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

lolol @ the aggressive checking tag

Hope they do an episode on aggressive calling. I'm really bad at that.

Could you explain how you may have played the set at 15:00 once the flop is checked and the turn comes 7 instead of 7?

On the 976tt board you think you can represent a draw by checking that flop as the IR?
I think check/calling there if the button bets is screeming a small/med pp or a flopped pair?

awesome! My favorite series is back

I love this series!! Makes me think

all I can say is 3 words of this episode: awesome awesome awesome!

Hope they do an episode on aggressive calling. I'm really bad at that.

Could you explain how you may have played the set at 15:00 once the flop is checked and the turn comes 7 instead of 7?

To answer your question - I'd definitely be more inclined to lead out if the turn is a spade, because I think people are more inclined to peel one off, and I don't want some low-medium spade catching up for free. Also, if he does have the A of spades, he could very possible ship it in over my raise while he wouldn't necessarily bet it.

This is a very sick episode ! I really like the subject and all the explanations that goes with it.

Looking forward for the nexts episodes

Thanks Vanessa. Great vid.

time went by so fast rly rly liked this one, esp. the intro

Awesome stuff, you guys rock!

Excellent video!!!

so next season is about donking into the pfr because they check so much?

Pretty cool concept, I've been working on being passive aggressive recently too. Strange, but it works pretty well. I think just the fact that people have approval for checking instead of the former "NEVER CHECK, OR YOUR GOD DAMN MOUSE CLICKING FINGER WILL EXPLODE" is definitely going to be helpful. Seems like there are a few spots where theories from this episode can be applied, however, keep in mind that you do not want to do this type of stuff 50% of the time, or 100% of the time, a lot of this stuff is just 25% of the time type stuff. Things you're going to want to use when your table image is correct for it, against players who you think will respond favorably to the maneuver, and at no other times.

Really good concepts though, this is definitely going to change the games a bit. (If I'm wrong about any of the above stuff, feel free to correct me, but I think this sort of stuff has to be hammered into people before they really understand that this isn't a series of standards, it's a series of alternatives)

I think this sort of stuff has to be hammered into people before they really understand that this isn't a series of standards, it's a series of alternatives)

That's an excellent point. It can't be overstated enough. We tried to reiterate this a few times - so keep an ear out for when we say things like the frequency we think you should apply to a certain move. Obviously those will change based on your own play, but they are good guidelines to follow when beginning to apply these concepts. Seriously though, thanks for making this point.

Awesome video guys, I really enjoyed it and am looking forward to the rest of the series. Honestly I hope many people don't watch it (particularly those who play on Stars) because these are the type of plays I've been using a lot against regulars. I play 100NL and a lot of the regs are monkeys postflop and can't resist betting anytime they are checked to in a spot where they would expect you to bet. I'm sure it's even worse at 200, 400, 600.

Here's a hand from a session I played this evening. Not a huge pot, but one where I would've won less if I just cbet and he folded, or I might've possibly ended up folding the best hand if he played back at me on the flop+turn. So I feel like I really maximized my value by taking this "nonstandard" line. First I get him to bet his complete garbage on the flop, then by checking the turn as well I induce him to call a river bet when he's playing the board.

Poker Stars $0.50/$1 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

BTN: $100.00
SB: $130.20
BB: $139.70
Hero (UTG): $183.55
MP: $100.00
CO: $135.25

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is UTG with Q Q
Hero raises to $3, 1 fold, CO calls $3, 3 folds

Flop: ($7.50) K 6 K (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $5, Hero calls $5

Turn: ($17.50) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

River: ($17.50) K (2 players)
Hero bets $12, CO calls $12

Final Pot: $41.50
Hero shows Q Q (a full house, Kings full of Queens)
CO mucks 3 4
Hero wins $39.50
(Rake: $2.00)

iPod version has no sound after 5 minutes.

Vanessa, 15 minutes in, you flop a set of queens and check a QK6 flushdraw board and talk about possibly doing it 30% of the time. What about the idea that you CBET your air on this flop almost always, therefore you should hardly ever check a set?

Vanessa, 15 minutes in, you flop a set of queens and check a QK6 flushdraw board and talk about possibly doing it 30% of the time. What about the idea that you CBET your air on this flop almost always, therefore you should hardly ever check a set?

I'm glad you bring up the question of balancing. I wouldn't say that I cbet air on this board almost always, but you're probably right that I cbet it a high percentage of the time. Still, I don't think ranges really need to be perfectly balanced, as long as there is some element of balance... as in it's never impossible for you to have a certain type of hand in a certain cituation. And since I don't always cbet air, and since I sometimes check hands like JJ and AQ, I don't want my checking here to only be medium strength hands and hands I give up with. Even if I cbet more often than I don't, the most important balancing aspect for me is probably the idea that I should be able to have a monster here, at least some of the time.

I have uploaded a new Ipod version. Enjoy.
-Rusty

In the A9ss hand, I really like the line, but stack sizing/positioning worked out pretty much perfectly for you.

If our villains were swapped, and the 100bb stack led and was flatted by the fish, we still seem to be in an awkward spot(in the sense we know we crush the shorties range, but are lost vs the 100bb stack), or... if we were up against two 100bb stacked opponents, we really haven't improved our situation. I feel as if we'd be c/f'ing our hand in this spot once both player show interest in the pot, and opening ourselves up to getting barreled if we c/c one opponent. You mentioned that we could use our line to confuse our opponent and potentially turn our hand into a bluff, but we know little about their range and remain oop.

I realize c-betting our hand doesn't leave us in a much better situation when called, but would like to hear your thoughts on alternative stack sizes/villains.

thx

I'm glad you bring up the question of balancing. I wouldn't say that I cbet air on this board almost always, but you're probably right that I cbet it a high percentage of the time. Still, I don't think ranges really need to be perfectly balanced, as long as there is some element of balance... as in it's never impossible for you to have a certain type of hand in a certain cituation. And since I don't always cbet air, and since I sometimes check hands like JJ and AQ, I don't want my checking here to only be medium strength hands and hands I give up with. Even if I cbet more often than I don't, the most important balancing aspect for me is probably the idea that I should be able to have a monster here, at least some of the time.

say that (purely hypothetically) you always check with a set and cbet Qx+/draws in this spot. does that help him in any way? Like from an exploitative sense, that when you cbet the top of your range is AK/KQ. Am i right in saying that if he knew this the way for him to exploit it would be to bluff raise more often, just because your range is weighted more towards hands that can't continue vs a raise? I guess what I'm asking is if it's ok that the top of your range is AK, like if UTG opens in a 6max game and youre in the SB and you never 3bet AK, but always 3bet AA/KK. And you might flat with small PPs and some SCs and you might 3bet air some %. is that enough of a balance?

In the A9ss hand, I really like the line, but stack sizing/positioning worked out pretty much perfectly for you.

If our villains were swapped, and the 100bb stack led and was flatted by the fish, we still seem to be in an awkward spot(in the sense we know we crush the shorties range, but are lost vs the 100bb stack), or... if we were up against two 100bb stacked opponents, we really haven't improved our situation. I feel as if we'd be c/f'ing our hand in this spot once both player show interest in the pot, and opening ourselves up to getting barreled if we c/c one opponent. You mentioned that we could use our line to confuse our opponent and potentially turn our hand into a bluff, but we know little about their range and remain oop.

I realize c-betting our hand doesn't leave us in a much better situation when called, but would like to hear your thoughts on alternative stack sizes/villains.

thx

Yeah, that's a good point - I don't know that i necessarily would have taken this line if the stacks at been reversed, because then the situation isn't perfect as I said. I think in that situation, betting out has much more merit because the 100bb stack has to play his hand a lot more honestly with the 30bb stack behind him ready to commit his chips relatively light.

say that (purely hypothetically) you always check with a set and cbet Qx+/draws in this spot. does that help him in any way? Like from an exploitative sense, that when you cbet the top of your range is AK/KQ. Am i right in saying that if he knew this the way for him to exploit it would be to bluff raise more often, just because your range is weighted more towards hands that can't continue vs a raise? I guess what I'm asking is if it's ok that the top of your range is AK, like if UTG opens in a 6max game and youre in the SB and you never 3bet AK, but always 3bet AA/KK. And you might flat with small PPs and some SCs and you might 3bet air some %. is that enough of a balance?

First of all, to clarify I would never always cbet Qx+/draws - even without doing things for balancing... even in a situation where i "always" cbet Kx and draws, I still think checking hands like QJ is going to be a much better play a lot of the time, balancing completely aside.

But, to answer that hypothetical, first of all it's never "enough of a balance" to always 3bet AA and KK and never 3bet AK.

Second of all, with respect to taking this line if that's the case - it also would not be enough of a balance. You're absolutely right that it would make it really easy for villains to bluff raise you. I think the implications are you need to balance more against observant/good/tricky opponents. Some people will just not pick up on it and bluff raise, and then against them, you just play a more polarized strat. Against good opponents though, it's not balanced enough to always cbet, I don't think.

More problematic though is that then your checking is RIDICULOUSLY unbalanced. always sets? never Qx? I mean, the overall point here is basically that you should be at least capable of having almost any hand with almost any line. It doesn't mean it needs to be perfectly balanced, but it just helps when an opponent can't say "he doesn't have X hand because he took Y line"

LOL - Feels like my style before watching Unconventional Wisdom. The pendulum swings again. Great vid - keep em coming!

good video, can't wait for the next one

Been wanting this so much - Thank you very much Dan and Vanessa

Been wanting this so much - Thank you very much Dan and Vanessa

You're welcome!

raising A9s UTG is loose? wat?

Golden

Time Link to 00:14:28

I understand that we get value from a big part of his range, because he will see our check as weakness.
I have been thinking about lines like these a lot lately, I like it. But I prefer a hand that is less strong then QQ on QK6.

If he will bluff a lot, we can bluffcatch as well with Kx here. with QQ there is so much more value in valuebetting, because you can get value from TPGK, lower sets, 2pair etc.
With TP there is less value, so you don't lose that much value if you check.

do you understand what I mean? what are your thoughts about it.

I understand that we get value from a big part of his range, because he will see our check as weakness.
I have been thinking about lines like these a lot lately, I like it. But I prefer a hand that is less strong then QQ on QK6.

If he will bluff a lot, we can bluffcatch as well with Kx here. with QQ there is so much more value in valuebetting, because you can get value from TPGK, lower sets, 2pair etc.
With TP there is less value, so you don't lose that much value if you check.

do you understand what I mean? what are your thoughts about it.

I think the main point remains that with his stack size, we're probably going to get all the money in against his good hands regardless of what line we take. So we should choose a line that maximizes value against his crappy hands. In this case, we give him rope to bluff us. As we see here, it only takes 2 bets to get all the money in so it isn't that hard to do it.

If he was deeper, then yes I probably prefer to bet out but I still think that checking to induce isn't a bad idea, for much the same reason.