---

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

Time Link to 00:30:49

T2 K9s squeeze. Interested in your sqz bet sizing here. I normally make 3 bets Vs a PFR OOP pot + a BB (assuming 100BB deep), which you seem to do too.

Here you make it pot + 1BB when squeezing here. Do we need to make it that big? Surely a standard 3bet size would have the same effect at a little cheaper price? i.e. about $6/$6.50. Is this standard for you and is there any reason why you think this is better?

Thanks.

Shame this is the last video....

Time Link to 00:45:10

table 4 -

Villain donk bets F&T and check river, you bet river for value.

?1 - Still VB the river if its a ? Half potish bet and fold to raise maybe?

Also I agree with call > raise, cause they mostly go bet, bet, X/F.

T2 K9s squeeze. Interested in your sqz bet sizing here. I normally make 3 bets Vs a PFR OOP pot + a BB (assuming 100BB deep), which you seem to do too.

Here you make it pot + 1BB when squeezing here. Do we need to make it that big? Surely a standard 3bet size would have the same effect at a little cheaper price? i.e. about $6/$6.50. Is this standard for you and is there any reason why you think this is better?

Thanks.

Shame this is the last video....

Making it a normal pot sized raise is prob just as good vs most regs as it likely doesn't increase fold equity, unless we're deep. I tend to 3bet pot + bb like you so doing the same as a sqz is just because of habit.

table 4 -

Villain donk bets F&T and check river, you bet river for value.

?1 - Still VB the river if its a ? Half potish bet and fold to raise maybe?

Also I agree with call > raise, cause they mostly go bet, bet, X/F.

Yeah, when he donks twice and chks we just have the best hand so often, and he can def have worse value hands that will call, so there's value. And we're def folding to a raise if we do bet.

If they do go bet, bet, x/f that doesn't necessarily mean that call > than a raise. If the villain will call a raise it allows us to set our own price and better control the pot in position. So I'm still not sold on a call. It just depends on his donking range. If its mostly draws then raising is better. If its air and worse pairs then calling is prob better.

Time Link to 00:05:36

Yeah this is how human mind works. The worst thing is that my instincts are usually right, but my ego or pot odds always come forward and make me to make that call and I get tilted over and over again for not trusting my spidey sense

Could you say something about why you choose to raise to 3x from all positions preflop, and seemingly don't deviate from that at all? I.e. raise bigger when a fish is the big blind etc..

Yeah this is how human mind works. The worst thing is that my instincts are usually right, but my ego or pot odds always come forward and make me to make that call and I get tilted over and over again for not trusting my spidey sense

There is definitely something to be said for gut feelings. However, I do want to temper what I said in the video by saying that learning can either be good or bad. You can have a gut feeling based upon an unconscious recollection that is just flat wrong. The key is to understand that unconscious learning is happening and to try and get control of it by paying attention to the right things. If you're doing the homework away from the table it will help dramatically at the table.

Could you say something about why you choose to raise to 3x from all positions preflop, and seemingly don't deviate from that at all? I.e. raise bigger when a fish is the big blind etc..

My standard pfr is 3x from ep, mp, co, and sb. On the btn it is 2.5x. From the bb (or sb) when there are limpers it is pot + 1bb. I do deviate from that when I feel it is necessary, but usually only on the button or in the blinds. For example, with a fish in the blinds I will raise more from the btn or sb (3x, 4x, etc.). However, it is uncommon for me to deviate too much from the 3x raise in ep or mp (and co a fair amount) given that if there are regs with position on me I would rather keep the pot small to allow more maneuverability post flop vs the regs (and the fish). There is something to be said for raising more from EP or MP (and definitely CO) with a fish in the blind but I think it would depend on situational and stack size issues more than anything else. If you're paying attention to these things and you play well post flop then you can likely squeeze a little more profit out.

another great video--thanks!

forgot to ask this earlier in the series: any reason for not buying in 200bb at the deep table?

another great video--thanks!

forgot to ask this earlier in the series: any reason for not buying in 200bb at the deep table?

I think people buy in deep unnecessarily a lot of the time. When you're deep you should be making big bluffs/value bets otherwise they are deep for no real reason and are likely making mistakes that could cost them their stack. I wanted to make a video that focused more on standard spots. Maybe later I'll get a chance to make one that focuses more on deep play.

My standard pfr is 3x from ep, mp, co, and sb. On the btn it is 2.5x. From the bb (or sb) when there are limpers it is pot + 1bb. I do deviate from that when I feel it is necessary, but usually only on the button or in the blinds. For example, with a fish in the blinds I will raise more from the btn or sb (3x, 4x, etc.). However, it is uncommon for me to deviate too much from the 3x raise in ep or mp (and co a fair amount) given that if there are regs with position on me I would rather keep the pot small to allow more maneuverability post flop vs the regs (and the fish). There is something to be said for raising more from EP or MP (and definitely CO) with a fish in the blind but I think it would depend on situational and stack size issues more than anything else. If you're paying attention to these things and you play well post flop then you can likely squeeze a little more profit out.

I saw many good players using positional raise sizing, by raising more EP you discourage action, and make position less of an advantage with smaller stack/pot ratios.
Of course you discourage action where your range is very strong, and if your UTG/UTG+1 ranges aren't strong and you open relatively wide than you give yourself a worse price, which should be more of a concern than 'managing the pot' imo.

I haven't seen a vid that focuses on comparison of the two though and at what tables against what player composition with what ranges one or another will be more profitable. If you can point me to some resource that does that that would be great

I saw many good players using positional raise sizing, by raising more EP you discourage action, and make position less of an advantage with smaller stack/pot ratios.
Of course you discourage action where your range is very strong, and if your UTG/UTG+1 ranges aren't strong and you open relatively wide than you give yourself a worse price, which should be more of a concern than 'managing the pot' imo.

I haven't seen a vid that focuses on comparison of the two though and at what tables against what player composition with what ranges one or another will be more profitable. If you can point me to some resource that does that that would be great

I know of no significant resources on this. Most of the information I hear on the subject is probably like you have seen, just various players giving a one or two sentence explanation for it without much justification. I suspect it is one of those situational things that includes so many variables that it would be difficult to prove what is best. Likely its also one of those situations where what the profitability of a preflop decision is at least partly dependent on your postflop play.

I know of no significant resources on this. Most of the information I hear on the subject is probably like you have seen, just various players giving a one or two sentence explanation for it without much justification. I suspect it is one of those situational things that includes so many variables that it would be difficult to prove what is best. Likely its also one of those situations where what the profitability of a preflop decision is at least partly dependent on your postflop play.

Yeah thats true, but there has to be a NL1k+ player who climbed the limits and tried both approaches at numerous stakes somewhere. Maybe try to ask at one of your super secret DC coach committee and push someone to make a vid or even series

Yeah thats true, but there has to be a NL1k+ player who climbed the limits and tried both approaches at numerous stakes somewhere. Maybe try to ask at one of your super secret DC coach committee and push someone to make a vid or even series

I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a committee.

I will keep it in mind though.

Time Link to 00:37:00

On table 3, you fold 55 from the BB to a 3.5bb raise. Is this standard for you with 100bb effective stacks?

On table 3, you fold 55 from the BB to a 3.5bb raise. Is this standard for you with 100bb effective stacks?

Honestly in these games, vs Ep opens, it's prob correct to call with small pps in the blinds. In higher games I suspect it's not as profitable tho, given that villains are much better at getting away from hands and putting pressure on you when you miss. So I'm not sure it's very profitable to call vs good regs, if it is profitable at all.

Time Link to 00:21:41

Assuming the button had not flatted and we called, would we simply be folding to further action on that turn card? On other offsuit cards (I assume cards like an offsuit 8 or T would be at least as bad as the ace?)? Do you hate the hijack's play with AA (I figure it's very similar)? Assuming the same action, is there any merit at all to a range-merging river shove on his part (it seems that having the A would make it quite thin on the value end and I'm skeptical about the likelihood of getting the button to fold sets or straights, so probably not)?

Enjoyed the mini-series very much. The psychological intros to the episode were quite interesting and very much relevant to many poker (and other) personalities, and the spots were explained very clearly and logically. Good stuff!

Assuming the button had not flatted and we called, would we simply be folding to further action on that turn card? On other offsuit cards (I assume cards like an offsuit 8 or T would be at least as bad as the ace?)? Do you hate the hijack's play with AA (I figure it's very similar)? Assuming the same action, is there any merit at all to a range-merging river shove on his part (it seems that having the A would make it quite thin on the value end and I'm skeptical about the likelihood of getting the button to fold sets or straights, so probably not)?

It was a pretty interesting hand. If the button folded we'd likely be calling. On that turn, if MP bombs it we'd prob have to find a fold given that it improves so much of his range. There's not many turn cards we're excited about. Prob calling the turn on off suit baby cards, but folding almost all rivers.

I think AxAh is very similar to AhJx in this spot. I really would prefer a call unless the BB (me) was a loose, cally fish who would stack off w/ one pair. Vs a reg they just aren't leading enough hands we beat and often it will go bet/shove and we have to puke in our mouth and hope we're getting the right price to draw.

Assuming the same action, if MP did have AA I think a shove would be good on the river, given that the button can have all kinds of sets and two pair hands, not many straights, and flushes will raise the flop or turn at least some of the time, so those are discounted as well.

Thanks for the comments. Glad you enjoyed the series.

Thanks for the reply. I actually meant to indicate that he had AJ again, on the last hypothetical, although I can definitely see how shoving AA would be good (at first I thought you were advocating turning it into a bluff, then I realized that we'd have top set ). I think with AJ shoving is pretty bad, but I was being ambitious in considering it.

hy linkwood , is there any chance u could share your HUD with us??? please
thank you

Thanks for the reply. I actually meant to indicate that he had AJ again, on the last hypothetical, although I can definitely see how shoving AA would be good (at first I thought you were advocating turning it into a bluff, then I realized that we'd have top set ). I think with AJ shoving is pretty bad, but I was being ambitious in considering it.

Oh, sorry about the confusion. Yeah, I think there's little merit in shoving AJ for value. I doubt you're folding anything better and there's not that much worse that can call.

hy linkwood , is there any chance u could share your HUD with us??? please
thank you

Np. Here it is: http://www.megaupload.com/?d=5QNZGSSB

Time Link to 00:21:09

To be honest, I don't see how this could be anything but a fold for us. This is, as you said, what makes villain 1's raise so bad on the flop. Without villain 2 in the hand I still think calling is out of the question. Part of me says raising all in is acceptable bu t I don't see him raising this pboard with a polarized range and our raise essentially only folds worse and villain doesn't have worse often. The one worse hand that calls us (or, type of hand, rather) actually winds up being what he has... but even then we're pretty much flipping.

In terms of the button's play, I'm not a huge fan. There are so many cards button will hate to see or that will kill button's action. I really think that, while sticking it in on the flop makes it hard to get called by a lot of worse hands, he's losing value from sets, and flush draws, which make up most of villain 1's raising range that the button actually beats

This is a major reason why I'm so against playing SC's out of hte blinds. When we hit it's a board that's typically scary and we're facing a ton of tough spots out of position. This is super weak but I am not entirely against check folding in spots like this.... and if I'm check-folding bottom 2 that says I probably shouldn't have been in the hand to begin with. You can play a lot more hands profitably than I can because you're a shitload better than me, but, yeah, i fold this pre and on the flop it's a super easy fold.

Sorry for the rant, I hope i didn't ramble too much and I'm not too off base in my analysis. I really like the video and will definitely be watching the rest of the series... (started with this one) I'll try to keep my posts to under 5 pages from now on.

To be honest, I don't see how this could be anything but a fold for us. This is, as you said, what makes villain 1's raise so bad on the flop. Without villain 2 in the hand I still think calling is out of the question. Part of me says raising all in is acceptable bu t I don't see him raising this pboard with a polarized range and our raise essentially only folds worse and villain doesn't have worse often. The one worse hand that calls us (or, type of hand, rather) actually winds up being what he has... but even then we're pretty much flipping.

In terms of the button's play, I'm not a huge fan. There are so many cards button will hate to see or that will kill button's action. I really think that, while sticking it in on the flop makes it hard to get called by a lot of worse hands, he's losing value from sets, and flush draws, which make up most of villain 1's raising range that the button actually beats

This is a major reason why I'm so against playing SC's out of hte blinds. When we hit it's a board that's typically scary and we're facing a ton of tough spots out of position. This is super weak but I am not entirely against check folding in spots like this.... and if I'm check-folding bottom 2 that says I probably shouldn't have been in the hand to begin with. You can play a lot more hands profitably than I can because you're a shitload better than me, but, yeah, i fold this pre and on the flop it's a super easy fold.

Sorry for the rant, I hope i didn't ramble too much and I'm not too off base in my analysis. I really like the video and will definitely be watching the rest of the series... (started with this one) I'll try to keep my posts to under 5 pages from now on.

No problem. I totally understand. I think though that if you can identify this as an easy fold then you can probably play these hands profitably enough. Yes, folding bottom two, but this is one of the worst boards that we hit. I would liken this to calling pf with a small to medium pair. You just need to understand that with both hands you're folding most of the time. But if you hit big you can likely win some big pots. This hand is an exception to that, but bottom two is not that big of a hand anyway, since we're just trying to get money from one pair.