Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (Mid Stakes)

Time Link to 00:38:01

I am wondering why you don't call or 3bet table 1 w/ K10o vs 2.5x.

good video as all ways

why did you fold A6o at the button vs fish openlimp in CO araound min 24 topleft.

you isolate before T8o in CO vs MP.

could you please explain your thought process

thx, really cool stuff to keep my DC subscr

Time Link to 00:47:32

Table 1, is this a Sq/fold w/AQs?

Time Link to 00:08:00

4bet bluff on bottom right table!

Time Link to 00:27:05

That surprised me b/c I until this discussion thought that calling a small pockets is from any position vs. UTG-opens for Setvalue ok (when the Opener is not too short).
I mean,
haven`t you in general better Implieds vs. a UTG-Range....
Or vs. which ppl (100BB-stacks), you consider to fold here?
I guess from the CovsUTG, you always call?

Ariel - any comments on the quality of 2-4 3-6 PS 2010 games.....how do they compare when they were your stomping ground?

Time Link to 00:07:48

I think this is a fold here on the river with QQ. He calls a 3-bet, then a c-bet on a K64 board. What is he calling with us here? 75 gets there on the river, Kx is gonna make up a huge part of his range. TT has decent showdown value so he's highly unlikely to bet that. Basically we're hoping for him to be turning 6x into a bluff and I just don't think he's doing that very often. His bet just screams "please call me" and based on experience when fish takes these type of lines in these kind of situations they have it like 90% of the time at least. These spots are very tough folds but I definitely think folding is the better option of the two.

Time Link to 00:25:37

Just for the sake of discussion, was anyone else not happy to get it in there with bottom set given the action taken by the clown? Honestly, as I was watching it and I saw the fish check min-raise I was thinking "he has a set here for sure".

If we are going to get it in with a set, which is fine IMO, why can't we call the turn raise in position? There are 0 flush draws out there to protect against, and if the fish is raising some Ax hand "for information" then we're giving him room to fold with the turn shove. Also, on the 1/50 chance he is bluffing we're giving him rope to continue on the river. We'll get our stacks in on the river 90% of the time anyway if he has some kind of 2-pair hand.

Just for the sake of discussion, was anyone else not happy to get it in there with bottom set given the action taken by the clown? Honestly, as I was watching it and I saw the fish check min-raise I was thinking "he has a set here for sure".

If we are going to get it in with a set, which is fine IMO, why can't we call the turn raise in position? There are 0 flush draws out there to protect against, and if the fish is raising some Ax hand "for information" then we're giving him room to fold with the turn shove. Also, on the 1/50 chance he is bluffing we're giving him rope to continue on the river. We'll get our stacks in on the river 90% of the time anyway if he has some kind of 2-pair hand.

had similar thoughts on this one.

Hi FWF,

I was wondering if you could expand on analyzing regulars' preflop ranges away from the table and what exactly that entails. Obviously it's easy to go into HEM and see "oh he's 3betting this and 4betting this etc etc," but how would you go about using that information to formulate a plan against him? Seems to me a great deal of getting your plan down would just require in-game experimentation to see how he adjusts to various levels of aggression, so I'm having trouble thinking of what you could do away from the tables.

BTW, awesome video. really enjoyed it

I am wondering why you don't call or 3bet table 1 w/ K10o vs 2.5x.

Probably just missed this hand while playing/talking.

why did you fold A6o at the button vs fish openlimp in CO araound min 24 topleft.

you isolate before T8o in CO vs MP.

could you please explain your thought process

Think T8o has more playability, it flops more medium/good pairs that can be valuebet against the fish and you can obviously also hit some draws.

Table 1, is this a Sq/fold w/AQs?

Pretty sure the plan is a 4bet/call.

I think this is a fold here on the river with QQ. He calls a 3-bet, then a c-bet on a K64 board. What is he calling with us here? 75 gets there on the river, Kx is gonna make up a huge part of his range. TT has decent showdown value so he's highly unlikely to bet that. Basically we're hoping for him to be turning 6x into a bluff and I just don't think he's doing that very often. His bet just screams "please call me" and based on experience when fish takes these type of lines in these kind of situations they have it like 90% of the time at least. These spots are very tough folds but I definitely think folding is the better option of the two.

I don't agree with this; sure he's going to have it a lot, but we get a very good price and especially those small bets are often blocking type bets with random pairs; so think calling here when you have a good bluff catchers should be standard.

Time Link to 00:26:29

I don't know the answer for coldcalling small pairs vs UTG raise but I did run a filter. In my current DB, I have 168 trials and I am up 3820 which is 419bb/100 across all limits with about equal numbers of hands at 1/2-5/10 NL. Obviously small sample and maybe others can chime in. Of course I have a huge skill advantage postflop so that could skew the results. Ok, just kidding but I love saying that since it allows justification for all marginal plays. Some reasons I think it may very well be profitable are 1. the utg raiser has a tighter range and I will often be ccing big hands so squeezers won't be too eager and 2. implied odds go up a bit based on the strength of that utg range.

Table 1, is this a Sq/fold w/AQs?

no, you have to call against a tough/loose player who thinks you're able to bluff here

That surprised me b/c I until this discussion thought that calling a small pockets is from any position vs. UTG-opens for Setvalue ok (when the Opener is not too short).
I mean,
haven`t you in general better Implieds vs. a UTG-Range....
Or vs. which ppl (100BB-stacks), you consider to fold here?
I guess from the CovsUTG, you always call?

Meh, people squeeze often enough and you lose the pot too many times and don't win enough money the times you hit a set on average (even though you're right that his range is stronger on average) that in a lot of situations you should be folding the weaker ones that only win by hitting sets (22-55 specifically)

Ariel - any comments on the quality of 2-4 3-6 PS 2010 games.....how do they compare when they were your stomping ground?

I never grinded 2/4 and 3/6 so I can't say. Think I played them here and there to build my confidence back, but never for long

I think this is a fold here on the river with QQ. He calls a 3-bet, then a c-bet on a K64 board. What is he calling with us here? 75 gets there on the river, Kx is gonna make up a huge part of his range. TT has decent showdown value so he's highly unlikely to bet that. Basically we're hoping for him to be turning 6x into a bluff and I just don't think he's doing that very often. His bet just screams "please call me" and based on experience when fish takes these type of lines in these kind of situations they have it like 90% of the time at least. These spots are very tough folds but I definitely think folding is the better option of the two.

Meh, I think it's not so clear vs a fish. You may be right but who knows, maybe he has 78, AJ, TT block-betting, etc. You just don't know what goes on in this person's head and you're getting great pot odds

Just for the sake of discussion, was anyone else not happy to get it in there with bottom set given the action taken by the clown? Honestly, as I was watching it and I saw the fish check min-raise I was thinking "he has a set here for sure".

If we are going to get it in with a set, which is fine IMO, why can't we call the turn raise in position? There are 0 flush draws out there to protect against, and if the fish is raising some Ax hand "for information" then we're giving him room to fold with the turn shove. Also, on the 1/50 chance he is bluffing we're giving him rope to continue on the river. We'll get our stacks in on the river 90% of the time anyway if he has some kind of 2-pair hand.

Yeah, I think call down is correct here

Hi FWF,

I was wondering if you could expand on analyzing regulars' preflop ranges away from the table and what exactly that entails. Obviously it's easy to go into HEM and see "oh he's 3betting this and 4betting this etc etc," but how would you go about using that information to formulate a plan against him? Seems to me a great deal of getting your plan down would just require in-game experimentation to see how he adjusts to various levels of aggression, so I'm having trouble thinking of what you could do away from the tables.

BTW, awesome video. really enjoyed it

This is probably something for a whole video (or series), don't think I can do it justice in a post of any manageable length

Some of the cbetting ranges/checking back ranges went by without discussion. There were 3 within the space of around a minute I wasnt sure about so here are my questions

87s on 452fd (i think) was cbet and Hielko had to fold to the checkraise. This board texture seems to be one that gets check raised a lot and with 2 overs and a gutter but still not strong enough to call a check raise is this not a good hand to check back? My thoughts were basically the same on a hand at the same time QxJd on Qxxddd, we bet call against a half stack or so. Again I'd have thought this a standard check behind? Then checkiing back AJxh on KT7hhx, I think I'd have played all 3 flops differently.

Time Link to 00:28:11

This is the time stamp of my above questions btw, thanks.

87; I don't think I will get check/raised here a lot, board hits my range better and I also have no showdown value so a cbet seems pretty good.

QJ; I think cbetting this should be very standard, just such a strong hand.

Didn't see the AJ hand, do you have a time stamp?

Time Link to 00:19:52

Really enjoy this explanation of the importance of balance.

Time Link to 00:52:49

How do you feel about the presence of other regulars lowers the SPR and makes it harder to call? I agree with FwF that these hands don't really hit that big, and thus I don't think the implied odds are there to make a call. The low SPR makes it harder to draw as you will have to put in a bigger percentage of your stack to draw. I definitely agree with calling (or squeezing) with the presence of a mark, but I feel like the slight improvement in pre-flop pot odds doesn't justify making these calls when you're only 100bb deep and you will have very few opportunities to be in particularly profitable situations for your stack. Sure, you now can go ahead and commit with your draws as you'll have 30%-ish equity versus calling AI ranges, but that leads to taking lines like c/r'ing the PFR who has just c-bet in a 3 or 4-way pot (or perhaps leading out, but that leaves us in a weird spot if we get flatted) where you don't have that much FE. Granted, I might be underestimating our FE and the little amount we will need, but I just don't know that the pre-flop pot odds really justify making a call like that even IP (especially OOP). Just curious your thoughts on this.

87; I don't think I will get check/raised here a lot, board hits my range better and I also have no showdown value so a cbet seems pretty good.

QJ; I think cbetting this should be very standard, just such a strong hand.

Didn't see the AJ hand, do you have a time stamp?

We play on different sites so I guess we get different responses on these boards but I find low, connected boards get check raised much more than others. I'd rather betfold KT or w/e here than 87, since even though the former has more showdown value I think the latter has more equity/implied odds, but still neither wants to face a check raise.

The QJ with Jhi flush draw is a hand I play as a very standard bluff catcher but maybe that is too weak.

Time Link to 00:14:17

I feel like this 3bet sizing is too big given sb's stack. 21ish will accomplish the same result imo.