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

Ghost: Linkwood (#3) - 50NL Video Review Part 2

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or Sign Up Now
Get the Flash Player to see this player.
 

Ghost: Linkwood (#3) - 50NL Video Review Part 2 by linkwood

Linkwood continues to review the 50nl video with the concept of fundamental attribution error which describes that there may be outside influences in our opponent making a bad play that we are unaware of at the time.

About Ghost Subscribe to

Ghost the best of DeucesCracked in the shorthanded games they play in today.

Tags

linkwood theory powerpoint video review 4-tabling 50nl 50 nl

Video Details

  • Game: nlhe
  • Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
  • 57 minutes long
  • Posted almost 4 years ago

Downloads

Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.

Sign Up Today


Comments for Ghost: Linkwood (#3) - 50NL Video Review Part 2

or track by Email or RSS

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

Time Link to 00:22:31

why do you raise 2.5x otb when you evidently don't steal that light, and their 3bet % is some 4% combined?

Posted almost 4 years ago

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

Time Link to 00:24:31

that is so true, I took Tommy Angelo's advice to always play the most provitable tables, take the most profitable seats and leave a game when there is a better game.
I took it too seriously and I became a very skilled bumhunter at NL50 6m, only to get completely funked when new Stars sructure opened and suddenly 100bb tables are some 5.5 regs on average.

Posted almost 4 years ago

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

Time Link to 00:27:08

Can you elaborate statisticaly on where is the line between calling most of the time with ak, and raising most of the time? Lets assume tight 4bet plus calling range.

Factors to cosider:
1) the utg raise 1st %.
2) Call to 3b from utg oop

lets assume qq plus ak 4b calling range.

Posted almost 4 years ago

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

Time Link to 00:31:29

If you reverse roles and you are a preflop raiser againts unknown tag that caled oop at nl50 and you have JJ-KK on Axx, do you agree that it best o play inexploitaly and cbet, or would you consider checking the flop behind and why?

Posted almost 4 years ago

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

Time Link to 00:36:10

if you don't like blufing on the king with b, c, b line because you expect a call a lot from a reg, what will be the worst hand that you would value bet here?

Posted almost 4 years ago

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

Time Link to 00:56:40

I like a delayed cbet/free card on the flop, and bet fd, straight draw + bet river scarecards, or just bet strong one street on AK turns and obv. vbet QJ.

Thank you for the video, I can see that you are JK3A padawan as you copied his hud completely (its too messy for me, too many numbers and my brain got overloaded when I used it for a couple days Gasp) and mentioned him in the setmine calling ratio. And apologies for bombing you with questions.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

why do you raise 2.5x otb when you evidently don't steal that light, and their 3bet % is some 4% combined?



I think I steal more than you think. My btn steal % is in the 50-60% range.

Besides, if you can get away with a cheaper pf raise size it just makes sense no matter why you're raising the button. If you're stealing you want a better price on your steal. If you're raising for value you want more action when you're in position. The only time I raise my pfr size is when the villains are super loose so I want to charge them for playing OOP.

Posted almost 4 years ago

doc.lemon

Avatar for doc.lemon

1810 posts
Joined 07/2009

I think I steal more than you think. My btn steal % is in the 50-60% range.

Besides, if you can get away with a cheaper pf raise size it just makes sense no matter why you're raising the button. If you're stealing you want a better price on your steal. If you're raising for value you want more action when you're in position. The only time I raise my pfr size is when the villains are super loose so I want to charge them for playing OOP.


I see, I was heavily influenced by Bwhale's NL50 vid where he assumed that villains will be folding on the flop most of the time when unimproved oop, so you essentially create dead money by raising the extra .5bb pre. Would you agree that we should make it 3bb if we don't expect villains to 3bet a lot or play back on flop with high frequency (i.e. multitablers or average NL50 regs)?

And sorry for missing letters, I am typing on my gf's laptop ;o

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Can you elaborate statisticaly on where is the line between calling most of the time with ak, and raising most of the time? Lets assume tight 4bet plus calling range.

Factors to cosider:
1) the utg raise 1st %.
2) Call to 3b from utg oop

lets assume qq plus ak 4b calling range.



I'm a little confused, are you assuming the villain calls w/ ak and qq pf?

In general I would assume that a flatting oop range for a villain utg would be have some better pps, maybe aq or ajs. 100bb vs a reg i wouldn't expect to be called very often.

The key factor depends on how wide his utg opening range is (the wider it is the more likely we are to 3bet) and the size of utg's play back range (both for calling and 4betting, the wider the more likely we are to 3bet). Since an average reg isn't opening that wide utg and isn't playing back very light to 3bets when they open utg when we 3bet we get 4bet by a very tight range, one that we are not a favorite against. This means we need the villain to raise/fold a lot to make up for all the times we get the money in bad.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

If you reverse roles and you are a preflop raiser againts unknown tag that caled oop at nl50 and you have JJ-KK on Axx, do you agree that it best o play inexploitaly and cbet, or would you consider checking the flop behind and why?



Either play is fine, depending upon a couple factors. I don't think that position really effects the exploitability of our play. The key factor in determining whether to bet or not is whether we can get value better by betting the flop or bluffing catching on later streets. In general I prefer to chk, but only because villains are bad at exploiting it. If they start adjusting or if you find a villain who is more likely to call the flop for one reason or another you should bet the flop.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

if you don't like blufing on the king with b, c, b line because you expect a call a lot from a reg, what will be the worst hand that you would value bet here?



Honestly pretty rare for me to have a value hand that I would play like that. If I did have value hands I would say a good 8 would prob be the worst hand I'd value bet

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

I like a delayed cbet/free card on the flop, and bet fd, straight draw + bet river scarecards, or just bet strong one street on AK turns and obv. vbet QJ.

Thank you for the video, I can see that you are JK3A padawan as you copied his hud completely (its too messy for me, too many numbers and my brain got overloaded when I used it for a couple days Gasp) and mentioned him in the setmine calling ratio. And apologies for bombing you with questions.



Interesting, because I like using the hud given its simplicity. To each their own though.

Np with the questions. That's why I'm here. Smile

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

I see, I was heavily influenced by Bwhale's NL50 vid where he assumed that villains will be folding on the flop most of the time when unimproved oop, so you essentially create dead money by raising the extra .5bb pre. Would you agree that we should make it 3bb if we don't expect villains to 3bet a lot or play back on flop with high frequency (i.e. multitablers or average NL50 regs)?

And sorry for missing letters, I am typing on my gf's laptop ;o



Baluga is correct is we assume that villains are calling. If they are calling but not 3betting then raising more makes sense. Its pretty villain dependent. I tend to default to 2.5x as a habit but I wouldn't be surprised if defaulting to 3x in the micro stakes may be better given the passivity.

Posted almost 4 years ago

z324739

Avatar for z324739

Section 9
382 posts
Joined 03/2008

Nice vid.

U mind sharing Ur session stats ? It wud be interesting to see`em...

Cheerio...

Posted almost 4 years ago

OneMoreShot7

Avatar for OneMoreShot7

61 posts
Joined 07/2010

Hey linkwood, great video thanks your videos in ghost have been some of my favorite. I feel you really do a great job picking out spots that are small leaks for msnl players and it helps my game huge amounts because its hard to know exactly where to look for them. I did the math for the combo draw around minute 17-9, please feel free to let me know if ive made mistakes.

Ac5c vs. 4h4d.
Flop: Qc 4c 3h
Our equity: 33%
Pot: $6.55 or 13.1 bb
Final pot: $104.15 or 208.31bb
Action: hero opens utg for 3 bb 4 callers two in position. Flop: we lead for 4.5 and are raised by villain to 12$ (or a raise of 13bb) other two fold. We shove
Effective stacks: $38.15 behind for villain.
Ev of a shove: (what we win when we hit)(our equity) + (what we lose)(villains equity)
(.33)(6.55+ 38.15 + 7.5) + (-7.5 + -38.15)(.66) = 17.23 + -30.59 = net loss of -$13.36
or 26.65bb
Ev of flatting and evaluating that inevitably leads to getting it in on the turn
(.773)(7.5 + 30.55 + 38.15) + (.227)(-7.5 + -38.15) = 58.9 + -35.29 = +$23.59

I think this spot is huge because i know that when i learned about how much equity combo draws have against a set i realized that it was necessary to make a call if we were getting 2 to 1 or better but the downside of that was that it encouraged some over aggression on my part because i would raise in spots like these where it was clear i had no fold equity because of the 4 handed preflop dynamic and the threebet of an utg cbet. I would usually feel that villain is only repping 6 combos of his entire range that are crushing us and even in that rare circumstance we still have 33% equity. While that was true this hand really showed me the holes in my logic. I guess what i really dislike is the possibility of us bricking the turn and being out of position again. In that case I think its fair to imagine that the villain has only slightly more than a potsized bet and feels he has you crushed. These were my calcs for two possible villain plays on turn.
Slight overbet shove, hero calls considering he has invested just slightly less than a third of his stack:
(.227)(30.55 + 38.15) + (.773)(-38.15) = 15.59 + -29.49 = net loss of -$13.9 almost 28 bb's.

Since this is worst case scenario i think we can say pretty safely that your estimation was spot on given that our ev of a shove on the flop is more or less equal to the loss of having to call a shove on the turn that is minus ev in and of itself but essentially necessary given our investment. Then i took 23.59 and totaled it with -13.9 giving us a 9 dollar increase between the worst and best case scenario of deciding to flat instead. I guess my question is that this seems like the right way to do a cost-benefit analysis but something seems awkward about it to me.

Thanks for the vid and any help you can give

Posted almost 4 years ago

bamyeah3

Avatar for bamyeah3

29 posts
Joined 09/2010

Please use a card mod on future vids..good content in the vid

Posted almost 4 years ago

OneMoreShot7

Avatar for OneMoreShot7

61 posts
Joined 07/2010

So i did the fold equity calc on the btn K9 vs cut off 3b calling range because im terrible with numbers and this is what i came up with:

Ks9c vs opponents range for flatting a 3bet from the btn in the c/o
Pot: $11.26
Action: C bet 6 dollars or 12 bb
3bet calling range for average villain early in match 100bb deep:
TT-77, aqs+,ako, 1combo of KK since hed seen u three bet, 3 of both QQ-JJ assuming 50% 4bet, t9s+unlikely but reasonable since its cutoff v btn.
(ev(fold)(x) + (ev(call) (1-x)
Estimated Fold equity: (our bet)/ (our bet + total pot) = 34.8% break even line.
FE formula: (ev(fold)(x) + (ev(call) (1-x)
0 =11.26x + -11.43x + 11.26
-11.26 = -.17x
11.26/.17 = x
x = 66.24 percent is the break even line. Calls +66%= -ev
Portion of his range that calls on the flop: 50%sets(2), JJ-TT(7.5),NFD +AK aqcc(1, I assume this hand wouldn’t raise because the domination factor caused by our value portion of our range), sc’s(3.5assuming t9sand half of jts as it might not raise with the combo draw because equities can improver easily and concealed. Assumes qjss+raises)(KK-QQ would most likely try to get it in)
Total combinations in range:
KK-77 = 20 combos
Ak-qs+ = 7 combos
Ako = 12 combos
Total: 39 combos, 14 total combos that would flat
Combos that raise: Overs(2.5), sets(2.5, some flat), if we assign a 10% chance hed bluff(3.9) = 8.9 combos
14 + 8.9 = 22.9 combos that either call, raise for value, or bluff.
22.9/39 = .587 or 58.7% of the time he is calling at a minimum
This seems very thin but still profitable. Also if we consider imagining the worst case scenario as whenever he calls we check fold and consider it a loss then the 58.7 percent of the time we lose $6 for cbetting so…
58.7= -$6 or 12 bb
and then 41.3% of the time we win the pot on the flop of 11.26
41.3= +$11.26
So I would assume could solve for the net value of the worst case scenario. In the video you said you expected a slightly skewed range in terms of a not good reg but I went with a conservative approach just to find the thinnest edge. So assuming every call or raise of his is a loss and every fold is our gain the equation should be:
Ev(cbet given FE): (ev(fold)(x:when x is ) + (Ev(call)(1-x)
(11.26)(16.1/39) + (-6)(22.9/39)(1-x) =
Ev(call provided we lose in all these instances)= (.413)( 11.26 + 6) + (.598)(-6) + =
7.13 + -3.59 = $3.56 het profit whenever we make this cbet.
It took me soooo long to do this and I have no idea how wrong I am so if anyone could tell me id appreciate it. However, if im right it means this is a profitable cbet without question because the only possible outcome of his call/raise is not that we lose. So therefore, we can definitely get calls from hands that are drawing and will fold to a another bet having invested roughly 20% of their stack and facing an undefined strong range without any reads. Since a turn call would be pot-committing that makes him need 4:1 on the turn cbet call in order to justify a call. Really he’d like a bit better than that because he doesn’t have enough info to quantify whether his overs in the fd can be considered outs based on our 3betting range. If he would probably have to fold on a brick river then the risk of that much of your stack is too great without a positional advantage.

Posted almost 4 years ago

AirBach

Avatar for AirBach

2 posts
Joined 10/2010

Nice vid.

U mind sharing Ur session stats ? It wud be interesting to see`em...

Cheerio...


plz share the stats....lol....

im considering hiring a coach now..

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Nice vid.

U mind sharing Ur session stats ? It wud be interesting to see`em...

Cheerio...



np. Are you looking for anything in particular? Or just the general standard stats?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Please use a card mod on future vids..good content in the vid



Will do. But for the next two vids its a recording of the same session so the look will be the same.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

plz share the stats....lol....

im considering hiring a coach now..



Anything in particular you're looking for?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Hey linkwood, great video thanks your videos in ghost have been some of my favorite. I feel you really do a great job picking out spots that are small leaks for msnl players and it helps my game huge amounts because its hard to know exactly where to look for them. I did the math for the combo draw around minute 17-9, please feel free to let me know if ive made mistakes.

Ac5c vs. 4h4d.
Flop: Qc 4c 3h
Our equity: 33%
Pot: $6.55 or 13.1 bb
Final pot: $104.15 or 208.31bb
Action: hero opens utg for 3 bb 4 callers two in position. Flop: we lead for 4.5 and are raised by villain to 12$ (or a raise of 13bb) other two fold. We shove
Effective stacks: $38.15 behind for villain.
Ev of a shove: (what we win when we hit)(our equity) + (what we lose)(villains equity)
(.33)(6.55+ 38.15 + 7.5) + (-7.5 + -38.15)(.66) = 17.23 + -30.59 = net loss of -$13.36
or 26.65bb
Ev of flatting and evaluating that inevitably leads to getting it in on the turn
(.773)(7.5 + 30.55 + 38.15) + (.227)(-7.5 + -38.15) = 58.9 + -35.29 = +$23.59

I think this spot is huge because i know that when i learned about how much equity combo draws have against a set i realized that it was necessary to make a call if we were getting 2 to 1 or better but the downside of that was that it encouraged some over aggression on my part because i would raise in spots like these where it was clear i had no fold equity because of the 4 handed preflop dynamic and the threebet of an utg cbet. I would usually feel that villain is only repping 6 combos of his entire range that are crushing us and even in that rare circumstance we still have 33% equity. While that was true this hand really showed me the holes in my logic. I guess what i really dislike is the possibility of us bricking the turn and being out of position again. In that case I think its fair to imagine that the villain has only slightly more than a potsized bet and feels he has you crushed. These were my calcs for two possible villain plays on turn.
Slight overbet shove, hero calls considering he has invested just slightly less than a third of his stack:
(.227)(30.55 + 38.15) + (.773)(-38.15) = 15.59 + -29.49 = net loss of -$13.9 almost 28 bb's.

Since this is worst case scenario i think we can say pretty safely that your estimation was spot on given that our ev of a shove on the flop is more or less equal to the loss of having to call a shove on the turn that is minus ev in and of itself but essentially necessary given our investment. Then i took 23.59 and totaled it with -13.9 giving us a 9 dollar increase between the worst and best case scenario of deciding to flat instead. I guess my question is that this seems like the right way to do a cost-benefit analysis but something seems awkward about it to me.

Thanks for the vid and any help you can give



Thanks for the comments. I guess it really comes down to fold equity. When we have a draw (or any hand) that will not be a favorite vs a get it in range we need to find other ways to play the hand or other ways to make money. In order for a shove to be profitable we need fold equity to make up for all the times we get the money in bad. Given we have so much equity in the hand we don't need that much fold equity. However, people consistently seem to overestimate how much fold equity we have. In the hand we're talking about, I doubt we have that much fold equity at all.

So, knowing we don't have fold equity, we are left with three options, shoving (which is likely -EV), folding (which is essentially 0 EV), or calling (which is difficult to determine how profitable it is, but it is clearly profitable as you have shown). Its pretty clear that calling is superior. Yes its difficult when we brick the turn, but most of the time its just a pot odds question. I find with most of my students the difficulty isn't in the decision, but rather in the emotional attachment they have to such a pretty hand. If you step out of that I find its not as difficult to play the hand.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

So i did the fold equity calc on the btn K9 vs cut off 3b calling range .



I'm sorry, its been a while since I played the session, which hand are you referring to exactly?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Here's my stats if anyone's interested. Between prep and recording the vid I played 1847 hands.

Won - 101.70 (5.51 BB/100). wtsd 24. w$sd 52. w$wsf 56.
Played 26/23. Steal 43. Steal from btn 52. 3bet 10. fold 3bet 62. cbet 89. fold cbet 32.
2 barrel 44.

Let me know if there are any other stats you want.

Posted almost 4 years ago

OneMoreShot7

Avatar for OneMoreShot7

61 posts
Joined 07/2010

I'm sorry, its been a while since I played the session, which hand are you referring to exactly?



The hand around minute 20ish Where you three bet the cut off w. K9 off and cbet the 97xss and You say that given his 3b calling range we have enough Fe to cbet

Posted almost 4 years ago

zenben

Avatar for zenben

1270 posts
Joined 03/2009

Time Link to 00:00:00

Time link should be 41:11

Table 1 K9o in the 3bet pot BUvCO on the 972tt flop: you mention checking here as an option to induce bluffs. My concern is villain's range includes all the cards that would be considered "good" turns for bluffing, and when villain has these hands, he pulls ahead of our pair of 9's. i.e. J (AJ) Q (AQ/KQ) A (AQ/AJ) 8 (88) and spades (AQss,AJss maybe QJss,JTss) The only GOOD card we can expect villain to bluff on the majority of the time would be a K, because we are ahead of both his bluffing AND valuebetting range on this card.

So when we check back, what's your plan for the turn and river on these different cards? Are we peeling 1 and folding to a river bet on J,Q,A,spade turns? What if the turn is a blank (4c) and the river brings one of these BW or spade cards that doesn't improve us? Are we folding to a bet?

Could this make the check less ev than a bet, given that we are more likely to make a mistake on the turn/river?

edit:
lol, you actually mention the importance of these decisions just after the hand in the vid. I think delving deeper into this hand would be interesting.

Posted almost 4 years ago

OneMoreShot7

Avatar for OneMoreShot7

61 posts
Joined 07/2010

edit:
lol, you actually mention the importance of these decisions just after the hand in the vid. I think delving deeper into this hand would be interesting.[/quote]

Ya haha sorry thanks for the correction i was on my cell phone and was just guessing. I agree though this is definitely a huge spot for me and my fellow micro bottom feeders just because Im not even sure that the average player would shy away from spots like these where FE makes a cbet profitable because were terrible at betting for value.

Also If you can think of another spot that is comparable but is actually too thin to bet i Think that could make an awesome DC short with a comparison between the two spots and the relevant factors that sway the decision to a given side.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

The hand around minute 20ish Where you three bet the cut off w. K9 off and cbet the 97xss and You say that given his 3b calling range we have enough Fe to cbet



Oh yeah. thx.

I think your math is mostly right. I think the range I would assign him would be AQ, AJ, KQ, maybe KJs or other suited broadways (including ATs), maybe 77 or 88-TT, and a few slowplays (AA, KK, etc). We can get value from some of the worse pocket pairs and take the equity from his air. He's prob never folding overpairs, although not sure how often he c/r TT or JJ (if he has them). So we get a chance to barrel or improve vs them sometimes.

Now the hard part is if he can bluff raise. If he does then it gets better to chk back, since we're in a tough spot vs a raise. However, given that most guys will give up on their bluff raises we'll prob frequently call the raise (assuming a non-shove) and fold to further aggression.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Time link should be 41:11

Table 1 K9o in the 3bet pot BUvCO on the 972tt flop: you mention checking here as an option to induce bluffs. My concern is villain's range includes all the cards that would be considered "good" turns for bluffing, and when villain has these hands, he pulls ahead of our pair of 9's. i.e. J (AJ) Q (AQ/KQ) A (AQ/AJ) 8 (88) and spades (AQss,AJss maybe QJss,JTss) The only GOOD card we can expect villain to bluff on the majority of the time would be a K, because we are ahead of both his bluffing AND valuebetting range on this card.

So when we check back, what's your plan for the turn and river on these different cards? Are we peeling 1 and folding to a river bet on J,Q,A,spade turns? What if the turn is a blank (4c) and the river brings one of these BW or spade cards that doesn't improve us? Are we folding to a bet?

Could this make the check less ev than a bet, given that we are more likely to make a mistake on the turn/river?

edit:
lol, you actually mention the importance of these decisions just after the hand in the vid. I think delving deeper into this hand would be interesting.



The basic assumption underlying my bluffcatching approach at these stakes is that people are bad at value betting. So depending on the specific turn/river combos we can def consider calling twice, knowing that someone isn't going to value bet AJ on the turn/river when an A hits the turn very often, and may not even bet AQ, given that our hand looks a lot like AK when we check back. So an A in particular I'd be very suspicious of and would be more like to bluff catch. Vs other cards, like a Q I'd be more inclined to give them credit given that I feel like they will value bet a Q more confidently and can def have Qx in their range (prob at least 20-30 combos of Qx in their 3bet calling range). A J I'd be suspicious given that it only improves AJ and the occasional JJ+. Spades suck, but if a spade comes he's prob not value betting anything except a flush or set, so I'd be suspicious.

So basically chking is an option if we think villain is likely to bluff given that we can hand read, they suck at value betting (making hand reading easier), and we have position. Now we'd have to balance this with the idea that people don't continue bluffing nearly often enough (they usually fire one or two and then quit), especially when they have perceived showdown value (a pair or Ax), so vs a lot of guys calling once and folding some rivers may be good. Chking is a bit more complicated and requires more poker playing, so that's why I would recommend most at these stakes just defaulting to betting, which is likely more +EV anyways.

Posted almost 4 years ago

zenben

Avatar for zenben

1270 posts
Joined 03/2009

The basic assumption underlying my bluffcatching approach at these stakes is that people are bad at value betting. So depending on the specific turn/river combos we can def consider calling twice, knowing that someone isn't going to value bet AJ on the turn/river when an A hits the turn very often, and may not even bet AQ, given that our hand looks a lot like AK when we check back. So an A in particular I'd be very suspicious of and would be more like to bluff catch. Vs other cards, like a Q I'd be more inclined to give them credit given that I feel like they will value bet a Q more confidently and can def have Qx in their range (prob at least 20-30 combos of Qx in their 3bet calling range). A J I'd be suspicious given that it only improves AJ and the occasional JJ+. Spades suck, but if a spade comes he's prob not value betting anything except a flush or set, so I'd be suspicious.

So basically chking is an option if we think villain is likely to bluff given that we can hand read, they suck at value betting (making hand reading easier), and we have position. Now we'd have to balance this with the idea that people don't continue bluffing nearly often enough (they usually fire one or two and then quit), especially when they have perceived showdown value (a pair or Ax), so vs a lot of guys calling once and folding some rivers may be good. Chking is a bit more complicated and requires more poker playing, so that's why I would recommend most at these stakes just defaulting to betting, which is likely more +EV anyways.



Great response-thank you-makes tons of sense. Didn't think of the fact that villain is unlikely to thin vbet A turn with AJ/AQ.


It's interesting because MOST players who will call a 3bet OOP without a plan are making the mistake of calling too much rather than folding too much (everyone EXCEPT those who are often slowplaying or planning to ch/R bluff because they view us as 3betting a wide, polarized range). So if they are somewhat of a post flop calling-station regular, we might even get them to call with Ax with the As or something, so we can cbet for value and collect dead money vs a good portion of their range that has about 6 outs against us. Then again, vs these type of opponents, the 3bet is probably not a good idea (we should be 3betting a depolarized value range if they are going to call too often).

So after this hand, depending on what happens (i.e. he calls a cbet and folds a blank turn, he bets the turn after a missed cbet and gives up on the river showing air at SD, raises the flop cbet, etc), how are you adjusting your play vs him in the future? Who would you continue to 3 bet with hands like K9o, which villains might you not cbet this board with TPKK against if the hand happened again?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

[quote]edit:
lol, you actually mention the importance of these decisions just after the hand in the vid. I think delving deeper into this hand would be interesting.[/quote]

Ya haha sorry thanks for the correction i was on my cell phone and was just guessing. I agree though this is definitely a huge spot for me and my fellow micro bottom feeders just because Im not even sure that the average player would shy away from spots like these where FE makes a cbet profitable because were terrible at betting for value.

Also If you can think of another spot that is comparable but is actually too thin to bet i Think that could make an awesome DC short with a comparison between the two spots and the relevant factors that sway the decision to a given side.[/quote]

I'll keep an eye out for a similar situation for you guys. In the meantime, one of the most common things I see, especially in the micros and small stakes is guys 3betting w/ Ax (less than AQ or AJ) and then checking back an Axx board. The only time I can think of where this would be a very good idea is if you're playing against a player like me that will see that as weakness and fire the turn and river very light as a bluff/value bet. That's not as common in the micro/small stakes tho as guys who will just play passively with perceived showdown value (eg 99 on AJ2r). They likely will call a bet but won't turn their hands into a bluff. Since you're probably betting that board with all of your air I would bet all of my top pairs on that board and save the bluff catching for hands like KK on Axx. I see regs at these stakes chking top pair a ton and I think most of the time its for the wrong reasons - ie its a leak.

Posted almost 4 years ago

roy g basch

Avatar for roy g basch

66 posts
Joined 03/2010

Either play is fine, depending upon a couple factors. I don't think that position really effects the exploitability of our play. The key factor in determining whether to bet or not is whether we can get value better by betting the flop or bluffing catching on later streets. In general I prefer to chk, but only because villains are bad at exploiting it. If they start adjusting or if you find a villain who is more likely to call the flop for one reason or another you should bet the flop.



Would you like double barreling a random reg who checks Axx to us? Three barrels? One and done can't be too profitable.. What would be good turn card to barrel on (not in this hand in particular but in general? My problem is that I know I'm not representing very much because even with AJ on Axx, I'm prob bet flop, check turn, bet river. Very few hands would I bet bet bet. Does he know this? I can never tell.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Would you like double barreling a random reg who checks Axx to us? Three barrels? One and done can't be too profitable.. What would be good turn card to barrel on (not in this hand in particular but in general? My problem is that I know I'm not representing very much because even with AJ on Axx, I'm prob bet flop, check turn, bet river. Very few hands would I bet bet bet. Does he know this? I can never tell.



Generally any time some reg that I don't have a specific read on checks to me as the preflop raiser I will unload the clip unless the board comes really bad in a way that helps their range. I would def bet 3 streets w/ AJ on Axx if checked to as well. You almost always have the best hand and it makes your bluffs more credible.

Posted almost 4 years ago

Patjeto

Avatar for Patjeto

192 posts
Joined 09/2008

Linkwood. Great serie, great addition to Grindcores master pice. Realy love it. any many thanks

Posted almost 4 years ago

soleztis

Avatar for soleztis

DC Dalai Lama
1026 posts
Joined 09/2010

Time Link to 00:36:42

In my experience against these fishy players at these stakes the bet check bet line is being called just as often if not more. They are generally limping a lot of hands and rarely letting g of pairs. Don't you feel that you get your value from these players by taking them to value town all day?
A high hands are much better showdown hands as they are showing up with such a weak range

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

In my experience against these fishy players at these stakes the bet check bet line is being called just as often if not more. They are generally limping a lot of hands and rarely letting g of pairs. Don't you feel that you get your value from these players by taking them to value town all day?
A high hands are much better showdown hands as they are showing up with such a weak range



Doubt A high has much showdown value here given the board texture. The K is a great scare card since everyone puts you on AK and our hand looks like it could easily be a number of Kx hands. Think we def have enough fold equity to bluff here.

As an aside, just because we can profitably bluff here doesn't mean that I would value bet light here either. Its rare that I would play a value hand other than Kx this way, but if I did I would certainly value bet it (prob 99 or TT+) and expect to be good most of the time when called. Although there is a relation between bluff and value bet profitability, its not as connected as most think.

Posted almost 4 years ago

mbradycf

Avatar for mbradycf

4 posts
Joined 01/2009

Time Link to 00:14:09

Why does it matter if you think he has a lot of weak hands that will fold? Do you expect these hands to call on a brick river?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Why does it matter if you think he has a lot of weak hands that will fold? Do you expect these hands to call on a brick river?



Potentially. And likely more often than they would on the turn, given that a turn bet implies the threat of a river bet as well.

Posted almost 4 years ago

soleztis

Avatar for soleztis

DC Dalai Lama
1026 posts
Joined 09/2010

...Although there is a relation between bluff and value bet profitability, its not as connected as most think.



Can you expand on this little?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

Can you expand on this little?



Sure. Logically, it would seem that a situation where it should be very good to bluff would be bad to value bet, and vice versa. Actually though there are situations that are both good to bluff with part of our range and value bet with another part. The reason why is that the two are actually not directly related. A good bluffing situation is a situation where our opponent will fold enough of the time as compared to our bet size in relation to the pot to make the bluff profitable. A good value betting situation is a situation where our value bet will be called by worse hands enough of the time to be profitable.

So, lets use an example. We raise in the sb vs a bb reg and we forget to look at our cards. The flop comes 752r. We cbet and get called. The turn is a K. This is a spot that is both good to bet as a bluff AND as a value bet with different parts of our range. Lets say we have QJ, we can likely bet and get the villain to fold some of his pocket pairs, Ax hands, and floats. If we had a hand like K6s on the other hand it would be a good spot to value bet, given that unless villain is slowplaying a set, floated a hand like KQ, or slowplayed AA we are now ahead and expect to be ahead the majority of the time when called vs most opponents. So with various parts of our range we can both bluff and value bet profitably because each action is dependent on related but separate situational variables.

I hope that makes more sense. Let me know if you have questions.

Posted almost 4 years ago

SnappieVouz

Avatar for SnappieVouz

2620 posts
Joined 03/2009

SnappieVouz

Avatar for SnappieVouz

2620 posts
Joined 03/2009

Time Link to 00:30:18

I have trouble with this postflop.

I know 1010 is a strong hand against somebody that 3-bets a lot, but we are out of position. If I 4-bet, I think most of the time people are not going to 5-bet bluf a lot, so I think I am either against a range that is stronger then 1010, or weaker and we get a fold if we 4-bet. Since it's not as a bluf it feels like I am wasting 1010. So, calling should be the better option

But how do we play post flop if we get an K high flop, dry, and he bets. Do we call? probably right? so, what if the turn is an A? and he bets again.. Do we call again since he could now be using the A as a good barrel card?

What do we do if we get a low flop, he bets, and keeps building the pot very big to a point where we are almost all in on the river?

I always feel like I am ending either tight passive or very spewy in spots like this?

Would it be a better solution to just leave the table? I think that is what you talked earlier about, when you talked about 'short term solutions/quick fixes'

I am not sure how to aproach this.

another question is: How many hands do we need on a guy to know he is 3-betting light a lot? it seems with a short sample size we are either against a light 3-bettor or somebody that runs hots, which leads us to the question I adressed already

thanks

Posted almost 4 years ago

SnappieVouz

Avatar for SnappieVouz

2620 posts
Joined 03/2009

^^^^

it could also be a lower board: 945 dry, he bets, we call, turn is an A.. etc

awesome video man, good to see some coaches on DC that have a tighter aproach to 6-max, most of them lean towards the laggyness

Posted almost 4 years ago

soleztis

Avatar for soleztis

DC Dalai Lama
1026 posts
Joined 09/2010

First off thanks for the quick response and detailed analysis as I know we are going off on a tangent, but I am fascinated by turn and river play as I feel like that is where you can really gain an edge on the field. Your explanation clears up that statement a lot.

Intuitively the first paragraph makes all the sense in the world. Reading the example though, I quickly imagine a couple different variables. Obviously we can think up infinite scenarios but in short I think about bet sizing and your opponent. In a vacuum against a random opponent we can manipulate our bet sizes given our intention (bluffing or value betting). At these stakes we shouldnt be terribly worried about opponents exploiting your bet sizes. Given reads and styles of different opponents would determine our likelihood of bluffing/value betting. Do you agree with this logic?

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

First off thanks for the quick response and detailed analysis as I know we are going off on a tangent, but I am fascinated by turn and river play as I feel like that is where you can really gain an edge on the field. Your explanation clears up that statement a lot.

Intuitively the first paragraph makes all the sense in the world. Reading the example though, I quickly imagine a couple different variables. Obviously we can think up infinite scenarios but in short I think about bet sizing and your opponent. In a vacuum against a random opponent we can manipulate our bet sizes given our intention (bluffing or value betting). At these stakes we shouldnt be terribly worried about opponents exploiting your bet sizes. Given reads and styles of different opponents would determine our likelihood of bluffing/value betting. Do you agree with this logic?



Yea, I agree. Against worse players you can flex your bet sizes based upon what you want villain to do. Bet more for value and less for bluffs in general.

And I think that turn and river play are hugely important and where most small stakes players will find their biggest edge if they work at it.

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

I have trouble with this postflop.

I know 1010 is a strong hand against somebody that 3-bets a lot, but we are out of position. If I 4-bet, I think most of the time people are not going to 5-bet bluf a lot, so I think I am either against a range that is stronger then 1010, or weaker and we get a fold if we 4-bet. Since it's not as a bluf it feels like I am wasting 1010. So, calling should be the better option

But how do we play post flop if we get an K high flop, dry, and he bets. Do we call? probably right? so, what if the turn is an A? and he bets again.. Do we call again since he could now be using the A as a good barrel card?

What do we do if we get a low flop, he bets, and keeps building the pot very big to a point where we are almost all in on the river?

I always feel like I am ending either tight passive or very spewy in spots like this?

Would it be a better solution to just leave the table? I think that is what you talked earlier about, when you talked about 'short term solutions/quick fixes'

I am not sure how to aproach this.

another question is: How many hands do we need on a guy to know he is 3-betting light a lot? it seems with a short sample size we are either against a light 3-bettor or somebody that runs hots, which leads us to the question I adressed already

thanks



First off, calling w/ TT there can be difficult if you don't play well postflop. So I wouldn't blame you for folding. If we are against someone who 3bets a lot we can 4bet and get it in profitably. This isn't to say that we are ahead of a 5bet shoving range, but that our 4bet has enough fold equity to more than make up for our equity deficit when we get it in. But that is why it is important that you have someone with a wide 3betting range.

When we do call we are c/c'ing most flops given that he will cbet most flops with his bluffs and won't always cbet hands that beat us (for example, a lot of guys chk qq on kxx). On the A turn, it depends on the player. My general assumption is that most players will not barrel enough in 3bet pots, so that increases their value range and decreases their bluffing range. However, there can be spots we would call again. Against an unknown I'd likely just fold until I got more reads.

On the low flop similar principles apply except that villain will be more likely to keep value betting stronger overpairs and less likely to barrel if the board stays low. So I'd have no problem fold the turn or river. If the turn came w/ an A though I'd prob be inclined to call one more vs some villains, depending on my perception of their pf range and barrel tendencies.

In general, leaving the table is fine, but if you plan on moving up in stakes you need to get used to these situations. I think most players feel like they are getting outplayed in these spots, but in my experience you're likely just running into big hands more than you think. If you are getting run over though you have options for playing back, like c/r bluffing in some spots, and c/c'ing to the river w/ sets and some stronger hands.

As for how many hands, within 100-200 hands you can a decent idea. You need a lager sample to be sure.

Posted almost 4 years ago

Tsaar

Avatar for Tsaar

3 posts
Joined 03/2008

Time Link to 00:20:19

so when FCB hater raises flop and we just flat, how big a bet can we actually call on the turn to make it a break even play at least?
the pot will be 30$ we have 30% equity so we have to call bets up to 20$
right? Are we sure we are getting it in when we hit? or am i just to nitty to check behind with pocket 4s here when i get called in FCBs place!
sorry for the newby comment, just trying to learn!

ps : i would love to see an ev calc, i dont really know how/where to start!
is there some series on here just about the math side of poker?
thnx in advance

Posted almost 4 years ago

linkwood

Avatar for linkwood

557 posts
Joined 08/2008

so when FCB hater raises flop and we just flat, how big a bet can we actually call on the turn to make it a break even play at least?
the pot will be 30$ we have 30% equity so we have to call bets up to 20$
right? Are we sure we are getting it in when we hit? or am i just to nitty to check behind with pocket 4s here when i get called in FCBs place!
sorry for the newby comment, just trying to learn!

ps : i would love to see an ev calc, i dont really know how/where to start!
is there some series on here just about the math side of poker?
thnx in advance



Good question. Its not a newby comment. We actually have 22.7% equity on a blank turn. So in terms of immediate pot odds we can call about a 12-14 bet profitably. Assuming we have some implied odds though we're not folding to almost any bet except for shoves. As for getting paid, we're always getting paid on a non-club 2 and most of the time on any other club. So we shouldn't have too much of a problem.

In FCB's shoes we first of all need to raise bigger on the flop so that the stacks are better if kemar calls the raise (with his raise we'd have $38 in a $30 pot). And we're pretty much shoving on any turn card. Yes a club isn't the best card, but flush draws aren't the only hand kemar can bet/call on the flop. He can also have hands like AcAx which we can get value from and we don't want to give a free card to.

As for EV calcs, the basic EV calc is EV = (% chance you win * amount you win when you win) - (% chance you lose * amount you lose when you lose). For a more thorough discussion I recommend watching the Mathematics of NL Holdem Series by Wiltontilt. He does a very good job explaining the ins and outs of EV calcs.

Posted almost 4 years ago



HomePoker Videos → Ghost → Linkwood (#3) - 50NL Video Review Part 2