Really enjoyed the more generalized content lately! Im a tournament player so not much applies to me usually. When you get into these more fundamental topics though I always find it insanely valuable. Thanks man 🥕
I am playing tournaments mostly myself. That being said, I feel like whenever my game feels a bit off, it's time to take myself to play low level cash zoom just to get quick few thousand hands in (x few days as I feel it). Winning or losing is not *that* important there, but rather to feel like when I make more right plays than wrong ones. Theory is what it is,. but for tournaments it is absolutely crucial to make as few costly mistakes as possible. I feel like getting that few thousand to 10k cash game hands from time to time really sharpen my hand reading as I realize my true ev in every situation much more closer to reality. And then I head back to my (low stakes though) tournaments and game feels much simpler and easier again. EDIT: And absolutely these REAL appliable concepts that we get here have already helped me immensely!
@@jarirepo1172 thanks for the thoughtful reply 👍 I might work this into my routine. Been on a downswing for a couple weeks, & it definitely just feels like I’m not getting enough done in the deep stack levels. Will give it a go
Hi Pete, Just bought the Cash Injection course and I gotta Say the course Is Outstanding. I'm currently planning my studying sessions about the great inputs you gave me trough the 10 lessons then Pio vs Population Will be next 🙌
Thanks Pete, your free videos really help when I have to play NL live. As a part time live PLO player at a small casino, I have to jump in to the NL games when PLO is not running. If I ever have to transition to only NL, your course will be the first resource I invest in. You you tube content is the highest level free educational poker content (including PLO content) that I know of. Thank you so much for these videos. It says a lot about the health of poker that you only have 6k subscribers - your content is gold that no online player should miss! Even if I never played NL, I would still watch your content to help with my thought process, tactics, and strategy for PLO as the general poker concepts you explore transcend any particular game and are definitely not limited to NL.
In the first hand (A8), should we jam river against recreational players? They almost never fold an A here, and will sometimes call a Q (maybe less so in a 3bet pot) or KK, and KJ. Can you specify in these situations more often how you'd treat it with a reg, pool or a fish? I think against a fish I would jam, but I'm not sure if it's the right play?
Hey Pete! Thx for your content, enjoyed your from the ground up on RI2. I would love to get your POV on the warming up. Just an idea for a video! Long life to carrots until we bite it😂
Hi Pete. There was a hand you played on stream a couple of days ago where you had KK and villain had 88. You 3-bet pre and villain flatted. I think it was BBvBTN. Can't remember the board but you bet flop and turn, villain called each of those streets, then you check/called on an A river. My rationale would be that villain has condensed by calling the 3-bet pre and calling 2 bets on the flop and turn, and has therefore jettisoned most of the weak hands from his range that reaches the river. When he then bets the river after you check, he is effectively saying he has something better than KK on an A high board (or more specifically, I would expect to see a ton of Ax in that line). But on this occasion he had an underpair with 88, which I assume he was turning into a bluff. You said it was an easy call. It was a spot where I would check/fold pretty much every time. I think it highlighted how far away I am from being a good winning player.
Much of that depends on the opponent as well thought. If you have a typical low stakes passive opponent, he will have A or better in hand very often. But more competent players know their 88 is worth of very little at showdown and thus will bluff when ace hits the river. The point is, don't overly generalize over one hand, rather you should know what to expect from opponent based on few factors (general level of play / quality of opponent).
@ 11:15 when you get into blockers. Dosent JT block the JJ and TT that would probably checkback flop and call turn? Also would not 9Ts and JTs most likely bet flop especially with bdfd therefor most of his herocalls on river is A×, Kx, low pp and Q? Or am i doing this wrong?
Hey Pete, exceptional video as always. However i have a doubt that I hope you can clarify for me: It seems that in the first spot you are actually targeting a precise portion of Villain's range. In your course, though, I learned that when we are up against a condensed range, we should bet big, focusing on magnitude and not just call frequency when going for value. Is this an exploit due to the precision with wich is possible to narrow down Villain's range or am I getting all wrong? Thanks.
Good question. It’s mostly a blocker anomaly generated by ranges being somewhat narrow and our removal effects being extremely magnified by the particular board/configuration. The main condensed region of villain’s range is Ax prior to examining our combo, but when we look at our hand we see that this is heavily blocked. Therefore villain’s range shifts towards hands weaker than Ax and many of these could stray into a bluff raise category vs our small bet. These hands are also very likely to fold to large bets. Our blockers polarise our opponents range by removing many combos from the more condensed part. This decreases their call frequency vs a big bet and increases the raise frequency vs a small one. Through this process, Villain’s whole range shifts in a certain equity direction and we react to that entire shift. I don’t see how that is targeting. Targeting to me is the common and flawed practice of (often arbitrarily) picking and choosing which part of villain’s range to care about and which to shun and ignore. Targeting as construed in this way is an abominable practice. Meanwhile, If targeting means targeting villains whole range then what on earth is the point? If you aim a bomb at the entire world, how can you have targeted anyone with it?
The point of "targeting" a specific hand class in villain's range is that the EV of various actions against other parts of his range is similar, but one line drastically over performs against a specific part of it. If villain, for example, just won't fold top pair, but never bluff raises, then it makes sense to "target" top pair with giant overbets even if less than half his range is top pair, because that strategy makes more money. Also while we're at it, "giving your opponent a rope" I wouldn't exactly say is "targeting his air" but it might count as "betting to induce." There is a certain category of aggro donk that hates flatting small bets. He is aware of the pot odds and know he needs to continue a lot in some form, but he will attack perceived weakness without regard to the fact his own range has little or nothing to raise for value in it. So, if solver says bet 10% on AA3 in a 3-bet pot, we are doing that because in equilibrium he is indifferent between calling a tiny bet and folding with most of his range which is in terrible shape. But if we bet 10% on j97fd, which a solver would never approve, then if we know this and are playing against an aggro donk, it might be classified as an induction bet.
Against a reg we have to play range against range but against a donk we just play to maximize the EV of our hand in that one hand because he doesn't learn or adjust because he's a donk and probably doesn't even have a HUD. Against these player we can do this type of card hustler behavior up to and including throwing absurd reverse tells in live games like quivering hands, uncoordinated chip movements, putting out a bet and then saying a bigger number so you don't break the string bet rule because youre trying to look like you realized mid bet your bluff wasnt big enough, super fast value bets when the nuts change followed by freezing up and looking nervous, fake exhales when he pump fakes, scratching your nose, the lot. In these lowlife situations, in my land, the land of the snowball, targeting and induction bets are a thing.
The first Hand is btw Not a Spot where you would bet small to induce, you actually want to villian to have loads of air that hes more likely to spazz out with
![How To READ Your Opponent’s HANDS [Poker Strategy]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/k10hX5TZBn0/mqdefault.jpg)
"now that you've done that, and I've ignored you, we can continue" lmao
Great video as always Peter!
Really enjoyed the more generalized content lately! Im a tournament player so not much applies to me usually. When you get into these more fundamental topics though I always find it insanely valuable. Thanks man 🥕
I am playing tournaments mostly myself. That being said, I feel like whenever my game feels a bit off, it's time to take myself to play low level cash zoom just to get quick few thousand hands in (x few days as I feel it). Winning or losing is not *that* important there, but rather to feel like when I make more right plays than wrong ones. Theory is what it is,. but for tournaments it is absolutely crucial to make as few costly mistakes as possible. I feel like getting that few thousand to 10k cash game hands from time to time really sharpen my hand reading as I realize my true ev in every situation much more closer to reality. And then I head back to my (low stakes though) tournaments and game feels much simpler and easier again. EDIT: And absolutely these REAL appliable concepts that we get here have already helped me immensely!
@@jarirepo1172 thanks for the thoughtful reply 👍 I might work this into my routine. Been on a downswing for a couple weeks, & it definitely just feels like I’m not getting enough done in the deep stack levels. Will give it a go
Hi Pete,
Just bought the Cash Injection course and I gotta Say the course Is Outstanding. I'm currently planning my studying sessions about the great inputs you gave me trough the 10 lessons then Pio vs Population Will be next 🙌
My favvourite poker channel, thank you!
Fantastic video, the JJ explanation was awesome
Thanks Pete, your free videos really help when I have to play NL live. As a part time live PLO player at a small casino, I have to jump in to the NL games when PLO is not running. If I ever have to transition to only NL, your course will be the first resource I invest in. You you tube content is the highest level free educational poker content (including PLO content) that I know of. Thank you so much for these videos. It says a lot about the health of poker that you only have 6k subscribers - your content is gold that no online player should miss! Even if I never played NL, I would still watch your content to help with my thought process, tactics, and strategy for PLO as the general poker concepts you explore transcend any particular game and are definitely not limited to NL.
In the first hand (A8), should we jam river against recreational players? They almost never fold an A here, and will sometimes call a Q (maybe less so in a 3bet pot) or KK, and KJ. Can you specify in these situations more often how you'd treat it with a reg, pool or a fish? I think against a fish I would jam, but I'm not sure if it's the right play?
hello pete can you make a video about tags and how you go on about tagging a player etc?
hello carroters..what should i do when the opponents opening size is too big..like 7,8,9 bbs???
What replayer is this?
is this bet small to induce? no, it's fucking value bet 😂 love it
Yeah it was great, Pete is the best coach 😎
Hey Pete!
Thx for your content, enjoyed your from the ground up on RI2.
I would love to get your POV on the warming up.
Just an idea for a video!
Long life to carrots until we bite it😂
Hi Pete. There was a hand you played on stream a couple of days ago where you had KK and villain had 88. You 3-bet pre and villain flatted. I think it was BBvBTN. Can't remember the board but you bet flop and turn, villain called each of those streets, then you check/called on an A river. My rationale would be that villain has condensed by calling the 3-bet pre and calling 2 bets on the flop and turn, and has therefore jettisoned most of the weak hands from his range that reaches the river. When he then bets the river after you check, he is effectively saying he has something better than KK on an A high board (or more specifically, I would expect to see a ton of Ax in that line). But on this occasion he had an underpair with 88, which I assume he was turning into a bluff. You said it was an easy call. It was a spot where I would check/fold pretty much every time. I think it highlighted how far away I am from being a good winning player.
Much of that depends on the opponent as well thought. If you have a typical low stakes passive opponent, he will have A or better in hand very often. But more competent players know their 88 is worth of very little at showdown and thus will bluff when ace hits the river. The point is, don't overly generalize over one hand, rather you should know what to expect from opponent based on few factors (general level of play / quality of opponent).
Excellent video about a topic that is not appreciated enough since solvers "took over"
@ 11:15 when you get into blockers. Dosent JT block the JJ and TT that would probably checkback flop and call turn? Also would not 9Ts and JTs most likely bet flop especially with bdfd therefor most of his herocalls on river is A×, Kx, low pp and Q? Or am i doing this wrong?
Hey Pete, exceptional video as always. However i have a doubt that I hope you can clarify for me: It seems that in the first spot you are actually targeting a precise portion of Villain's range. In your course, though, I learned that when we are up against a condensed range, we should bet big, focusing on magnitude and not just call frequency when going for value. Is this an exploit due to the precision with wich is possible to narrow down Villain's range or am I getting all wrong? Thanks.
And now I saw that you mention that in the Jc5c hand....
Good question. It’s mostly a blocker anomaly generated by ranges being somewhat narrow and our removal effects being extremely magnified by the particular board/configuration. The main condensed region of villain’s range is Ax prior to examining our combo, but when we look at our hand we see that this is heavily blocked. Therefore villain’s range shifts towards hands weaker than Ax and many of these could stray into a bluff raise category vs our small bet. These hands are also very likely to fold to large bets. Our blockers polarise our opponents range by removing many combos from the more condensed part. This decreases their call frequency vs a big bet and increases the raise frequency vs a small one. Through this process, Villain’s whole range shifts in a certain equity direction and we react to that entire shift. I don’t see how that is targeting. Targeting to me is the common and flawed practice of (often arbitrarily) picking and choosing which part of villain’s range to care about and which to shun and ignore. Targeting as construed in this way is an abominable practice. Meanwhile, If targeting means targeting villains whole range then what on earth is the point? If you aim a bomb at the entire world, how can you have targeted anyone with it?
The point of "targeting" a specific hand class in villain's range is that the EV of various actions against other parts of his range is similar, but one line drastically over performs against a specific part of it. If villain, for example, just won't fold top pair, but never bluff raises, then it makes sense to "target" top pair with giant overbets even if less than half his range is top pair, because that strategy makes more money.
Also while we're at it, "giving your opponent a rope" I wouldn't exactly say is "targeting his air" but it might count as "betting to induce." There is a certain category of aggro donk that hates flatting small bets. He is aware of the pot odds and know he needs to continue a lot in some form, but he will attack perceived weakness without regard to the fact his own range has little or nothing to raise for value in it. So, if solver says bet 10% on AA3 in a 3-bet pot, we are doing that because in equilibrium he is indifferent between calling a tiny bet and folding with most of his range which is in terrible shape. But if we bet 10% on j97fd, which a solver would never approve, then if we know this and are playing against an aggro donk, it might be classified as an induction bet.
Against a reg we have to play range against range but against a donk we just play to maximize the EV of our hand in that one hand because he doesn't learn or adjust because he's a donk and probably doesn't even have a HUD. Against these player we can do this type of card hustler behavior up to and including throwing absurd reverse tells in live games like quivering hands, uncoordinated chip movements, putting out a bet and then saying a bigger number so you don't break the string bet rule because youre trying to look like you realized mid bet your bluff wasnt big enough, super fast value bets when the nuts change followed by freezing up and looking nervous, fake exhales when he pump fakes, scratching your nose, the lot. In these lowlife situations, in my land, the land of the snowball, targeting and induction bets are a thing.
@@CarrotCornerPoker I wish I had teachers of your caliber back in school. Very clear explanation. Thank you for your time!
Hi Pete. What Downgraded
means?
The first Hand is btw Not a Spot where you would bet small to induce, you actually want to villian to have loads of air that hes more likely to spazz out with
Good video
This is to good to be Free Content Pete! Pls stop educting bad regs.
In unsure situations I try to combine action pass, guess of hand with combinatorics
Omg truEv
That is a lot of trash talking , I could not stomach the hole video, get to the point quick!