Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGodson
Can anyone help explain the reasoning behind certain plays in the first video. I watched them and liked his play except certain things seemed weird to me. Wanted to know why he did certain things which I mentioned below:
Why is the guy in the video checking his 3 of a kinds. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel like there is better value in betting them instead of slow playing.
Also he ridicules the other guy for bluffing him with K8o which I think was actually a pretty good play since most of the time that bluff is successful.
He also 3bets with Q3s? Was this suppose to be some blocker bet? That just seemed like a bad spot for it given that he has been 3betting so frequently throughout the match. Is there value in it that I'm missing?
Another thing he folded 53s in the BB to a min-raise. Anyone else think this is a good spot to call?
I just re-read what I typed above and it might appear like I am bashing on the guy's play. I'm sorry if it looks that way, but that was not my intent and I by no means think that he is a bad player. I just wanted to openly discuss strategy and the reasoning behind it.
Hi, I made this video. It was fun re-watching it and being terrified of what I might say given the age.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPBXCZBY3gc (I'll include timestamps and details so that others might get value of following along)
We have a some reads that our opponent might be a bit passive, but nothing severe.
6:50: We c-bet JT on 773cc, and get called. Turn is a blank 2 that's checked through. River is Tc, and villain leads 160 into 320 with K8 (which we call). I say his play is "spazzy" and doesn't make sense, you question this and say it's a good bluff.
It definitely still strikes me as a spazzy/bad play. The reason why is that his K8 actually just has too much showdown value, and villain not getting enough folds from better hands. I'll fold some ace high/better Kx, maybe some 2x or some hero folds with 3x, but that's a narrow range in the first place and plenty of it is still calling. In order for bluffing to be good there, it needs to be better than the other option - checking - and checking's equity is actually quite good because of the showdown value. His bet size also doesn't represent the value hands in his range very well (bigger more consistently represents flush/slowplayed 7x) which will make it even less likely for thinking buttons to fold pieces.
Hand immediately following: Q3s in the big blind, 33bb deep. We 3bet t80->t210. You question 3-betting this sort of hand, noting my 3-bet frequency, and the hand itself, wondering if it's a weird attempt at a blocker bet.
Suited hands like Q-rag, J-rag, T-rag tend to actually play really well in your 3betting range. A good general rule is that hands that are at the bottom of your preflop calling range or the best hands you'd fold are often good candidates to 3-bet instead. Our 3bet frequency hasn't actually been particularly high in the match so far, and I'd caution against over-adjusting for gameflow things like this anyway. The main thing that makes me hesitant in on rewind is his limp % and the fact that he hasn't raised a lot of buttons, but I still think a 3bet here is a solid play. Against a tighter, passive player, you'll fold out a lot preflop and rarely get 4bet, putting yourself in a good position to win often on the flop. For example, the hand he had - A6s - is a good candidate to 4bet jam against an aggressive 3bettor, but he didn't do it. You should be 3betting fairly aggressively against these type of opponents, especially if they don't have crazy tight button opening ranges.
9:15: I assume this is the three of a kind hand you're talking about. We have T9o in the big blind, and check behind 23bb deep. First of all, timeout, not raising that limp is terrible against this opponent. T9o is easily strong enough to raise. But once we get to the flop - K99, we check OOP, and villain checks behind, then we lead the turn. Your comment is that you wouldn't think we should be slowplaying on the flop (if I have the right hand).
In general, leading this flop is atrocious. The reason why is that if you check, you're going to get a bet from your opponent's air the vast majority of the time. Air really should bet this flop when checked to. So by leading out instead, you're going to lose a lot from those air hands, which are the vast majority of your opponent's range on a paired flop.
Leading becomes a little better when your opponent is more passive - which this opponent is on that side of the spectrum. But it takes much more severe reads to lead out instead of checking and letting our opponent bet a big percentage of the time.
10:58: We call a minraise with 98s OOP, and the flop comes 885. Again we check to the raiser, and again he doesn't follow through with a c-bet, and we lead turn. You can hear on the tape that I do briefly agonize that his c-bet frequency hasn't been particularly large, but I still think checking is better than leading out because he hasn't bluff raise contested pots and I expect to get a lot of folds if I lead out.
As the video goes on, we get some hands that go to showdown that shows no c-bets with complete air - and that makes us a lot more likely just to lead out in those flop the nizzles situations. Still, though, you're going to need extreme reads, and checking should be your standard - let's talk about it more if you're not convinced.
At 13:30, we see some of those type of adjustments - checking back K3 on K88. This should be a very standard c-bet, but it's a very standard checkback given the evidence we've now seen.
Hope this helps!
mers