To Call Or Raise With A STRAIGHT Draw? | SplitSuit Poker Strategy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 เม.ย. 2018
- Use this free Fold Equity Calculator when exploring your own semi-bluffs: redchippoker.com/fold-equity-...
In a live $2/$5 cash game, Dan has some serious decisions to make with 97s. After C-betting the flop with an open-ended straight draw (OESD), Dan faces a raise from a LAG and has to make a big decision.
Should we call, or come over the top?
SplitSuit breaks down this common situation using a fold equity calculator and explains what goes into this spot. Notice that the lynchpin of this hand is what range the LAG might raise on the flop, and how many of those hands are likely to go away. If SplitSuit's comments about combos aren't totally clear - start with his guide about postflop combos: www.splitsuit.com/poker-combo...
Want in-depth lessons on all of these concepts (and many others)? Enroll in CORE and get a university-level poker education so that you can master hands like this: redchippoker.com/launch-core
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL
· Twitter: / splitsuit
· Facebook: / splitsuit
· Instagram: / splitsuit
![คุณอาเรียโต๊ะข้างๆ พูดรัสเซียหวานใส่ซะหัวใจจะวาย ตอนที่ 2 [ซับไทย] 【Ani-One Thailand】](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kbbfYakMY8k/mqdefault.jpg)
Was villain REALLY a LAG in this hand? Learn all about the LAG poker style and then decide for yourself: www.splitsuit.com/playing-lag-loose-aggressive-poker
The LAG villain actually played it perfectly if you think about it, he called preflop, then he raised when he was ahead, checked when he was behind, and then induced a shove when he was back in the lead
If I was the hero, I would have shoved the turn 😊
@@byronwilliams872 why the hell would you shove the turn with the absolute nuts? You have 230$ and shoving into a 150$ pot…to get folds from what?
he played like a noob siiiiiiuuuuuu😎
The so-called LAG is obviously mislabeled, because no LAG would check that turn with top two pair.
It's a horrible check back.
do not speak in absolute
Amazing how you think you can label someone by one single hand. Are you really that narrow minded?
Some LAG players especially at low stakes can be very unbalanced and think they are checking back top two to trap
@@domenicfieldhouse5644 Which seems to have worked on this hand
Great clear and concise analysis here for this particular hand from the play line to even the chip stack amount. Also articulated extremely well. Great great job. You’re Def one of the best all around people I’ve seen on TH-cam to easily absorb analysis on this game, period..Excellent tonality as well.. Cheers!
The minraise on the flop has a lot of AT and KT in my experience.
Exactly my thoughts! Even Q10
I don’t think, Hero did anything particularly wrong here, except his read on Villain was completely off. Villain is described by Hero as a LAG (loose aggressive) but he just called preflop with a suited 1-gapper, he essentially min-raised the flop with top two, and he checked back turn with top two.
The turn line in particular is very passive and certainly not indicative of someone, who is a true LAG. A true LAG always try to have a high betting frequenzy. And if you are not betting top two on the turn, what are you ever betting at all? The turn line look a lot like someone playing so scared, that he slow down with everything, just because a single draw came in.
Given that Villain was this player type, there would probably have been little value in jamming the flop, since his raising range was likely stupidly strong. But there would have been value in leading (donk betting) the turn, even its pretty face up. The outcome itself I would not worry about. Hero got lucky on the turn, and Villain got lucky on the river, and it just is, what it is.
fundiver198 I was thinking the same thing. While a call preflop with a suited one gapper might still be in a LAGs range, the rest of the hand does not scream LAG whatsoever
Yeah I see this thing all the time in hand reviews, people say he is a LAG to justify losing the hand. 100% agree with you.
Guys, just because someone is a LAG PREFLOP doesn't mean they're an aggro fish postflop. T8 checking the turn is totally standard believe it or not...
WillofPTC Exactly. While you can select to go for a 3-bet preflop with a suited one gapper in a situation like this, you dont have to do it all the time, and its probably best to mix it up a bit. However his flop sizing is a bit weird, and his turn check is really weird and frankly just bad. So I dont see this Villain as a particular good player, which is also supported by the fact, that he did not start with a full stack either.
Just rewatched this after a long time. That small bet on the river line was used by Oscar in LATB to great effect and was discussed by Johnnie Vibes in his vlog. Great stuff!
Reading all the comments I see what you all say, and in the video I think the analysis is among perfection.
In the other hand I think I would have checked call the flop and went all in in the turn.
As well if we bet here, and he raises, for me it’s pretty clear that he has two pair or a set, other else he would have called for sure... in that case I would have shoved in the turn to avoid what happened here. He got a full house and probably with that stack we would have made clear that we have the nuts.
I say this because with that stack size is more valuable to get the pot rather than get more money from villain.
If he calls the shove and he gets the full house that’s just bad luck, but the table image you get is great for the future bluffs!
I love it ! Thank you !
in my experience min-ish raises on boards like that almost always indicate strength, definitely way more than just an 8 or 10-bad kicker. nobody is doing that with a gutshot either, i mean, come on (maybe a much bigger raise would make sense in that case)...that is a strong line and at those stack sizes your fold equity is going to be low...lotta outs though, so i guess if you love action and variance, just shove it in and hope for the best...you are pretty far behind against almost anything of course.
Another great video by King James. keep up good work Sir.
I immediately thought when I saw the flop raise of villain, what it comes down the most to is the question how sophistacated is the villains thought process? Because raising a 24 bet to 56 is so small of a raise. He could be an inexperienced player who doesnt realize that this raise looks small, or he is an extra seasoned player who WANTS it to look small in order to build a pot. Frankly when I have a good feeling about being able to answer this question, I dont think going over your fold equity calculations makes a huge difference ;-)
Thanks for providing a unique public service!
Moral of the story: Don’t play out of position!
play hands op that are easy to play with postflop.
I don't think I would take these lines at all.
So we raise and called by a LAG and are OOP when called. When the flop hits, I would actually check raise here. I'm expecting some kind of raise decision by the LAG if I check. So, pot is $37, expecting a half pot + bet here. Leaving the villain 300+ which he can easily walk away.
1. If he checks back we get a free card for our draw. Not expecting it, but it does happen.
2. If he bets, and I check raise my hand looks much stronger. This could induce a fold.
3. The check raise represents an over pair or even trips hand. This could induce a fold.
4. If I'm called I have outs. Perfect semi bluff situation here.
5. We are short stacked, calling imho isn't using your stack effectively in this position. You're happy with a fold. Max pressure on the villain here.
6. What range of hands can he call a check raise with in this position. Its a rainbow. Pkt 10s, 8s? Overpair? Unlikely but possible. Looks like a narrow range to me. Would he call with Tx? Possibly but he must be worried about being out kicked. 8x? doubt a he'd call but again possible. 99s? possible but either way its a tough position for him, not me. I've presented him with the opportunity to make a mistake.
7. You can always walk away from the hand yourself if his raise is something silly.
8. If he bets and folds to a check raise I get extra money. Its possible he takes a stab at the pot here thinking I've missed the flop with a load of premium combos AK, AQ, AK, some suited which are consistent with my preflop raise.
All of that aside, however, my main problem with this hand is being short stacked and calling OOP. Sooooo difficult to play. Why put yourself in this position in the first place. With a check raise here I know exactly what I need to do for the rest of the hand on the flop. No hard decisions for me, possible hard decisions for him.
Paul G68 I think you might be on to something. This board texture is going to get very few folds against a LAG calling range on the flop. The standard LAG will stab with so much garbage on the flop when checked to giving hero a huge amount of fold equity. The problem is finding which value hands fit into this line. Overpairs might not be best because you miss value and give free cards.
Could this be an exploit situation against a random player where your check-raise range consistent almost entirely of bluffs? At least early in a session.
Yup for the fold equity. :)
Nothing is guaranteed, as I've always found in poker, there's some ridiculous plays out there.
Personally, for my check raise, i have my range polarized. Some people don't prefer that but I do. So yes I'll have both bluffs and value in there but polarized. We raised preflop, so there's no reason for me to not represent an overpair. Were' short stacked. If we were deep, however, I'd seriously think about a different line. OOP with this hand would be very hard to play imho - well for me anyway. Better players may have a better skillset. But for me, it's avoid the situation in the first place.
So, I guess the question really, from the villains perspective, is would I check raise with say an overpair+?
Yes I would - with this stack and OOP.
1. I would play this hand the same with a bluff or an overpair+. If I have an overpair, would I want him to get free cards to draw against? Nope. However, you can't just check call each time and you have to mix it up so you don't telegraph the situation each time.
2. I want him to know in a situation like this I'm capable of 3 betting against him so he can't bet with any two cards and get a profit just becaise he has position.
3. I want my bets to be polarized for 3/4/5 bets. I believe that were supposed to be putting those in these ranges, again to prevent him betting any two cards.
4. What's the better line OOP? To check call? Very problematic and hard to play.. Check fold? Possibly a cheeky stab with a riase first in then fold - ok with that - if that was the plan. But otherwise?, why play the hand? That would mean that you are playing a drawing type, easily dominated hand to hit a very tight monster range, short stacked, OOP.
5. When I do have an overpair premium I'm getting money in the pot - OOP which is harder to do. Also my range is stronger against his.
BTW, If I got called, missed the draw and he took down the pot OR if I won it with a hit card, its there for everyone to see. I'm capable of making this move. I could 'try' to use this info in other future play to my advantage. Simply checking and calling makes me look more like someone who can be exploited easily.
Could be wrong, but it's the way I play :)
XRing can be great Paul, no doubt. But if your premise is "he's going to fold pretty much everything vs. a XR", then I assume you are XRing every gutshot, every BDFD with 1+ over, etc.? Then follow this thought process to your point #4 =)
H James,
Tbh I'm really uncomfortable with the situation more than anything else. Something I'm happy to avoid or get out of.
I'm actually ok with the hero taking a stab (I'm sure that many aren't happy with that) but if this was me I really need to have a plan before I play this hand. Playing this hand wouldn't be my best plan. If I had to play it, I wouldn't play the hand the same way each time for gutshots etc - the board context would be different each time with possible multiways. Also for example, my draw could be a better draw - I could have AKs with for a fd instead of 79s etc.
In this particular case though I really really dislike checking/betting this. Just looks like a lovely way to bleed my already short stack with 8 outs. If I hit the card, which is against the odds, am I getting any value? Also am I prepared to go two streets and compound the situation? Additionally isn't the SPRs approaching a bad figure here. Just looks yuck to me.
From my experience, having a short stack, being OOP and drawing passively is a very bad situation. So much so, I'd even prefer to get out of this hand right now, load up to the max and write it off and give myself a silent naughty slap on the wrist - bad dog gets no biscuit!.
Just curious, are you happy with 1. the initial first in raise 2.The bet call?
I guess that's why you're producing videos and courses and I'm not. Maybe if I watch more, I'd feel more comfortable with the situation... :)
Learning to be comfortable in discomfort is super important =)
1. No, I don't love the open in the first place given stacks, players behind, position, etc.
2. I prefer b/3bet personally.
Always learning...
I love the 40-66% buy in players. I get to play the higher SPR preflop range that make monsters while able to get their chips in the middle when they have the low SPR range calling hands. You have 89s and flop comes A 7 T. I can get it in on the turn or river if I hit my straight and they make the correct call with their TP or 2P based on SPR.
always learn something thanks split
Cheers Tim!
Nice demo
Great video, mate, Thanks. :-)
Very good video
Given the effective stacks, villain should have about one bluff for one value raise. Against a pure value range (TT, 88, 22 ,T8s), 9s7s has only 26.47% equity, not 30%. While this looks like a small difference, it means that 46% folds are needed, not 40%, which means that the shove is very close to a break-even shove even if villain folds all his bluffs. If villain calls with his best bluffs (gutshot with overcards, 8x), the shove will not be profitable.
Let's say villain has 11 nut combos, and 11 bluffs, so if he calls with 2 of his best bluff combos (QhJh,8h7h) and all his nut combos, hero has 28% equity against that range, and needs 44% folds. If villain calls with 13 hands out of 22, hero only gets 9/22=40.1% folds.
In terms of equity against a calling range, 9s7s is actually the worst combo of 97s as it does not have any backdoor flushdraw (9s7s of the other three suits all have a BDFD, giving it 28.26% equity against the nut range, rather than 26.47%). And while it has robust equity due to its outs to the nuts, 97s is also behind any other bluffs that villain might have. It only has 34.44% against QhJh, and 39.19% against 8h7h). Against a calling range of the nuts, QhJh and 8h7h, 9c7c would have 29.72% equity. So any of the other three combos of 97s would have been a better choice IMO.
As you said, whether the shove makes sense depends on villain's range, and what a "LAG" is in this case. Is a LAG a player with a more or less optimal ratio of bluffs, or is it a player who bluffs recklessly? If villain does bluff recklessly, and has to fold most of his bluffs, a shove can make sense. However, unless you have such specific reads, I would say it is better to just call, especially given the great odds.
How do you calculate how often someone is supppsed to fold ?
If you have played a hand , similar to this and had not the best outcome, the next time you come across a similar spot, do you try similar lines or different lines? ( new player asking)...
Should have bet the straight when he had it full house is one in 600 hand so any other time it would have been the right call but the moment you see two of a card on the board you got to ask your self the question does he have it? Jamming at the end was sign of desperation.
I think in a vacuum 3-betting is clearly the superior play.
The thing is, if we are 3-betting all our OESDs and maybe even some gutshots, how do we balance that out?
We don't have that many combos of nutted hands, so we need to start shoving JJ+ and maybe even AT.
There are 11 combos of 2 pair + and 8 combos of OESDs, if we only open suited hands, which is a reasonable assumption on this board. That seems well enough rounded out to me. The rest of our range we can just call or fold.
Good stuff sweeney
Thank you!
If you think you can bet your opponent off of a better hand before drawing for it, I recommend considering it.
My read would have been set or overpair. Not a great decision to shove at the end.
Also why not fire a small bullet on the turn?
what is hand villain hold ??? i think he has TK TA ????
I’ll listen to this guy when he posts his lifetime poker earnings
That's not an objective scale
there's a raisin he is teaching poker and not playing it.
Do you think that a flop 3b would be very hard to balance here to maximise profit? I feel like by 3betting our bluffs we induce maximum folds, that's true, but 3betting value I feel might leave a lot of money on the table. Especially if we have a hand like TT or T8 where opponents much less likely to be raising with something strong?
If you have TT/T8, what kind of combos does that give more weight to in V's raising range? Does that factor in favorably for you?
Surely it puts more junk in V's raising range that will fold to a large 3b unless he's a maniac?
I don't think any 3bet would have had T8 to fold on the flop here. Villain blocks 88 and TT, he's only beat by 22, and would you really shove 22 here ?
By shoving the flop I think you only represent exactly what you have.
Obv V is never folding two pair or better here. You can absolutely shove 2pair+ for value here as hero I just feel as though that's going to result in less value as opposed to playing our entire flop range as a call, but idk. I think 100bb stacks would have made this hand much more clear lol
Given that assumption, and the fact that it's only about 5-8 combos (TT/88/T8s), it sounds like you think you should either a.) make a very small 3bet to induce, or more likely b.) call his raise and give him barrel opportunities.
Cmon James, you're better than this. Such a standard call on flop given immediate pot odds and implied odds. A click back raise on flop in live low stakes is always top pair, 2 pair, set. Guys are very very rarely semi-bluffing or turning hands into bluffs at these levels. The only way I could ever even consider bet 3 betting this flops is if I had seen Villian raise fold flop in a previous hand or session. Plus fold equity is SO low here as well if we 3 bet. Turn and river is up for debate..I think you can go a few different directions there.
"The only way I could ever even consider bet 3 betting this flops is if I had seen Villian raise fold flop in a previous hand or session"
And a great way to find that out is...
Chris, I think your reasoning is very common in poker these days, and any common strategy is inherently flawed. You're limiting yourself if you assume that villains are very rarely bluffing at X stake in Y situation, or for Z sizing. That is simply not true. The best players at every stake (even 1/2 live) will always be looking for good bluffing opportunities, especially if they suspect most players are thinking in the way you describe. You will also see some random play from otherwise decent players at any stake I've played (up to 5/10 live and 2/4 online). Until you have specific history (ideally showdowns seen) or another reason to categorize a player, it is costing you money to assume they play a certain way.
Skill I understand what you're saying but I've played live low stakes poker in 1/2 and 2/5 settings for 5 years and I've very rarely seen a click back raise on this type of a board without it being top pair, 2 pair, set. There just aren't enough thinking players (at least in my games) to exploit that type of thinking. And this is why you should be flatting in this spot. As mentioned to James, I would have to have specifically seen this player raise/fold in this type of a situation to MAYBE consider a 3 bet. (And I still would probably just flat here. James response doesn't make much sense just because he wants me to find out if this type of player is capable of doing that? -EV all day. Honestly not trying to troll James, you have solid content but just trying to chime in where I believe there are flaws. Especially in reviewed hands of live low stakes settings.
It's all good. I just think too many people make the assumption this range is only nutted, over-fold to it, and end up with almost zero samples to confirm their original fearful assumption. Our brains are prewired to remember all the bad things that happen, but never seem to remember when we 3bet the flop and V folds (thus confirming V doesn't JUST have the nuts when they raise)
Chris Yeah, I feel you, and I would generally agree that my experience of $1/2 and $2/5 is similar. I hope my reply did not seem aggressive/condescending in any way, that was not my intention but after re-reading it I can see how it might read that way. I definitely don't want to discourage constructive criticism and/or debate about any poker content, especially James's videos, as they are among my favorites. I think we all get better by considering things from as many angles as possible. Cheers mate!
Does this play better as a checkraise on the flop?
I would only check raise the flop with a flush and straight draw
that's funny cuz the very first thing I thought of before you even started talking about the hand was why is he only playing 300
Something people seem to get very wrong is they run a calculation or just reason it out and they find that a raise or even jam would certainly be profitable and so they think it’s good.
The problem is, if you only look at the EV of the shove, what are you comparing it to? Tossing your hand into the muck?
Why?
We should be comparing it to the EV of the call.
I doubt the shove is higher EV than call given our pot odds, equity, and implied odds.
I think this is a fairly obvious call.
I think knowing what the necessary BE looks like on a shove frames the discussion. We could certainly CREV solve this, but I didn't want to make this an hour long video =)
my analysis on this sais that the guy definetely had a 10. Well shoving on flop you create negative pot odds compairing to your outs...You risk 261 to get 117 which is worst than 1: 2,23 pot odds for 3:1 odds for outs. Makes no math sense. Calling instead would have given you 3,65:1 pot odds for 3:1 odds for outs which constitutes an auto call. The guy checked the turn because he understood that hero had 79. In this point the hero should shove and make him fold
Love the info, disagree with the way it was played after the flop. Even after the flop, I might check raise just to see where he's at, but I think if it's a only a call to his raise on the flop, the main thing going through LAG's head is probably he's on a draw. Once that 6 hits you have to bet, maybe even shove. Given your circumstances you are probably going to be all in either way on the river. Short stacked, already most of your money in the pot, and you have the nut straight. You kind of put yourself in a position that is almost impossible to get out of anyway, you might as well shove on the turn and maybe he folds. I just don't think shoving after the river hits, and that ten hits is a smart, responsible move, let alone a move that you want to get accustomed to using.
I completely agree that hero should have considered a much more aggressive line throughout the hand, either on the flop or turn.
I don't think hero ever needs to shove the flop particularly often unless Villain has somehow hit top set. I do think Villain could certainly have plenty of T8s and J9s that calls a raise (possibly a 79s despite us blocking it), as would pocket 2s and a lot of underpairs to the ten. Pocket 8s could go either way; sometimes flatting to induce or going for a 3-bet for value. Either way, the raise would significantly narrow Villain's range to a lot of value or airball bluffs.
Donking the turn based on the flop call would be a great way to try and squeeze a little value out of Villain - the only hands that 6 helps are 97s [4 combos], pocket 6s [3 combos], and possibly a backdoor nut flush like ATs+ [5 combos] - and Villain would likely put Hero on a bluff and again raise. This would be a perfect spot to shove over the top. Alternatively, donk-shoving is another option, and likely gets all but TT, 88, and 97s to fold - making this hugely profitable!
James, I like your thinking of the river of exploring the creative river donk - it extracts value from things like TX, 8X, and some busted draws playing for showdown value (QJ/ Q9), whilst also allowing Villain to spazz out and attempt to bluff raise. Considering there are only 5 combos of super-nutted hands that beat Hero (TT, 88, and T8s), I completely agree that any betting is profitable, and inducing a shove is doubly so.
Great hand review, as always!
i mean the small raise on the flop really looks like set or two pair who really wanna get called
How the heck does villain check turn here it makes no sense. Unless he knew you had exactly 97
Hero made a huge mistake checking the turn as well. He has the best hand and even if Villian has 2 pair or a Set you might get him to a decision by betting back into him after you hit straight.
@@2cardarsenal310 I think the hero's decision was influenced by an inadequate read on the villain. If the villain was a true Lag who raised on the flop then he would almost always continue when checked to on the turn. The problem with this hand is that the villain does not appear to actually be a lag. Lags are notorious for being very difficult to read, but the villain played this hand almost completely face up. Flatted a raise in position with a suited 1 gapper. Raised the flop with top 2, checked a mildly scary turn, and finally value bet the river after improving to a full house.
Why wouldn't it make sense ?!
He's obviously setting a trap. Even if he is a LAG, it doesn't mean he's an idiot, they can also use traps to extract more chips/$ out of their opponents.
why are the pot odds at 21% post-flop? it's $32 to fill up in a $117 no? isn't that more like 27%?
So just for my understanding.....are you basically saying that with a straight draw, rainbow flop, we should be willing to commit all our chips at that stage and 3 bet and even go for it all if reraised again?
I do better starting off short stack it gives my aggrrssive image because i can go all in a few times. Once tripled up i have a big stack i dont mind losing and i pissed some people off.
If s1 re raises a raise it usually means they have something good & want chips in... He coul easily have 2 pair or trips.. I wouldn't shove against somebody who is already reraising me... In most cases, especially with the smaller stack/commitment, they are going to call... Maybe a huge bully stack could ve bluffing/feeling but I would never play based on assumption.. I would snap call & hope to see the other cards cheap... Otherwise fold
Does anyone where find the check-check on the turn super weird?
What's weird is there was no discussion about it in the video.
How do you reckon a flop 3bet has higher EV than a call? Like yeah sure you can prove it’s +EV to 3bet, but how can you be so sure it’s better?
Thats not possible to prove, and James dont even say, its always best. He just encourage people to at least consider the possibility and point out the disadvantages of calling with a draw out of position. You might face a bet on the turn, which is to large to call, and when you hit, its difficult to get paid.
It all depends on the range, you assign to Villain, and how he will react with that range. If you think, he is messing around with a lot of nonsense because of his sizing, and will fold it to a shove, it’s a great play to pile it back in his face. In this case it turned out, Villain was not messing around but was actually very strong, but there was no way to know that from the description, Hero gave.
He literally says "I think it's gonna be more profitable for hero to come over the top". He doesn't go into why a call is less profitable. Don't get me wrong, I would look for a 3-bet too, but James doesn't really explain why it's better than just calling. He just mentions reasons (and shows) why a 3-bet would be profitable.
I just didn't want to turn this into an hour long video with CREV solves. Calling is clearly +EV, but I think it's going to be a 1-card draw more often than not and I think shoving nets a greater profit + has dynamic ramifications that favor you as the OOP player.
James (SplitSuit) cheers to that!
i really need some help reviewing hands, where's a good spot?
Here you go! forum.redchippoker.com/
@@splitsuit Thanks. OK if i dump a bunch of hands there?
@@trick29420 Sure. Just be sure to reply to other threads too, as you tend to "get out what you put in" toforums =)
@@splitsuit yes i have begun exploring the forums. lots of helpful feedback already. will be a regular there. appreciate it.
@@trick29420 cheers!
You don't mention anything about the 7-9s open. Do you think you should open this from this spot? I wouldn't myself but if thats a mistake I would like to know.
Playing this short I wouldn't advise it either. Not terrible though, defs an open from the btn/co. HJ is iffy
I don't love it given stack depth + the likely chance of being OOP if we get action.
so you'd just limp?
B. Alvn i would fold.
I wouldn't even open it at 100bb deep from HJ, people call a lot in live games and you prefer having stronger hands on the HJ to crush CO's and BTN's ranges.
I always play my straight draws fast. Semi bluff and puts money into the pot when you hit your draw
in long run its not profitable, most of the times, you would miss your draw. of course, it also matters what's your oponent holding and who he/she is.
Harry Singh Not profitable relative to the exact hand, but by showing strength your opponent can put you on stronger holdings such as sets, 2 Pair top pair etc. If they are able to devise that you have exactly a straight draw then you still have outs or can easily fold turn if necessary
@@danielmckinnon6963 these days no body folds a pair specially after flop. after watching this video i tried to implement this stragey twice, both times I was beaten :P
Why isn’t hero betting the turn? Also I hate the river shove because what is villain calling with that you’re beating? Is villain really gonna bet then call a jam with ATs?? You’re jamming to get called but really what’s calling you that you’re beating?
Why is he raising preflop?
It's funny that he uses the villains small sizing as reason to shove over the top and then he recommends that we should make a small river bet to get the villain to shove over the top.
Couldn't the villain have the same mindset? Making a small reraise with his set to induce us?
The small reraise is definitely not standard I dont think you can make accurate assumptions about his range
He is never doing that as a bluff in my opinion.
Flop raise with a 2 pair. Why not? First and second top pair. Even against a tight player who probably played pocket pairs above 9. That last 10 and an aggressive bet after a check on the turn would instantly send that full house chill up my back
I think i dont understand the probability thought here. Looking at the whole hand: weak preflop, agressive flop raise, then check raise by player in first position (i think that right there would encourage a turn check), check on turn, then aggro raise on paired river card would bring full house to mind. I think a bet on the turn could have helped. More than likely caused a fold, but hard to do in first position really. I mean i see that probability didnt work perfectly since villian had the nuts post river. Ahhh this is buggin my mind!! I couldnt have thought the way hero was thinking. I think you guys are above me
Donk turn, its 2/5 live
Certainly a viable option Lauty!
I agree extract value and protect your hand. Make him pay for that card. You should not be worried about making him fold at that point. Flush draw came out and still can have a set. He catches the river after paying for an all-in double pot bet you made him make a bad call then. That’s all you can do it’s out your hands at that point.
I think it still plays out the same. He's never really gonna lay these cards down. Just as Hero is not laying a straight down.
Can't really label Villian as a LAG when Hero raising the same range preflop. I'm not opposed to check-flatting flop amd maybe save us from being in a position to shove and if a shove occurs then it would occur on the turn and Villian sucks out. I would feel better myself if I got it in on the turn rather than check shoving after the board pairs. I'm probably a TAG though. I think the hand plays out the same regardless. Cheers.
yeah but at the end of the day it all comes down to luck right?
It's bad to see turn for free?
I popped in here because I was just calculating a line for specific ranges and decided that in this scenario, it's more beneficial to raise or reraise than to call more often than not. I wanted the input of other players so here I am.
My scenario is a bit different. In my proposed hand, there's already a high card on the flop (queen) and we've got 90-150bb. 2 or 3 handed. Villain isn't a big bluffer and plays pretty straightforwardly. Do we raise or call?
My thought process is that we can afford to fold in the case of a bad turn or if villain comes over the top, but our shove will force the opponent to reveal whether they've likely made top-pair at this time or are holding on to something bigger like higher pocket pair, two pair, set, etc.
If we call, we keep the pot lower for less investment and less potential loss, but we pass up the opportunity to increase our value, gain additional hand information, or straight up buy the pot.
Obviously I wouldn't recommend pulling the trigger on something like this if we're short stacked, but assuming we aren't, am I good on my decision?
Edit: I actually think that if you're up against a LAG player, and ESPECIALLY if you're short stacked, exercising pot control is your best bet. And I don't mean in terms of value, I mean in an overall sense of reason and stack protection. Sure if you're the chip leader and they're at a quarter of your stack or less, go ahead and pull the trigger. But of course this all could vary drastically based on external information such as betting tendencies and even your understanding of their perception of you. I could be wildly off but this is how I think about the game. After all, I'm here to learn in the first place.
Play it like you have the straight already or else you will look like a busted draw every time it don’t hit.
1.35 why he bet?
I don’t agree with the flop analysis AT ALL!! I’m thinking that raise from villain on the flop is nothingness than a strong second pair. What would you have when raising? The strongest made hand is trips and he’d really only be dominated by top set and that is so rare that he’d have to call. I doubt he’s raising to fold to a shove at least 40% of the time
I fold on the flop after villain raises- I win.
It was a LAG for sure, else he wouldn’t checked the turn.. a REG won’t ever put an initial aggressor on 97 but overs or over pair!
I think flat is the correct play. Not just because you want your opponent to fold, but also because you have to consider what you would've done with nuttish hands yourself. Would you realisticly come over the top with a shove when you have a set in this case? Don't think so. If LAG can figure out you're always making big raises with draws, and not with nuttish hands you're going to be burning money a lot.
I am talking about the flop if that wasn't clear
The limited number of monster hands applies to hero as well. That said, overpairs and hands like AT can also be treated as monster hands, which adds a heap of extra strong hands that can be added to a b/3bet or b/call bucket.
If you just call with a set out of position, you have to check the turn, and if Villain check back, you have lost any chance of getting stacks inside. So yes for sure I would always 3-bet a set out of position on a texture like this.
fundiver198 I don't agree. By calling you keep his bluffs in the hand which he'll just fold if you 3bet. Besides that, I think he'll almost bet the turn if he checkraises the flop
His bluffs are hands like the one, Hero had, so they have equity. They will call a 3-bet, and if you flat, he will not put any more money in the pot, unless he makes his hand and have you beat. No even half decent player is raising you with A5 of spades or pocket 3´s.
You dont have to jam the flop with a set, but raise it up to something like 120 and put the rest in on the turn. I promise you, you will win a ton more money that way than by always playing as passively as humanly possible. Just try it :-)
It's a fold for me unless the 8/2 were both spades
Pls in a short anyone: Is the answer yes/no/it depends?
I really REALLY don’t like checking turn. Why? You are OOP. The practical min raise on the flop is classic to set their price on a marginal 10 or marginal draw. Personally, I like repopping on the flop often. Should I flat & gin the turn, I’m leading for 40% (as played & with given stacks) then River is easy shove & a much much easier call. You will be called be sooooo much.
I wish you would show who wins
It is really REALLY bad to raise the flop there with 8x, isn't it?
I would probably check call, and raise the turn. If you still want to raise I would probably do it smaller since there is a lot of 10-x in this case and I would expect a reraise bluff or reraise for value. AND you are out of position, which I usually like to check against most players on the flop.
LAGs like to LAG =)
M Climax I was actually talking about the suspected villain's play.
James (SplitSuit) True, but isn't this a bit of an underestimation? The fact that we labeled the villain as a lag doesn't mean we should go crazy assigning them ridiculous ranges I think.
James (SplitSuit) I'd actually say that we're running the risk of the LAG having a lot of J9, Q9 or QJ, which if he somehow finds a call (or a re-raise) with, we are crushed.
If I had two pair id call that 3 bet. I know I wouldnt have 2 pair all the time.
total shove should be 285
Why?
Exactly
I disagree with the way the hand was played. He should have shoved, or at least bet, on the turn. Why even try to slow play this guy? If he's a fish and trying to Bluff he's either going to raise your bets or he's going to call them. By checking on the turn hero gave fish a free card. It might be just my opinion, but every time I give a free card... I lose because I should have bet with my made hand and I didn't. Also, I seem to find Min raises represent very strong hands especially from fishy players. If you put this fish on a set or two pair (I did), then you should have definitely shoved the turn to imply you hit your straight and it would cause them to back out and that river card would have never came out. I'm surprised splitsuit didn't really talk about the turn and he went straight to the river.
Hey you lost all of your stack but you are still a winner. lol
I can hardly even pick 11 bluffs/raising hands at that size otf mate. We block many if not most of them too. Gonna have to disagree.
I don't think we should have a 3bet range here. On our strong hands, we fold out many hands they could call with and there aren't enough bluffs we could have too.
That's totally fair. I showed the framework, and each player will plug in their own assumptions =)
Don't you think checking the flop would have been a better option here ? It enables you to see a cheaper turn.
And I don't like the river shove, I think you only get called by a full house here. By then there's only one combo of T8s left so I'd be putting villain on 88, but the end result is the same.
i think you should go for a check raise here (on the flop)
phil Hellmuth Then you get re-raised, and what ?
you were the preflop raiser. you want to c-bet and and represent hands like JJ-AA, and stuff like that. when you are the preflop raiser, you have a stronger range on this flop. when you check, what are you saying you have? 97? AK? AQ? If you're raising preflop with 97s, this is a board you should be c-betting. also on the river, i like a lead myself and calling off if he shoves. I don't think only full houses are calling you. as played, all Ts should be calling as well as some 8x and overpairs. If you're the villian and only calling with full houses in this spot, you're overfolding.
What other hands are you planning to check/call with? Does it matter what you rep here? Is the value of CBing and getting a direct fold on the flop more valuable than taking the passive line?
Just the kind of questions you want to ask and answer here...
James (SplitSuit) I would also check an over pair, and betting only Tx.
If the LAG is Asian ALWAYS 3-bet the flop with draws and over pairs.
Mmmmm so generalsed
Well if I were the hero I would just probably call the raise on the river. Simply put you must think what combos out there that had you beat. You can see that there is a pair on the board so most naturally you should think that there is a full house that got there on the river. I mean it could have save you like a 100$ rather than losing all your stack right.
Doyle Brunson would've destroyed that straight lol
does anyone else think that late position open is too small?
It depends, how the game play. In modern online games people actually mostly go even smaller these days.
good point. but i think i'd go in the 18-22 range since picking up the blinds would be a fine outcome, as well as increase the chance of playing the hand in position postflop (i.e. of "buying the button")...
Again it depend how the game play. If you never pick up the blinds or get the BB heads up to yourself by going 3X, you probably should not open this hand at all. And certainly not when you only start the hand with 67 BB.
This is a stupid post flop analysis. Sorry for negative comment. It would be dumb to 3 bet the raise on the flop. Committing your stack to a draw.
It’s a 4 bet shove not 3 bet , you keep saying in the video 3 bet but it’s 4 bet lol
The $24 cbet is the first bet, the LAGs raise to $56 is the second, and if hero were to re-raise the correct nomenclature is a 3bet since it's the third bet postflop. A good rule of thumb is that a 3bet is always the FIRST re-raise preflop or postflop.
James (SplitSuit) if you open preflop and someone reraises you it’s called a 3 bet , watch any live coverage of a poker tournament or cash game
@@boojay7076 You are correct. Like I said, the rule of thumb is the FIRST re-raise is a 3bet. But you are confusing its usage postflop.
@@splitsuit Your actually wrong if someone opens preflop and you reraise them it's called a 3bet then if someone reraises you its a 4bet. All huds and commentaries show this. You are delusional.
Boo Jay for the last time, you are correct about PREFLOP. But you are incorrect about that usage POSTFLOP.
It's "you and me," not "you and I" at the beginning. Sheesh! Where'd you not learn your English?
If you are such a good poker player why go through the trouble of selling a course? You make enough money with poker right ? Why sharing the stuff that would potentially make the people out there tougher opponents?
because more money > less money
If you dont have anything usefull to say, why not just keep quiet?
Are you saying that a coach not being worth the price he charges is "not useful" information?
An empty claim, this might be the case, without anything to back it up, is useless.
Because I like helping people improve & expand their thought process.