Absolutely love this guy's videos.

When I watched it about 15 hours ago, I thought 'fold turn.' Then he said he thought he could rep the heart and I understood why he called.

But ... as someone else said, 'Flushes are hard to make. We shouldn't be scared every time a flush card comes in.' So I think we have to re-evaluate whether we can bluff this flush card. There are a lot of times this will work. A lot of people will immediately assume you hit your flush.

And, I'm not sure what range he thought he was getting to fold. I am not sure what V does with a one-pair hand like JJ or QQ here. He happened to run into two pair.

Villain check raises small otf out of position then bombs the turn on a blank. This is almost never a draw and we block basically all the good combo draws. I would weight a naked ace high flush draw down to "almost never" territory. They're 200bb deep and he's check raising small otf oop. This is so rarely a draw. I'm generally ranging him only at suited connectors that hit 2p+, so just 67s, 79s and 108s with all set combos being possible as well.

That's why turn is bad especially if your only out is to try and bluff a flush. You're basically never getting paid when you hit a straight and your fold equity isn't that high when you actually do bluff which isn't 100% of the time either. I'd consider trying this if villain bets like 200-300 on turn. Anything more moves it into not worth it.

I would phrase this differently, something more like: "what is absolutely great about live poker is that people are payoff wizards and we can just go for fat value like it's 2005"

Yup. Texture is just too awful to float the turn for that price.

Yeah. We can't have 100% FE to bluff the flush and have IO on the straight draw. I agree we should call for less, with some combination of SDV, IO, and FE

Love Andrew's Vlogs, and I think he's a very credible low/mid stakes player (a much better player than I am).

For this specific hand though, I really don't like his line at all and I think it was a bit too ambitious to think he could rep a heart OTR and get a fold from his V. I think the situation where this play would have worked is if he put his V on some kind of combo draw and then decided to bomb all blank rivers. As played though V is pretty much never showing up with a draw here, especially since Andrew holds the 8H and blocks some potential combo draws.

The other problem I see with this play is that effective stacks just aren't deep enough for Andrew to be able to put enough pressure on his V OTR to make him find a fold. They have less that a PSB remaining when they go to the river, with only $1200 behind in a ~$1500 pot. Even before knowing the results of the hand, I felt V was heavily weighted to 2p/sets when I was originally watching the vlog. I just don't think many Vs at 5/10 are putting 1/3rd of their stack into the pot with 2p+ then folding river with less than a PSB behind just because the front-door flush draw came in.

For this play to have had a relatively decent chance of working, I think they needed to have at least 2k behind heading to the river. As played it's a crying call from pretty much all of Vs value range.

The small raise out of position discussion makes me wonder: With our blockers, if we give him the range you describe, he has two combos of the nuts and 15 combos of sets/two pair hands. With this in mind, I think a better way to get him to fold the sets/two pair part of his range is to 3bet the flop to rep a flopped straight and then bomb non-board pairing turns to convince him we have the nuts and that he shouldn't try to draw to a boat. Obviously dependent on villain type and hero's image, but I think there's a better chance to fold out two pair doing this than bombing heart rivers to rep the flush. Is that crazy talk? In terms of actual numbers, this would mean 3betting the flop to $450 and then all-in on the turn.

Of course that's correct, but you only really find that out when they bomb the turn. While that line will be more successful at eliciting folds, you have to raise otf enough that it pretty much sets up a turn shove and then we're turning our hand that we have $120 committed into a 200bb, $2000 bluff vs a range that crushes our holding, even if it might not crush our range. This seems like an unnecessary dumb fancy play syndrome in trying to discover a way to win a hand. I'd like to think if the only way for us to win a hand is to pull off 200bb bluffs, we're better off folding at an earlier point in the hand the vast majority of the time.

Well against the range you mention this is just definitionally untrue. The flop 3b/turn shove play is designed to give us four ways to win. Villain folds flop, villain folds turn, villain calls flop and we hit turn, or villain calls flop and turn and we hit river. While we have just 3 outs to chop against the two combos of T8s, we have 10 outs against the 12 combos of 76s, 97s, 77, and 66 as well as 8 outs against the 3 combos of 99.

You can say we still don't have enough between the hand equity and fold equity to make it +EV, but it's not accurate to portray this play as a pure bluff.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While listening to this hand I thought that it was a great spot to bluff, but rec's hate to fold. I have given up on spots like this vs. people that i don't have a ton of history with.Seems to work a lot more vs. anonymous players online.

Since it was a pot sized bet, calling is very poor EV. In order to be plus EV, I calculated he needs villain to fold 85% of time on river if non-straight flush hits assuming villain checks when flush hits and hero PSB. If this were a $300 bet, would need a fold about 50% of time to make plus EV, which is more reasonable.