Avoid These Poker Mistakes and Play With Confidence
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video, we'll discuss how playing scared will limit your winrate, and how you can avoid these mistakes in order to play with more confidence and win more poker games.
If you're looking to improve your poker game, then you need to watch this video! We'll discuss how to play poker with more confidence and avoid playing scared. By following these tips, you'll be able to play better poker!
0:00 - Intro
1:38 - Preflop
4:25 - Important Question on Dark Checking
5:31 - Flop
7:10 - Turn
11:01 - River
13:41 - Important River concept facing a raise
16:43 - Hero Decision
16:50 - Reveal
To submit a hand for consideration for the call-in show read instructions here: crushlivepoker.com/support#fa....
If you want to improve your live win-rate checkout the best training site for NL cash games in the business, Crush Live Poker: bit.ly/3JGJjY4.
Join the CLP Discord community and follow our socials:
► / discord
► / crushlivepoker
► / crushlivepoker
► / crushlivepoker - เกม
1. Do you think that 66 call a river 3 bet jam from a “mid 60s guy” in Reno?
2. How do you feel about Bart’s take on checking in the dark from the SB in bomb pot hands?
Never thought about checking in the dark from the SB in bomb pots, think it has merit against reasonable players, however at the average one in Florida I'd rather keep my options open because so many people are clueless and will stack off light/call with a bad draw even with everyone else behind, plus not enough people reliably bet their value/draws so it's possible action would check through, would lead small with something like AK on AAK and 875 two tone to get value and build a pot with at least some people that are drawing thin/dead on both boards.
He calls 900 - 1100 not an all in
The question of checking dark from SB is contingent on how aggressive the other players have been. If it's a super tight table I'm not doing it, splashy then there's no reason not to. The caller is an omc nit so him raising on the flop is pretty transparent anyway.
@rp, we don't know anything about the 66 dude as to how much of a station he is, what his opinion is of the nit caller etc.. There are players who see any FH as a royal and unbeatable and would never fold. We just don't know enough about the guy.
@@Nikkithedog-t6b he sounds like he is a chicken mock nit the way he was talking and I understand the way he was talking he was just calling the river and most likely folding if he didn’t boat up on the river but that is the first hand I go to is 66 and maybe even 76. He left so much money on the table. The villain has to call 900-1100 raise on the river
This is the clash of the tight old players old men with coffee lol
Really sums it up
These dumb little bet amounts and the theories behind them costed this guy a ton of value.
Inevitably yes, but it would have saved him a bunch had he not sucked out so being the nit only was bad when the jack fell.
Well no the nit thing is pretty bad all around I'm just talking about the reality of this one hand and not general play.
That's what th3de super tight players do..... they don't pile it in or even go for good value unless the have the literal nuts.
If you ever identify that you're playing against someone like this, you should ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS, buy in to cover them.
They'll never put pressure on you, and you can steal so much money from them.
Whoever is doing your thumbnails, needs a raise. These are good!
This is what happens when low-stakes people are conditioned to think that their "bluffs never work." Their betting patterns start to focus solely on trying to extract "guaranteed" value but the issue is that:
a) They never bet a size that allows them to bluff.
b) They never get max value from their made hands.
c) They never take lines that can work both as bluffs and as value hands.
Bluffs do totally work in low-stakes, but people really don't pick their spots well at all. And the gentleman on the call today never really thinks about betting with the mindset of "what can I bet in a way that allows me with a bluff." Like, if the other player has a King, this is a trivially easy call down, and yes, they lose to this exact holding, but like, they are't going to sweat it at all because it literally was just 10 BBs lost. You want to be putting the other player is tough positions where a King has no idea whether they should call or fold, because that is where the mistakes that make you money are.
Bart is right on the money here as always. Check-raising is the best strategy here, because almost every King is betting the turn to cleanup equity and check-raises have a bunch of good bluffing and value opportunities.
Wow beautifully summarised. Was thinking if people are folding 66 to a 3bet raise then just raise bluff a bunch of hands.
Imo it´s a just a mindset issue because losing is so painful to a lot of people on more ways than just the money aspect, they feel embarassed for getting caught bluffing, if you get "coolered" or get outdrawn you can always blame it on luck, etc...
This leads to this idea that you don´t bluff in live poker, and you dont bluff in low stakes, because people are too loose, and never fold.
It´s not true at all, as you said, just have to pick your spots.
What IS true, is, that in fishy holdem games like this, people are way too loose, call much too wide, etc
What people somehow dont realize, is that ,by definition, this also means calling way too wide before the river and arrive on the river with too much shit. If player A plays 50% of his hands, he arrives with an incredibly weak range on the flop. There, he will continue with every piece, including bottom pair, gut shots... OTT, same dilemma, if he calls way too wide, he still will continue with every draw, every weak pair, which mathematically means that on the river, player A, starting with his shit ass weak range, still has WAY too many shitty hands. Usually he checks, you can bet big, and he realizes, bottom pair is not worth 200 bucks and folds. If he calls, you are this brainless maniac and get called much lighter in the future.
every decent player has a positive redline, no matter the stakes. I cant be the only one who bluffed his way out of the micros. I still think even in 2023 you could redline your way from micros to midstakes if it wasnt for rake.
@@MCFoultier what the hell is redline?
@@jamiealexander7065 non Showdown winnings
The caller played in poker vlogger Ben Deach's normal game @ the Peppermill. I wonder which characters he played with there when this happened.
Great call. I like Bart's click it back but fold if raised on the river play. I honestly hadn't considered that, but I really like it.
What if after he 3bet the villain went all in with 66 which is very likely? What if he went crazy with just trip 7's?
Its a tough spot but I dont think that I could fold. I think we also have the best hand most of the times to justify calling.
Unless you knew the guy would never go all in without kings full...
We _always_ played one blind in our private games in Connecticut. But we had antes. Sort of inherited the structure from our NL 2-7 Lowball and NL Draw games when we started playing Holdem.
it would be interesting to hear how bart would have recomended the player with the pocket sixes play his hand
[Pretending I'm Bart]: Bet 1/4-1/3 pot on flop. Bet 2/3 or full pot on turn. Over-bet pot on river. Shrug and say villain is an idiot for calling with J7 in the BB, and not raising hero's bet on the flop. File it away for future hands against that opponent.
1. Do you think that 66 call a river 3 bet jam from a “mid 60s guy” in Reno?
2. How do you feel about Bart’s take on checking in the dark from the SB in bomb pot hands?
Once the villain raises river 66 is so so so so much more likely than any other higher full house's. I'd have been shocked to see anything other than 66, AA. "Tight" OMCs are not critically analyzing what their opponent has, and only will raise for value at the end when they either know they have the best hand or haven't won the amount of money that they feel they are morally entitled to win. This is why AA might raise the river but KJ or AK or whatever will be "satisfied with the size of the pot" 66 is just so consistent with how these people play I don't get why we were discounting it. An old caller called the villain "tight" He isn't raising 7x UTG and he isn't checking over-pairs on the flop. He got 4 callers that's "enough money" for all his over-pairs and he isn't' gonna risk getting "sucked out". They check100 flopped FH's because they "never get action" when they "actually have a good hand" and are absolutely petrified of their opponents folding when they "flop the nuts". They think you build pots by checking. I am very good friends with a lot of recs and we really need to work harder to understand their paralogic. They think the point of betting is to get people to fold so they don't get "sucked out" and they believe they build pots by checking and "letting you bet" lol the caller himself who is also a rec even confirmed it. "ya know when I saw the 66 I got it, he didn't bet the flop because he didn't need to!" Bart looked so perplexed by this ridiculous statement but they literally all think this way.
In summary, the villian's range is heavily weighted towards 66, with an occasional AA as sometimes people just play this weird for emotional reasons and would have wanted to make up for lost value on river, stuff like KJ random bluffs 3rd, KK and JJ never.
To me flatting turn is the much weirder play from 66 than checking flop.
After river raise I'd give villain a lot of AK and some AA KJhh and very little KK JJ 66 + maybe a handful of bluffs we don't super care about.
Holy shit I wish I could like this more than once. [slow clap] That is the best summary of OMC logic I have ever seen. They love to slow-play, never semi-bluff with their draws, never like putting money in without the nuts. I might be worried about KK, JJ, or K7 with some recs, but not the OMC. I'd think the OMC would raise turn with AA, so it really does look like 66 when he raises river, to get that missed value.
Actually, I'm somewhat surprised OMC in UTG opened pre with 66. That's a wild-man move for most OMC's. Must have had an extra cup of joe and been all hopped up on the caffeine for that one. Then again - he opened 3x. Maybe that's the clue to a smaller pair. AA, he goes 4x maybe.
@@qazzaqstan I agree this is where most people will finally give in and try to raise for some value, especially if they recognize that another K on the river would wreck their hand. This would be the best argument someone could probably make for the villain having KK because these people always need to slowplay one street when they spike, it's in their bible or something.... but at the end of the day the double slowyplay with 66 is way way more likely than them checking the flop 4-handed with "ace magnets" He probably was still orgasming over his FH and "put his opponent on a Kx or a FD" because they bet the turn, and that's what came out on the turn. For a lot of them this is the green light to continue slowplaying because they beat the flush. Some of the more paranoid ones may raise because they are afraid of the 2 outer King on the river. I'm sure this particular villian was willing to take that small risk to allow the caller to "hit his flush" and for all the money to magically get all in on the river somehow. What i 100% guarantee though is if the villian had 7x somehow he ALWAYS raises this turn.
@@1vailchris agreed this was the most non-omcish rec move of the hand. But he is playing 5-10, most of them have probably learned at that level they can't limp hands, perhaps 66 is at the bottom of his range before he tosses away. Loose for thier standards, but again gotta be way way way more likely than them checking KK or JJ on such a flop. The whole purpose of these hands for them is to get callers preflops , flop undercards, and bet with the best hand. People who think an ace comes out "100% of the time" when they have KK will never tempt that fate.
Love this call for a number of reasons, the first is the caller seems completely unaware that him calling another player tight seems oblivious to how others see him..and that is nit tight. You danced around the point that his omc betting pattern is an open invitation to raise his river bet although I disagree that this guy reraising the river would bring a crying call from AK or AA from anybody but a fish station. He absolutely must raise and since it's then so transparent that he has a monster to even AA and AK no matter how much he raises....why not. He's not folding to a re-shove anyway. The reason I like this call is your channel is sooooo math heavy and ignores psychology and determined behavior that this call is different than most.
Yeah, if this caller played the flop, turn how most of us here at CLP would, we'd had to fold to a turn shove from this boat. Instead, OMC stuck around and at least won the pot.
Slow playing 66 was the first thing that came into my head when he raised the river. Seems such a classic old man nit move to check call raise a flopped boat
Ive noticed that when analyzing a poker hand you can almost make a case, three or four different ways, on how to play it "correctly". Imo, when good/profitable players do well, there is an "it" factor, possibly subconscious clues they are picking up on that ultimately cause them to do welll. And this understanding can only come through hundreds of thousands of hands and experience.
Underrated comment one of the best quotes I’ve ever heard from someone I played with is “there’s a difference between understanding something and actually knowing how to apply it” when you’re actually playing it’s not like you have 10min ea hand to analyze every little detail like a hand review, you literally have to be able to take everything you’ve studied and experienced and make a decision within a minute or two if you’re lucky almost like muscle memory. Goes back to how just because you’re a good coach doesn’t mean you’re a good player and vice versa
@@miketang8719 😎👍
This wasn't discussed, but my instinct on the river would be to bet $400-$450 to put any K in a miserable spot. Granted I have a different table image from hero and I get that table image in part by playing turn differently.
It's fair to note here on the flop with his trips that the third card is an under to his trips. So another 6 here would almost always be good for him. Where a 8 or higher leaves a bit of openness to it being very bad to it to pair. I thought 66 on the turn almost instantly.
Would love to play this caller lol
You betcha lol.
I know this was painful
Lol KK, AA, QQ would c-bet most of the time common haha really tough to put him on that ..
450th like, 115th comment thanks for the knowledge Bart
I’m jamming after the villain raises. Odds are he doesn’t have Jacks full and the only other hand that made sense was 6’s full. I jam
If I was in that game and had the Rock, whenever I was at showdown and call the villain, I would ask them
“What do you got?”
And soon as they made a sound that’s when I would stand up as I slam my cards on the table face up and yell
“IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT YOU HAVE!!”
PSA: dont check in the dark, people. like ever. theres just no reason to let your opponents know you dont have a leading range in a certain spot. act exactly the same every time when youre first to act with no leading range: pause. look at the flop for exactly 5 seconds. check using the exact same motion you always use. internalize this process.
Real question, aren't there plenty of positions where you actually do not have a leading range? Like...a ton of them? "This is a situation where I check my entire range" is a pretty common statement.
How is checking in the dark any different at all?
@@sleepytattoos I think the point is being systematic and never, ever giving your opponent information before you have to give it up. However, exploitive play its 100% creative and changes in every single situation.
@@Dexerion I'm saying there a *many* solver situations where you check your entire range when acting first. So how is checking in the dark any different than "I check my entire range"?
I think it’s totally fine to check in the dark, fine to donk, fine to look and chexk, fine to bet dark, no limit Holdem , no rules Holdem
@@sleepytattoos umm...because your opponents dont actually know that you never have a leading range in a particular spot. unless you check in the dark.
I have seen a thing lately that happens quite often where players slowplay aces all the way to the river and then raise; regardless of what is on the board. It could be 5 6 K 8 9 with 3 diamonds and they'll raise 2 black aces. I keep seeing it happen again and again.
the turn brings in a lot of Kx and draws. The better to check raise them.
I think Bart makes an absolutely excellent point here that you DON'T click back the river and just call if you cannot fold to a jam. Just learning to bet fold is hard, learning to three bet fold on the river is very hard. In the moment you do everything you can to convince yourself to call, and laying down the boat you just rivered is extremely difficult.
I agree but this is also a 5/10 game if you are going to just flat a full house with only 3 logical combos of hands that beat you then you’re a nit and these games can eat you up
doesn't the small full house need protection from the start?
Bart 💯 asks the right question if he jams over you what are you going to do?? If the answer is fold... I think this is a call...because now you are just exploitable and will start seeing more river jams that you fold to without the nuts
Nah that's one of the worst full houses. Guys just aren't bluffing in that spot. He may have value owned himself tho.
These two slow-played the #$%^&* out of each other.
Changing the rules like this is really cool to make the game "solver" proof, but i doubt it matter at these stakes.
so you want to play in a game where nobody knows WTH is going on including you
I think you can still use game theory concepts to figure it out. For example the forced bet from the player that won the previous pot means that a lot of your zero EV hands are now -EV b/c you are forced to put the bet in on the next hand. So UTG 6max may look something like AKs-ATs A5s, KTs+, QJs+, (JTs, T9s 98s) 50% open AJo+, KQo+ 88+
I would have raised that river for sure. Can't be worried about monsters under the bed. He could have AA, AK, 67 66 heck I've seen people raise call with hands as weak as AJ.
Dark checking is a bad habit to get into. Generally I only ever do it when I have a hand that I know that I'll be check-folding or check-raising; like small pairs. This is a terrible hand to do it with. What if the flop comes J 7 6 two hearts, and it checks around? Now an 8 hits the turn. Where are you at?
If the villain has 66 in his opening range, I'd say that he also has KJ in his opening range, and that he could play KJ exactly this way, and turn it into a 4 bet bluff on the river when he blocks a lot of full houses.
I wouldn't bet just 60 on the river. But if I did, I would probably 3 bet the river and call it off if he four bets. I know he's not four betting 76 for value on the river, but I think he's got KJ often enough that I could call with J7. I don't think he's calling JJ on the turn with 3 people behind, and there's only one combo of JJ anyways. So it's basically 3 combos of KK for value, and 6 combos of KJ as bluffs. I don't know how often KK or KJ play this way, but I think it's close enough that I'd call it off on the river. I think when the hero bets just 60 on the river, KJ can actually be raising for value. And then when it gets 3 bet, KJ is the perfect hand to turn into a 4 bet bluff.
However, if I bet larger on the river (like 120-200), and I got raised, I don't think that I would 3 bet hoping to get called by 76 or 66. I'd probably just bet call if I bet a more reasonable amount.
Am I wrong for thinking that if I bet just 60 on the river, that I should 3 bet and then call it off if he shoves?
I said above that if you bet small on turn, then this small (1/4 pot) on river, it looks so weak that you have to 3-bet if you get raised, because I'd only bet that small if I was trying to induce. It didn't occur to me to think about what I'd do if I got 4-bet jammed on here. The more I look at this, OMC vs OMC, the less I know what hero should do when he gets raised. I think it's better to just bet bigger for value on the river, and call any reasonably-sized raise. If you 3-bet and get 4-bet, it's gross, because hero doesn't have very many hands he could be overplaying, when he flatted pre from the BB.
What range is hero giving villain, and vice-versa? Small bets on turn and river seem like they're either pure value begging to get called, or weak hands praying for a fold. As played, villain might think hero has 7x, like A7, or KJ, because it looks to hero like villain is weighted towards top pairs and overpairs.
Villain might have slow-played KK on the flop, though that seems unlikely. But so does an OMC opening 66 or KJ UTG. I'd be more likely to give villain credit for a slow-played KK on the flop than a preflop raise with 66 or KJ. If I was villain, I'd be putting hero on KJ or A7 before J7 or K7. As played, villain should think he's ahead, and hero should be somewhat concerned he's beat. Seems like both opponents were trying to be too tricky with their hands, and both lost value as a result.
@@1vailchris Good point about the range that the villain is giving to the hero. The hero shouldn't ever be playing KK or JJ this way preflop, so the villain should be removing those from the hero's range. Somehow I missed that obvious fact.
Because the villain opened 66 UTG, I think we have to give him a wider range than the hero gave him credit for, and to not think of him as a OMC.
When the hero bets so small on the river, the villain can definitely put the hero on KJ or A7 rather than K7 or J7 as you say. But if the hero 3 bets the river after betting so small, would the villain still be putting the hero on KJ or A7? If the hero is 3 betting the river, surely KJ or A7 would be a bluff, even though his first bet was tiny, right?
I'm not sure if the villain was trying to be too tricky. The hero's very unorthodox sizing made this a pretty difficult hand for the villain. The hero was definitely trying to be too tricky, but I think I'll give the villain a pass because it's so hard to play against someone that uses very unorthodox sizing.
@@gabrielrockman So...been discussing this a lot with @jmtavares7. We're both somewhat surprised villain raised 66 UTG pre if he's really an OMC, which makes the hand-reading a little harder for hero. Villain can absolutely remove KK and JJ from hero's range.
If hero 3-bets river, I'm not sure villain could get away from his hand. Villain's only losing to one combo of 77, possibly one combo of 7s6s, one combo of Js7s, and two combos of K7s. It's 4 or 5 combos, max. In the BB, I think hero's got all the A7 and KJ combos, plus some other 7x holdings, like 87. Yeah, 3-betting with them would be over-playing them, but guys do that all the time, especially if hero thinks the OMC villain is possibly over-playing KJ himself, or AA maybe.
The thing is, OMC's don't typically raise UTG with anything, much less small and middling pairs. If villain understands his own image, he shouldn't think hero is going to give him 66 there. And we've been debating if villain checks flop with KK or JJ because the board is paired 7's and there are five players in the pot.
It's all OMC-leveling here. If villain isn't opening 66 in hero's mind, then what does he have that raises river if not KK, JJ, or possibly AA that was slow-played and is now frustration-raising. If hero isn't over-playing A7 or KJ, then what does he have that isn't 7's full or quads?
The check-dark and small turn and river bets by hero make it harder for villain to hand-read, but so does villain's raise UTG pre and check on flop. Villain slow-played flop. Hero slow-played turn and river. Both lost value as a result.
@@1vailchris I think it's obvious that the villain isn't a OMC. I think that the hero either misused the term, or misread the player, or a combination of both.
The hero didn't seem that surprised that the villain showed up here with 66, so my guess is that the hero misused the term OMC, when it's really just an older player that might be slightly tighter than normal, but is far from a OMC.
Never playing J7 suited on the button is 🤯
There is a difference between never playing J7s from the button to never calling an EP open with J7s from the button to not calling J7s multiway against an EP open and a handful of field callers.
@@qazzaqstan Good point. I probably still couldn't help myself though 😂
Kinda feel like this action warrants a 3-bet on river without thought. Even a jam is probably ok - cause yea you get snapped off by JJ, but action doesn't really feel like JJ and almost never KK. So what hands is the villain here with? 66 and A7s for value, and the occasional JJ. Maaaaaaybe A7 finds a fold to a jam, 66 never folding. Maybe it's wrong but I gotta at least make it $750 - and jam if my opponent can't fold trips.
I don't know where people are getting their preflop ranges from when it comes to other players. The villain supposedly only raises KK, AA and AK pre. That's almost never correct. I'd have to see the guy show down QQ after limping or limp-calling more than once to say that he rarely or never raises QQ pre. In any case, there are always seemingly random hands in poker that people can have that you don't account for.
Ooof...not as painful as dude with the straight flush but still..
I check in the dark in sb when im not the pfr in every pot tbh. It throws ppl off so much and sometimes continue it into the turn when i have a gutter/flush draw or flop strong because it normally prints when ppl try and bet me off a "weak" range. Love the take in bomb pots its even more beneficial
You think checking in the dark “throws people off”? Maybe in the sense that they thought you were a decent player and now they’re considering if you’re a whale or not 😂
@@terrysword7739 I think it does throw some people off, just like betting dark will throw some people off, mostly at lower stakes. Most players at low stakes don't understand checking 100% of your range, so a lot of times they'll assume a check dark is a sign of a weak range, and a bet dark is either a wild bluff or a super-strong hand.
That said, I rarely check dark, but I'll sometimes do it when I have a hand that's either going to flop huge or completely whiff, and my opponent is a fish who's going to c-bet close to 100%.
@@1vailchris I was mostly just joking around, but… the check 100 spots you’re talking about are based on the board that comes out.. you can’t possibly know it’s a check 100 spot when you check in the dark though because you haven’t seen the board
If you're going to bet 1/4 pot on this river card, you have to 3-bet if you get raised. That small bet on turn and small bet on river looks so weak that you're going to induce some raises from weaker hands like KJ and AA. If you're not willing to 3-bet, you should just bet bigger and hope to get called.
If you don’t look like an OMC, do you think caller could have gotten away with 3b to 725ish to look like a possible missed flush? You block 77 which means you’re probably never getting jammed on even against KK, but does our $60 lead on river tell him it’s never a bluff.
Don't know about 5-10 in Reno, but at 1/3 in Philly, I see so many insane river plays that I wouldn't be shocked to see someone jam here with KJ, or even AA, thinking they were good, or some busted combo-draw as a bluff. That's why I could never fold 66 or J7 in this spot, even if I get jammed on. If I'm beat by a bigger boat, so be it, but I'm not giving my opponents credit for slow-playing KK, JJ or K7 on the flop.
I don't know about KK not jamming here, even when hero blocks 77. Would have to be a super-nit for someone to think KK isn't good. No one playing low stakes ever believes someone flopped quads when they have a boat.
The bet-sizing by hero looks somewhat polar - either super-strong trying to get value (or induce a spaz raise), or super-weak hoping to get folds. I have friends who will bet rivers super-small, both as a bluff and with the nuts. It's surprising how many opponents over-fold to super-small bet sizes. So many low stakes players have sizing tells - big means bluff, small means value.
That’s the difference between 1-2 and 2-5 though. Theoretically speaking KK should never have a reason to jam because literally the only thing calling it would be 77. Most 2-5 players know this, most 1-2 don’t.
@@jacobbirkenfeld9261 I haven't played 2/5 in years, so I'll defer to your assessment. Still, I get the sense that there are still a lot of bad players at 2/5, who might go nuts with KK there. This is 5-10, so I have no idea what the player pool is like. I think the twist here is that this hand has so many weird things going on - it's OMC vs OMC, both EP, a check dark, checks through, small bet on turn, small bet on river. Even if you're not an OMC, in hero's position, can hero 100% rule out the OMC having KK or JJ? It sounds crazy, but OMC opened pre from UTG. I'd think he has AA, KK or JJ before I think he has 66 there. How many OMC's are opening small-mid pairs UTG? If I was watching this at the table, I wouldn't have been shocked to see AA vs KJ, the way this played out. It's not that 1/2 or 1/3 players don't understand your point about KK vs 77, it's that the SPRs drop off rapidly when the standard open is 5x, especially when so many players buy in short, and so many bet huge just to take the pot down on earlier streets. You see these insane plays from guys who get lost and end up spaz-jamming rivers with top two or worse. In that pool, KK is a reasonable jam against guys who'll overplay hands as bad as A7 here, and will 100% go broke and not lose sleep with 76 or 66. At 1/3, if it's KK vs 77, all the money is going in on the turn, I guarantee.
These Peppermill games with Ben Deach are insufferable. Trash nits vs trash nits
This hand is one of the reasons why the games in Reno are bad. They play with a player pool that slow-plays and their river raising/check-raising bluff percentages are close to 0. There are so many players who only make big bets with the nuts and they don't call big bets because they know the player pool doesn't bluff that much.
Thats like literally everywhere except Texas bub
Do other people skip to about a 1/3rd if way into vid to avoid listening to callers life story ?
And cut to the hand.
Plz no disrespect.J7 is my fav hand.
Definitely can’t lead turn, we’re multi-way and the K doesn’t hit us very often at all. Someone will bet when it’s this multi-way and turn is a K that puts a BDFD out there, and you’ll get more $ in with a x/r. Thank god UTG raised river so he actually got a smidge of value with his boat over boat lol 😆 As played hero’s hand looks really weak given these incredibly small sizings, can probably still min click 3b it OTR tho bc we’re under repped, and only 1 combo of JJ out there, 3 combos of KK. Would suck to get 4b jammed on tho.
This is part of the reason I don’t like the lead tho, puts us in weird situations where we have the betting lead OOP vs an EP opener who is still relatively uncapped (KK isn’t raising turn bc there’s 2 people left to act). X/r turn, B close to pot or even over pot OTR.
This is a sad sad day for poker. John the guy that called in used to be so good for the game, like we actually had a home game that started centering around him and now he’s calling in to get better. Sad
I´m an Omaha player, generally way too loose, easily bored in live games, and overrolled in most games, but wth, even I snap fold this shit pre...
Playing this in omaha is setting yourself up for disaster.
How many CLP subscribers have full house over full house 2k eff in a 5/10 and don't get it all in by the river? This is like the two tightest people in the entire casino both misplaying their hands.
Haha I was just thinking that. The last hand I heard, the pot was at 1.3 at the turn and hero was only open ended with a connected flop of 4, 5, 6.
Lol@ the tight player not betting the flop 5 ways.
well H wasn't ahead till river.
The way he was talking I know he would 🐓 out . How do you not smell the 66 here ?
umm I completely did not expect 66 here. I would have assumed the bulk of their range was AK and AA
@@qazzaqstan the first thing I go to is 66 and if it’s AA or AK then it doesn’t matter because he isn’t calling any raise there
@@rppoker8541 If I think they are never calling a raise with AA I can't 3-bet. I just don't have enough confidence in my ability to range an opponent on more 66 than KK + JJ (+ K7cc granted I'd be shocked if they turned this over).
Sizing because interesting if you think about 60% of their continue range is 66 though.
Caller needs to understand people have to call super wide on a paired board. to say villain call only call with a king or better is just silly. If you are playing some mega nit that only calls with a king or better you can just print money with your bluffs
scared money don't make money. Ultimate OMC calling in
Love the caller and is a great guy it's just funny to me. What a nit
Eh. Going full Zeebo's Theorum here Bart. Dude is almost certainly calling with 66. You think villain puts hero on J7 or K7? Disagree.
This is Ben Deach's game. I know he watches too
Click it to 500
River bet needs to be @ $200 ... Villain will make it $600 then you just call
Does this guy not call every other week at minimum???
People love winning the minimum
😂
You have to call from the blind so you don't look like a nit!
LMAO @ this hand
A perfect example of how to win the absolute minimum 😂
Missed so much value
J 7 is my least favorite hand, and acting dark is never good. You wouldn't do so with a lot of your range, so it ranges you.
What’s a 36 yr old coffee tell ya
Scared poker
if the 6 was an 8 instead... then it would be possible for the Jack on the river to complete a straight... which is always good when you have that beat
and I think if John would have clicked it back, there is at least a chance he would have gotten jammed on and ended up folding
first ♣️
I think most players would 3- bet the river to compensate for opening so small on the flop.
This hand was played so poorly lol
Let me sum up this video. This guy has no business at this limit. He needs to move back down and do some studying...lol
Listening to OMC hand breakdowns are ridiclous
You win at poker by getting max value out of big hands. This was played terribly. It should've went pot, pot on the turn and river. And even if the villain jams, you have to hero call with the third nuts here.
Oh my, that’s an INCREDIBLY poorly played hand.
that’s a sign that he needs to drop down in stakes
what is he scared of??? If you lose u lose...jam river geez.
seth rogen plays scared...
Man this guy is bad...
he is but V may be worse