Speaker A
Hey everyone, hello. Today we have a big subscriber hand review. We're analyzing your hands. We're giving away merch for the best hand. Today my guest is Kolya Usblbilbo.
Poker hand review and strategy discussion focused on improving win rates at low stakes with expert insights and coaching tips.
Key Takeaways
- Play strong, clear ranges out of position to combat high rake at low stakes.
- Focus on value betting and exploiting capped ranges rather than bluffing frequently.
- Balancing playing and coaching requires managing volume and selecting solid, independent students.
- Donk betting on draw-heavy boards can be effective to build pot and extract value.
- Selective multi-tabling and quality play yield better results than grinding many tables for rakeback.
What the video covers
- The video features a subscriber hand review session with guest Kolya Usblbilbo discussing poker strategy.
- Focus on low-limit No-Limit Hold'em games, particularly NL5 to NL500 and up to 3-5K stakes.
- Discussion of playing style, table selection, and managing volume and coaching simultaneously.
- Detailed hand analysis emphasizing preflop ranges, value-oriented play, and adapting to high rake at low stakes.
- Strategies for playing out of position and exploiting capped opponent ranges are highlighted.
- Insights on bet sizing, donk betting, and maximizing value on draw-heavy boards.
- The importance of solid, straightforward play in low-stakes games with predatory rake is stressed.
- Guest shares experience with coaching groups and balancing playing/coaching workload.
- The video includes multiple hand examples with commentary on opponent tendencies and optimal lines.
- Merch giveaway incentivizes viewer engagement by selecting the best hand submitted.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Guest Kolya Usblbilbo
- 02:30Discussion of Stakes and Poker Rooms
- 05:56Playing Style and Coaching Experience
- 09:16Hand Analysis: Preflop and Flop Strategy
- 18:53Bet Sizing and Opponent Range Exploitation
- 26:13Balancing Playing and Coaching Workload
- 33:07Advanced Hand Examples and Final Thoughts
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Yeah, sure, that works, sure. Bilbo's Moustache. Bilbo's Moustache. But honestly, the first time I read your nickname somewhere in a table, after the third letter I was like, what the hell, and didn't even pay attention. I remember we had some connection in Minsk. I'm
Speaker A
looking, "Usyl", who is that anyway? Like, I didn't even read the full nickname, didn't bother.
Speaker A
And it was Bilbo's Moustache. Could you please tell us what limits you play and what you do?
Speaker A
I'm from Russia, from the city of Arkhangelsk. It's located roughly by the White Sea. Maybe someone has heard of it, or someone lives there, I'm sure of it. Right now I'm grinding 400-2K.
Speaker A
When I play, I jump up to 3-5K, yeah. But it's very risky, there's not much action overall, only for very, very juicy whales.
Speaker A
That's cool. Where are you currently concentrated, in terms of rooms? You mentioned VPN, right? Ah, VPN and Coin are your base, right? Well, now I've also hooked up Stake. In principle, when there's action in Bros, ClubGG, or those, like... Paradise and Flash Squad
Speaker A
are still there. Uh-huh. I keep those clubs open and monitor them, so I try to catch everything that's available.
Speaker A
Well, I have about the same, only I don't play VPN at all. Although they say the action there has been decent lately. So you say 400-2K, but the average is about a grand, right?
Speaker A
Yeah? I think 600 to a grand is available almost any time of day or night, even with selective games. So I'm not really complaining about the game, the quantity, or the volume.
Speaker A
To be honest, I'm not complaining lately either, but my average limit is probably... well, I mostly played 500 this month.
Speaker A
Well, maybe 600 or 700 there. It might average out to something, but most likely 500. I registered on Coin recently, but I wouldn't say there's tons of action on Coin. I mean, for me, like 1K is...
Speaker A
Yeah, it's probably more of a reg grind, with constant leaderboards and a couple...
Speaker A
a couple of strange whales. Maybe they are whales. We need to analyze them. Do you battle them in those races or just...
Speaker A
No, I try to focus on quality. I mean, I don't play eight tables or anything.
Speaker A
I probably play a maximum of three or four tables on average. Meaning I don't play for rakeback and don't grind leaderboards, as an option. I mean, I did consider it, yes, increasing the volume and number of tables, so it
Speaker A
would also be lucrative. That approach also works, as we can see, of course, of course, from the results. And you also combine this with coaching?
Speaker A
Yes, yes, I combine them. For about a year and a half now. On average, my students now play NL 100-400. I mean, everyone plays 100.
Speaker A
200, I think, and 400 too. Well, probably half the group. There. And a couple of people took some shots and established themselves at 600.
Speaker A
Cool. And how many people are in your group right now? Well, right now, yes, as of today, seven. I just took on one more person the day before yesterday. There were 13, there were, well, like 10. Uh-huh.
Speaker A
Most of the time. But right now, 6-7 is just super comfortable. Maybe I'll take one or two more spots.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Seven, damn. And how many hours of play do you end up with, then?
Speaker A
In 2025, I’ve been averaging about 120 hours of actual gameplay per month. Yes, that's without theory. As for coaching, lately, from what I've monitored, it's been about 30 hours a month. That includes hand analysis, group training sessions, and individual
Speaker A
lessons. That's decent. 120 hours, because when I tried to combine them, I had a kind of medium-sized group, and I spent a lot of time on them, especially when there were many people. Now, for me, well, the most comfortable is 2-3, 6-7
Speaker A
is already, well, I wouldn't say, well, they must be pretty solid regs by now who don't require too much attention.
Speaker A
Well, yeah. And the guys, the core of the group, are independent players. There. And, perhaps, it's easier in that regard, yes. But in general, yes, it used to be hard to combine playing and coaching. I've always had that
Speaker A
issue. Well, for the last six months it's been okay, everything is stable and balanced, but before that, either playing or coaching suffered. That happened, yes.
Speaker A
I also faced a lot of challenges with multitasking, so this year I will likely focus more on one direction.
Speaker A
Okay, all right, let's go. Let's start analyzing the hands. Our first hand is right from the start at NL5. Let me read the description of the opponent first. A good reg, it seems, a good reg, I see. We opened 3bb from UTG. He 3-
Speaker A
bets 4x from the BTN. You can tell right away it's a good reg. Alright, all jokes aside, maybe that's really how you're supposed to blast it, though I'm not sure. How do you feel about our preflop game at low stakes with high
Speaker A
rake? Out of position. Well, try to reach the flop with a strong, clear range as much as possible, you know, without any connectors or speculative hands. I'd also consider King-Queen a weak hand against that sizing in these positions. I mean, I'd
Speaker A
probably even call Queen-Jack marginal hands that are already folds. That's why I'd just fold nines here.
Speaker A
I agree with you because the rake at these stakes is just, well, predatory. We need to play as solidly as possible out of position; I’d recommend everyone just 4-bet these suited broadways, even Ace-Queen, King-Jack, King-Queen, don't call much, especially
Speaker A
when he gives 4x, but okay, we called. The flop went check-check, we're loading the turn and building the pot, that works.
Speaker A
Well, again, what hands are actually left after a check-back on the flop? I would probably remove overpairs entirely, or maybe leave a very small weight for some Aces with a King kicker. Overall, yeah, and I like the idea of
Speaker A
being as value-oriented as possible there. Yes, you're exploiting a capped range, so nines block some potential top pairs, but this isn't a spot where the opponent has many nines, so the main value comes from combo draws and flush draws. Honestly, if we go back to
Speaker A
the flop and talk about being as value-oriented as possible, I think you could even blast the flop, donk into him. Well, yeah.
Speaker A
Donk right away, because I'm sure the opponent will stack off with his overpairs regardless, so he definitely can't get away if he ended up here.
Speaker A
Well, he won't get away from a check-raise either, but he might just check back an overcard. Yeah, that might happen too.
Speaker A
Yeah, yeah. It's not that scary for you specifically if he hits an Ace or a King. Right, but let's assume it's 100% there. Well, the turn, yeah, okay. 3/4, yeah, definitely good. Well, the river is unpleasant, but even though we have
Speaker A
a flush blocker, I'd probably still bet myself. Meaning, they simply have top pairs: FD combos, yeah, like Ace-King, Ace-Queen, Ace-Jack, Ace-10. In some weight, it's possible the guy hit the flop, so he would have bet himself, and well, against a shove—yeah. If he had
Speaker A
shoved, then, well, I would have thought about it. I don’t think there are any bluffs there again, and I don’t think that after calling the turn we'll be widely pushed out of this pot on the river.
Speaker A
No, of course not, the most default recommendation here for low-stakes players. You hit, you loaded the pot, that’s it, the flush completed, but you’re not going anywhere with your set anyway. Why would you check? I mean, he might check some top pairs. Or
Speaker A
maybe you’ll somehow happen to see some checked Queens, which he decided to play after seeing some Wizard simulation and decided to check back.
Speaker A
So it's just a cooler if a flush was realized, and that’s it. There's no point in overthinking it, resorting to checks, or worrying about calls, yeah, 100%. Anyway, by the way, I forgot to mention, Kolyan, you saw the
Speaker A
description, right, that we need to choose a hand at the end for the merch.
Speaker A
I mean, it doesn't matter how you choose it, or what emotions it evokes in you. Maybe you'll be like, "Oh, cool, you th
Speaker A
Whatever you like the most, we'll give them the merch. Looking at 54. Harsh. And, by the way, we can take note of the rake, right? What do we have?
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Won 90 BB. So, I mean, how much was it, 10 BB rake he paid? Uh-huh. Uh-huh.
Speaker A
Harsh. Yeah-yeah-yeah. Yeah. Returning to preflop once again. I mean, try to overfold between the actions of 4- betting and calling. It’s better not to play a 4-bet pot unnecessarily.
Speaker A
Absolutely. It's better for us to take the pot preflop, if your room doesn't take rake preflop. And a decent room doesn't take rake preflop. Okay. Next.
Speaker A
We have a hand. Sent it over. By Igor Akatov. This will be our second hand.
Speaker A
Playing against a hobby player. GG. We're on the button, as I understand it , a recreational player opened. We 3- bet him. Our limit is 25. The board came 3-10-Ace. We bet a third into the recreational player immediately.
Speaker A
Anything to say? Either standard or a bluff, right? Well, even if we have no info on whether they're a calling station or a folder, fish don't really have elasticity even between 1/3 and 1/2 pot , so you can start value-betting larger
Speaker A
right away. I mean, the board is draw-heavy, there are gutshots, flush draws, and even fish can have all sorts of suited aces here, there are a lot of them, so we should immediately aim to value-bet that range. I mean, like,
Speaker A
deuces or some fours, they fold to a third-pot bet anyway. So we aren't interested in the category of hands that fold to any sizing. The fact that we have no info on their aggression, and that we might be inducing with
Speaker A
small bets, it just turns into a guessing game for us. So it's better to just start extracting value ourselves, maybe even play it over two streets, like double-barreling if the turn brings a flush draw. I agree that there's no elasticity between 1/3 and
Speaker A
1/2, but I'm tired of telling everyone this info, because if you're playing against a recreational player, when you have a value hand, you should choose the upper bound of your sizing, and when bluffing, the lower, to try and
Speaker A
get there cheaper. That's why here, betting three-quarters pot on the turn is the same thing. There won't really be any elasticity between 2/3, 75%, or 85%pot either. Just increase your size, start extracting value immediately, and put yourself in a situation where you
Speaker A
can definitely value-bet the river, and the river is, naturally, an eight here. In short, you need to choose a turn size so that you have a solid shove on the river, because you're extracting value from a ton of X-ranks and tens.
Speaker A
I've already jumped ahead of you there. Well, anyway, I think you agree with me right?
Speaker A
Yes, that's exactly how it is. I mean, if the SPR were different, the situation would be completely different . We could have shoved 20 big blinds even on this runout and not worry about all those top pairs. In this SPR, well,
Speaker A
it actually becomes variable. I mean, it's not a given that the X-ranks or some tens will pay you off. You could even argue here that since we don't have a flush draw, I would probably bet-fold our hand, or just check some
Speaker A
sizing, maybe not shove. Although here, it’s probably a bet-shove. In general , yes, we’ve created some problems for ourselves out of thin air. So let's choose different, more correct sizings on the previous streets. And on the river, too, yes. Again, against fish,
Speaker A
you can have 10 sizes in your arsenal, and you'll be right. That is, say, ace-king with a suit, for instance, you can always shove here, and some default stuff.
Speaker A
In general. So yes, we've discussed the main points, that by choosing other sizes, the river just becomes an easy shove, that's all. I mean, even here, everything depends on the fish. I just see VPIP 28 here. In general, try to
Speaker A
move away from these default buttons that you've set for yourself in the room. Let's move on. The next hand is from Dmitry, again at 5NL. An average reg, though, with 5k hands and a 3-bet from SB to BB of 13. We opened on the
Speaker A
SB. The BB 3-bet us. Again, standard stats. Let's return to the first hand from Dmitry. What do we do when we play at low limits with high rake? We overfold preflop and postflop. We want to play fewer of these bloated pots.
Speaker A
But here we make the same mistake again and call. What can you tell us about this when playing against an unknown reg? Do we need this hand after the flop or not?
Speaker A
Yes, I think it's a preflop fold, a flop fold, and no need to spend more time on it. When you analyze a hand on your own, or with a partner or coach, try not to break everything down to the
Speaker A
tenth of a percent, but try to cover more volume, more spots, and you'll get more profit from it all. I mean, there's really no card of that suit here, so why are we climbing in for half-pot on a monotone board? As for
Speaker A
preflop, the 3-bet is 13%, which is lower than the standard 17-18%, roughly speaking. So, fives against a standard 3-bet would probably be a fold in this rake structure. And here, there's really nothing to talk about. Fold preflop, fold flop. Those are the best
Speaker A
actions. Well, since we reached the river, I would definitely bet, that's the question. Again, on the flush, I think the opponent is capped. Trying to get value, maybe an overbet is a lot, actually, and without a card in the
Speaker A
suit, probably check. In principle, I like the value sizing. That's fine, yes. Well, like, to get some more calls, maybe.
Speaker A
Yes, we are kind of widening our range a little bit. So, I think a shove is generally fine here, yeah, well, with an ace-high flush draw. Again, those same suited aces might be tempted to call. There you go. But 3/4 might be
Speaker A
fine, realistically there won't be any difference in EV. The calling range will just be wider against a 3/4 bet than a shove. And that's it.
Speaker A
Later in the comments they'll write: " How does a 1/2K reg not know the nut flush draw is a shove here?" Alright, we get it. Well yeah, I also thought, maybe just shove, they'll find some calls with overpairs or won't fold a
Speaker A
pair. You could just shove it mindlessly. You can also build value through frequency. Okay. That's the biggest mistake. Kolya said to fold preflop. On the flop, we don't overthink this situation either. If we already made it this far, be kind and
Speaker A
fold. And they showed us king-two. Unusual. Unusual. By the way, that's who we got a call from. Yes. Possibly a shove, by the way.
Speaker A
Possibly a shove would also be in that range. An even more profitable play. So , they are quite a rock, right?
Speaker A
Yeah. Oops. Not a fish. How do we filter the flop, what to put in a bet for such a flop so it suits both of us?
Speaker A
What to check? Let's see. So, we opened on the button. Uh, on... On the cutoff, yeah. We opened on the cutoff. We got 3-bet on the button. We called here; again, we're currently playing on a room called ScamG. They
Speaker A
take rake preflop here, so these standard lines naturally don't work, so you have to account for things like a lot of cold calls and other nonsense.
Speaker A
Here we can 4-bet, but I'm sure we can also play by calling once we hit the flop. What do you say about the opponent checking there at all? Well, by default, yes. Again, if we're talking solver play, it's normal to
Speaker A
have overpairs, top pairs, and two-pairs in the check range. Straights , I think, will bet much more often, maybe even close to 100%, but I wouldn't remove all two-pairs from the check range; not everyone will definitely bet them. And I wouldn't cap
Speaker A
them on the turn, especially on a runout like that for the flush draw. I mean, king-ten, king-jack could definitely be there. Well, king-jack, I think you'd need to check the solver for that. We have a king, or rather, we
Speaker A
block it. Uh-huh. There you go. But king-jack can definitely be there. Regarding all the combos, well, some will have it, yes, like king-jack, say, king-ten, at least partially, so, well, that adds some more nuts. Well, the turn is certainly
Speaker A
interesting, yes. Bet-bet. So, how would you generally play the turn when the king pairs up and we got a check-back before that? Would you go for a stack here, or should we even have half-measures here? Are these some
Speaker A
kind of thirds, or are we going to zero out on checks and large sizes here?
Speaker A
That's a good, interesting question. Yeah, I would probably play, not exactly more simply, but more understandably for myself, yes. If you don't know what to do, play, say, that line, that size you're more comfortable with, where you know your range
Speaker A
distributions better. I like just betting big myself right here and not worrying about it. I mean, right now we can just get calls from some, uh, X's there, yes, the same ace-highs. That's still equity, after all. Oh, well,
Speaker A
although we have a full house, we have a full house, we'll basically get calls there too. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah , yeah. So we can basically come up with any size here. Therefore, again, I like a third as well. I don't really
Speaker A
like a check-raise, though. It's just that I don't see enough bluffs here at all, neither at my limits, nor at the limits below. Not enough bluffs. So I don't know, I would probably think that a solver would play it like that, yes,
Speaker A
completely, like betting and re-betting , and maybe even a full house, but I prefer to play it more realistically against the field here. I mean, again, there are jacks, partially, like king-jack, king-ten. Will the opponent play ace-king or king-queen like that
Speaker A
here? Probably, they probably have the right to, for a third. Well, I'm looking at the solver now, and on the turn, when the king pairs up , we're checking our whole range.
Speaker A
Because, yes, well, it's clear that for protection, this would be the optimal play, but again, our preflop ranges might be completely different, and especially regarding the flop, right.
Speaker A
But again, yes, checking a full house, well, naturally, there won't be a problem. See what size the opponent chooses, I don't know, check it back, you can even shove some blank river and that would also be optimal.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Well, that's an interesting hand, by the way, because, honestly, I wouldn't expect that on a jack-ten-king board. I mean, first of all, I expect a lot of trashy Ax hands to be betting into this board. Maybe even some sevens
Speaker A
or eights in position might just bet a third pot for no reason. I don't know, like, I don't know that it checks back that much, not really. I mean, solvers have the button checking back, like, 70 %of the time. Yeah, that's a whole lot.
Speaker A
And because of that high check-back frequency, we can't really get aggressive on the turn. But in a vacuum, looking at it like this, if I were three hours into a session and saw a king on the turn, I’d
Speaker A
probably just shove some big bet with tens and fold to a push, something like that.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. If Yeah, there will be virtually no bluffs there, well, definitely not enough.
Speaker A
Maybe none at all. Yeah, because it feels like they’d check back ace-ten, maybe ace-jack, hands like that that want to see more without facing aggression.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And other hands would probably raise. I mean, I’d be loading up with ace-queen, I think.
Speaker A
So, alright, okay. We bet a third and get raised. Three-bet it, I would have.
Speaker A
Well, like you said, and again, what I just mentioned, playing for big sizes is totally clear to us. I mean, we can easily turn some fours or fives into a bluff, just folding out better pocket pairs that decided to check. Just play
Speaker A
a big, big size, and that’s it. But betting small and then starting to overthink what they could have checked or not, that, in short, becomes difficult for me. So, looking at it now, it's definitely not simple; we get raised.
Speaker A
Well, again, with a full house, you’d just three-bet and shove. Uh, I don’t think playing tens this way would be a tragedy or a mistake, considering the guy...
Speaker A
Well, by the way, if you take the river runout into account, it’s really, well, unpleasant, and some king-queen hands got there, and even queens might actually play it that way...
Speaker A
getting blocked on the turn, and, well, blocking those jacks and so on. Well, just maybe merge the jack additionally and check-back. So, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. That's why a queen here is, well, not a blank card at all. Well, a difficult hand. I agree
Speaker A
that a fold here, let's say, well, not a fold, but maybe a check-fold would be , I don't know, like a super-pro play, but I don't see any major crime in this line, in this play. Crime.
Speaker A
Ace-King, yeah, would Ace-King pay off here? I don't know, I doubt that they'd pay off with Ace-King on this texture.
Speaker A
Well, with a ten, then again, yes. Well , as you're saying, maybe we shouldn't really make that discount for the limits. Well, okay, like, a check-fold is cool because, indeed, the aces will never shove into us, we won't see
Speaker A
bluffs, and we might miss out on value from those thin streets. 10%and fold to a shove. I like these small sizes if you know your opponents well, because if you don't, then you can over-level yourself in all sorts of
Speaker A
directions. But, well, anyway, a three-bet. Okay here, but on any blank, a shove is fine with these tens, like, well, Ace-Queen, like, well, into a queen, I know. In short, the question was what he would check. Well, he could
Speaker A
check, as we discussed, either a lot of things or very little. It's just guessing here. Well, for me, for example, it's difficult up to a pair, let's say. Wizard likes to check on such connected textures. It loves to
Speaker A
not bloat the pot. How is the person playing? Well, did they play here, I don't know, using a randomizer at these limits or not, or just by instinct.
Speaker A
That's it. But they played, well, probably according to the Wizard, let's say they played well. A very good assumption, played very well, yes. Well , that's interesting, by the way. I just chose a line in Wizard where we,
Speaker A
like, check on the turn from the cutoff . Button bets a third and we raise.
Speaker A
Button calls, a queen comes out, and Wizard from the cutoff check-folds tens. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yeah, that's, well, one worse here, probably. Well, worse, probably some other jack, possibly, yes .
Speaker A
But, well, no, a queen. A queen really, considering the offsuit combinations of King-Queen, yes, that’s a lot of combos for such narrow ranges, yes, so even, well, the Wizard easily, like, it has some partially zero-ev calls with suited hands there. Okay,
Speaker A
let's move on. The next one is also from NL50 on PokerOK. We have a raise on the cutoff, we 3-bet. We have a passive reg of the limit. Good. Passive . Passive is good. We are on the button
Speaker A
and got a standard call on the cutoff. The board came out 6-4-? We have King-Jack suited. Of course, it's hard for me to navigate by suits. Are you playing with four colors or?
Speaker A
Yes, yes, four colors. Well, I just, you know, I think, I think it's in this spot. I mean, you can get used to it by the fifth day of playing.
Speaker A
Yes, of course. It's just, for me, it's a perversion because I have friends who try two-color and I see a flush on every second board.
Speaker A
It’s tough already. Okay. So, on the cutoff, the opponent checked. We bet a third. Is that standard or not?
Speaker A
What do you think? I think that because of the range advantage, the board is, in principle, unpleasant, right? You need to defend Jacks, Queens, Kings there. I would bet at least half pot, yeah. Well, then again, you could easily bet
Speaker A
three-quarters here too. We have top pairs there, they are vulnerable, overpairs are vulnerable, so I would bet bigger right away. There are also backdoors here. Mmm, if 116, look, 32 came in. How much? 150. 160. 170, probably, somewhere in BB. Yes, I would
Speaker A
build the pot from flop to turn. Well, the turn is variable; by the way, a large layer of our hands has already depreciated, so to speak. That is, our overpairs have become underpairs, so to speak, King-Jack.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Therefore, on the turn, I would probably lower the sizing instead. So it was played the other way around here . Well, you could play Ace-King like that, right? Maybe Ace-Queen.
Speaker A
But let's go back to the flop. Like you said, a third is not enough. Well, I usually average it out: instead of a standard half pot, I stick with that.
Speaker A
2/3 rarely, well, I can play 2/3, but for me, these boards are all standard, like...I just know that the solver bets 2/3 on some, 1/3 on others, there's an equal ratio, and somewhere there's a skew, so I just always bet half pot—
Speaker A
it's just easier for me to maintain a certain frequency. Now, regarding the turn, as you say, a large sizing might be a mistake because we want to push kings, queens, jacks, and maybe king-ten here while in position.
Speaker A
Yes, even some tens, perhaps, and that is why I would choose a smaller size. I mean, again, if you know how to properly construct that range for a size that justifies it, then there are no questions. In other words, you need
Speaker A
to be very narrow if you bet that size, like a half-pot bet. And I would value-bet wider here and use a smaller sizing. That is what I would say.
Speaker A
I agree that it can be done that way. We are deep-stacked, 170 BB. Well, if we take 170 BB deep, for instance, do we want to use these small sizes? Even now, I’m actually curious to see.
Speaker A
Yes, I think so. It doesn't play a huge role, but it... It averages out to half-pot; meaning the small size will be larger than the big size—18%more checks, and the rest averages to half-pot. So, for the strongest tens. We can afford to bet
Speaker A
half-pot. Kings, queens, and queen-jack are checked often. Well yeah, the sizings just move toward the middle, but if we play a purely polar 75% strategy with king-jack, we could, but we should still aim to bluff cheaper.
Speaker A
Well, we have some pretty good blockers , right? I mean, a ton of them.
Speaker A
Yes. If, say, we are already approaching the river, the shove itself in a straight line, and against—I think there was info that he isn't a top-tier opponent, right? It says average, standard passive regular. Well , a standard passive regular is
Speaker A
supposed to fold to shoves. I wouldn't expect him to call with ace-ten or ace-queen here either. What does he have? He has some sets, partially ace-ten, and the flushes that got there, especially with the red ten.
Speaker A
Yes, and maybe some other combos. Again , our value is more distributed toward hands like ace-king. And here, when we shove, it ends up being an overbet.
Speaker A
It’s important that we don't over-bluff significantly. So, if we bluff all our KQ, QJ, and maybe KJ here , that would definitely be over-bluffing. Right. There is just nothing for him to fold. Meaning, the folding range on the river won't
Speaker A
exactly be huge. And we can really over-bluff. Like, take king-queen, you noticed really well that the suits are cool on the flop and turn, but on the river, for example, you wouldn't want a diamond so that these folds could
Speaker A
accumulate. Well, on the river, yes. But here you're saying there will be suited hands. I don't believe in the suited hands at all. It seems to me they'd fast-play them 90%of the time, yeah, most likely, fast-play. I mean, through
Speaker A
the ten in deep stacks, you could expect T8s, T9s, some J10, obviously Q10, well, everything through 10x, and flush draws like king-queen, well, king-queen of a flush suit. The only thing is, he could have Ace-King of hearts here. Well, basically, after the
Speaker A
polar line on the turn, it feels like his range consists strictly of 10x + FD and Ax.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. I don't see him dragging anything else along there at all. So, it turns out we shove and we're strictly, well, looking to fold out all Ace-Jack of diamonds, okay. A passive player will always check-call those. I think he'll rarely check-raise them.
Speaker A
But we need to see how he defends from the preflop. Well, it's a bit of a tricky hand, frankly. Basically, you know, playing like you said, betting maybe a third of the pot on the turn and shoving another half pot on a heart
Speaker A
. Well, that kind of cheap line looks pretty cool too. And without overdoing it, yes, it's quite likely there's even more EV in that. Right. And on the river, even in this line, it's important not to go totally
Speaker A
overboard bluffing, yeah. I would choose combos without a diamond on the river. And it's desirable, of course, to have the king of hearts to block more flushes.
Speaker A
Exactly, just target combos with the king of hearts. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Well yeah, king-queen, king-jack. Well, in general, yes, after all, we have 170 BB here. We need to be really careful when bluffing, be more cautious. What
Speaker A
hand do you put him on? Damn, well if the hand ended up here, it's unlikely to be a flush, maybe he couldn't bring himself to fold an Ace-Queen there. Ten-X probably calls just because they don't know how to
Speaker A
fold pretty combos. Well, I'd probably put him on some Ace-Queen here. Well, let's try Ace-King with the King of hearts. Ah.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Here, damn, AT, by the way, on a double board, sort of didn't fast-play, yeah. There. Didn't fast-play. Maybe, maybe. C-bets will also, well, partially be kept, partially.
Speaker A
But why, like, do passive players not fast-play hands like these? Do they think: "Damn, I don't want to scare them off, I have a super strong hand, I want to...What are they hoping for?" Good question. I am struggling to answer for now. I mean, I
Speaker A
don't think he thinks that the field is over-bluffing there. Well, although in this hand he turned out to be right. I mean, we probably over-bluffed here with something. I just know that players often get this emotion, or rather, the thought, that when you are
Speaker A
losing money and have, say, aces, you think: "Damn, I'll slow-play them one more time, like kings preflop." Maybe, maybe, yes, we are opponents.
Speaker A
Yeah, by the way. Okay. Next hand, an average reg. Didn't go for the stack.
Speaker A
Because I think people over-fold here and don't get it in. What do we have here? MP opened. We three-bet on the button. Well, as far as I understand, this is PokerOK. Mid-range hands are often cold-called there, yeah, three-bets will be more polarized there
Speaker A
. Anyway, that's not the point. You can three-bet, in general. Uh-huh. MP called. Why didn't he go for the stack? Because people over-fold. Well, what are your comments, Kolya? What do you think about the flop and the subsequent actions here?
Speaker A
Well, I generally like how we reached the river with our range, I'll say that . I mean, on a monotone flop, I also bet a third, but here we bet, well, a quarter. Let's say 5 BB, yeah, 5.2.
Speaker A
That would be cool. I mean, here it's 1.5 BB, there it's more. And in principle, we reach the river in a completely different SPR. Well, I like the flop and turn. I mean, I would play it the same way, I think on the turn
Speaker A
you can, well, you probably should check overpairs. I mean, we can really bet for straights if we have flushes.
Speaker A
Here is the river. Interesting, I understood that we might have even been forced out by a split. I mean, I can come up with a lot of combinations, like those same sixes or sevens, that didn't raise the flop/turn, and then
Speaker A
bluffed the river. I mean, I think we have no right to fold here. So we block his flush draws here, yes, those are the most obvious flush options.
Speaker A
Five-straight board, I think, yes, we can't really hold here. In theory, we can even come up with weaker flushes.
Speaker A
Yes, you can even come up with some weaker flushes. Well, I don't know, I would have played for stacks, uh, earlier, yeah. I mean, even if we have a split on the river, okay, I don't know, we bet such a large size, are we
Speaker A
hoping that our opponent calls with a split? Well no, then we're just cooler-ing some random 8x hands of his, yeah, we can just shove ourselves.
Speaker A
Especially if we had bet a little bit more on the flop, then by the river, it would be an even more comfortable call for the opponent. But if we choose three-quarters instead of shoving, and then fold because we got raised, then
Speaker A
shoving becomes, well, much, much more profitable. So, yeah, here, well, this is what I like the least.
Speaker A
I understand the hero just wanted to, you know, find a thin fold. And that is actually, I would say, commendable for the future. The fact that it's a very cool, yeah, a cool skill, yes, that the hero is thinking about
Speaker A
hands and trying to find thin folds. That is commendable, yes. But in this moment, just like Kolya noted, what I like the least is that if it's a bet-fold, it's better to just shove ourselves and avoid that.
Speaker A
So, overall, respect, good luck. Let's move on. River bluffing opportunity. What do we have on the opponent? Tight reg, a bit deep. 115 BB, 4-bet pot. We opened, it turns out, from MP. The button raised us. We 4-bet, and the
Speaker A
button called. And we got a 5-5-7 board . Well, a low board, medium size.
Speaker A
How do you like 1/2 pot right away? Well, I actually play that way, but it's just that we have other hands in those positions. Well, like Ace-Ace. I would slap that 1/2 pot bet out there.
Speaker A
But with Ace-King, it feels like we're trying to get some value, right? Although with Ace-Queen, we block those backdoor Ace-Queen/Ace-Ten combos that would pay off that 1/2 bet. So, if we're looking strictly at the suits, it's not ideal.
Speaker A
Agreed. Yes. That's the question of suits. I mean, for example, with hearts , whether it's a King or an Ace, there's, first of all, much more EV in those combos, right? Exactly. And secondly, we'd still get some, well,
Speaker A
calls from weaker hands, like some Jacks or Queens, at least partially, so I like it less. Well, and again, you can play exploitative and you'll always be right with a range bet.
Speaker A
That's 100%. In any 4-bet pot you can always bet, especially if, well, even a 1/3 sizing will be correct.
Speaker A
Well, the turn, actually, I like giving up now, yeah. Meaning sometimes we'll even get to a showdown against those same Ace-Deuce or Ace-Treys. It's just the core point is that when we get a call, our range remains, in principle,
Speaker A
unweakened. Well, we're not winning as strongly against their range; we might even be losing because the opponent folded 100%to that size. So, yeah, I'd give up the turn too, especially pushing the river against a solid regular after a call. Well, again, a
Speaker A
check-back on the turn. What hands could we come up with there? I doubt there are any 6-5 s, especially suited 5-4 s. Unlikely. Ace-Five, yeah, that also seems somewhat implausible.
Speaker A
Well, the good news is that we're blocking something, like some Ace-Queens. Yeah, we block Ace-Queens.
Speaker A
Diamonds, specifically. We block Ace-Queens, yes. Now, okay, the suit. Well, yeah. So, in fact, the Queen sort of becomes ours because our Ace-Queens get there. And it turns out we're trying to force the opponent to fold Jack-Ten or Nines, which he, so to
Speaker A
speak, checked on the turn, didn't block, yeah, on the turn. Uh-huh . Again, there are a lot of factors; we might think they're in the range, but he, for instance, folded everything pre-flop down to Tens and Jacks. That's
Speaker A
the first point. Second, yeah, a part of them gets blocked on the turn. So on the river, we're trying to fold out one or two combos. Well, figuratively speaking. Well, by the way, also splits .
Speaker A
Again, splits, yeah, are also possible, so, well, again, for a bluff, what worse combos do we have? That would probably be King-Jack, King-Ten, and again, Ace-Jack, Ace-Ten. So, in principle, I can come up with our bluff combos that are worse, which just
Speaker A
aren't ever going to a showdown. Well, yeah, but Ace-Jack, Ace-Jack. The only upside is that we knock out kings, but some random jacks might block us, which we could otherwise knock out.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Yeah. So, we don't want to block his folding range either, which is why...
Speaker A
potential, well, again, the hand isn't a crime. I think that... Well, the only thing, as we noted, regarding the flop size, please pay attention to the suits so we don't block...
Speaker A
that, as they say, blockers aren't important, but they are. They are definitely there, I think they could be in the 4-bet call range, they always will be, I feel.
Speaker A
The opponent isn't nitty. I could even put queens and kings in there, maybe even sometimes. Meaning in these positions they might simply not shove to a 4-bet here. Queens, by the way, well, we have queens, no questions there, but again, more nuts were added.
Speaker A
Let's look at the showdown, what do we have at showdown? Queens. Well, as you said, with a non-nitty opponent, he just flatted with queens.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And also, by the way, didn't block. Didn't block. Actually, if he isn't blocking queens, that tells us we should be bluffing a lot here because he'll have a lot of those low pairs. Well, like, yeah, if, again, he brings them along.
Speaker A
If he brings them along, then there is that logic, yes. Well, yeah, he needs to bring them, then he needs to not fold them immediately to 1/2 pot on the flop, so he doesn't block the turn, and so on.
Speaker A
Well, I just think that pre-flop they like to call, but on the flop, a low board won't let them fold. Well, uh-huh.
Speaker A
I hope that's how it is. Next up, we have a hand from NL 500, from our regular guy who sends in hands where he toughly picks someone off on the river.
Speaker A
NL 500, button opened. We called from the BB. We're battling hard in 3-max on NL 500. We played check-call on the flop. Well, with ranges for check-call, check-raise. Okay.
Speaker A
No point in discussing it here. On the turn, we're given a full overbet of the pot. And we have some options here, so to speak. Have you looked at or analyzed such spots at all? What do we have? Well no, I'm probably seeing a
Speaker A
spot like this for the first time in the hand screenshots, so I don't think it's worth trying to reinvent the wheel here. I think we can just comfortably fold our combo here, yeah. I mean, the ace-high flush doesn't give us the nuts
Speaker A
, ace-nine doesn't give us the nuts, and our raise here—it seems calculated to take down the street, to fold out some air, some empty stuff, you know, just like that. Queen-jack, for instance, just isn't folding based on the odds on the turn. So, if we have
Speaker A
a plan for the river, like turning an eight or a six into a bluff, or coming up with some tricky check-calls with our catchers, there's just so much, again, if...
Speaker A
so much of what we love about poker, especially for some people who Yeah, yeah, in terms of action, it turned out cool to get into all sorts of nonsense. Well , I've analyzed spots like this to see what to do, and these low-frequency
Speaker A
turn raises usually pop up, but you can never guess the sizing, like he just wants to raise 45%here and then barrel some high-frequency bluffs on the river . But again, these are really tough hands because you have to navigate the
Speaker A
river after, but we hit an eight and played check-call. Well, the obvious bluffs are those 16 combos of queen-jack that he'll play this way overall.
Speaker A
Well, if we assign a full weight to them, there are probably a lot of bluffs. I mean, open-enders, ten-nine, ace-jack, I don't know, ace-queen, queen-jack, nine. There are really a lot of combos there plenty of combos for three-max. Ah,
Speaker A
yeah, yeah. I think there will definitely be some fast-plays on the turn as well. They might even shove some sevens right away. They might even shove king-ten, yeah, even just some strong top pairs could theoretically shove too. Well,
Speaker A
the river, the river turns out to be played cool against the turn action, if we actually won the hand, yeah. But if the hand is here, we most likely won the hand.
Speaker A
Well, the opponent has queen-jack, like I said, those are the obvious ones, there are a lot of them combinatorically, especially since queen-jack in this line is something any average reg will play often. A third-pot bet, that standard move we
Speaker A
can assign a high weight to for this broad, wide range of hands. Man, the turn sizing is interesting too, like a min-click. Overall, let's call it a skillful play. Well done.
Speaker A
Yeah, yeah, I hear you. And we also have NL2 on Chico. There wasn't much info, just VIP. We love VIPs. CO opened . We have a casual player in the CO. On the button, we also have a casual
Speaker A
player, by the way. So the CO opened, the button just called. Chico has a good field, by the way, guys. Chico ad.
Speaker A
From the BB, we squeezed the whole thing. And the button, the second one, who called the open, makes the call. Ah , we have 67 BB left behind, meaning 70 BB is his effective stack, and the board is 7-4. On the flop, we bet small
Speaker A
against the casual player. Well, there wasn't really any info. So, accordingly , we are playing in a vacuum against some average 67/27 fish who loves to call. So how would you recommend playing this in general? Yeah, well, when there's no info on a VIP, I would
Speaker A
stick to some averaged-out data, like what the field does, and play more according to types, playing in a vacuum against that specific type. Basically, play against folders like folders, and play against calling stations like calling stations. So, if there’s no
Speaker A
info at the start, I would pre-flop go for a bigger squeeze, maybe 15-17 BB, even if the hand isn't ready, it's still premium, especially against fish.
Speaker A
And the second point is the flop. We bet something in range. Around a quarter pot, right? Well, maybe half pot.
Speaker A
Well, in principle, there's no criticism, right? I would have found a bet of a third. Because, again, the fish has 8- high 9-high 5-6 9-6 9-8 ace-high some backdoor flush draws, overcards like queen-jack, so many combinations.
Speaker A
We really have a value bet here. It could almost be a stack-off situation, but I can defend this bet size. I do this myself sometimes, sizing down to make it psychologically easier to call down on blanks later. Like, we put in a
Speaker A
tiny bet, the opponent calls with a wide range, and then we're always pot-committed. So, just like that.
Speaker A
Agreed. Yes, there's a point to that idea. Yeah. But on the other hand, yes, if we hit, the pot will be smaller. So if we hit an ace or king, the pot is smaller. And then again, Fish, in
Speaker A
principle, yeah, if he shows a bluff here, I think he would have managed to do it even if the pot on the river was 50 big blinds, but at the same time our EV would be higher with a larger sizing
Speaker A
from the flop, so I would...Yeah, the flop, well, okay, I like it, yeah, a quarter, a third, maybe even up to half-pot will work. Now, the turn is interesting; I think the seven is actually a blank here that reduces the
Speaker A
number of 7x in the opponent's range, yes, they became trips, but there are fewer pairs. And there are more draws now, yes, they’ve only increased, so I would find a bet on the turn as well.
Speaker A
Or how do you think, would you bet the turn yourself here? I prefer to just showdown against players like this. Meaning, how?
Speaker A
Well, let's say check the turn and then showdown the river. Check the turn, then showdown the river on a blank. I understand that line because I realize there are a lot of gutshots; there could just be a kiloton
Speaker A
of calls here. So, like, in general, yeah, total air, yeah, and they call all of that, and then they'll bluff the blank. I absolutely understand, but in a vacuum, it would be easier for me to play check-check. And I would probably play
Speaker A
this hand exactly like that. Flop, yes, you could go bigger, but overall, small is fine too. Check-check and I’d snap the river. I mean, it wouldn't just be a turbo-call. My hand would be an instant call, I mean I’d snap-call
Speaker A
because so much garbage missed here and the deuce is such a massive blank. The opponent is a fish and will never merge for such a size with a ten. Well, you know, plus he should probably check it back. Turn check, so he’s repping
Speaker A
strictly value, even though there's a huge number of bluffs there. Yeah, yeah , yeah, I 100%agree. Exactly, and by theory, if there’s no info on a fish, their bluffs are usually half-pot or 2/3, some manipulated sizings, and usually, overbets or large bets
Speaker A
represent strength. Exactly. But there is an exception: right here, if we played it somehow dynamically, the fact that we called the bet here—well, again, so many things missed—and I think that without info this is a really cool, very profitable call.
Speaker A
Right. Because fish give themselves away with sizes, lines, and some with timing. It’s really great if you notice all of that.
Speaker A
Well, you know, this is actually the most obvious hand that could have been here. And it could have been offsuit as well, by the way.
Speaker A
Yes, yes, 100%. Another hand. Playing against a passive fish. He had a line where he would over-aggro the button against checks.
Speaker A
Okay. And here, the cutoff opened. There’s this recreational player. We calmly three-bet, the opponent called, played a standard old-school c-bet, put in a small one, and checked the flush on the turn.
Speaker A
Well, again, it’s variable. Most likely, there’s no crime here. I mean , if we have a note that the opponent over-bets against checks, I think it's a bet.
Speaker A
Yes, yes, yes, yes. That increases the check line. Well, regarding the specific hands. Again, theoretically, maybe some two-card flushes are better to check here than one-card ones. But, globally, I don’t know, I see some hands like pocket pairs without the suit, aces, I don’t
Speaker A
know, maybe even king-jack suited, did he drag it like that, or maybe king-ten and played it this way. I wouldn't be surprised at all, especially if there's a note. Right. And what about lower flushes, could they play like that? Ah,
Speaker A
a third plus a large one. First of all, it doesn't look like any nut flushes.
Speaker A
Queen-high flush. Well, again, a small range remains. There’s more of everything else, yeah, in principle, I kind of like the hand. Right. Well, I would have also on the turn, if I bet, I would have considered that, yes,
Speaker A
yes, of course. I mean, betting again, just because there are many pocket pairs with the suit, like tens, nines, eights, sevens.
Speaker A
Well yeah, as you said, try to get a recreational player to over-bet a queen-X like that, so with that info, it’s totally okay.
Speaker A
Definitely. I would actually also, damn , if we saw a hand like, say, a Jack of Diamonds—or rather not red, but let's say Jack of Diamonds—well, again, by old-school standards, we assume an amateur might fight for the pot, float
Speaker A
wider, and put on pressure. So, overall , up next we have Evgeny Zhuk. Zhuk, did you decide to do some studying or did you decide to provide us with some content? Our limit is 1.1 k. I didn't get it,
Speaker A
that our tourney is 1K. There wasn't much info on him. What do you think about his check-back on the flop? Well, let's see what we've got. PPP Poker. We opened from MP. SB called. BB 3-bet. We called the squeeze. Well, considering
Speaker A
there's an amateur in the SB, I think our hand is definitely in our calling range here. There’s just no getting around it. The sizing is huge, of course. The sizing is definitely huge.
Speaker A
This in the SB, yes, that’s the situation. Dima TimeNow likes to inflate the sizing like this, from what I've seen.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. How he plays. So we called. Actually, I like betting the flop here from the BTN . The board suits us. We can easily fold out some worse hands. And it’s still, yeah, like six outs against ours. Essentially,
Speaker A
just playing it as a bet is fine, actually. We won’t get confused. Well like it’s definitely variable. Yes. I think it’s variable on all streets.
Speaker A
That includes the flop bet, this turn raise sizing, and the river. Is it variable, like between folding and calling? I think Wizard will have it as basically indifferent, to be honest.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Well, okay. Fine. On the turn, like you said, it’s variable between raising and calling, but we called and got shoved on the river. Well, if we didn't raise the river, or didn't raise the turn, do we even have any options
Speaker A
to fold? Well, again, I think in these direct lines, I wouldn't expect enough bluffs there. This line is broken, yeah , it’s a delay plus delay sizing, well, not optimized for the account, or even for the hand, it seems.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. That’s why I think we aren't folding here, especially because of the sizing sequence. Actually, in principle, it’s not hard to put him on some offsuit broadways here, so it looks like there’s a decent overbluff. Well , really, KD, KJ, QJ, all those combos
Speaker A
are there. Some pocket pairs, right? But which pocket pairs could turn into a bluff here, like jacks? But why? Well , I don’t know.
Speaker A
Well, overall, I think Zhenyok understood. Let’s see the showdown. Showdown was Jack-Ten, by the way.
Speaker A
Wow. So it was a bluff-turn, but Zhenyok lured the enemy in. Yeah. Yeah. That turned out nicely. By the way, such showdowns indicate that opponents deviate quite far, and it’s very useful to notice these showdowns.
Speaker A
It really turns out to be a massive, massive overbluff here. Any Ace-high we have in this line is definitely a call.
Speaker A
The question arises regarding something like King-Ten, whether it's worth calling. Well, again, poor blockers there, King-Jack, King-Queen, so, yeah, well, like the Aces, Aces should be enough to call and Yeah, yeah, I think Aces will be enough . Meaning we could have brought
Speaker A
a lot of air. The solver folds all those Aces with some weighting. Well, even Ace-Queen.
Speaker A
We’ll just be calling all of that for a + EV. Printing money, essentially. Next hand is NL2. Zhenyok decided to play for fun . He was in a playful mood. Let’s take a look. I happen to know this hand
Speaker A
. It’s as if Zhenyok was playing, I don't know, while sober or not. He opened from MP, an amateur in the cutoff called, and SB 3-bet. We decided to enter the hand here. So that’s already something. Preflop is quite
Speaker A
loose for NL2. Especially since the SB 3-bet us, and we called. Turn checked through, and river checked. We shoved all-in, and this is, by the way, a value bet, a value bet, right. I mean, I thought it was some kind of bluff-turn, but
Speaker A
it’s a value bet. And Zhenyok said, " I thought, well, I thought we were printing money here." I’m thinking, wow. Well, of course, a bluff, you could come up with an all-in , okay, something missed, but we wanted
Speaker A
to get a call from King-Queen from the player. Like, our stats probably didn’t really encourage the opponent to make such calls, but in general, it looks more like Ace-Jack. I would Yeah, well, it’s a maniac who can, in
Speaker A
principle, play like that. I recently played something similar to that, but that’s a different topic. As for the trips themselves, yeah, I probably wouldn’t expect too many trips here, especially on this river check. Our range is perceived as very weak, well,
Speaker A
very weak. Well, a shove. Well, it’s interesting. I mean, if King-Queen calls, I feel it’s psychologically easier for them to call a different size, like half-pot or something like that.
Speaker A
Well, like I said, Zhenya, it’s like some aggressive reg bit him or something. Very much so, by the way, Ace-Queen is probably a shove. I would shove Ace-Queen, yeah, no questions asked. still playing. Well yeah, he might just have some, you know
Speaker A
, turns like Ace-something... devalued Ace-five might be there, yeah, well, one combo, okay. Let's see what the showdown is, Queen-Jack.
Speaker A
Well, interesting, by the way, yeah. Got sucked out on, damn. So, the next hand is from Benediptal 50, we opened from the cutoff, got a call from the BB , played it...well, and who are we playing against? Against an amateur,
Speaker A
72/22. Actually, we could go bigger on the flop, as they say, right? Uh-huh. Charge it up, as we’ve already said, yes, there are many gutshots for the sixes, six-x, weaker queens, all that calls inelastically. So, at least half-pot, as we already said, I would
Speaker A
start there, having 20 sizes in my arsenal. With Ace-Queen, I’d choose almost the very top of the range, so with sixes, with nines—right at the top, yeah. Ace-Queen, in principle, and Kings—I’d bet a lot there too.
Speaker A
Okay. Well yeah, the turn is overall an overbet. Well, okay, it looks fine, right? But imagine if he were, you know say 25 BB deep, then we would be shoving the river regardless. Well, it’s, well yeah, it’s not deep,
Speaker A
it’s not deep, so we can commit to the stack here, yeah, we could even shove the river with this sizing structure, I think.
Speaker A
Well, considering we didn’t fastplay the turn, the 72/22 amateur has so much 67, 68, 98, 108, Queen-Seven, Queen-high, just so much of that junk, and it’s easy for us to find bluffs there using that Jack. So, with such
Speaker A
strong top pairs, I think we need to play for stacks. Well, again, we should still be setting up the pot from the flop, yes. Well, by the way, look here, the ten is quite a runout, right? It completed too many straights for the
Speaker A
fish. I missed that part somehow. King-jack, there's jack-seven-eight. There could actually be a lot of straights there in total. Yeah. And the value bet is okay, we weren't raised, but here some two-pairs might actually be scared. Well, a little bit. I mean,
Speaker A
a ten is really one of the worst runouts, actually. Well, globally, yeah , I'd like it on a blank, I'd definitely play it, like I said, a large value bet, shove on the ten, yeah , or maybe just play a bit smaller,
Speaker A
maybe pot-sized turn and river, it could be flexible. Yeah. So, a ten is really, well, not a blank at all.
Speaker A
Agreed. The only thing I'd be afraid of is some actual two-pairs. Uh-huh. Even random queen-ten.
Speaker A
There are also a lot of those, yeah. Alright. So, yeah, it's just better to build the pot. And when we play against a 72-over-22 amateur, top pair is a super strong hand for us, and we should extract the maximum from this amateur
Speaker A
because that's what we're sitting here for. Uh-huh. Exactly. Exactly. Also, the option is that we are in position, so even on the scariest runouts, we'll still get paid somewhere. Well, sometimes we check, since we bet earlier streets, so we've already
Speaker A
extracted value, which is a great note. Next up is the limit. I don't get it, is that a thousand or what is it?
Speaker A
Multi-way pot with a fish to the river. Okay, let's see. What do we have? A call, just a call, actually the fish limped. We raised from the SB. We just called from the BB. What do you think, do you call this or three-bet? Mm, I'd
Speaker A
definitely three-bet all of that more often. Yeah. I mean, first off, in a heads-up with a fish, we realize our equity 100%better than multi-way. We don't need any regs there , those semi-dry fellows. Yeah.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. So I'll definitely always three-bet a hand like this. Yeah. And as for the flop, the flop is okay, I like it. So, in principle, the reg on the SB can bet a third in a multi-way pot. And on the
Speaker A
nuts, too, right? I mean, not everyone bets 1/2 pot or more there, exposing their range, like, say, Ace-King plus, some nines, I don't know, maybe Aces.
Speaker A
That's why I expect strong hands here as well in this context. In a multi-way turn, a third-pot bet, even though some two-pairs and straights have been added , it feels like you could probably raise with top two-pair; again, there
Speaker A
are a lot of King-Jack, King-Ten type hands, and the fish has even more, right, in the cutoff, yeah, plus he's short-stacked. I would probably have found a raise on the turn already. Especially since we're in position against the reg. Basically, on
Speaker A
the best turn/river runouts, well, we even check back. Something like that, those are probably my thoughts. Now on the river, the reg shoves on us.
Speaker A
Well, the only thing is that he might have hit Aces, yeah, our King-high two-pair has been devalued, again. Yeah, he most likely can't help but expect that we could have Jack-Ten.
Speaker A
In general, I don't like being like a donkey, following whoever is pushing me somewhere. I like to carve out my own raises, to control the opponent's range and my own range somehow. That's why specifically here, it's a call, call,
Speaker A
shove. Well, it feels like, well, okay, fold, sort of. But again, if the reg shoved thinly with, say, a King, trying to fold out our hypothetical two-pairs and isolate the fish, well, that would be cool. But I don't think they think
Speaker A
like that, most likely, so it feels like I'd really want to raise the turn instead, if we are here...
Speaker A
Yeah, yeah, I would also be more inclined to raise the turn. By the way, it's not a fact that the SB sitting there will 3-bet Jack-Ten suited; not everyone has learned how to isolate widely, so, well yeah, there are four
Speaker A
combos of the nuts. Well, basically, the four is a blank, I consider it a fold. Possibly, by the way, even though it's a nearly 3x pot shove on the river , we came into this pot so weak that
Speaker A
maybe he's doing it to fold us out and stay with the fish. But why?
Speaker A
Again, also, well, we'll have Jacks as bluffs, like, we will definitely have Jack-ten. We'll always call with those, like, if we have some info on the opponent; in a vacuum, I would fold everything that doesn't beat some stuff
Speaker A
. But again, I just wouldn't want to be in this spot. I wouldn't want to end up in that spot preflop at all. By the way , did you watch the latest video we have on the channel that Inferno made?
Speaker A
The one about multi-way pots? Yes. Yes, yes, exactly. By the way, I recommend everyone check the hints here. I hope they pop up somewhere. And, actually, what was a discovery for me was that if our reg's isolate increases from, say, 21%to 31%,
Speaker A
our calling range disappears entirely. For example, I... Yes, there will just be a huge 3-bet.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Well, our 3-bet immediately comes out to 19, and the call is 4. Well, there's no call at all. And I hadn't worked with that in Rocket Solver. For me, it was just, well, not even a heuristic, but just: "Oh, that's
Speaker A
cool." Meaning, like, we don't care at all about the expectation against the fish. We don't want those average hands . I just used to call based on instinct .
Speaker A
Mathematically, though, it becomes profitable right here and now, yes. So we get 66%folds, that's it, we immediately take down this 5.5 BB pot when we 3-bet from the BB, and it's quite nice. Well, that's a small digression, yes,
Speaker A
considering that here we have a really strong hand. I don't know, I would have always 3-bet preflop. Well, I absolutely would never have called.
Speaker A
Alright, okay. Well, overall, the thoughts were that he had 10-8, by the way. Well, crafty, crafty as they say.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. By the way, he isolated with specific combos. So that already changes the story, when there are four combos of straights versus 16, that's a fourfold difference. So that is actually a very big difference. Yes, I agree. Next. 9-8. Against a fish.
Speaker A
Should we stack off? What sizing should we use across streets? I can say right off the bat, if we have aces against a fish, we always want to stack off. We opened from UTG and got a call from the
Speaker A
MP. Give me your commentary. Well, I like the sizing here. No overthinking, we just wait. Finally, we bet 2/3 on the turn again, choosing between 2/3 and 3/4 at least, leaning towards the larger side. There's a seven here. Of course, it adds
Speaker A
straights to the fish's range, but there's such a large number of queen-x and nine-x draws that it doesn't really worry us. Therefore, I would bet the turn larger too. That's it. And on the river, yes, I would even shove into
Speaker A
that. Meaning the queen-ten didn't change anything. We are also beating Queen-9, Queen-10, and 9-10. A fish might, well, I don't know, maybe play their three pairs passively.
Speaker A
Yeah, by the way, I haven't played against such fish in a long time. If we take a standard type of fish, like a VPIP 60 player in my view, and we reach this turn, I wouldn't want to have the
Speaker A
Ace of diamonds to overbet here, for example, because they have a range of suited connectors that will just snap-call any size—that's already solid. And accordingly, we set up an SPR on the river so that we are always stacking off against Queen-9s and such.
Speaker A
Anyway, it all works out perfectly. If we have specifically Aces with diamonds , then against such a weak VPIP, we can just play some kind of...well, it all depends on their folds, but. Again, maybe a bet, some kind of bet, like 75
Speaker A
percent pot. But if we play against 91 over 8, then I like betting big on the turn.
Speaker A
Specifically to set up a shove on the river, right? So, as we said, the person is asking if they should stack off. You need to bet big on the turn, bet pot, or a minimum, it doesn't matter. That is, we don't block top
Speaker A
pairs, they have a ton of them. For us, it’s a green light. Let's get to betting again, especially since their PFR is 8, so they aren't inclined to be aggressive pre-flop, meaning they likely won't be aggressive post-flop either. Which leads us to conclude that
Speaker A
we will simply extract value from their mistakes, specifically from their calls . Therefore, we just set up a stack. It is essential to work on your game against fish, because many players, even at NL10, are thinking about how to
Speaker A
beat regs, how to crush all the regs. But in reality, yes, even these analyses in Wizard and so on will bring you, well, I don't know, one BB per 100 hands. But here we just failed to get half a stack from a fish in a simple
Speaker A
spot. And this is what you need to work on. Meaning, play against fish first and foremost.
Speaker A
Don't be afraid of losing to such fish with such hands. Our main task is to win a stack from their wide range.
Speaker A
Of course, of course. Next up is Zhenya , you decided on NL400 again, wow. An active recreational player. What do you think about the turn? Let's take a look . Wow, an active recreational player.
Speaker A
And for some reason, we disrespect this active amateur with such a small size. We could go bigger, after all, compared to 70 to 30, even nine works. Still, we have a strong hand. Kol, call. We decide to induce something from this
Speaker A
active amateur with a small size. Ah, most likely on a paired board. We know, right, that fish love to raise paired boards.
Speaker A
And gutshots, yes, and raise them. Uh-huh. Such a pot size. So, we play the five fairly standard-large and get a raise from the active amateur.
Speaker A
A min-raise, at that. Yes, exactly. Actually, I’d be happy to see a default-sized raise here, rather than a min-raise, as a rule. Yes, min-raises are always the nuts. Right. Well, I think he considers King-Jack the nuts here too. He has Jack-seven.
Speaker A
Listen, damn, I wouldn't fold here. Yes , I would always just call as well. Well, sometimes we assume he has some random trash that he wants to play, yes, if that's the case, then calling becomes an absolute must. We need to
Speaker A
keep him in, well, with zero equity in the game, so he might execute more on the river, or get there and make a play . In principle, the board isn't exactly super dangerous. Well, yeah, it would be even cooler without a flush draw.
Speaker A
Right. Or with a card of the same suit, that would be wonderful. Other than that, well, I would play this spot exactly the same way. Okay. And our opponent checks the river. We shove.
Speaker A
Well, what else, we have no other options. Yes, yes, there’s Queen-Ten. We could have played something like King-Ten that way, too.
Speaker A
And let's look at the fives. Well, how about those fives. Even though it was a min-raise.
Speaker A
It’s scary to face that min-raise. So , what now, we need to choose a hand.
Speaker A
By the way, we have a randomizer option . Kol, I’ll tell you right away that, in general, some people use it. We can choose a few hands at your discretion, spin the randomizer, or spin it across all of them. What do you say?
Speaker A
All in all, yes, I liked the sequence of hands where we had Ace-King, we value-bet, then called. That 8-6 was flexible, but had a cool river where we decided to overbet-raise instead of folding; I think those were from one
Speaker A
person, right? And, in principle, I think those hands stuck with me and came together better in terms of sequence. Right. So, there were some hands against fish, but here and there they weren't top-tier. There was a seemingly cool fold with Queen-Ten
Speaker A
suited, but it was probably a bad fold, although... Let me, let me quickly scroll through the hands again. Our first hand is just NL5 with pocket nines. And then we had a hobby player with King-High where we picked the sizing. The next hand was
Speaker A
fives. We played the preflop poorly. The flop. Then with tens, we didn't get away on the turn. The only thing that really stuck in my memory was that fold with Queen-Ten. That’s probably what I remember most, what I thought about
Speaker A
the guy. Overall, it's a great skill to have, generally. You just need to pick more suitable spots.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. So, we managed to pull off that bluff with King-High after all. And the river, by the way, was also fine. There were some good hands. Also, Vlad had a hand with a cool move.
Speaker A
Uh-huh. Uh-huh. And from Zhenyok, let's use a randomizer between the three of them. There's Zhenya, go ahead. Let's do it then. One will be Magistrela, two will be Vlad, and three will be Zhuk. Let me open the randomizer now. It’s not just some
Speaker A
random thing. We’re giving away a branded t-shirt, from one to three. And one came up. One. Not Zhenyok, not Vlad , but Mr. Magistrela. Wow, a respected man with a helicopter, damn.
Speaker A
Well, 100% he'll now have a Gen-line t-shirt too. So, congratulations to you. Thanks, Gelya, for coming. I actually found it really interesting to chat. The hands seemed simple enough, but we dug so deep that I really enjoyed it overall.
Speaker A
Thanks. Yeah, Gen, thanks a lot for the invite. I share your feelings. Likewise. Come back again, we'll do something else. That's it, guys, bye everyone.
Speaker A
Good luck at the tables. And not just at the tables. I’ve heard that somewhere before, but it doesn't matter . Anyway, bye everyone.
Topics:poker strategylow stakes pokerhand reviewNo-Limit Hold'empoker coachingrake managementvalue bettingpoker bankroll managementpoker mindsetpoker hand analysis
