If you were the Hero in this hand would you be checking this river as played? Also, if you are the Villain in this spot and get checked to at the end and you hold 55 or 99 what would you do?
No. Not after your explanation! Sometimes, as seems the case here, I hear in the caller(s) responses to your inquiries, that the thought-process is occurring now, on the line with you. Unfortunately, I get that; I too misplay- often. Happy New Year, Bart, and thanks for these.
Villain would have to have a massive set of stones to bluff this river with busted diamonds, knowing that hero can't have diamonds, so hero's range after checking river is sets and straight draws that got there (hero almost certainly jams backdoor spades if he had that.) Hero took a nutted line. This is not a range of hands you want to try to get to fold when you're representing backdoor spades only. From hero's perspective, we expect villain's straights to raise off on the turn for the most part, so what is villain's range on the river? Sets, backdoor spades, some mediocre made hands that will happily take the showdown, some busted draws that will give up because hero's line is terrifying, and that's about it. The two pairs and junk will most likely not call the jam anyway, and they won't value bet, so the only parts of this range we are concerned with are the sets and the backdoor spades. Villain has 6 combos of sets. There are obviously lots of spade hands out there, but how many of the spade hands without additional equity will raise the flop? the only logical candidates are obviously KXs and he probably doesn't have the K2s, K3s, I was surprised to see him even with K8s, but we can't put him on that, he probably/usually has 6 or less combos of Kxs and that's it for spades. Whether we bet or check the river, we are getting stacked by the spades. But, if we check, we give the villain an opportunity to check back his weaker sets, which he very well may do, knowing there is a straight and flush on the board and our range is rich in KK/AA. So we have to jam because our jam is break-even, but our check is losing money, because most of the time when we get bet into we are beat, but we still have to call getting 2-1.
The mistake is that 3betting small keeps the most dangerous hands in, while jamming post flop would only get a call from a lower set. Another case of where "setting the trap" backfires.
I think this hand is wonderful example how small sizing mistakes multiply by the river. If the first raise was from a tight player idk why we are scared when holding second best hand. We have to charge those TT+ AQ+ type of hands especially when playing so deep but no we go smaller and everything goes down the drain. Imagine if we went 130preflop villain calls. Flop there is 295bucks we cbet 110 he raises us to 290 we 3 bet to a real sizing that we would actually use whenever holding AdXd and we want folds from our opponent like 900+ maybe even 1.1k opponent folds hand is over. Or we got the stacks in by turn.
My favorite part about a lot of these videos, which include great in-depth analysis and solid theoretical approaches, is that so often the villain shows up with a hand they're "not" supposed to have. I agree with Bart about wanting to 3bet the flop larger. Not only does it get more value from hands that will only call one street if they miss turn and/or face further pressure (random nut flush draws, random Kx, etc.), but going larger on flop also sets up an overbet jam on turn when cards come in that bring 3 to a straight and two flush draws (Q, J, T, 8, 7, 6 of spades). In the end, this is just splitting hairs really and the caller simply got unlucky both in the runout and the fact the villain had a random hand that should almost never bet accounted for. LOL LIVE POKER BABY!
Exactly, It really begs the question, with so many people in actual live games play in a way that is contrary to game theory, what's the point in overanalysis? In small and median stakes games in California right now, you literally can't fold enough or too often. They may call too much, bluff too little, and make a zillion other mistakes, buy they aren't bluffing when betting big.
IMO the caller let the villain get there. He (a) 3! too small preflop, (b) bet too small on the flop, (c) 3! too small on the flop, (d) bet too small on the turn. The river was a foregone conclusion. That the villain had K8s - maybe he played it poorly, maybe he didn't. But they started *700* BB deep. That's a helluva place to play a big suited hand from the button. The caller owns this one.
Could you explain what’s wrong with the 3! sizing pre-flop? I thought 3x the open + the call, the limp, and the blinds was pretty standard. What would you suggest going to instead?
@@deeeleevee When you're out-of-position (OP) you need to make it bigger. My rule of thumb (that I learned from people smarter than me) is 4x when OP, plus one for any cold-callers in-between, and add some sugar on days that end in "day". That's because (a) it's more important to win the pot right now if you can, and (b) deeper stacks benefit the in-position (IP) player. So a bigger preflop raise gives you a better shot of winning preflop and shortens the stacks if you have to play the pot. Given that we're OP, there are two opponents to get through, we're in Texas (where they never fold - note that the villain called with K8s), and the stacks are absurdly deep (700 BB), I'd say $140 would be a nice number and $150-160 would be reasonable. Also, we have a monster premium, and it's okay to add sugar because we have a premium. "No! Then we're not balanced!" Balance is mostly bullsh*t. They're not paying that close attention, and once you start to get to 5-7x multiples, it's not like the villain is saying, "Ah, he went 5.5x with AQs and 7x with KK". He's just not doing that. But those increased preflop sizings pay off big because the pot increases algebraically. By making it that much bigger preflop, your subsequent postflop bets get to be bigger too, and you get that much closer to the felt that much quicker.
Checking the river is a huge mistake and I'm glad you caught it. He should just rip it in and either get called or not. This "checking to induce bluff" fascination is just FPS. It's TexFas - just jam and get called by a random two pair.
Surprised there was no mention of Ks5s. It’s obviously in villain’s range, and could play exactly like this. Losing to that hand here would be just a cooler. Losing to Ks8s is partly due to letting it get there by sizing too small on every street.
Interestingly, on the flop against specifically KK, Ks5s has even less equity than Ks8s, but against the range of KK and 99 it has almost twice as much equity as Ks8s.
@@7betJesus no buddy, he was calling 800 into 2150. The pot was 1350 GOING to the turn. Hero bet 800 making pot 2150. Villain getting almost 3:1 to continue with a pair and a flush draw. You guys have no clue how to do pot odds and its hilarious
This is Texas and balance is even more bullsh*t than usual. I agree he should 3-bet, and I agree with your sizing. He under-bet the flop and under-bet the 3-bet. When you're out of position this deep with a hand you'll have difficulty folding, you gotta shorten the stacks ASAP.
I honestly feel like playing hands like these more aggressive is the way to go, if the guy 3 bets and you call, then jam on the turn, this ensures that either your opponent folds which is much better than him limp calling and getting there on the river, or the opponent calls where you are a huge favorite and getting the max value because the opponent isn’t calling if he missed flush
The villain can also have gutshots between the 5 and 9. Any 87s, 76s. And all the Broadway gutshots. And the case king. And 9x with backdoor straight possibilities. This is Texas, and imo not betting $225 on the flop is a mistake.
Hero misplayed this hand worse and worse as it progressed. Comically small flop reraise, a turn bet so small (on an incredibly wet board) that he’s effectively begging to be drawn out on, and then checking to induce a bluff on the river when villain can be holding an incredible number of worse hands that have to call a jam (AQd, slow played AK w Ad, 55, KQ w Qd, A9d, etc.) but will gladly check back that board. He’s covered by villain and got flop raised, yet still figured out how to play top set like a baby…
thats what i was thinking, as played I think its the best choice because you price out combo draws and lower sets still need to call. as played he 3bet way too small on flop and let villain get there. Obviously JT calls but should only have two combos (one realistically, JTdd) and you're losing your stack to JT anyway
Flop bet needed to be MUCH larger. Around $200. Any draw will most likely peel as Bart said. The 3 bet also needed to be much larger, around 3X. If he raises, it's most likely a made hand or huge draw, both of which will not be folding to a 3X raise. For people saying Villian could have K5ss, it is likely a 4 bet on flop. No need to slow play it after getting 3 bet by hero. Hero would either have AA/AK/big draw and not folding.
Stopped at 16:12 to say that villain could absolutely have K5 of spades here. There are people who will absolutely double-flat that hand on the button when deep. Then his flop raise-call line makes sense. I suspect from another comment that I see here though that he's going to end up showing an even more random hand than that.
The 2 interesting spot here to me are the 3! sizing on the flop where if your targets are sets and combo draws going as high as $900 for the slightly under pot sized raise probably still gets calls (though them folding here is kind of a disaster since their equity basically ranges from 5% to 33%). The river is interesting in that I like the check if you think 55 is always jamming because then we might as well hope they bluff at it occasionally since their calls are going all in anyway. However, I can definitely see 55 checking back a lot and maybe even 99 in which case I assume they don't have enough bluffs to make the check call plan the more profitable line.
Wait wait wait, its been a while since ive read my gto books, but I think bart had it backwards in the beginning. In general, when hero has a range/nut advantage you don't need to bet large, you should be sticking to a 1/3 sizing in most scenarios. But if villain has the range/ nut advantage when you are betting (even though you should be checking majority of time) it should be for a large sizing as villain has nut advantage/ equity advantage so you need to bet large to deny that equity realization on those type of boards.
Bet smaller on 456 flop? Michael Acevedo in Modern Poker Theory says that you should bet bigger on these flops, but less often. Hero should size up with the 3bet on the flop in this hand so that he can slightly overbet the turn and get the money in on two streets to make playing out of position easier. As played he should definitely not size up more on the turn or he does not have enough fold equity on the river with his bluffs (going by Bart's suggestion of leaving a half-pot bet behind for the river). On the river the set of kings is a clear value bet, villain should very rarely be ahead of that after raising the flop, calling the flop 3bet and not jamming when facing the bet on the turn.
Imo, the hero’s betting during pre-flop, flop and turn were fine. The main thing he should have done was to fold on the river when the villain jammed. While watching the video, after seeing the villain move all-in on the river after the hero checked, what could the villain have? I put him on Jack-10 dimes. Makes sense to raise on the flop because he had a flush draw and open-ended straight draw. Makes sense to just call on the turn after making his straight. So if I were the hero, Im folding on the river because checking is actually fine. The original intention was to give the villain rope to hang himself with, but when you get jammed like this, you’re only beating a bluff.
Fold is definitely an option, there's no locked in hand untill the river. Reading people is advanced skill in live games only comes from people skills.
I'm not sure I get this bet size/range advantage theory discussed at the beginning on the flop. If I take Bart's example and say 5-6-7 (or whatever) is a range advantage for a caller as opposed to raiser - ok I get that - but caller also more likely to have 8s and some 4s in his range, so I don't want to make a 1/3 pot bet to give opponent 4-1 odds on a call needing only 3-1 for OESD. Or is the theory that you just have to take that risk when betting small?
I think you just have to take the risk on a very connected flop like that where the caller has the nut advantage and the flop hits the caller’s range a lot more. You cannot only put the caller on a pair and straight draw such as 4s or 8s and bet big.
Question: When you have a flush and straight draw threatening your nut hand on the flop, is it usually better to try to keep the hand going with favorable pot odds for you (to extract value from the draws) or does it often make sense to just shove and push the villain out?
If the villain has a draw, should you make a bet so that the villain has around 3 to 1 pot odds? What pot odds should you give the villain considering they are around 35% to complete their flush?
You want to the flush draw to call because you have most of the equity in the pot, so you want it to be bigger. Villain has direct pot odds on the flop of 18%. If you half-pot it, he has to realize 25% equity to call, and if you full pot it, he has to realize 33% equity to call. This is assuming he has no virtual outs or additional equity like a live overcard, and you can basically see each others' hands. Villain does not know what odds you are going to give him on the turn, if you will pay on turn and/or river, or if the board-pairing diamond is a live out. So, the only thing that's unambiguously true is that you shouldn't bet 1/3 pot or less because you are giving him direct odds to call and unless you play perfectly, forcing him out of pot on every turn where he misses and not paying off for any amount whenever it comes in, he has at least some implied odds, so he is profiting by calling. If he gets there on the turn, now you have a 20% equity redraw, so he has the opportunity to extract some value from you, because you must call any 1/3 pot sized bet or less, and you may call more if you think he is bluffing. So his implied odds on the turn (if he sees you hold a set) are *at least* 20% of the pot on the turn, which equals 1.4* the pot on the flop if you did give him direct odds. So going back to the flop bet now, His direct+minimum implied odds are 25.2% on the flop. So, if you bet exactly half pot, you are making him indifferent between fold and call by giving him 25% pot odds. Of course, this is assuming your hands are both face up. In reality he doesn't know if you have a set, a bluff, a worse diamond draw, a two pair, a one pair hand that contains a diamond, the nut flush redraw, etc. And you don't know whether he has a strong draw, a weak draw, a combo draw, a nut draw, all you probably know with a hand like caller's is that he is behind and therefore "drawing" to something, if he has any equity at all. In live poker, and especially in Texas, the thought process of people holding a draw is not the above. People in live poker are motivated by boredom, greed, and the desire to not look stupid. If you pot it, the villain will probably know he is not getting the right place, and also your hand "obviously" looks like you are protecting a made hand, and he doesn't want to look silly by peeling that, even if there is money behind. But, if you make it a little more than half pot, say 65% pot, and then refuse to pay him when the draw comes in, now he is getting *slightly* the wrong price, but he will still call, and he will still look not-stupid. So this would be my recommended sizing to charge draws. He needs 28% equity realization, and he is getting a maximum of 25% IF he makes his hand on the turn AND you have a redraw, otherwise he's only getting 18%, because you will be betting most brick turns for an amount greater than 1/3 pot (targeting his weaker made hands/bluff catchers.)
Another hand that proves that the worst players get paid off so often, despite being bet at. A shot hand pre-flop turns into a winner by luck. This is why I only play small rec games, 5 pound tourneys in the pub, for fun.
Yeah I don’t like small-betting this flop, I would bet $150 or check for balance. But great he got raised, I would just call and let opponent drive. That allows him to bluff the turn. Then I’m gonna check-call the turn. Queen or 9 of diamonds would be a nice river🤣 K-5 of spades would totally suck. Also double-flatted AA🤣 On the river he has 6 sets that lose to you, K5s, JTdd, maybe a few JTs not diamonds, maybe a few AA that beat you. I am not gonna jam it… He not only double-flatted K8s, but he also raised the flop on top pair backdoor 2nd nut flush draw🙄🙄 ridiculous.
Turn min raise : so like if you think bet 3 betting looks strong, then how strong does a min raise on the turn look?!?!?! If you jam the flop and wanna stay balanced could u not could mix in nut flush draws and combos draws into a bet 3 bet range.
Why not polarize on the flop? And go ridiculously all in. If he's got a set of nines he might call. If he's got anything else, the flush draw for instance, he should fold. If he folds, you've got a pot of 112.5 BB. That's 55 BB something profit from KK.
yeah the problem was his milky sizings considering how deep they were. C-Bet was weak, so as villian you could think of him having AQ. Then his min-click invites villian´s two pair- and backdoor flush draw to peel (to potentially stack AK or AA on turn). On turn he just bets 60%..huge invitation for K8s...So villian played loose on flop maybe, but anything else was really good. You always have to consider how deep they were, to judge someone.
Hero got what he deserved. Bets were terrible and calling the river was HUGE mistake, Villain had no bluffs, he knew hero had a set and a bluff would never get through, hero would call with a set.
If you bet $750-850 on the flop is he really calling? If so more power to him, then turn jam...and if Villian risks his stack when he knows he is less than 25% or so on a draw.
JTs(4), KJ-K5ss (5), 87ss, 67ss, 5xss (5) not that few hands beat us.. bet bigger and you dont have as many of those and maybe even A9dd and AQdd calls down def sets..
If you play 700BB NLH, you are asking for trouble and very hard decisions. At this depth the implied odds make it harder to defend the best hands. So yoy will be outdrawn often.
Are these card rooms in Texas now legit? It seemed like pre-pandemic they were in a legal limbo where gov't could/was raiding these card rooms. Everything good now?
Austin and San Antonio had very passive District Attorneys, so those cities got out ahead of Houston and Dallas. Houston's DA got in hot water because apparently one of the subordinates was taking "protection" bribes to lay off the poker "private clubs". Then finally Dallas' DA decided to lay off the enforcement. Still, in Texas we are 1 Attorney General's opinion away from the whole circus getting shut down. All that shady stuff going on with 88 Social Poker Club in Houston won't help either.
I don't play that high but on microstakes a minraise means 'I got topset' Also in my humble opinion. NEVER fold a set especially topset if it goes in on flop. To much EV
I hate the hero's three bet size on the flop. This is an easy $800 bet on the flop. Pretty unacceptable for the hero to not bet at least $800 on the flop. Edit: I now believe the hero to be a complete donkey.
![ROSÉ(로제) - APT. (Band VER.) (With. 이영지) [더 시즌즈-이영지의 레인보우] | KBS 241129 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IW8qaemx74g/mqdefault.jpg)
If you were the Hero in this hand would you be checking this river as played? Also, if you are the Villain in this spot and get checked to at the end and you hold 55 or 99 what would you do?
I'm having deja vu, I saw this hand not long ago.
River is a jam. Checking and having V check back two pair or sets is a disaster.
No. Not after your explanation!
Sometimes, as seems the case here, I hear in the caller(s) responses to your inquiries, that the thought-process is occurring now, on the line with you. Unfortunately, I get that; I too misplay- often.
Happy New Year, Bart, and thanks for these.
Kevin Rand would've shoved the river.
i would wish i had more to jam with
Villain would have to have a massive set of stones to bluff this river with busted diamonds, knowing that hero can't have diamonds, so hero's range after checking river is sets and straight draws that got there (hero almost certainly jams backdoor spades if he had that.) Hero took a nutted line. This is not a range of hands you want to try to get to fold when you're representing backdoor spades only.
From hero's perspective, we expect villain's straights to raise off on the turn for the most part, so what is villain's range on the river? Sets, backdoor spades, some mediocre made hands that will happily take the showdown, some busted draws that will give up because hero's line is terrifying, and that's about it. The two pairs and junk will most likely not call the jam anyway, and they won't value bet, so the only parts of this range we are concerned with are the sets and the backdoor spades. Villain has 6 combos of sets. There are obviously lots of spade hands out there, but how many of the spade hands without additional equity will raise the flop? the only logical candidates are obviously KXs and he probably doesn't have the K2s, K3s, I was surprised to see him even with K8s, but we can't put him on that, he probably/usually has 6 or less combos of Kxs and that's it for spades.
Whether we bet or check the river, we are getting stacked by the spades. But, if we check, we give the villain an opportunity to check back his weaker sets, which he very well may do, knowing there is a straight and flush on the board and our range is rich in KK/AA.
So we have to jam because our jam is break-even, but our check is losing money, because most of the time when we get bet into we are beat, but we still have to call getting 2-1.
The mistake is that 3betting small keeps the most dangerous hands in, while jamming post flop would only get a call from a lower set. Another case of where "setting the trap" backfires.
@B james As long as you're willing to fold later.
I’m pretty sure it’s +EV to let villain drawing
@@thejunkwarrior Yes, but once again, only if you're willing to fold later, which most of us aren't.
I think this hand is wonderful example how small sizing mistakes multiply by the river. If the first raise was from a tight player idk why we are scared when holding second best hand. We have to charge those TT+ AQ+ type of hands especially when playing so deep but no we go smaller and everything goes down the drain.
Imagine if we went 130preflop villain calls. Flop there is 295bucks we cbet 110 he raises us to 290 we 3 bet to a real sizing that we would actually use whenever holding AdXd and we want folds from our opponent like 900+ maybe even 1.1k opponent folds hand is over. Or we got the stacks in by turn.
@@atanasdzhivdzhanov4252 Exactly.
My favorite part about a lot of these videos, which include great in-depth analysis and solid theoretical approaches, is that so often the villain shows up with a hand they're "not" supposed to have.
I agree with Bart about wanting to 3bet the flop larger. Not only does it get more value from hands that will only call one street if they miss turn and/or face further pressure (random nut flush draws, random Kx, etc.), but going larger on flop also sets up an overbet jam on turn when cards come in that bring 3 to a straight and two flush draws (Q, J, T, 8, 7, 6 of spades).
In the end, this is just splitting hairs really and the caller simply got unlucky both in the runout and the fact the villain had a random hand that should almost never bet accounted for. LOL LIVE POKER BABY!
Exactly, It really begs the question, with so many people in actual live games play in a way that is contrary to game theory, what's the point in overanalysis? In small and median stakes games in California right now, you literally can't fold enough or too often. They may call too much, bluff too little, and make a zillion other mistakes, buy they aren't bluffing when betting big.
IMO the caller let the villain get there. He (a) 3! too small preflop, (b) bet too small on the flop, (c) 3! too small on the flop, (d) bet too small on the turn. The river was a foregone conclusion. That the villain had K8s - maybe he played it poorly, maybe he didn't. But they started *700* BB deep. That's a helluva place to play a big suited hand from the button. The caller owns this one.
Oh, and Happy New Year Bart, and massive congratulations on the addition to the family. That's going to be what you remember about this year.
Could you explain what’s wrong with the 3! sizing pre-flop? I thought 3x the open + the call, the limp, and the blinds was pretty standard. What would you suggest going to instead?
@@deeeleevee When you're out-of-position (OP) you need to make it bigger. My rule of thumb (that I learned from people smarter than me) is 4x when OP, plus one for any cold-callers in-between, and add some sugar on days that end in "day". That's because (a) it's more important to win the pot right now if you can, and (b) deeper stacks benefit the in-position (IP) player. So a bigger preflop raise gives you a better shot of winning preflop and shortens the stacks if you have to play the pot. Given that we're OP, there are two opponents to get through, we're in Texas (where they never fold - note that the villain called with K8s), and the stacks are absurdly deep (700 BB), I'd say $140 would be a nice number and $150-160 would be reasonable. Also, we have a monster premium, and it's okay to add sugar because we have a premium. "No! Then we're not balanced!" Balance is mostly bullsh*t. They're not paying that close attention, and once you start to get to 5-7x multiples, it's not like the villain is saying, "Ah, he went 5.5x with AQs and 7x with KK". He's just not doing that. But those increased preflop sizings pay off big because the pot increases algebraically. By making it that much bigger preflop, your subsequent postflop bets get to be bigger too, and you get that much closer to the felt that much quicker.
@@leehjonesThorough and clear, thanks. He's not the only fish in the sea.
Checking the river is a huge mistake and I'm glad you caught it. He should just rip it in and either get called or not. This "checking to induce bluff" fascination is just FPS. It's TexFas - just jam and get called by a random two pair.
Surprised there was no mention of Ks5s. It’s obviously in villain’s range, and could play exactly like this. Losing to that hand here would be just a cooler. Losing to Ks8s is partly due to letting it get there by sizing too small on every street.
goofy suited kings are often dismissed. i like playing them but calling that turn with K8 is tough
Why is it tough he made it so cheep to call no one folds the turn
@@tightlines7 calling 800 into 1350 isn’t always
Interestingly, on the flop against specifically KK, Ks5s has even less equity than Ks8s, but against the range of KK and 99 it has almost twice as much equity as Ks8s.
@@7betJesus no buddy, he was calling 800 into 2150. The pot was 1350 GOING to the turn. Hero bet 800 making pot 2150. Villain getting almost 3:1 to continue with a pair and a flush draw. You guys have no clue how to do pot odds and its hilarious
This is Texas and balance is even more bullsh*t than usual. I agree he should 3-bet, and I agree with your sizing. He under-bet the flop and under-bet the 3-bet. When you're out of position this deep with a hand you'll have difficulty folding, you gotta shorten the stacks ASAP.
I honestly feel like playing hands like these more aggressive is the way to go, if the guy 3 bets and you call, then jam on the turn, this ensures that either your opponent folds which is much better than him limp calling and getting there on the river, or the opponent calls where you are a huge favorite and getting the max value because the opponent isn’t calling if he missed flush
I agree. I thought the flop and turn sizing were all very low. I'd even advocate jamming the flop.
The villain can also have gutshots between the 5 and 9. Any 87s, 76s. And all the Broadway gutshots. And the case king. And 9x with backdoor straight possibilities. This is Texas, and imo not betting $225 on the flop is a mistake.
I love your hand analysis… it’s awesome talking in depth (strategies, hand strength, Everything)!!
Keep up the hard work !!!!
Played almost this exact hand and run out last night and got STACKED less then an orbit into the session 😭
Hero misplayed this hand worse and worse as it progressed. Comically small flop reraise, a turn bet so small (on an incredibly wet board) that he’s effectively begging to be drawn out on, and then checking to induce a bluff on the river when villain can be holding an incredible number of worse hands that have to call a jam (AQd, slow played AK w Ad, 55, KQ w Qd, A9d, etc.) but will gladly check back that board. He’s covered by villain and got flop raised, yet still figured out how to play top set like a baby…
What do you think of ripping it in on the turn as a big overbet?
thats what i was thinking, as played I think its the best choice because you price out combo draws and lower sets still need to call. as played he 3bet way too small on flop and let villain get there. Obviously JT calls but should only have two combos (one realistically, JTdd) and you're losing your stack to JT anyway
@@alexanderszabo1629 id much rather consider doing it with 99 only so you unblock some Kx potentionally with a flushdraw
Flop bet needed to be MUCH larger. Around $200. Any draw will most likely peel as Bart said. The 3 bet also needed to be much larger, around 3X. If he raises, it's most likely a made hand or huge draw, both of which will not be folding to a 3X raise.
For people saying Villian could have K5ss, it is likely a 4 bet on flop. No need to slow play it after getting 3 bet by hero. Hero would either have AA/AK/big draw and not folding.
Stopped at 16:12 to say that villain could absolutely have K5 of spades here. There are people who will absolutely double-flat that hand on the button when deep. Then his flop raise-call line makes sense. I suspect from another comment that I see here though that he's going to end up showing an even more random hand than that.
Larger sizings on both streets would have won the hand. A flop shove gets a fold.
The 2 interesting spot here to me are the 3! sizing on the flop where if your targets are sets and combo draws going as high as $900 for the slightly under pot sized raise probably still gets calls (though them folding here is kind of a disaster since their equity basically ranges from 5% to 33%). The river is interesting in that I like the check if you think 55 is always jamming because then we might as well hope they bluff at it occasionally since their calls are going all in anyway. However, I can definitely see 55 checking back a lot and maybe even 99 in which case I assume they don't have enough bluffs to make the check call plan the more profitable line.
sick hand, i would have raised higher on the flop and i think that mixing (jam, check/call) is fine on the river.
Really love your videos. I appreciate all your hard work and excellent breakdown.
These vids are great 👍 great work
Wait wait wait, its been a while since ive read my gto books, but I think bart had it backwards in the beginning. In general, when hero has a range/nut advantage you don't need to bet large, you should be sticking to a 1/3 sizing in most scenarios. But if villain has the range/ nut advantage when you are betting (even though you should be checking majority of time) it should be for a large sizing as villain has nut advantage/ equity advantage so you need to bet large to deny that equity realization on those type of boards.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 bro explain
Bet smaller on 456 flop? Michael Acevedo in Modern Poker Theory says that you should bet bigger on these flops, but less often. Hero should size up with the 3bet on the flop in this hand so that he can slightly overbet the turn and get the money in on two streets to make playing out of position easier. As played he should definitely not size up more on the turn or he does not have enough fold equity on the river with his bluffs (going by Bart's suggestion of leaving a half-pot bet behind for the river). On the river the set of kings is a clear value bet, villain should very rarely be ahead of that after raising the flop, calling the flop 3bet and not jamming when facing the bet on the turn.
Imo, the hero’s betting during pre-flop, flop and turn were fine.
The main thing he should have done was to fold on the river when the villain jammed.
While watching the video, after seeing the villain move all-in on the river after the hero checked, what could the villain have? I put him on Jack-10 dimes.
Makes sense to raise on the flop because he had a flush draw and open-ended straight draw. Makes sense to just call on the turn after making his straight.
So if I were the hero, Im folding on the river because checking is actually fine. The original intention was to give the villain rope to hang himself with, but when you get jammed like this, you’re only beating a bluff.
Everyone is saying he “let villain get there” like yeah he got a ton of value from a hand drawing virtually dead on the flop
Right? Villain is an absolute whale and got there when we had 2/3rd on the river.
Yeah just have a big br and play like this consistently
Learning so much here
Fold is definitely an option, there's no locked in hand untill the river. Reading people is advanced skill in live games only comes from people skills.
I'm not sure I get this bet size/range advantage theory discussed at the beginning on the flop. If I take Bart's example and say 5-6-7 (or whatever) is a range advantage for a caller as opposed to raiser - ok I get that - but caller also more likely to have 8s and some 4s in his range, so I don't want to make a 1/3 pot bet to give opponent 4-1 odds on a call needing only 3-1 for OESD. Or is the theory that you just have to take that risk when betting small?
I think you just have to take the risk on a very connected flop like that where the caller has the nut advantage and the flop hits the caller’s range a lot more. You cannot only put the caller on a pair and straight draw such as 4s or 8s and bet big.
What's our plan if the front door flush come in on the river. Let's say a 3D. Are we just check folding?
Question: When you have a flush and straight draw threatening your nut hand on the flop, is it usually better to try to keep the hand going with favorable pot odds for you (to extract value from the draws) or does it often make sense to just shove and push the villain out?
If the villain has a draw, should you make a bet so that the villain has around 3 to 1 pot odds? What pot odds should you give the villain considering they are around 35% to complete their flush?
You want to the flush draw to call because you have most of the equity in the pot, so you want it to be bigger. Villain has direct pot odds on the flop of 18%. If you half-pot it, he has to realize 25% equity to call, and if you full pot it, he has to realize 33% equity to call. This is assuming he has no virtual outs or additional equity like a live overcard, and you can basically see each others' hands. Villain does not know what odds you are going to give him on the turn, if you will pay on turn and/or river, or if the board-pairing diamond is a live out. So, the only thing that's unambiguously true is that you shouldn't bet 1/3 pot or less because you are giving him direct odds to call and unless you play perfectly, forcing him out of pot on every turn where he misses and not paying off for any amount whenever it comes in, he has at least some implied odds, so he is profiting by calling.
If he gets there on the turn, now you have a 20% equity redraw, so he has the opportunity to extract some value from you, because you must call any 1/3 pot sized bet or less, and you may call more if you think he is bluffing. So his implied odds on the turn (if he sees you hold a set) are *at least* 20% of the pot on the turn, which equals 1.4* the pot on the flop if you did give him direct odds. So going back to the flop bet now, His direct+minimum implied odds are 25.2% on the flop. So, if you bet exactly half pot, you are making him indifferent between fold and call by giving him 25% pot odds.
Of course, this is assuming your hands are both face up. In reality he doesn't know if you have a set, a bluff, a worse diamond draw, a two pair, a one pair hand that contains a diamond, the nut flush redraw, etc. And you don't know whether he has a strong draw, a weak draw, a combo draw, a nut draw, all you probably know with a hand like caller's is that he is behind and therefore "drawing" to something, if he has any equity at all.
In live poker, and especially in Texas, the thought process of people holding a draw is not the above. People in live poker are motivated by boredom, greed, and the desire to not look stupid. If you pot it, the villain will probably know he is not getting the right place, and also your hand "obviously" looks like you are protecting a made hand, and he doesn't want to look silly by peeling that, even if there is money behind. But, if you make it a little more than half pot, say 65% pot, and then refuse to pay him when the draw comes in, now he is getting *slightly* the wrong price, but he will still call, and he will still look not-stupid. So this would be my recommended sizing to charge draws. He needs 28% equity realization, and he is getting a maximum of 25% IF he makes his hand on the turn AND you have a redraw, otherwise he's only getting 18%, because you will be betting most brick turns for an amount greater than 1/3 pot (targeting his weaker made hands/bluff catchers.)
what about overbetting or jamming the turn?
Another hand that proves that the worst players get paid off so often, despite being bet at. A shot hand pre-flop turns into a winner by luck. This is why I only play small rec games, 5 pound tourneys in the pub, for fun.
Yeah I don’t like small-betting this flop, I would bet $150 or check for balance. But great he got raised, I would just call and let opponent drive. That allows him to bluff the turn. Then I’m gonna check-call the turn. Queen or 9 of diamonds would be a nice river🤣
K-5 of spades would totally suck. Also double-flatted AA🤣
On the river he has 6 sets that lose to you, K5s, JTdd, maybe a few JTs not diamonds, maybe a few AA that beat you. I am not gonna jam it…
He not only double-flatted K8s, but he also raised the flop on top pair backdoor 2nd nut flush draw🙄🙄 ridiculous.
I feel like I'm missing something here. Why couldn't the villian have AA and spiked trips on the river?
Turn min raise : so like if you think bet 3 betting looks strong, then how strong does a min raise on the turn look?!?!?! If you jam the flop and wanna stay balanced could u not could mix in nut flush draws and combos draws into a bet 3 bet range.
not going 3.5x-4x on the flop 3 bet was a key mistake, V was never folding the turn anyways with a pair + FD.
he would had to if hero ships turn...
Why not polarize on the flop? And go ridiculously all in.
If he's got a set of nines he might call.
If he's got anything else, the flush draw for instance, he should fold.
If he folds, you've got a pot of 112.5 BB.
That's 55 BB something profit from KK.
The river check was perfect imo! I would have bet 300 on river.... and call any raise!
Might he have AK offsuit?
thats what i was thinking, why did noone mention that?
I lost a hand like that, opponent shifted on the flop he had AK turn A river A .
"pretty good player who thinks a lot " *villain calls calls pre, raises flop, with *spoiler*
yeah the problem was his milky sizings considering how deep they were. C-Bet was weak, so as villian you could think of him having AQ. Then his min-click invites villian´s two pair- and backdoor flush draw to peel (to potentially stack AK or AA on turn). On turn he just bets 60%..huge invitation for K8s...So villian played loose on flop maybe, but anything else was really good. You always have to consider how deep they were, to judge someone.
Hero got what he deserved. Bets were terrible and calling the river was HUGE mistake, Villain had no bluffs, he knew hero had a set and a bluff would never get through, hero would call with a set.
If you bet $750-850 on the flop is he really calling? If so more power to him, then turn jam...and if Villian risks his stack when he knows he is less than 25% or so on a draw.
JTs(4), KJ-K5ss (5), 87ss, 67ss, 5xss (5) not that few hands beat us.. bet bigger and you dont have as many of those and maybe even A9dd and AQdd calls down def sets..
Good hand. caller misplayed flop and turn.
this is exactly why poker is unbeatable now 😂. No one had the resources like everyone does now 10 years ago. Everyone’s too good at the game.
After the flop you had a hand that you were going all in with, why not go all in then? Let the villain see two cards
RUclips comments be like: "hero should shove preflop, As played river is an easy open fold face up"
If you play 700BB NLH, you are asking for trouble and very hard decisions. At this depth the implied odds make it harder to defend the best hands. So yoy will be outdrawn often.
This is proof you can make lots of money playing poker with minimal work. V should've folded K7s pre
These are the type of hands that break you!
Why would you balance against people you will never play again? If it’s game you play weekly I get, but why at some random casino?
Are these card rooms in Texas now legit? It seemed like pre-pandemic they were in a legal limbo where gov't could/was raiding these card rooms. Everything good now?
Austin and San Antonio had very passive District Attorneys, so those cities got out ahead of Houston and Dallas. Houston's DA got in hot water because apparently one of the subordinates was taking "protection" bribes to lay off the poker "private clubs". Then finally Dallas' DA decided to lay off the enforcement. Still, in Texas we are 1 Attorney General's opinion away from the whole circus getting shut down. All that shady stuff going on with 88 Social Poker Club in Houston won't help either.
I love going through the analysis but these people he gets on are not the fully quid
Just makes no sense dude 3 betting flop and hero should have went way bigger.
I thought he had a. But still call.
Should have could have eastwood have, he got unlucky, reload and let’s go!!
Help this dude understand what min click is lol. Guy raised $140 and he raises $325. Not even close to min click
Cha'alt!
Let's play 700bb deep what could possibly go wrong.
For chrissake 3bet to 1000 otf, jam turn.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 The Button's most likely hands are nut flush draws, combo draws, and sets. None of those are folding to the flop 3bet.
@@aheroictaxidriver3180 LOL
I don't play that high but on microstakes a minraise means 'I got topset'
Also in my humble opinion.
NEVER fold a set especially topset if it goes in on flop. To much EV
I hate the hero's three bet size on the flop. This is an easy $800 bet on the flop. Pretty unacceptable for the hero to not bet at least $800 on the flop.
Edit: I now believe the hero to be a complete donkey.
I won a 2k pot at aria when the dealer push me the chips I could feel my kidneys without touching them .
Same thing happened to me when I accidentally discharged a 200v capacitor into my body in physics lab. I really felt my kidneys after that.
Funny....feel ya.
Wow 😫😬
Wow ... so sick losing a 7K pot to runner-runner outs. Classic PokerStars, but in real life. 🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮🤮
This is just a bad beat story.
no it's a 'I let the villain get there when i had top set playing 700BB deep' story
I thought you played the hand well. Just unlucky runout. Only losing to AA and TJ of diamonds really.
And the occasional clown KX of spades.
you really think someone double flats AA especially in Texas? He definitely let villain get there with his far too small bets