With the KQ hand, I don't really get what villan is repping by re-raising you... 95% of regs won't raise a Q in this spot since the board is about as dry as possible. His hand looks like pure air with some equity. Maybe an Ax hand? My standard line is to just call here in your spot, but if I raised I would just shove since he really isn't repping much and I doubt he will continue bluffing if he doesn't improve.
Why would you ever lead the river with the A9s in the beginning of the video?
Your hand is just extemely face up against a good player: by checking flop, betting turn and leading river you rep exactly what you have: a good 9.
Also, this just can't ever be a bluf, there aren't any 2 cards you would take this line with that is air on the river, I can't think of any thinking player taking this line with just the Ad.
Why not check/call and let him valuetown himself with worse 9s?
Imo a very good player will fold a hand like T9 or turn it into a bluf on the river, he wont call because you just revealed your hand strength.
With the KQ hand, I don't really get what villan is repping by re-raising you... 95% of regs won't raise a Q in this spot since the board is about as dry as possible. His hand looks like pure air with some equity. Maybe an Ax hand? My standard line is to just call here in your spot, but if I raised I would just shove since he really isn't repping much and I doubt he will continue bluffing if he doesn't improve.
yeah, this is pretty much exactly what i would think - i.e. villain is repping nothing and that this is just some kind of level one, bad aggression thing. obv if we think that the majority of his range is air, we still shouldn't jam over his 3 bet (unless we think he'll hero call w/ worse or something), but just call with the intention of letting him barrel off his stack. but greg isn't calling w/ the intention of calling more barrels/letting villain bluff, he said he is shutting down/re-evaluating and this is the part i don't really understand. hopefully greg can elaborate a bit more on this hand.
just paid for a 1month subscription just to see what are being taught in videos nowadays. Saw this video after watching Boywonder's. U guys give a refund? lol.. actually Boywonder's was fine, although a couple technical pts he made could be argued (Kman actually did a good job on that), but this video was exactly what last poster said...what not to do while playing. I'm not claiming to be the best player or anything, but 2 hands were butchered, KQ and A9, that were already mentioned, not to mention a couple of fundamental mistakes, albeit on a lesser scale. Hope the next vids in this series are worth my time!
With the KQ hand, I don't really get what villan is repping by re-raising you... 95% of regs won't raise a Q in this spot since the board is about as dry as possible. His hand looks like pure air with some equity. Maybe an Ax hand? My standard line is to just call here in your spot, but if I raised I would just shove since he really isn't repping much and I doubt he will continue bluffing if he doesn't improve.
yeah, this is pretty much exactly what i would think - i.e. villain is repping nothing and that this is just some kind of level one, bad aggression thing. obv if we think that the majority of his range is air, we still shouldn't jam over his 3 bet (unless we think he'll hero call w/ worse or something), but just call with the intention of letting him barrel off his stack. but greg isn't calling w/ the intention of calling more barrels/letting villain bluff, he said he is shutting down/re-evaluating and this is the part i don't really understand. hopefully greg can elaborate a bit more on this hand.
If we suspect that villain won't continue bluffing then what is the point of jamming? Under that assumption, we allow him to display that he has a better hand by betting the turn or river, allowing us to fold a hand where we otherwise would have just shoved the flop.
Googol -- the difference here is basically if we think villain will be bluffing more. In your first example, we call down because we think he's bluffing a lot. In the hand, I don't call down because I don't think he's bluffing the turn + river, but I think he can be bluffing the flop.
Why would you ever lead the river with the A9s in the beginning of the video?
Your hand is just extemely face up against a good player: by checking flop, betting turn and leading river you rep exactly what you have: a good 9.
Also, this just can't ever be a bluf, there aren't any 2 cards you would take this line with that is air on the river, I can't think of any thinking player taking this line with just the Ad.
Why not check/call and let him valuetown himself with worse 9s?
Imo a very good player will fold a hand like T9 or turn it into a bluf on the river, he wont call because you just revealed your hand strength.
My read isn't that he's a great player. Henceforth, I can play my hand in the manner that I did, get him to call with worse, and never worry about him turning his hand into a bluff. I would advise you to listen to my reasoning in the video re: timing, the amount of tables he's on, etc., for more reference.
Using your logic regardless, "Also, this just can't ever be a bluf, there aren't any 2 cards you would take this line with that is air on the river" means that we will never be bluffed since no one would ever think we were bluffing! (and hence folding after we bet would be correct).
Again, the part where you talk about "a very good player" is irrelevant because I'm not pegging him as a very good player. Against a very good player we are largely restricted into b/c turn c/c river. Against players who play exploitably, we can take other lines and have them be more +EV.
just paid for a 1month subscription just to see what are being taught in videos nowadays. Saw this video after watching Boywonder's. U guys give a refund? lol.. actually Boywonder's was fine, although a couple technical pts he made could be argued (Kman actually did a good job on that), but this video was exactly what last poster said...what not to do while playing. I'm not claiming to be the best player or anything, but 2 hands were butchered, KQ and A9, that were already mentioned, not to mention a couple of fundamental mistakes, albeit on a lesser scale. Hope the next vids in this series are worth my time!
I am open to discussing anything with you that you would like to. If you would like to address specific reasoning I made in the video, and here in this thread, I would be happy to entertain what you are saying.
I would also welcome you to describe in any detail the "couple of fundamental mistakes" I made.
@ 12:30. If, regardless of your two scenarios, you expect the villains range to be strong, and any flop without a 9 is a bad flop, then why play 99 oop to the 3b?
I don't understand why this video is getting so much hate, I thought it was pretty good....
Two questions:
1. 77, because villain folded EP to your MP 3bet after you flat his 3bet on the other table, you think it is more likely he shows up with air when he checks? You claimed we are assuming if he's giving us a pot he should think we will be more likely to give him one, which I agree with.
--This reasoning seems backwards to me since if he was giving us the hand where we 3bet, shouldn't he then be much more likely to bet the other flop as a bluff? Am I missing something?
2. I forgot this one so I have to go back and watch the video then repost. lol.
2. With the KQ that you raised on Q8x rainbow, I don't understand how you can ever fold this hand after raising it on the flop? How much of his range actually has enough value on that board to bluff catch? I guess stuff like worse Qx, 99,TT, sometimes 8x, but that doesn't seem like that many combinations, and I doubt you are are getting more than two streets of value from those hands anyways which would mean we we should just flat the flop, right?
That is, unless we are want to raise the flop because we think he'll call down multiple streets light, OR, we think he will bluff 3bet us because of how narrow we are repping for value. Obviously it's a turn fold rather than a turn call river fold if you are going to fold, but can we really let you off the hook using the justification "I just don't think he's bluffing"?
I just watched the A9s hand cause I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, and I think it's a wildly interesting hand. Lots of options on every street imo, so I'm gonna ask a bunch of questions about it :)
On the flop, I assume you plan on c/c. If the turn blanks, will you check/call again? On what turns would you check/fold?
If against an aggressive regular, do you think bet/folding > c/c? Or does your plan stay somewhat the same and you balance it with c/c stronger hands.
I have a tough time if I bet the flop with a hand like this (not so strong but w/showdownvalue) and the turn blanks... Do I barrel, do I c/f or c/c.
====
I also thought our turn options were interesting. This is a board I'd give up on a decent amount so I'd be tempted to check to him again. Is it fine to mix it up, or do you think after he checks the flop we're better of betting?
====
I do think I have to disagree with you on the river though. The lead seems so unnatural and I think it can be good as an inducing bet (I think he might valueshove worse, I mean if I had a 9 i'd at least consider it) but I don't fully get the idea behind bet/folding.
I believe that he can have some bluffs in his range, mostly of the type of Adx that didn't bet the flop and felt like he could rep the 9 on the turn after checking back flop.
So if his range his 9x, flushes and some bluffs or maybe Qx putting us on JJ or whatever, where I'm certain he'll bet the first two, aren't we better of simply c/c?
I would even consider c/shoving tbh, but that might be too thin.
Sorry for the long post, but I think that esp. the first two streets are spots/problems that come up very often so I want to have a good understanding of all the options and reasoning behind them.
@ 12:30. If, regardless of your two scenarios, you expect the villains range to be strong, and any flop without a 9 is a bad flop, then why play 99 oop to the 3b?
Also, can you explain your bet/chk/bet line with 77 on K8JdsJsk vs Reid. It seems like your repping almost nothing for value so I really don't get it.
99: Implied odds of flopping a set + the chance that he checks back whiffed AK to showdown make it profitable still.
77: I cbet the flop because my hand is too weak on that board vs. Reid to try to take to showdown. On the turn, I check with the intention of giving up because 1) that card reduces my folding equity against Reid's range that includes any made hand, and 2) I still have the potential to get to the river for the opposite of these reasons (i.e., levels. If I check the turn knowing all of this, maybe I'm trapping Reid). On the river, we both have defined our hands as weak. I cannot win at showdown because I play the board. Additionally, out of our two ranges for slowplaying a made hand, mine is bigger (there is a greater chance I ch the turn with a J or K than he checks behind the turn with a J or K). As I said in the video, soemtimes you just ignore the fact that you're not repping a complete range, or it doesn't look like you're balanced, but instead fire a bullet because your hand sucks and his range is really weak. In a good player vs. good player matchup, there's a decent chance the other good player folds his marginal hand because he convinces himself you're leveling him into calling light (or leveling him just enough of the time to make it a close fold).
In the KQs hand you said that this is a hand we should call sometimes and raise sometimes on the flop. Could you elaborate on this please. Why can't we just always call? I guess this should have a lot to do with your overall game. I would probably call with my entire range if I would continue on this flop. Is that bad?
I don't understand why this video is getting so much hate, I thought it was pretty good....
Two questions:
1. 77, because villain folded EP to your MP 3bet after you flat his 3bet on the other table, you think it is more likely he shows up with air when he checks? You claimed we are assuming if he's giving us a pot he should think we will be more likely to give him one, which I agree with.
--This reasoning seems backwards to me since if he was giving us the hand where we 3bet, shouldn't he then be much more likely to bet the other flop as a bluff? Am I missing something?
Yes, yes, and yes!
When we get to the flop, and he folds the hand where I 3bet him on the other table, I am expecting to see a cbet here 100% of the time for the reasoning you echoed. However, when he doesn't cbet, I am expecting him to fold 100%. The reasoning for this thought is that he knows that I expect him to cbet 100% (or is paranoid that I know, or think I'll be suspicious of it, whatever), then he won't just fire out ever flop.
2. With the KQ that you raised on Q8x rainbow, I don't understand how you can ever fold this hand after raising it on the flop? How much of his range actually has enough value on that board to bluff catch? I guess stuff like worse Qx, 99,TT, sometimes 8x, but that doesn't seem like that many combinations, and I doubt you are are getting more than two streets of value from those hands anyways which would mean we we should just flat the flop, right?
That is, unless we are want to raise the flop because we think he'll call down multiple streets light, OR, we think he will bluff 3bet us because of how narrow we are repping for value. Obviously it's a turn fold rather than a turn call river fold if you are going to fold, but can we really let you off the hook using the justification "I just don't think he's bluffing"?
I explained a good amount of this in the video, but I'll rehash it because I like you :).
Why raise the flop: It's a spot where you need to have KQ in your flatting in raising range, the same way you need it in your 3betting and calling range when the SB opens into your BB.
What will he call us with: Anything worse potentially, especially if he sees our range as polarized. How many streets of value will we get? We could go all the way for sure. If he is skeptical and likes to call, he could stack off with anything.
What happens when we face a 3bet? Were we trying to induce?: Well, we weren't specifically trying to induce. In fact, getting 3bet on that flop with little history is going to happen very rarely (which is why I'm sort of confused that everyone just sees his line as so weak). Of course, we do get 3bet, and I would say that it is done by a range that includes hands either having us crushed, or being crushed. So, our reaction should not be to 4bet the flop. And, it should not be to fold the flop. So, we call and continue. Do I have specific plans for the turn? Admittedly no, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't continue like that. I'm playing poker on the turn; looking at his timing, bet size, tendencies, stories, etc.
Turn: The turn is a bad card for us. In fact, when he bets out 180, It's actually a very close spot despite the pot odds. Essentially, if he is bluffing the turn, there is a good chance that he will bluff the river. In fact, the only time he will not bluff the river is if he get scared and gives up mentally. This part is really the only value in calling the turn, and we have to call 180 to win 900 (5:1, so on the river he must check AND we must be good 16% of the time). I'm now going to say that this event does not happen 16% of the time, so if we do not think he's bluffing the turn, or if we expect him to follow up on the river (and we aren't prepared to call both) we should just fold right there. This may sound crazy to some of you, but read on!
River: The river leads us to a blank, we get what I interpreted as fake timebanked, and then shoved on for a 1/2 PSB. Let's think about this for two seconds:
We are in a blind battle vs. someone on lots of tables who presumably isn't a big winner and we have no history with. On a dry Q9xAy board, he b/3b the flop, bet tiny on the turn, and set up the 1/2 PSB shove we are facing on the river after he timebanks for 10 seconds. He is not bluffing.
I'm really glad this hand came up because it is the definition of not making excuses. We raise the flop because we KQ-type hands in our range for raising there occasionally. We face a 3bet, which is something we didn't expect to have happen often, but we regain control and figure out what is going on. By the river, we make a fold that (in my opinion of course) saves us $500, where most players would have either blindly stacked off on the flop, or blindly called off their stack. We allowed ourselves to avoid getting stacked in a situation where most people are just writing the hand off as a cooler.
In the KQs hand you said that this is a hand we should call sometimes and raise sometimes on the flop. Could you elaborate on this please. Why can't we just always call? I guess this should have a lot to do with your overall game. I would probably call with my entire range if I would continue on this flop. Is that bad?
I would say that it is bad to not have a flop raising range. Let's take a look at the board and break it down:
Q8xr.
Your opponent will be cbetting a large amount of his range on his board. Therefore, if you never raise, you are forced to float him if you want to take the pot away (or you are folding way too often). However, we now have the problem of being bluffed or semi-bluffed out on the turn (or him improving with AK turn AKJT, 44 turn 4, etc.).
Not even raising here is an example of how how convoluted poker can become, even to the point where we just forgo basic logic: this is a board where our opponent has nothing a good amount of the time and it is profitable/would be nice to be able to win the pot right here most of the time.
Assuming our goal was to get our opponent to fold air, the most profitable bluffs would be complete air or gutters. Once we necessitate balance, we need to inject value raises into our range. On a Q8xr board, there actually aren't many combos of good hands (12 combos of 88/xx, 9 combos of Q8). If we bluffraise here half the time with JT/9T, our strongest semibluffing hands, that's 16 combos of semibluffs which is almost on par with our 21 combos of fantastic hands. So, the answer is to sometimes raise air, sometimes semibluffs, sometimes value (value now includes QK-types to get our combos of potential value raises up otherwise bluffs and semibluffs dominate our range), and then sometimes float air, semibluffs, good, and great hands.
All of this balance is to protect the fundamental fact that the cumulative hands that our average opponent raises in the SB are weak on this board, AND the cumulative hands that we defend in the BB are weak on this board. We need to be able to win the pot despite our weak range (our opponent c/f is not an event that occurs often enough)
I just watched the A9s hand cause I wanted to see what all the fuss was about, and I think it's a wildly interesting hand. Lots of options on every street imo, so I'm gonna ask a bunch of questions about it :)
Obviously it was a successful publicity stunt ;).
On the flop, I assume you plan on c/c. If the turn blanks, will you check/call again? On what turns would you check/fold?
This is something that is opponent dependent. The particular board is Q9xfd. I would be more likely to c/f flush turns, and the most likely turn cards I would bluff (by c/r small) would be Jo and To turns (you can figure out why).
If against an aggressive regular, do you think bet/folding > c/c? Or does your plan stay somewhat the same and you balance it with c/c stronger hands.
I would rather bet the flop compared to check it vs. an aggressive regular. Obviously I think I can see the turn more frequently against a more passive player (while keeping the pot small), which is critical. Against an aggro reg, I need to have a wider double barreling range on a board like this. Due to our positions preflop, I am not going to face a flop raise very often from an aggro reg, but he will call down more often (aggression translates to "not giving up" in a spot where raising frequencies are lower), so I need to have a wider double barreling range to make it more difficult for him. I would double barrel blank turns, and then c/f or c/c blank rivers depending on how sophisticated the opponent is.
I have a tough time if I bet the flop with a hand like this (not so strong but w/showdownvalue) and the turn blanks... Do I barrel, do I c/f or c/c.
When in doubt barrel. Let me know if my above paragraph didn't explain well enough.
I also thought our turn options were interesting. This is a board I'd give up on a decent amount so I'd be tempted to check to him again. Is it fine to mix it up, or do you think after he checks the flop we're better of betting?
I'd expect more aggressive players to bet more often (and with a wider value range) when I check to them on the flop. Therefore, when they check through, I'd feel more comfortable double barrel bluffing turn/river combinations.
Against more passive opponents such as this guy, he's checking back JJ/TT/9x hands on the flop (maybe even QJss), so I actually like barreling less against them. If I wanted to bluff, I would c/r the turn and fire off the river.
I do think I have to disagree with you on the river though. The lead seems so unnatural and I think it can be good as an inducing bet (I think he might valueshove worse, I mean if I had a 9 i'd at least consider it) but I don't fully get the idea behind bet/folding.
I believe that he can have some bluffs in his range, mostly of the type of Adx that didn't bet the flop and felt like he could rep the 9 on the turn after checking back flop.
So if his range his 9x, flushes and some bluffs or maybe Qx putting us on JJ or whatever, where I'm certain he'll bet the first two, aren't we better of simply c/c?
I thought about the hand a lot and I concede that c/c the river is better than b/f, even against this opponent. However, it's a lot closer than people think, and I'll go into reasoning when it is appropriate to.
I would even consider c/shoving tbh, but that might be too thin.
Yeah this is too fancy because of the strength of his river betting range (i.e. in your example there are a decent amount of hands we beat, but all the hands we are behind are really strong).
Sorry for the long post, but I think that esp. the first two streets are spots/problems that come up very often so I want to have a good understanding of all the options and reasoning behind them.
No problem. Definitely an interesting hand and questioning everything is how good discussion occurs :).
I would say that it is bad to not have a flop raising range. Let's take a look at the board and break it down:
Q8xr.
Your opponent will be cbetting a large amount of his range on his board. Therefore, if you never raise, you are forced to float him if you want to take the pot away (or you are folding way too often). However, we now have the problem of being bluffed or semi-bluffed out on the turn (or him improving with AK turn AKJT, 44 turn 4, etc.).
Not even raising here is an example of how how convoluted poker can become, even to the point where we just forgo basic logic: this is a board where our opponent has nothing a good amount of the time and it is profitable/would be nice to be able to win the pot right here most of the time.
Assuming our goal was to get our opponent to fold air, the most profitable bluffs would be complete air or gutters. Once we necessitate balance, we need to inject value raises into our range. On a Q8xr board, there actually aren't many combos of good hands (12 combos of 88/xx, 9 combos of Q8). If we bluffraise here half the time with JT/9T, our strongest semibluffing hands, that's 16 combos of semibluffs which is almost on par with our 21 combos of fantastic hands. So, the answer is to sometimes raise air, sometimes semibluffs, sometimes value (value now includes QK-types to get our combos of potential value raises up otherwise bluffs and semibluffs dominate our range), and then sometimes float air, semibluffs, good, and great hands.
All of this balance is to protect the fundamental fact that the cumulative hands that our average opponent raises in the SB are weak on this board, AND the cumulative hands that we defend in the BB are weak on this board. We need to be able to win the pot despite our weak range (our opponent c/f is not an event that occurs often enough)
Didn't you just make an argument for doing anything with any hand(except our weak made hands) in our range in the name of balance here?
You count all our set's and twopair to our valuerange and then say that because there are so few combination's we need to raise weaker hands as TPGK to balance our bluffs but at the same time we need to call sometimes with our set's and two pair to balance our calls, and that will again weaken our raisingrange(because we wont raise every time with them). It gets kind of "messy" with all hands being allover the place and are suppose to balance everything else in all these spots. Im not saying it is bad to have this merged ranges for all our moves on the flop but it's very hard to get a full handle on it all and I think we easily could just use it as an argument to make any play we feel like on the flop.
I would call with a very wide range here; sets,Qx, 8x, 3x, all pp and gutshots against most aggressive opponents that open wide and CB's alot(and changing that range depending of his tendencies of course). Even if we raise with KQs here our range is still polarized enough that we wont get much value against worse hands. The only value we get is either if he will keep CB his middelpairs and 8x type of hands and call our raises instead of starting to c/c with them or that we induce 3betbluffs or OOP-floats(which is a stretch).
The biggest argument you gave aside from widening our value range to be able to bluff more is that we raise for protection but I think calling with our TP here serves us way better by getting more value from weaker hands and gets our wide calling range a lot of protection so we can play the pot in position and use his tendencies against him on later streets.
Im not saying im 100% convinced that this is a bad spot to raise, I see alot of good players raise here, so please keep try to convince me. :)
That's not really what I was saying. If I wasn't clear let me know where you got a different impression.
The main point of my argument is that raising the flop (in a general sense) allows us to win the pot on the flop. That's important because the SB is gonna be cbetting a great majority of the time on this board, and neither of us will have anything most of the time. Therefore, the most likely scenario is a hand of very little value vs. very little value. It's important to be able to win those battles.
The alternative to raising the flop as a (semi-)bluff is to float and try to take it away on the turn. The reason I believe this isn't the most effective way to play back is because our opponents (in Feb 2010, NLHE) are more comfortable with playing turns than they ever have been. They can barrel more selectively and effectively, and take away the steal opportunity that we are looking for by barreling a larger % on the turn (now we have to double float them or raise the turn to win with our nothing -- which makes it more expensive and less appealing. Additionally, they are barreling a higher % of the time so the fact that they bet the turn tells us less than it used to about the strength of their hand).
The whole thing about balancing was: we realize we will have to combat by making moves on this flop (for the reasons I wrote above), so how can we structure our range in a manner that it will make it difficult for our opponent to re-adjust.
If they barrel a lot on the turn isn't that a very good argument to call with our KQ to gain value and to make our calling range stronger so he can't barrel us as easily?
Do you basically think that the value we gain by being able to raise the flop more often, more than make up for the value we loose when we have to fold our weak hands that are ahead of his wide range right now but can't take much heat on later streets?
Your initial question was: I don't even raise the flop with my entire range. Is this bad? Why or why not? All of my focus has gone into answering that question.
If they barrel a lot on the turn isn't that a very good argument to call with our KQ to gain value and to make our calling range stronger so he can't barrel us as easily?
Of course it's a good argument. Of course, how often do we have KQ here as opposed to 55, or K6ss, or AT, etc. etc? The majority of our range is a crappy hand. Our first priority should be determining what we do with the largest part of our range. We balance the minority of our range with the majority of our range. For example, if we are cbetting 90% in general in HU flops, the majority of our range is air. That's a fact. So, if we determined that we wanted to still cbet 90%, we have to cbet middle/bottom pair type hands in order to balance the overwhelming majority of air in our range.
Do you basically think that the value we gain by being able to raise the flop more often, more than make up for the value we loose when we have to fold our weak hands that are ahead of his wide range right now but can't take much heat on later streets?
Yes. This is well said. Add in the times where, if we can't win the pot by raising on the pot, he now wins when we both have nothing by barreling on the turn, etc.
I'm going to give a very, very, general example to illustrate a point. It is not meant to mirror this situation exactly, but should express the gist of what I'm saying.
Three years ago, aba did a well. In his well, someone asked him about his 'aha' moments. He responded something to the tune of: he realized that when he was raising hands like AQ and missing, he was still winning pots (by cbetting). When he was calling raises with hands like AQ and missing, he was losing pots.
The point of my example is that we are fundamentally at a disadvantage by having relinquished initiative preflop (this is not necessarily bad, it's just a fact; we called a raise and will act second postflop). We have to take steps to overcome that disadvantage, and they include taking measures to win when we both have nothing on the flop.
The context of this conversation is after my response to RunandGun28's last post:
your reasoning is clear [for making the play with KQ], i understand all that, but i feel really unconfident about the assumptions you base it on for a couple of reasons. first, you say you are raising just because it's good to have a balanced range, then you later go on to say that it's not likely he's a very good player... if he's not a great player, why are we defaulting to balance?
There are two ways to approach a spot where it is unnecessary to be balanced. The first way is looking at the hand in a vacuum, which would assume that 1) you do not care about the outcome outside of the hand (which may be true/correct), or 2) you are not planning on balancing in the future (i.e. against a weak player who you just don't have history against). The second way is to use the current hand to figure something out, or set something up, against that particular player because you anticipate playing hands against them in the future (and you'll know better whether to balance or to play exploitatively). The latter scenario would be common against another player who you assume to be a regular but have no history, for example if you are moving up in limits and are encountering a new group of regs for the first time.
Now, I am not trying to say that my rationale for raising KQ on the Q8x board was part of my master plan to set things up against this player, because it wasn't. In fact, I wasn't balancing against this player at all!
In the video I mentioned that you could 3bet or call preflop, and call or raise on the flop, then I elected to raise the flop (after calling preflop). Viewers should interpret that as: it would not be incorrect to do this or this. Here is a list of some questions that would indicate whether flatting or raising is superior:
How often is he barreling blank turns?
How light is he calling down if he checks turns?
How often is he 3betting the flop?
How often is he folding to a flop range?
How often is he cbetting the flop?
There are tons of questions like that. At the end of the day (this may come as a disappointment to some of you), we don't know the answers to enough of these questions to make the "correct" exploitable play. Interestingly enough, how we proceed with a good hand with no history is largely dictated by what questions we want answered.
The question I want answered most against a player on lots of tables is: How will he react to aggression? I have a decent idea of the knowledge of a random Joe Regular at 5/10 NL 6m's barreling range; I can figure out that he knows some good cards to barrel on, etc. However, I want to know if I'm going to be able to exploit him with aggression. Since that is the most important thing to me, I want to start seeing how he will react. Since he might react violently/stubbornly, it is advantageous to have a good hand. After all, we can still easily determine if he might be barreling light by calling his flop and turn bets with middle pair.
There are a couple scenarios that will occur. Most likely, he will fold the flop to my raise. That will be a notch in the column of "put pressure on him." Next most likely, he will call the flop, and check the turn. He will either then c/f, or c/c, and do either on rivers. If he c/f at some point, it's a notch in the "put pressure on him." If he chooses to call me down, I show him QK (regardless if I win or lose), and my image is helped by the fact that at the first suspicious opportunity for me to show aggression, I show him a strong hand. Seeing QK offers me more [short term] protection in future showdowns between him.
-----------------
There's more to come but I wanted to get this out there first...
2nd thing is, you say you're calling w/out a plan. i just rewatched the video of our session actually a couple days ago and the whole time you kept stressing how important it is to have a plan. i guess i'm supposing that you are just so good that you don't really need to have a plan because you will read his soul based on timing/sizing? (im not being crass here at all, i think it's probably the case that that's true). So, if that's the case, then you might be making a mistake by teaching others to play like that when like hardly anybody who watches the videos will have anywhere near your level of ability? if it's not a mistake to do so, then how do i learn to read bet sizing and timing as well as you do? lol... obv that's semi sarcastic but hopefully you get what i mean.
--------------------------------------------
2nd thing is, you say you're calling w/out a plan
I said that I didn't have a specific plan for turn cards after calling his flop b/3b. However, my general plan covered all scenarios. When I raised the flop I knew what I would do facing all the different reactions (a fold, call, or raise). I expected the flop b/3b to happen rarely, but I still know I'm going to call. When we get to the turn, we're in a completely different position than on the flop, so I cannot predict how he is going to react. Therefore, I'm going to see what develops and take it from there. I'm still prepared for it.
i just rewatched the video of our session actually a couple days ago and the whole time you kept stressing how important it is to have a plan. i guess i'm supposing that you are just so good that you don't really need to have a plan because you will read his soul based on timing/sizing? (im not being crass here at all, i think it's probably the case that that's true).
There are generic spots where it's inexcusable not to have a plan, and there are also spots where it is ok for your plan to change. The FLOP spot in the video is neither.
As I mentioned, on the turn we are playing a whole different game than the flop. SPR is tiny compared to the flop, as three bets went in. It is impossible for me to have an idea of how my opponent will be playing in a spot like this with no history -- that's not the same thing as "no plan = bad!"
I still know all the scenarios of what might go through his head. If he isn't bluffing he's gonna most likely continue betting. If he's bluffing, he's going to make a decision whether to continue or not. At this point in the hand, I really only have timing and bet sizing to go along with vague reads that he's playing lots of tables and is probably a slight losing/breakeven/winning regular. I'm trying to get the answers to the most important questions I want on the flop. Potentially getting into a difficult situation on the turn doesn't outweigh potentially answering my questions.
I still feel confident and in control on the turn because I have a good idea of how a cookie cutter player acts in that sort of a spot. Let's face it; if he was the next Nanonoko there would have been threads about him on 2p2, and I would know if he was a big winner, so I can cast him into that cookie cutter model of a player. I also might have a knack for picking up on timing or sizing, which comes from experience, but that isn't required to tangle in my position. The culmination of all that info, however, makes me feel comfortable enough to play in this situation.
So, if that's the case, then you might be making a mistake by teaching others to play like that when like hardly anybody who watches the videos will have anywhere near your level of ability?
I'm not sure how to react to this statement. I'm not telling people how to play -- I'm telling them how I play and why. When I'm not clear enough, you guys ask really good questions to clear it up in threads like this. In the hand, where the decision is made on the flop, I've explained (admittedly done a better job doing so in this thread than in the video, but it's impossible to be the other way around) why I made the decision on the flop, and why I would be willing to face the "worse case scenario" of a flop 3bet/turn action.
Then, I'm explaining how and why I am reacting to that turn bet. I'm not advocating getting yourself into a situation. I'm saying why I play the style I do, and how I deal with the consequences (i.e. opening up the betting on the flop), and why I feel confident dealing with that.
which way should be the right way to default? because i've always attempted to play the most unbalanced exploitative way against everyone until they prove to me that i need to balance.
You should play in the manner that will help answer the questions you want answered about your opponent, unless you don't need any answers to any questions (i.e. they are a fish, or you're in a live game and you know that player is leaving in 5 minutes). Then you would just play in the most +EV manner of that hand.
lastly, the reason everyone is looking at his line is so weak is because it's a very common line used by the better regs at 2/4 and 3/6 when facing a flop raise on something as dry as Q8xr without any history. I would have taken this exact line in his spot, sizing and everything, very very often. i might be a little more hesitant to do it against u since i would expect u to know all that, but if we didn't know each other, i definitely run it.
There's a HUGE difference between bet/3betting the flop as a bluff, and b/3b the flop + turn + river as a bluff (and laying ridiculous odds on the river when a history-less opponent has made no indication of folding). When I call the flop, in the back of my mind is the warning to cautiously proceed because most players like my opponent are capable of bluffing the flop (or maybe even the flop + turn), but not the flop + turn + river like that.
If these good regs at 2/4 and 3/6 are, by default, b/3b the flop, firing the turn, and shove river as a bluff to the first hint of aggression vs. an unknown, that's pretty bad. I would bet a ton of money that a mass tabling 5/10 player's default like would not be that, which is why I folded the river.
tbh i think the kq hand was played ok, obv this obviously isnt a 'standard' play. Its good for balance, you get information on the players habits, you can also be surprised how light you get called down in this situation.
@ MYNAMEISGREG: What im curious about Greg is what was your plan on the turn if he just called? would you bet again or pot control?
Generally I dont think I can get 3streets of value here so my decision depends on the reg. Against bad regs I frequently pot control the turn and bet the river. Against good regs I will bet the turn (because some good regs will c/shove the river once I check back the turn - putting me in a world of pain).
Thoughts?
tbh i think the kq hand was played ok, obv this obviously isnt a 'standard' play. Its good for balance, you get information on the players habits, you can also be surprised how light you get called down in this situation.
@ MYNAMEISGREG: What im curious about Greg is what was your plan on the turn if he just called? would you bet again or pot control?
Generally I dont think I can get 3streets of value here so my decision depends on the reg. Against bad regs I frequently pot control the turn and bet the river. Against good regs I will bet the turn (because some good regs will c/shove the river once I check back the turn - putting me in a world of pain).
Thoughts?
I'm going to town if he lets me. Raise flop, bet turn, shove river. My hand is too strong and plays too well against his calling down range to do anything else IMO. We are in a blind battle and have TP2K on a board that isn't 765fd.
I would expect bad regs to be in one of the more likely groups to pay me off with worse.
Against good regs it would be important to follow up on turns with bets, but if I checked back the turn and got c/r on the river by a good reg, I would call so quickly it would be sill :) (I'm expecting them -- if they don't think highly of me -- to define my range as non-nutted due to the turn check and therefore attack it on the river.
Although the A9 hand I also do not agree with unless you are extremely familiar with the opponent, I don't see why the videos is getting so much hate by my fellow FTP regs :)
I think you played the 77 hand realli well btw...learnt something there.
I actually continued to the 99 hand and giving up here, real shame cuz I really liked gregs vids in the past but I cant relate to how he plays here at all.
thank you for answering the questions so thoroughly this gave me a lot to think about
No problem; I'm glad you were persistent and kept churning out thoughtful replies as well. Those who chose to forgo the video/discussion will just have to miss out :).
Don't understand all the hate.
I thought Greg's older videos were amongst the best on the internet and everyone is entitled to make a mistake or two. At least he has generated alot of interesting discussion and responded very postively and professionally to the criticism levelled, devoting alot of time to explaining his thought processes in this thread.
I am open to discussing anything with you that you would like to. If you would like to address specific reasoning I made in the video, and here in this thread, I would be happy to entertain what you are saying.
I would also welcome you to describe in any detail the "couple of fundamental mistakes" I made.
I just glanced over this thread and a lot of the arguments I would've used to not play a few hands like you did Greg were outlined, so I won't get into too much detail, for sake of repeating others' posts. Like most, I disagreed w/ your riv donk bet w A9 after getting minraised on the turn. Reasons outlined is that you gave up initiative after turn and now to donk riv is such a weird line that it will lead to tough decisions if and when villian shoves (like he did) and you are in a quandry of what to do (which goes against the whole idea of trying to avoid tough spots). Also, you can nearly count on villian to bet after checking the riv, then you can assess whether to call, chkr, or fold..so you basically pick up a bet if you do decide to call anyways vs donking/folding riv. You did say that you agreed checking riv was best after all, so I'll give you that.
Also you talk about balancing your play for your reason for raising w KQ on Q83r flop. That's somewhat fair, but most of the time, we are looking for the most +ev play in that moment (sure you can take slightly the worst of it sometimes to set up a lot more +ev plays in the future). Flatting the flop and letting villian cbet turn and/or riv is more +ev than raising and making him play correctly (calling/rer w better, folding worst). Granted, there are a few spots where it's ok to try to balance like you did here, but w/ the board so dry, you being ip, and having close to the nuts (tpKkicker) I believe it's more +ev to flat here (and I would think most good players think the same way). You point out that you don't want to let him possibly hit a gutter, or hit his pp. That is a pretty weak argument because I think being able to pick up a potential big bet down the line outweighs the fact that he hit a 2 or 4outer to beat you out of the pot. That's why we flat w big pps and sets ip sometimes, to induce more betting w/ weaker hands.
Also you call a rer w 99 oop and justify it by saying he can have AK and will check it back sometimes or you can hit a set and win a big pot. If those are your only reasons to call a rer w a pp oop, feel free to come sit on my tables anytime. From what I know, most pros advocate folding pps to a rer oop 100bbs deep if you're only reason for calling is for set value, or hoping that villain checks it down (cuz most regs are good enough nowadays that they'll fire at least 1 bet somewhere). So if that's your only reasoning behind calling the rer w 99, what differentiates it from 22? I don't think you said that his 3bet range could be wide enough to inc. bunch of air or smaller pps, where then you can probably justify a call.
I've seen a couple of your vids before Greg, and know you to be a really good player, not to mention a nice guy (have talked once in PMs before), but I, along w/ some others just question some of the lines you took, notably cuz some look like there were definitely better +ev ways to play said hands.
I just glanced over this thread and a lot of the arguments I would've used to not play a few hands like you did Greg were outlined, so I won't get into too much detail, for sake of repeating others' posts. Like most, I disagreed w/ your riv donk bet w A9 after getting minraised on the turn. Reasons outlined is that you gave up initiative after turn and now to donk riv is such a weird line that it will lead to tough decisions if and when villian shoves (like he did) and you are in a quandry of what to do (which goes against the whole idea of trying to avoid tough spots). Also, you can nearly count on villian to bet after checking the riv, then you can assess whether to call, chkr, or fold..so you basically pick up a bet if you do decide to call anyways vs donking/folding riv. You did say that you agreed checking riv was best after all, so I'll give you that.
.
Also you talk about balancing your play for your reason for raising w KQ on Q83r flop. That's somewhat fair, but most of the time, we are looking for the most +ev play in that moment (sure you can take slightly the worst of it sometimes to set up a lot more +ev plays in the future). Flatting the flop and letting villian cbet turn and/or riv is more +ev than raising and making him play correctly (calling/rer w better, folding worst). Granted, there are a few spots where it's ok to try to balance like you did here, but w/ the board so dry, you being ip, and having close to the nuts (tpKkicker) I believe it's more +ev to flat here (and I would think most good players think the same way). You point out that you don't want to let him possibly hit a gutter, or hit his pp. That is a pretty weak argument because I think being able to pick up a potential big bet down the line outweighs the fact that he hit a 2 or 4outer to beat you out of the pot. That's why we flat w big pps and sets ip sometimes, to induce more betting w/ weaker hands.
I responded at length to what I was looking to "get answers to" and how raising helped me get long term info that flatting doesn't. I'm admittedly pretty exhausted from going over every single aspect of this hand that I'm not going to delve into it further.
There is also a 0% chance I expressed worry about getting 2-4 outed on the turn, so you either misheard or misinterpreted something I wrote or said.
Also you call a rer w 99 oop and justify it by saying he can have AK and will check it back sometimes or you can hit a set and win a big pot. If those are your only reasons to call a rer w a pp oop, feel free to come sit on my tables anytime.
This guy is playing a ton of tables, nitting it up, and requested time preflop. I would bet a lot of money that he isn't requesting time on 1/10 of his tables so that he can make sure he gets that 3bet of an UTG open in UTG with 74ss in.
To be honest, (and, stated VERY nicely), it is difficult for me to muster the energy to respond to your statements when you 1) disregard what I'm specifically saying in the video (which, combined with my responses above, are the very detailed and specific reasons for playing the 99 hand and all the other hands how I did) and 2) talk derogatorily as opposed to constructively (bolded for reference). In response to your insult, if you are a 10 tabling nit who wants to give away various tells, there's a good chance I have played with you and I just didn't notice. If you aren't, then I'm not gonna make the same plays versus you that I would versus aforementioned 10 tabling nits:).
From what I know, most pros advocate folding pps to a rer oop 100bbs deep if you're only reason for calling is for set value, or hoping that villain checks it down (cuz most regs are good enough nowadays that they'll fire at least 1 bet somewhere). So if that's your only reasoning behind calling the rer w 99, what differentiates it from 22? I don't think you said that his 3bet range could be wide enough to inc. bunch of air or smaller pps, where then you can probably justify a call.
The difference here is that we are UTG and UTG1 without history, and with the knowledge about his range that I have listed many times before. He isn't going to put me on a wide defense range. Additionally, he isn't going to expect me to just check and fold postflop because the strongest perceived range we have for calling a 3bet preflop is when we opened UTG. I felt he was going to put low enough pressure on me postflop for me to play the hand out.
99 is still different than 22 because it offers more protection if my read is wrong and he shows down 74ss on a 7Q2T2 board after cbetting the flop.
Ok, pts well taken...sorry if I misinterpreted a couple of things..been a few days since I saw the vid so my memory could be a little foggy. Also my intent was not to make derogatory statements....I apologize if you were any way offended...will do a better job of watching my words. I think these hands were discussed in depth, and there were valid pts on both side, so thanks for taking the time to go into depth on your thought processes. :)
I like raising the flop vs. some opponents but vs. a random reg I'm just calling flop and expecting a turn bet maybe 95% of the time and probably a third barrel 70% of the time. This is how regs on Stars play so I'm not sure if it's the same on FTP.
Ok, pts well taken...sorry if I misinterpreted a couple of things..been a few days since I saw the vid so my memory could be a little foggy. Also my intent was not to make derogatory statements....I apologize if you were any way offended...will do a better job of watching my words. I think these hands were discussed in depth, and there were valid pts on both side, so thanks for taking the time to go into depth on your thought processes. :)
No problem. I've definitely put more effort into this video thread than I have any others so I literally am drained from all the responses. I wasn't offended and I know that English is a second language to many of the posters here so I need to keep that in mind as well.
It's worth it in the end because there is a lot of back and forth and we all have to be learning something :).
