We will have enough 7s in our range to cover bluffs.. If we raise only 7s for value we will have 75 combos of these and then we can x/r our gs for bluff which will be 60 combos and < J high flush draws 26 combos.. so that leave us at 75 combos for value and 86 as a bluff which is fine imo .. we need to defend ~62% of our range otf so we will x/r 17.7% , call 44.3 % which include Q high flush draws and better,top pair or better,ace high,pps.. and fold 38%
If some of you guys don't understand something in the video, or something in the video thread, like what boz posted here, please ask about it.
I know that most forums are scary places, and people worry they're supposed to know everything already and feel stupid to admit otherwise. Run It Once isn't like that.
Without any intervention by me or the staff, everyone has been extremely helpful and nice here. I couldn't be happier with how our community is developing.
These video threads aren't only to ask direct questions to me... Anyone can bring up anything, and I encourage people other than me to jump in and help explain, or build upon what others post.
Our essential membership is very cheap, and it's intended for anyone from the casual recreational player to the micro-stakes or even small-stakes pro - but you small stakes pros can afford to upgrade :)
You're not all supposed to know everything, and there are no bad questions. If you're wondering about something, I can almost guarantee a few other members are too.
Hearing what our members do and don't understand, as well as what areas they're interested in and have trouble with will help me structure the content I provide in my videos.
Thanks in advance for any "stupid" questions! Also, thanks even more to anyone other than me who jumps into the discussion!
Edit: Giving him 75 combos of 7x is probably a not enough.
A7s - 1 K7s - 4 (amount of combos we have in our range on the flop, given that we'll sometimes 3-bet pre) Q7s - 4 J7s - 4 T7s - 0 (assuming we'd check-call a flopped boat, which you could switch up for balance) 97s - 2 87s - 2 67s - 3 57s - 2 37s - 2 77 - 1 A7o - 12 K7o - 12 Q7o - 6 J7o - 12 T7o - 6 97o - 10 87o - 12 67o - 6 57o - 4 --------- + 105 combos
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the math side of game theory to come to a real conclusion, other than Boza being correct in saying we definitely have enough value hands in our range.
Chael - why no A7s and only 4 x the offsuit combos? Surely A7o and K7o we should have all 12 combos each of. He minraised right? Same with 78o and 67o. Depends on your 3b range of course, but I think I'd be flatting all those hands to a minraise most of the time.
Sorry Dodge, I brainfarted and forgot that are more offsuit combos than suited ones. Edited it, but I'm so tired right now I might have messed up somewhere again.
You could go 3/4 A7s, but most players 3-bet their suited aces HU, because they have a lot of equity. Obviously, you need to have some of them in your pre-flop calling range, otherwise you're going to have too many weak/dominated draws, and you cannot use your nut blocker on a flush board as a bluff, for example.
Right during your intro, I thought 'why not just do two short ones a month?' and laughed when you thought of the same thing several minutes later. Honestly, the essential membership is SUCH a value at the price point that I think I'm ripping you off, anyway, so I'm no position to do anything other than enjoy what I get. Which I do.
I not only like betting the Q3, I think i like betting Every 3x hand and even turning some 9x hands into bluffs. Villain is capped at weak Kx hands (maybe this is logically his most likely hand) and he will fold enough of them to a 2x pot sized bet to make this perhaps a good play. We can have all flushes, straights and some two pairs and if we bet large enough I think we can turn many (if not all) of our 9x hands into bluffs and still be balanced. Sure we could bet smaller and only bluff a few 3x hands which would be kinda standard but why not play as tough as we can?
A bb range here should have around 40-50ish 3x or 9x combos depending on 3b frequencies and im pretty sure we would have greater than 60 value combos to give us the right kinda balance for nice over bet in this spot.
Great point, Daniel. I was trying to imply I'd bluff all 3x combos, but I didn't mention (or think about) 9s. I'd imagine if we ran the numbers of our value range, we'd find that bluffing with at least many of our 9s is the right play.
This might be very unorthodox, but what about check-folding 86o on T77hh? We are essentially hoping to hit an offsuit 9 on the turn, since we won't get to see the river very often. So we're calling with a hand that has close to zero equity, since it has 3 outs once to make a straight that is not the nut straight, can run into a three-flush, can be dead already, can be counter fit because of the paired board.
I would rather c/c Ahigh because we have three Ace outs that are a little cleaner than this, and we still have plenty of 7x, strong draws, weak but better draws to c/c and c/r with.
Since Villian should be betting his made hand range slightly more polarized due to the high posibility of a c/r, he will often two-barrel, and even when he doesn't, he still has ton of pairs to bluffcatch with. And e also don't have overcards, or a backdoor flush draw. So once he calls, we're still hoping for our okay 3-outer to hit on the turn, with few chances of winning any other way.
It reminds me of how I used to think about opening 22 UTG in 6-max. I'd never considered folding it, ''because I have a pair''. But is that really a legit reason to play it, or is it because most other people would tell you to? Not sure. Don't know much about PLO, but I guess calling with weak/dominated draws for the sake of having a draw is probably the same fallacy.
You suggest checking back Q2o on KT5ss. Qhigh is going to be good by the river a decent amount of the time, but how do get it to showdown? It's almost impossible to defend Qhigh with no kicker, and Villian can go crazy with two-barrels against all of these extremely weak bluff catchers. I understand that Villians would also find it very difficult, but checking back seems more than a give up, rather than winning what's been put into the pot without a bet. Am I wrong here? Same goes Khigh and even weak Ahighs.
Chael, I wouldn't consider x/f here very unorthodox. Off the top of my head, I think I prefer x/f to x/c, but would like x/r most.
Opening 22 to me feels very similar to opening 33-77 in a 6max game. We want to take the blinds, and we want to occasionally have monsters on the low card boards. In addition to our implied odds on these low boards (or other times we flop a set), we have some hands we can bluff with on high connected boards, since most of our range will hit them.
Re: checking Q/K/A high back on flops-
You are right that sometimes this means we'll be giving up the pot. There is nothing wrong with that.
A lot of people get very caught up in "but I might have the best hand!" type logic. They say they are cbetting because they might have the best hand, and they would then check back and fold 98o on the KTx board.
This is poor logic. The % of time you have the best hand shouldn't have anything directly to do with your betting/raising decisions.
Q2 and 98 have very similar expectation when you bet the flop with them... Both have very few turns they can barrel, and neither does very well when called (Q2 has an overcard to midpair, but 98 has more deceptive backdoor straight potential, and can turn more equity to barrel with).
Why is betting Q2 better than betting 98o? I argue that they play very similarly in terms of EV when you bet.
So, how about when you check back?
When your opponent bets the turn, you'll fold both, usually. So they play the same vs. a turn bet on average.
What about when your opponent checks the turn?
Well now, with Q2, we have a hand that can win unimproved at showdown in the checked down pots. With 98o, we don't.
We also could occasionally pick off river bluffs unimproved with Q2... not the case with 97.
You can argue that this will happen rarely, but my counter would be, "it happens more than never, so there is EV there."
If you agree that both hands have similar EV when betting, and that Q2 has more EV when checking back than 98 (by some amount), then you must agree that Q2 is a better check than 98 (though I'd check both against many opponents). Therefore, you must agree that a strategy that involves betting with Q2 and checking with 98 is flawed.
Now, I made some simple assumptions, and I don't think the EVs between these two hands are much different at all. I just want to point out to people that view Q2 as bet, but 98o as a definite check-back due to "we might have the best hand" logic, that their thinking is off.
Giving up with hands that "might be best" isn't a bad thing. We need our betting range to contain hands that can barrel, and no pair no draw isn't one.
You need to consider how hands will play out when you take any action. Often times, the % chance your hand "is currently the best hand" has absolutely nothing to do with the EV of betting.
Its wonderful you addressed subject of stupid questions, and how there re no such things as stupid questions
~ i wanted to share my poker development as well, because since this is a study - training site, i thought it would be very beneficial for everyone to have a good approach to learning process as such, and i think it would be great the subject to be stressed even more and to reach every member of the site
~ First year i played poker for real money, i thought i know everything - easy game - strong range - il play my AA AK Kk QQ , flat JJ TT add a lil bit of suit connects for implied, flat all lil pairs and w8 i hit sets - and in my opinion at the time - i knew everything and all i needed to do is sit play and win a fortune :D :))
When that of course didn't happen as it never does or we would all be millionaires with adopting the concept based on 1-2 page of txt on poker, being as vein as most of us are , specially when it comes to be subject of our intelligence , ididnt want to face the fact I'm not smart enough ( in poker it may seem like you re lacking intelligence if you re on losing side , when in fact what you do lack is substantial knowledge ), so ~ as most of us do and did ~ i blamed it on bad luck, next was phase i thought i m jynxt and some ppl just pick up lucky card and some always the losing ones ~- theory that really falls when u realize poker is game of skills, and winners are winning over years with any cards they re dealt ( luckily i didn't stick in thois phase very long , but is worth mentioning because i think most players go through similar phases ( i conclude this based on what players at tables and of acquaintances say often ), next phase , and i think massive amount of players sincerely believe in it was, that i thought site was rigged just so everyone loses and they win money,so i sat and was counting how many times runnarunners hit set over sets etc thinking its all big conspiracy ~ then again, my common sense prevailed ~ winning players are still winning long terms with same play factors i blame to make me lose - so I'm MISSING OUT something
Then came again phase i didn't wanna accept I'm not smart enough, and i gave its good go, that , with absolute lack of skill,resulted in tilts as well, and i finally sat trying to think what to do - i fell in love with poker, so damn much i said id play it in pebbles if i can't play it in real money, and i was pretty confident i wasnt having addiction problem, but sincere love for what i believed to be mind game :)
I finally got to conclusion i don't have skills, and started to search for ways to improve, which were very slow cause none of ppl i know play poker and couldn't advise me in correct path, and is of my best luck i run into runitence, to which i can thank huge ammounth of my development ( i may say basically from close to from the scratch to where i am now ) and I'm certain wil result in more development and taking me to where i want to be ~ and thats ~ play poker :) and not as a loser
Long story - i m really talking damn long, kinda lack short concept !
I was telling all this because - thinking that you are smart and that you know it all and afraid to ask stupidest questions ever wil slow down your progress in years !!!!
i think its important for players to accept its not their intelligence that is in question, but lack of skill, but on the way to get and obtain the skill they must accept they re way behind, and it may be viewed as stupid as well, but only this approach that has no vanity wil unable them to improve
Also , one of the problematic things ppl experience while they learn or play poker - is fear they wil look stupid, so ppl tend rather not to ask stupid question and look stupid which is huge obstacle in learning process, and it actually reflects in playing of poker of many ppl, who would rather lose significant amount of money or important pot ~ they don't wanna call it off~ cause of fear they wil look stupid ( noticeable even i think in some professional plays ). I don't have this problem so i can't suggest solution, but i am sure anyone aspiring to be a poker player or become better one has to get over this~
-Not thinking that you know it, getting rid of vanity and getting rid of fear to look stupid - are most important factors in someones possibility to develop and learn and are absolute must, and before phil mentioned it in this post, i can't say i saw that as important advise anywhere, so it would be good someone address this issues separately, and I'm pointing them out - because i lost a year or 2 with wrong mindsets that basically led me the wrong ways and I'm sure many have experience similar problems. It is important to be addressed because i think some ppl eternally stuck on some of these issues which simply wil disable them ever to become poker player
I would agree with a lot of this. The biggest breakthrough I have ever made in poker was realizing that almost everyone in the player pools I was playing at, including myself, sucked at poker. Then I did and continue to do everything I can to suck less.
above was actually a suggestion for video on subject :) with concepts we lack in mindsets , ones i mentioned and ones i didn't, cause i don't know i lack them yet :) and not typical tilt control everyone is preoccupied with video
Thanks for putting the time into the combonitorics. Chael I am not sure if this was a typo or you where referring to different parts of the combos where you discounted for 3 bet bluffs but you put it next to K7s-4combos but there are max 4 K7s combos in our preflop range and 2 of them are impossible on this flop of T77. I am assuming that the disconnect between your 105 combos and Boz's 75 combos have something to do with those kind of simple miscues. In either case we do have enough value hands without even going into Ts or nutted draws to include the GSs into our 3B range.
I like this video as well, some of the topics are a bit difficult though, such as "cutting out 3bet range of the opponent on flop cause he just called", but I feel it is maybe invitation to more learning and deeper learning. I pause the video often and watch it real slow
Loading 23 Comments...
4:34 86o
We will have enough 7s in our range to cover bluffs.. If we raise only 7s for value we will have 75 combos of these and then we can x/r our gs for bluff which will be 60 combos and < J high flush draws 26 combos.. so that leave us at 75 combos for value and 86 as a bluff which is fine imo .. we need to defend ~62% of our range otf so we will x/r 17.7% , call 44.3 % which include Q high flush draws and better,top pair or better,ace high,pps.. and fold 38%
Surprised no one has given you props for this yet. Thanks so much for looking into this. Awesome job.
Glad to know that I can continue x/r'ing my gutters here!
RIO members,
If some of you guys don't understand something in the video, or something in the video thread, like what boz posted here, please ask about it.
I know that most forums are scary places, and people worry they're supposed to know everything already and feel stupid to admit otherwise. Run It Once isn't like that.
Without any intervention by me or the staff, everyone has been extremely helpful and nice here. I couldn't be happier with how our community is developing.
These video threads aren't only to ask direct questions to me... Anyone can bring up anything, and I encourage people other than me to jump in and help explain, or build upon what others post.
Our essential membership is very cheap, and it's intended for anyone from the casual recreational player to the micro-stakes or even small-stakes pro - but you small stakes pros can afford to upgrade :)
You're not all supposed to know everything, and there are no bad questions. If you're wondering about something, I can almost guarantee a few other members are too.
Hearing what our members do and don't understand, as well as what areas they're interested in and have trouble with will help me structure the content I provide in my videos.
Thanks in advance for any "stupid" questions! Also, thanks even more to anyone other than me who jumps into the discussion!
Phil
Edit: Giving him 75 combos of 7x is probably a not enough.
A7s - 1
K7s - 4 (amount of combos we have in our range on the flop, given that we'll sometimes 3-bet pre)
Q7s - 4
J7s - 4
T7s - 0 (assuming we'd check-call a flopped boat, which you could switch up for balance)
97s - 2
87s - 2
67s - 3
57s - 2
37s - 2
77 - 1
A7o - 12
K7o - 12
Q7o - 6
J7o - 12
T7o - 6
97o - 10
87o - 12
67o - 6
57o - 4
--------- +
105 combos
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the math side of game theory to come to a real conclusion, other than Boza being correct in saying we definitely have enough value hands in our range.
Nice post Boz.
Chael - why no A7s and only 4 x the offsuit combos? Surely A7o and K7o we should have all 12 combos each of. He minraised right? Same with 78o and 67o. Depends on your 3b range of course, but I think I'd be flatting all those hands to a minraise most of the time.
Sorry Dodge, I brainfarted and forgot that are more offsuit combos than suited ones.
Edited it, but I'm so tired right now I might have messed up somewhere again.
You could go 3/4 A7s, but most players 3-bet their suited aces HU, because they have a lot of equity.
Obviously, you need to have some of them in your pre-flop calling range, otherwise you're going to have too many weak/dominated draws, and you cannot use your nut blocker on a flush board as a bluff, for example.
where from do i get this analyzation tool?
I would be in favor of you splitting your monthly essential vid into PLO and NLHE.
thx.
Right during your intro, I thought 'why not just do two short ones a month?' and laughed when you thought of the same thing several minutes later. Honestly, the essential membership is SUCH a value at the price point that I think I'm ripping you off, anyway, so I'm no position to do anything other than enjoy what I get. Which I do.
Hey Sean. I really appreciate you saying that.
I underpriced our essential membership intentionally, and I'm always happy to see people appreciating the value of it.
I'm thinking heavily about splitting each month into two videos, or at least some months. I'll definitely try it out at some point.
Phil,
21:20 Qd3c
3k9AJ Board.....
I not only like betting the Q3, I think i like betting Every 3x hand and even turning some 9x hands into bluffs. Villain is capped at weak Kx hands (maybe this is logically his most likely hand) and he will fold enough of them to a 2x pot sized bet to make this perhaps a good play. We can have all flushes, straights and some two pairs and if we bet large enough I think we can turn many (if not all) of our 9x hands into bluffs and still be balanced. Sure we could bet smaller and only bluff a few 3x hands which would be kinda standard but why not play as tough as we can?
A bb range here should have around 40-50ish 3x or 9x combos depending on 3b frequencies and im pretty sure we would have greater than 60 value combos to give us the right kinda balance for nice over bet in this spot.
Great point, Daniel. I was trying to imply I'd bluff all 3x combos, but I didn't mention (or think about) 9s. I'd imagine if we ran the numbers of our value range, we'd find that bluffing with at least many of our 9s is the right play.
This might be very unorthodox, but what about check-folding 86o on T77hh?
We are essentially hoping to hit an offsuit 9 on the turn, since we won't get to see the river very often.
So we're calling with a hand that has close to zero equity, since it has 3 outs once to make a straight that is not the nut straight, can run into a three-flush, can be dead already, can be counter fit because of the paired board.
I would rather c/c Ahigh because we have three Ace outs that are a little cleaner than this, and we still have plenty of 7x, strong draws, weak but better draws to c/c and c/r with.
Since Villian should be betting his made hand range slightly more polarized due to the high posibility of a c/r, he will often two-barrel, and even when he doesn't, he still has ton of pairs to bluffcatch with. And e also don't have overcards, or a backdoor flush draw.
So once he calls, we're still hoping for our okay 3-outer to hit on the turn, with few chances of winning any other way.
It reminds me of how I used to think about opening 22 UTG in 6-max. I'd never considered folding it, ''because I have a pair''. But is that really a legit reason to play it, or is it because most other people would tell you to? Not sure.
Don't know much about PLO, but I guess calling with weak/dominated draws for the sake of having a draw is probably the same fallacy.
You suggest checking back Q2o on KT5ss. Qhigh is going to be good by the river a decent amount of the time, but how do get it to showdown?
It's almost impossible to defend Qhigh with no kicker, and Villian can go crazy with two-barrels against all of these extremely weak bluff catchers.
I understand that Villians would also find it very difficult, but checking back seems more than a give up, rather than winning what's been put into the pot without a bet. Am I wrong here? Same goes Khigh and even weak Ahighs.
Chael, I wouldn't consider x/f here very unorthodox. Off the top of my head, I think I prefer x/f to x/c, but would like x/r most.
Opening 22 to me feels very similar to opening 33-77 in a 6max game. We want to take the blinds, and we want to occasionally have monsters on the low card boards. In addition to our implied odds on these low boards (or other times we flop a set), we have some hands we can bluff with on high connected boards, since most of our range will hit them.
Re: checking Q/K/A high back on flops-
You are right that sometimes this means we'll be giving up the pot. There is nothing wrong with that.
A lot of people get very caught up in "but I might have the best hand!" type logic. They say they are cbetting because they might have the best hand, and they would then check back and fold 98o on the KTx board.
This is poor logic. The % of time you have the best hand shouldn't have anything directly to do with your betting/raising decisions.
Q2 and 98 have very similar expectation when you bet the flop with them... Both have very few turns they can barrel, and neither does very well when called (Q2 has an overcard to midpair, but 98 has more deceptive backdoor straight potential, and can turn more equity to barrel with).
Why is betting Q2 better than betting 98o? I argue that they play very similarly in terms of EV when you bet.
So, how about when you check back?
When your opponent bets the turn, you'll fold both, usually. So they play the same vs. a turn bet on average.
What about when your opponent checks the turn?
Well now, with Q2, we have a hand that can win unimproved at showdown in the checked down pots. With 98o, we don't.
We also could occasionally pick off river bluffs unimproved with Q2... not the case with 97.
You can argue that this will happen rarely, but my counter would be, "it happens more than never, so there is EV there."
If you agree that both hands have similar EV when betting, and that Q2 has more EV when checking back than 98 (by some amount), then you must agree that Q2 is a better check than 98 (though I'd check both against many opponents). Therefore, you must agree that a strategy that involves betting with Q2 and checking with 98 is flawed.
Now, I made some simple assumptions, and I don't think the EVs between these two hands are much different at all. I just want to point out to people that view Q2 as bet, but 98o as a definite check-back due to "we might have the best hand" logic, that their thinking is off.
Giving up with hands that "might be best" isn't a bad thing. We need our betting range to contain hands that can barrel, and no pair no draw isn't one.
You need to consider how hands will play out when you take any action. Often times, the % chance your hand "is currently the best hand" has absolutely nothing to do with the EV of betting.
Hey
Its wonderful you addressed subject of stupid questions, and how there re no such things as stupid questions
~ i wanted to share my poker development as well, because since this is a study - training site, i thought it would be very beneficial for everyone to have a good approach to learning process as such, and i think it would be great the subject to be stressed even more and to reach every member of the site
~ First year i played poker for real money, i thought i know everything - easy game - strong range - il play my AA AK Kk QQ , flat JJ TT add a lil bit of suit connects for implied, flat all lil pairs and w8 i hit sets - and in my opinion at the time - i knew everything and all i needed to do is sit play and win a fortune :D :))
When that of course didn't happen as it never does or we would all be millionaires with adopting the concept based on 1-2 page of txt on poker, being as vein as most of us are , specially when it comes to be subject of our intelligence , ididnt want to face the fact I'm not smart enough ( in poker it may seem like you re lacking intelligence if you re on losing side , when in fact what you do lack is substantial knowledge ), so ~ as most of us do and did ~ i blamed it on bad luck, next was phase i thought i m jynxt and some ppl just pick up lucky card and some always the losing ones ~- theory that really falls when u realize poker is game of skills, and winners are winning over years with any cards they re dealt ( luckily i didn't stick in thois phase very long , but is worth mentioning because i think most players go through similar phases ( i conclude this based on what players at tables and of acquaintances say often ), next phase , and i think massive amount of players sincerely believe in it was, that i thought site was rigged just so everyone loses and they win money,so i sat and was counting how many times runnarunners hit set over sets etc thinking its all big conspiracy ~ then again, my common sense prevailed ~ winning players are still winning long terms with same play factors i blame to make me lose - so I'm MISSING OUT something
Then came again phase i didn't wanna accept I'm not smart enough, and i gave its good go, that , with absolute lack of skill,resulted in tilts as well, and i finally sat trying to think what to do - i fell in love with poker, so damn much i said id play it in pebbles if i can't play it in real money, and i was pretty confident i wasnt having addiction problem, but sincere love for what i believed to be mind game :)
I finally got to conclusion i don't have skills, and started to search for ways to improve, which were very slow cause none of ppl i know play poker and couldn't advise me in correct path, and is of my best luck i run into runitence, to which i can thank huge ammounth of my development ( i may say basically from close to from the scratch to where i am now ) and I'm certain wil result in more development and taking me to where i want to be ~ and thats ~ play poker :) and not as a loser
Long story - i m really talking damn long, kinda lack short concept !
I was telling all this because - thinking that you are smart and that you know it all and afraid to ask stupidest questions ever wil slow down your progress in years !!!!
i think its important for players to accept its not their intelligence that is in question, but lack of skill, but on the way to get and obtain the skill they must accept they re way behind, and it may be viewed as stupid as well, but only this approach that has no vanity wil unable them to improve
Also , one of the problematic things ppl experience while they learn or play poker - is fear they wil look stupid, so ppl tend rather not to ask stupid question and look stupid which is huge obstacle in learning process, and it actually reflects in playing of poker of many ppl, who would rather lose significant amount of money or important pot ~ they don't wanna call it off~ cause of fear they wil look stupid ( noticeable even i think in some professional plays ). I don't have this problem so i can't suggest solution, but i am sure anyone aspiring to be a poker player or become better one has to get over this~
-Not thinking that you know it, getting rid of vanity and getting rid of fear to look stupid - are most important factors in someones possibility to develop and learn and are absolute must, and before phil mentioned it in this post, i can't say i saw that as important advise anywhere, so it would be good someone address this issues separately, and I'm pointing them out - because i lost a year or 2 with wrong mindsets that basically led me the wrong ways and I'm sure many have experience similar problems. It is important to be addressed because i think some ppl eternally stuck on some of these issues which simply wil disable them ever to become poker player
,
I would agree with a lot of this. The biggest breakthrough I have ever made in poker was realizing that almost everyone in the player pools I was playing at, including myself, sucked at poker. Then I did and continue to do everything I can to suck less.
above was actually a suggestion for video on subject :) with concepts we lack in mindsets , ones i mentioned and ones i didn't, cause i don't know i lack them yet :) and not typical tilt control everyone is preoccupied with video
PS- Ima sorry for wall of text . ill try to work on get to the point in shorter way
Chael and Boz,
Thanks for putting the time into the combonitorics. Chael I am not sure if this was a typo or you where referring to different parts of the combos where you discounted for 3 bet bluffs but you put it next to K7s-4combos but there are max 4 K7s combos in our preflop range and 2 of them are impossible on this flop of T77. I am assuming that the disconnect between your 105 combos and Boz's 75 combos have something to do with those kind of simple miscues. In either case we do have enough value hands without even going into Ts or nutted draws to include the GSs into our 3B range.
Thanks for this review Phil. Haven't been that active here lately but planning on coming back soon.
Hey, how to find the part 1 ?
ty
I like this video as well, some of the topics are a bit difficult though, such as "cutting out 3bet range of the opponent on flop cause he just called", but I feel it is maybe invitation to more learning and deeper learning. I pause the video often and watch it real slow
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.