The OVERBET BLUFF - Old School VS New School Poker Analysis Episode 4
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- Welcome back to Episode 4 of the Old School VS New School Analysis series. This week we're looking at a big Overbet Bluff from a $100,000 Buy in PCA High Roller against Ivan Luca. Do you agree with the Old School take that this was a bad play or was it a High level New School play?
Catch more great poker content at PokerGO
USE PROMO CODE DANIEL FOR $10 Off Annual POKERGO MEMBERSHIPS:
get.pokergo.co...
Stream Music Playlist: www.epidemicso...
Check out my MasterClass: www.masterclas....
Use PROMO CODE KIDPOKER20 to get 20% off at www.contendersc...
Check out my DAT Poker Podcast at podcasts.apple.... and subscribe on iTunes.
Follow Me, Daniel Negreanu, Online Here:
linktr.ee/dnegs...
/ realkidpoker
/
/
Love hearing these contrasting thought processes. Reminder to those out their applying this stuff - always be aware of how much of a thinking player your opponent is. Changes everything.
New school guy here - I'm enjoying your old vs new series. Seeing your growth during and after the heads-up match has been impressive. Not many people are willing to take such drastic changes as you have. Good job :)
Which heads up match are you referring to? Would love to see what happened to convince Daniel to pivot.
@@ZeroFate643 Doug Polk vs Daniel.
@@TheAaronpope007 awesome, thx!
Doubly impressive when Daniel was so successful before adapting to modern poker theory. As hard as it is to make a change when it's painfully obvious how badly something needs to give, it's a million times harder to take such a drastic change when the status quo is so comfortable.
Old school Daniel: I beat nothing
New School Daniel: He beats nothing
As a teacher and someone who used to be a tournament dealer at the bike, I thought you did a really good job of explaining the content. Thanks so much for providing it:) your master class sessions are fantastic too!
PS; I’m with the new school these days. Now can you go ahead and take down Hellmuth in the 3rd match??
He didn’t
This analysis series Old School vs New has been especially helpful for me as someone who has not focused on the game for some time and now getting back into it. I have always played an exploitatively and feel adding these new tools to my box will only strengthen my exploits.
Keep them coming, I Love the way you explain the thought process
I'm still "Old school " and learn something every hand
Glad to hear it!
Who gave grandpa the solver? He's gonna kill us now.
😂😂😂👍
New nickname: Grandpa Poker
Great job!! Can you do an episode where you go over the time where you first came to Vegas and had to go back home to recover your bankroll and then came back to Vegas and conquered the world? What worked, what was different, how did you cope? That's the mark of a true champion, to get back up when down!! Would love to hear more about that time!
Daniel touches on this anecdote briefly in his Masterclass series, but you're probably looking for more :)
Thanks for posting this stuff, Daniel. Like most people, I played a lot in the early 2000s when Harrington and Greenstein's books were my bibles. So it's really awesome that you're breaking stuff down, by comparison, to see how past observations compare against the modern game theory.
Daniel this is one of the best I heard, you explain everything in a great way, thank you
Yossi from israel
Great video! Absolutely love the contrast between old school (which I’m sure a lot of your viewers still identify with) and new school.
D-Negz, loved both breakdowns of the hand. It's great to see how much poker analysis has evolved over the last 5-10 years. Also great to see how you've changed your game with it. Keep making the superb videos, Daniel. Thank you!
This analysis is so good. Great format. Notifications turned on sir 👍
Dnegs these video's are sweet! It's just great to see content from you! Can you share a hand where you lost the pot and the new school method would have changed that possibility?
I'll look and see if we can find some
This video demonstrates just how difficult poker is at the highest levels. Daniel spent over 15 mins explaining the possibilities of this hand. These pros go through this almost every hand, and they do it in a few seconds. Remarkable.
Thank you so much for these videos Daniel they are very useful, been watching you forever you are a true legend, keep up all the good work 💯
It kind of sounds like a high school physics teacher trying to explain quantum mechanics. It all sounds kinda right, yet all somehow wrong.
I've always wanted to see this exact sort of analysis series, Daniel. I always imagined a long form discussion discussing all the great poker theory through the years and what parts they got right or wrong in modern theory and range construction.
Of course it would be fun just trying to pick the best book from any decade.
70's: Super System (and arguably remained the best book into the 90's)
80's: Hold'em for Advanced Players?
90's: Pick the best poker book (Sklansky has many! Theory of Poker?)
2000's: Harrington on Hold'em was way ahead of its time in promoting mixed strategies (in 2004!), and holds up very well for deep stack play. But nothing changed my game like Professional No Limit Hold'em Vol 1.
2010's: So many GTO books started to get written in this timeframe it's hard to pick the best one. I'm quite partial to Jonathan Little's books, but curious if there are better ones?
Hell yeah! so glad you got a better mic. Thanks for the vid
Loved this, well done sir, super engaging, voice pitch dramatics and quality analysis for the common man to absorb.kudos
I’m glad you have this channel. I’ve been admiring your poker knowledge for years. Def has helped me make better decisions on the table. Thank you good sir
Daniel, I'm your huge fan from Russia. Your videos are wonderful, informative and useful for both beginners and those who have been playing for a long time. I learn from your videos and dream of mastering at least 10-20% of the skills you know. Thank you!
Nice hand Dnegs and even better video that taught me a lot
This is a great concept bro. There's something to be said for getting to the same conclusion using both approaches.
love it.
Love this series! Thanks for the great video.
I think you said you were in a unique position to do the "old school / new school" comparison.
I remember watching you many times back in the day and you were better than almost anyone at guessing your oponent's hand. You seemed to look at it in terms of "what story is my oponent telling me? what hand can they have that makes sense based on their bets?" That seems like the starting place for the newer school thinking of ranges vs hands. I was a little confused when I started watching poker vids recently (Brad Ownen) and a little shocked by how much the game theory had advanced.
I was in high school during the wsop when C Moneymaker won, and poker has changed so much. I watched poker on ESPN all the time. Its great to see you all thriving.
honestly these videos are comedy keep pumping them out man
Very helpful series I think about some of these hand reviews in the middle of hands
Love the analysis Daniel and I would love to see more like this. Thank you!
This is an awesome concept Daniel! We want more💯
Daniel,
Thank you for your humility. The fact that you're casually talking about a $100,000 buy in surprised me.
You're so normal I forget you're one of the most successful and powerful poker players on earth.
Loving these videos. Replaced the polker hands content very well. 😬. Just do us a favour and beat up hellmuth one time please. Backing you till the end.
This is helpful. Great teaching points explained very well. Thanks Daniel!
New school analysis was very well delivered their Daniel Son!
Hello, thank you very much for your content. I apreciate it a lot. Would you please elaborate this spot from the view of Luca? Should he call the river more often with 99 because of the blockers to 97s as your value and without blocking Kq as your bluff or should he call with FH and straigts only? Thanks again and wish you good luck at the tables.
haha love the shirt! Greetings from BC!
Keep up the good stuff! I'm really enjoying these hand analysis videos
Love this series you are doing. Not only am is it helpful to analyzing my play but it's really gotten me considering other's play based on their game theory old vs nee school
This old/new breakdown is very helpful analysis for understanding actions. Thanks D!
So thanks for such a successful man spending time doing such thorough analyst , not many people have ability to do this , let alone willing to do this, really respect about this , and really appreciate.
Yeah also bet/check/bet looks a lot like value. I think it's the 8 on the river that opens up for that play. What if a king or ace came up? Would you still take the spot and maybe size even bigger?
Yooo awesome videos love watching you play and explain your thinking
Love watching these videos, really insightful. Keep em coming DNegs
Very insightful. Wise to implement both old and new school approaches
Do you think you have bluffs on the river with Axs with a straight draw and backdoor flush or pair plus backdoor flush ever?
Really like the old vs new videos
love the analysis. I dont agree thinking you have the combos of 79 suited due to position but agree all 33,55,66,88 combos.
Well he was the one playing so if he says he'd have it he prolly would.
@@fabianroberntz3545 I’d be surprised if DNegs flatted 79 suited from +2 after a +1 open.
@@VodinhVlogz not sayimg its good but he probably knows his then range then you
@@fabianroberntz3545 Let’s dumb it down for you. If DNegs is a winning tourney player in the long run, a flat from an UTG/+1 open in +2 with 6 players left to act with a suited one gapper is a HUGE losing play in the long run. And DNegs is not a long term losing player. Therefore, he should rarely have 79 suited in his +2 flatting range.
This is a really good video concept!
Like this series. Keep it up
Great video Dnegs, you have a knack for explaining these concepts in a more understandable way.
love these analysis vids dnegs, keep em coming
Love it. Would really like to know where to get charts to study, as well as, how to learn the new school exploitative way to play
You can Google 6 max or full ring charts and get answers. However you would need to do you own solver study as well
love the glasses DNegs... nice colour
As I said before, I'm loving this series. Please keep them coming. But I have some real problems with some things you said in this one.
I completely get that an overbet on the end is polarizing. However, you followed that with a comment that a smaller bet implies a medium hand. I've been assuming that the larger, polarizing bet implies that you are checking behind with your medium hands. If you are really overbetting your bluffs and your big hands here but also making a smaller bet with your medium hands, then it makes those pretty easy to play perfectly against. If, on the other hand, you are sometimes making the medium bet with your big hands in order to balance the medium-bet range, then we have to reduce the number of big hands making the larger bet, and therefore we can afford fewer bluffs, since there are now fewer big hands to balance them.
This addresses a big problem I have had with the approach of counting my big hands that could do this vs. my bluffs that could do this. Sure, I MIGHT have checked behind on the turn with my boat and quad hands, but would I always? You count up the combinations of boats and quads by the river to balance them with river bluffs, but shouldn't you be discounting the number of big hands because sometimes I would have made a turn bet with those? In other words, considering all the combos that arrive at the river with this betting pattern, sure, there are 10 combos where I have a boat or better, but I would not have followed the raise-flop-check-behind-turn pattern all the time with those; it would have been raise-flop-bet-turn something like 40 percent of the time. I guess that if I assume I have that bet, I have to assume I have bluffs there to balance it, as well, so I think I answered my own question here.
One minor point, perhaps just an oversight: You didn't count 77 in your river bluff hands. Do you consider that a medium hand? I guess his range for bet-call on the flop and check turn and river does include some A5s and A6s, which means 77 is ahead in cases where 22 is not. Is that the reason you didn't count it?
Finally, what would you have done with A3s or 43s through this whole hand? I assume it's part of the range that gets to this flop, and you might raise with it on the flop as often and for the same reasons as you would with 22. Would you bet with it on the turn 100% of the time? Shouldn't that, then, be balanced with some turn bluffs?
You raise a key point, that it's important to have nutted hands in your small, big, and overbet sizing otherwise opponents could punish you. You also seem to have a good understanding of having bluffs in all spots as well, and you are right, that with overbets you limit the number of value bets and bluffs you can have when you put some of those hands in other bet sizes, which is partly why you can't overdo it when it comes to overbetting. Not all situations allow for overbets really.
@@dnegspoker Thanks for the reply! Please tell me what you think of this approach.
I recognize my own limitations that I am not going to be able to balance properly multiple bet sizes in the same situation. Instead, I choose either polarizing or smaller bet size based on the board texture, and I will always use that size for that texture.
If the runout includes both flush and realistic straight draws, and one of these draws got there, then I'll use a polarizing bet, appropriately balanced. (I'll check behind all my medium hands.) So if the flush got there, then my flush draws and my sets are my value bets and the straight draws are my bluffs. If the straight got there, then the straight draws and sets are the value bets, and my flush draws are bluffs. In these boards, anything less than a set is checked behind. (If a one-card straight is available, the sets are checked behind, as well.)
I'll use a smaller, less polarizing range on boards where there was only one draw possible, whether or not it hit, or if there were both draws possible but nothing got there. I figure that I can use a larger value range in that latter case because it looks so much like I'm bluffing, since all the draws missed, inducing hero calls, and I have a larger bluffing range because all the draws missed.
With this approach, my bet size says nothing about my hand, only about my interpretation of the board texture. I could even tell my opponent my criteria for making an overbet vs. a smaller bet, and that should not help him.
Love the analysis . Keep it coming
13:17 | 99 is better to call with than QQ for Luka because 99 blocks the nuts (79s) so it makes the value side of the polarized range smaller.
i respectfully disagree on the new school flop analysis a bit because you have a better range since you have more nutted hands - 56s, 55, 33, and 66 - in your calling range which beats all the overpairs Luka has more of in his pre-flop raising range.
i think you should also add the combinations of 5 6 that got a bit counterfitted on the turn with overpairs now beating them but overall very good vid
Really good video. The only thing is that for that bet size, the theory advocates 60% of bluff combos--8 of them.
In the end it all boils down to knowledge. Even if you prefer old school over new school it’s better to understand it and know which of your opponents play each style.
I play a bit more conservative so I likely would have went with the old school approach with this hand as it’s lower risk but I appreciate the mindset behind playing it new school.
Either way, thanks for sharing. These videos can be (and have been) extremely educational.
old school daniel: bluffing is dumb
new school daniel: what do i bluff with
Any suggestions for a good book on modern poker theory?
Fantastic video! I've become a fan Daniel.
liking the calm and controlled dnegs lately keep it up man
Poker was on late at night in the UK at the weekend when i was a kid, used to watch it with my dad but never had any idea what was happening lol. Awesome to see the career you have had Dnegs 👍
Thank you, great video 😎
Great evaluation and break down of a new and old school hand analysis took a few year of me comming back to poker to get with these adjustments poker really has changed with charts excetra
I came back playing to low - from high before and got dominated ,untill i adjusted so this new school playing style.
It is not just at the higher bb's 2-4 5-10 or 10-20 like i used to play
there all playing this way , because even 50c/$1 online plays have all these tools these day ,back in the day that was a level where no one had any idea of anything and was easily beatable if you could be bothered grinding it
Now that level is 20c-40c 😂😂👍 and even there has a few with advanced thinking
love you videos!!! keep up the good work!!
Great content, Daniel.
How come you are not in the Bahamas for the Caribbean Tour ?
22 is a fold preflop gto wise vs open right?
You are the best!
Well anything that works...but your analysis being good points out the best scenario for an opponent fold relies on you making this play often enough to be called with the goods and win there also. I am wondering what you think that % of bluff for this scenario should be to get more folds. I am also a fan of Mike Caro working hard to elicit the response you happen to want from the opponent also. Thanks if you can respond. I am 60 and learned playing no limit loball in CA near the early 80's.
I like the raise on the flop. Strong hand and alot of equity going to the turn vs a standard C bet
Thank you Daniel I am really beginning to get this
Poker kid vs d negs, love the 2 different lines of thought for the same hand! Can see just how much more complicated a poker mind has to be now
Good stuff. Ty DNEGS
I think the only other legit combo you left out of your bluff combo range (in New School thinking) that would take that line is 56 suited. It would call preflop. It could raise for value with top 2p on the flop. It could check back the turn when the 3 pairs counterfeiting your top 2p hand vs every over pair that you already stated are weighted in your opponents range. And it could over bet the river turning your flopped value hand into a bluff representing all of the 14 combos of hands you laid out that are over betting the river for value. Still, there are only 2 combos of 56 suited so it only adds 2 hands to your bluffs basically keeping you pretty well balanced between nutted hands and bluffs.
I enjoyed this Daniel.👍 You can also add the 6 combo's of 7's to your bluffing range. So, 14 combo's of value and 18 + of bluffs.
Are 77 really a bluff though? 77 beat a lot more hands he could open with and flop a pair
@@dnegspoker👍🏼 that's a fair question, but once you bet 1.4x on the river, you're turning 77 into a bluff because as you say with that sizing, you're polarized and not merging.
If we are tuning 22,44,77 into bluffs then we are bluffing with all non value hands, so that can't be right. What are you checking that loses sometimes?
Do you think that there is a difference if you are short and go all in on the river? Or if he is short and you go all in. Is this move specific for the amount of chips you both have?
Wow! Poker truly became a deep thinking game these years. Looks like a chess game's analysis. I'm so ignorant about poker, I could never talk about a poker hand for 18 minutes . 'Two 9s and two 2s go into a bar....' that's my analysis
Like the thought process and the bluff.
Thanks Daniel, great series.. Question here: You say that the 'seeing where I'm at' raise post flop is Old School, but not GTO, though it may be possible sometimes. OK, but then you move on to the turn, and don't tell us what actually is the more well-supported GTO play after Luca's post-flop C-bet.
Does GTO say to just call the flop C-bet? Is it unforgiveably Old School of me to object that, in that case, we learn nothing about Luca's hand?
Is there a video that really explains new school theory and why "seeing where you are" is no longer en vouge?
Try the video I did on "Ranges Explained"
Look at Jonathan Little's poker coaching videos, they are excellent!
@@dnegspoker will do! Grumpy to think I will need to relearn poker to be competitive.
Mr. Smith, how are you? Are you still living in Newcastle?
I rewatched that video and couldn't really find anything explicit about this, but this is my interpretation:
Luca opening +1 in this scenario is quite strong, his range is uncapped (can have the best hands AK+) after Daniel just calls. For this specific flop which is 536 rainbow, the majority of hands that are opening +1 in this position are still beating Daniel. When Daniel 'raises for information' and receives a call, he really doesn't gain that much information as most of Luca's range preflop that bet the board would have made the call facing a raise. So 'seeing where you are' didn't provide any new information and it's likely that you are beat by your opponent.
I think the main idea is that you can gain knowledge based on all of your opponent's actions and 'raising to see where you are' is a very expensive way of gaining little new knowledge.
Great stuff! Wish I could find a video on what the new school theory actually is. I am piecing it together with these vids but I have issues determining how you figure out what a persons range would be and stuff like that. Im going to guess that its based on prior experiences playing against these guys.
There are some range tables developed for pre-flop play that take into account a lot of things like when you call or raise against player at X spot, that hopefully your range will be close to 50/50 equity on a broad range of flop textures.
This is why Daniel said that his range did not really support aces, kings, AK, pocket jacks etc because those oftentimes would have 3-bet pre-flop rather than call the opening bet.
Post-flop play gets a bit more complicated (at least to me) and I'm still learning :)
can u do the hand against esfandiari where he folds st.flush.......board
was A2354 all spades . we couldn't see ur cards so i have guess of ur
holdings. FYI....if u need the hand video i can send it to u......tnx
You did not mention it in your range...what about 4 2 suited? That is a combo you could have and makes perfect sense when you raise, check, bet with this board. Did you ignore it because it is a definite fold pre flop?
I have come to the conclusion, but perhaps I’m wrong, that it is better to be predictable insofar as being modeled by other players without being beholden to, said, model. In other words, deliberate incorporation of outlier hands and bets consistent with normal betting and time patterns to bluff spontaneously and betting and time deviation from normal hands occasionally to throw up red flags with other players. What do you think?
You may not be familiar with optimal GTO models, but they do things that may look like this already to the untrained eye (you call A9s but 3 bet A5s in spots pre for example) GTO is NOT a strategy that makes you the most money, it's just an unexploitable strategy. Your strategy (or any) can make more money against different player types. BUT, if your opponent is playing well (close to GTO) then you'll lose money by deviating, this part is guaranteed
I think if he thought you were playing a GTO strategy, he'd have called with 99, because he doubles blocks 97 and only blocks one of the 97 backdoor flush draws.
I love these videos
I think this is a great explanation for this type of game of high stakes pros. However, in most cash games that are under $5,000 buy in, the dynamic changes and bluffs are much harder to get through. Even someone who understands GTO calls the raise with the pocket nines every time there. Why? They get paid more often than not and they are curious and it isn’t enough money to get them to worry about being wrong when they are wrong.
Hey would you do old school v. nee school against Evelyn Ng?
Great analysis although i'd speculate that you'd always be raising TT here? And 99 a decent amount of the time which would increase his range adv on flop quite a bit.
Amazing as always!!!
During analysis can you swap the 2 window sizes? It's a bit hard to see the table stats. Just a suggestion. Appreciate the content!
Have you tried turning up the quality?
Would you still make the same overbet on river if you did have a full house?
I like the analaysis of both new and old school
This is how I have been thinking before solvers. I'd look at combinatorics. Before solvers I'd use Flopzilla and Pokerstove to figure this out. Now it is natural in my head. I still do the work though. I don't have a solver because I don't have time to do it as poker is now recreational. So I watch other people do it for me.
Most players I meet don't even think on this level, even pros. But I play 2/5 or 1/2. I could play 5/10 but then I'd be playing uncomfortably as I am pretty frugal with money. Also why play tougher opposition when I am perfectly happy making a ton of money per hour at lower stakes.
I have made over 6 figures playing poker, all reported to the IRS, the last 15 years part time. I went pro for a while but it was too much stress. So I opened my own company and now work for myself enjoying poker for fun. Sadly I haven't been at the tables since COVID.
Once my entire family is vaccinated I'm back.
BTW DN, I am older than you are... but in my head I am younger. Good job on moving up to new school.
Like this alot,,,Keep them comming