get 2 more bets from Ax, while we only save only 1 bet from Kx. So at the table my thought is that I have value here and the only way check/calling can be better is if he mindlessly bets his entire range of bluffs. In my experience, even bad players have enough sense to give up here a lot (esp. with Q and J high).

So please show the results that villain had A7o, regardless of what he actually had!

I bet, villain folded.

Nice article by the way.

I bet, villain folded.

Nice article by the way.

Shouldn't you add a "POW" (or is "BooM" better?), or something like that? Trying to learn this American humor. Ha now Im going to watch it!

Wow somehow I slept on this vid. I will watch it tomorrow!

So my assignment ( that you are giving homeworks ) will be on the 85 after about 1h10m.

On the turn the board reads: 448K.

I want to find out how often villain needs to bluff T9 on the river for it to be more valuable (vs that excact hand) to XC twice. I assume he always fold to the XR and bluff the river y% if we XC and value-bet a 9 or T 100%. Pot-size is P=3.5bb before any turn action.

EVofXR = (P+1) (that's easy !)

EVoXCT = (6/44)*(-2) + (38/44)*[y +(P+1)]

(P[he sucks out] *(-2bb) + P[we win]*(P[he bluffs]*(1bb) + (pot + his turnbet) )

Setting: EVoXC*2 = EVofXR and solving for y we get:

y = (44/38)*[(P+1) + 2/11] - (P+1) = {P=3.5bb} ~= 0.92 = 92%

That seems very high. Have checked my calcs a couple of times, but easy to make a misstake. But if this is correct a XR is better? Well we still need to find out his turn 3-betting range. If we go for a XRF (as I understood was the line Mike chosed, Rob considered) we have to be damn sure his 3-betting range is narrow.

I want my cookies!

Hey sushi, I already gave the results to that hand!

:cookie: ??

Hey sushi, I already gave the results to that hand!

:cookie: ??

Seriously. I choosed the only hand that was allready analyzed . If chuck made this video there would have been cookies for everyone who made an analysis.

Btw, did you check my math? Are you suprised by the result?

Hey sushi, I also did the math, but I set up the problem slightly differently than you - for example I'm disregarding the SB as being raked off the table, so my pot size is 3 BB before the turn action). Most of the other stuff is more just about how I prefer to set up problems and from a look at yours it looks like we're doing the same thing conceptually.

In any event, I got 94.7% doing it my way so chances are we're both doing the same thing. That does seem high to me. I don't know quite what to make of the result to be honest.

Anyway, sorry I don't have a cookie for you. Tell ya what, if you want the results for a different hand I'll give it to you.

For a 7 hand "no-result" video, I find it odd that the hands are color coded green, green, red, green, green, green, green in the bottom left hand corner of the screen.