Jared talks about the results of his most recent experiment, auto raising every complete he faced by 4x. He then talks about blocking bets and ways to induce bluff raises. Jared finishes off the video with a live poker hand where he slow played in a non traditional spot to maximize his EV against an aggressive opponent.
Great explanation as usual!
Like this kind of format a lot btw, the topic of inducing with blockbets is also very hot at the moment, it might be a coincidence, but I checked a vid on another site recently where it was discussed as well, nice to get to know a little about your experiences with the play.
When you discussed the KK live hand, I actually thought u were repping exactly 99-QQ in that spot, like the villain mentioned. I wonder what line you would have taken if you actually had 99-QQ in that specific spot. Did you think villain was a good enough handreader to try and barrel you of those exact hands, in other words, would you have played it the same way, or would you have taken a different line?
Thats the point here - you should not rep the hands you have when playing against players who can hand read.
With 99-QQ I assume it is safer to b/f or c/f instead of check calling down without a proper plan (not knowing how many barrels to call etc). When you check strong hands on dry boards (like the KK example, you could have AA; AK, KQ etc there aswell) it protects your checking range so people can't really exploit you by "making you fold all the time" since often enough you have a hand that can call them down and punish them for it.
Is my logic correct here?
I've been working really hard on this part of my game and every time I try to "fix" something I end up at the same spot - when I can't profitably valuebet, bluff or check to induce a bet from a wide range that I'm ahead of, it's usually just best to give up right away (aiming to check-continue with the top of my checking range and folding the weaker part of my range)
I filtered my hands this year for 6+ players where I was bb and sb limped. I raised 586 times. We didn't see the flop 220 times. I'm surprised it's that low even at micros. I didn't filter for them limp rr'ing but even I have to admit that hardly ever happens. They're probably folding about 35% of the time pre just at the micros and I always make it 3bb total preflop.
Thats the point here - you should not rep the hands you have when playing against players who can hand read.
With 99-QQ I assume it is safer to b/f or c/f instead of check calling down without a proper plan (not knowing how many barrels to call etc). When you check strong hands on dry boards (like the KK example, you could have AA; AK, KQ etc there aswell) it protects your checking range so people can't really exploit you by "making you fold all the time" since often enough you have a hand that can call them down and punish them for it.
Is my logic correct here?
I've been working really hard on this part of my game and every time I try to "fix" something I end up at the same spot - when I can't profitably valuebet, bluff or check to induce a bet from a wide range that I'm ahead of, it's usually just best to give up right away (aiming to check-continue with the top of my checking range and folding the weaker part of my range)
I understand your point, but the fact we put big hands like topset in our check/calling range is exactly to protect our weaker hands c/c'ing, so if we remove 99-QQ from our c/c range, there's no need to c/c topset in the first place, right?
Great explanation as usual!
Like this kind of format a lot btw, the topic of inducing with blockbets is also very hot at the moment, it might be a coincidence, but I checked a vid on another site recently where it was discussed as well, nice to get to know a little about your experiences with the play.
When you discussed the KK live hand, I actually thought u were repping exactly 99-QQ in that spot, like the villain mentioned. I wonder what line you would have taken if you actually had 99-QQ in that specific spot. Did you think villain was a good enough handreader to try and barrel you of those exact hands, in other words, would you have played it the same way, or would you have taken a different line?
Thanks for the kind words :D I'm glad you liked the explinations ;)
I didn't know another video on another site also discussed the topic of blocking bets, but I do agree, it's sort of a "hot" topic right now and one of the reasons I wanted to bring up the topic (I try to stay aware of what's relevant/popular, and I try to talk about those topics). And if there's an issued you guys would like to know more about (maybe cold 4 bet bluffing etc.) Always feel free to recommend topics. I'm down to discuss anything :D
In regards to the KK live hand, it'd depend on my level of comfort of playing difficult spots against the villain. If I "wasn't in the mood" or didn't "feel" comfortable oop with a 99-QQ type hand, I would of probably just c-bet the flop and take it from there. I do that maybe 75% of the time (or maybe even more tbh). If I feel very comfortable post flop, and feel like I do have a strong read, I would play the hand like I did yesterday (it was a live hand, I had QQ on Kxx board, HU...only difference I was in position instead of oop).
In that hand I checked behind the flop because the villain was very agro against weakness and I called turn (slowly, I paused to give him more reason to believe I was weak) then I called the river (quickly, because it was my plan). Sometimes he'll have a KJ type hand and I'll be wrong, but I'm getting good odds, and by checking the flop it was 2 streets max I could face. He ended up having air (ace high) so there was a downside to giving a free card. But overall I liked the play.
Long winded way of saying: If you want an easy way to play it, c-bet flop and take it from there. Difficult way = check/eval (potentially higher EV though if you're way better post flop). I personally c-bet the vast majority of the time.
Thats the point here - you should not rep the hands you have when playing against players who can hand read.
With 99-QQ I assume it is safer to b/f or c/f instead of check calling down without a proper plan (not knowing how many barrels to call etc). When you check strong hands on dry boards (like the KK example, you could have AA; AK, KQ etc there aswell) it protects your checking range so people can't really exploit you by "making you fold all the time" since often enough you have a hand that can call them down and punish them for it.
Is my logic correct here?
This is very sound logic and pretty much spot on ;)
The key is "without a proper plan" I love that wording/sentence from you. It's a great way of saying what I was trying to get across.
I filtered my hands this year for 6+ players where I was bb and sb limped. I raised 586 times. We didn't see the flop 220 times. I'm surprised it's that low even at micros. I didn't filter for them limp rr'ing but even I have to admit that hardly ever happens. They're probably folding about 35% of the time pre just at the micros and I always make it 3bb total preflop.
I wish I was better at keeping my old hands. I never back anything up and every time I get a new computer I don't have my old hands :(
I think the biggest difference is I did 4 bb and you do 3 bb. I think that "bigger" amount does play a real roll is altering the frequency that people call and fold. (also I think midstake vs. micro plays a roll in the frequency too)
It's cool to see a micro sample size though. Thanks for sharing man :D I'd love to see if a micro that does 4 bb would share :D
One thing to consider in the "since we check top set should be check 99-QQ" is that the play was pretty player specific. Meaning I did have a strong read, and it was ultimately for "both" reasons. Meaning I thought checking was more +EV, AND it'd protect me from getting in horrible spots later in the session with marginal strength hands oop (like 99-QQ on Kxx boards)
Remember, a lot of times plays aren't an "either or"....but an "and." (if that makes sense) The "main" reasons though was the "most +EV aspect"....but the side effect of "making marginal hands easier to play because he'll be scared we're tricky/trapping him in the future" is like a bonus in this specific situation.
However, in other situations, it's the opposite. Meaning the main reason I did it was for protecting myself from being exploited...and it being +EV was the bonus.
Hope that makes sense, if it doesn't, feel free to ask more questions about it.
I like to start with knowing how often I c-bet on certain boards and how often I'm going to hit or be able to stand heat. I actually have way less Kx in my range so I can't stand much pressure ever on K85 but people generally fold to c-bets way too much on this board texture at micros.
Then I forget all that and hopefully it becomes intuitive and I play a ton of hands and I just know some people will be more likely to fire as a bluff twice than call down with worse hands if I bet twice. I think that's why rika owns people is because he plays way more than they do and he already knows what they're thinking and capable of.
This is a hand I played recently against an aggro fish where there's no way I can get two more streets of value from worse on the turn/river even from a fish because my line looks insane strong. His range is probably fairly wide even after calling the flop so when I was playing this check was the obvious play. I think other people at 10nl would do something weird like raise turn or lead river when it really makes no sense so I think that's why he thought I never have a king.
