$1,000 SCOOP: Journey to Victory
Posted by Alex Theologis
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 28 Comments...
Hey, great video!
For the JTs hand at 15:39 when you dive into the PIO simulation, I have a quick question/thought.
Do you think it would make more sense to check/call flop and check/jam turn if you think the player is bluff heavy? Why not get two bets on many turns and still force a ton of folds that will continue to bluff on the turn. You also have the added benefit of flush over flushing him by just calling. When you jam, I assume he will fold many of the low flush card combos. Of course, you're denying a ton of equity by jamming flop but just wondering how we can weigh this against the benefits of just calling. Just a thought I had and would like to hear what you think. Thanks!
I think this is a decent point but I still think that, when I perceive his range to contain more bluffs than it should and that he is also likely to overfold a bit, it's good to just realize the immediate FE, as it is likely he simply doesn't bet turn and then my hand makes for a pretty terrible but sort of mandatory river bluff. Of course my assumptions could be wrong and calling might end up being better, it's a weird spot because obviously no option can be bad when our hand has so much equity, it's just a matter of what is optimal and that depends on our opponent's frequencies/tendencies.
At 33:06, how often do you think villain checks A7/77/98s on the flop and turn combined? You mention how 87 type hands are good at blocking villain's value but don't we need to consider how often population will show up to the river with these kinds of hands? Perhaps at these stakes it happens much more often as players are better at protecting their range.
Instead, could we choose a hand like J8/J9 that blocks some of villain's most likely Ax that checks twice and then bets for value? What do you think of this approach instead?
Thanks again!
The answer to your first question I think would be a low but non zero % of the time. I think both j8ss/cc and j9ss/cc would make for decent bluffing hands, but these hands also block bluffs besides value whereas 78 pretty much only blocks value.
Brilliant video, eagerly waiting for the next parts!
Great video and I appreciate you throwing in the pio sims.
At 38:40 kjo vs ep open seems like a better 3bet/fold with blocker effects rather than a call with reverse implied odds. Do you ever use offsuit broadways to make up a larger portion of 3 bets here? Thanks.
Not really at this stack size, no. EP's range is quite strong so continues a high % of the time vs LP 3bets, so having a suited hand that flops well makes for better hand selection.
I don't know who's idea it was for this type of series, but I love it. Thanks for the video, Alex Theologis! I'm sure that there are some strong opinions out there about the question I'm about to ask, but all things being equal, do you believe that it would be easier for a winning tournament player to become a winning cash-game regular, or vice-versa, or either/or/neither?
Thank you for your comment. I would have to say it looks easier for a cash-game reg to become a winning tournament player simply because his knowledge isn't "useless" in tournaments, strong deepstack 100bb play and solid range understanding will come in handy in MTTs whereas MTT specific knowledge like ICM, push/fold ranges, adjusting your play on different stages of the tournament and so on are completely useless in a cash game environment.
So even though there's a pretty big difference between MTTs and cg, most of your previous cg knowledge will help in MTTs but previous MTT knowledge won't help in cg.
Thanks again for another great video. Again, great mix of solver/hand history. The flow is perfect.
At 41:50, the KQo hand, you have a stack of +/- 35bbs and you face a 2.5x vs an agressive competent reg from the BTN. You decided to 3bet/shove KQo. I'm not use to see a reshove with that stack size: can you elaborate on this play.
1)At what stack size depth would switch to a non-shove 3bet vs Blanconegro with that hand?
2)Vs a different type of villain, probably less agressive, are you 3betting to 9,5bbs in the same context?
I completely understand the profitability of the play, what I am looking for is what makes it the optimal play.
Hey, thank you for your comment. I wouldn't be jamming at a stacksize of over 40 bigs and as for why jamming is a better option than 3betting, I'd say that KQ works similarly to AK in this spot : it benefits a lot from folding out hands which have a lot of equity against it (Ax, suited connectors, low pocket pairs) while does reasonably well vs a calling range (aj, pairs etc) and wants to fully realize its equity by seeing all 5 cards.
Hello great vid
13:20 : JTcc What do you think about the option of check raising small and get in on the turn? Although he sized pretty big, in my opinion we still have some room to XR small. I feel that our value hands benefits more with the XR small .
thx for the content
Hey, thank you. Yeah that seems reasonable, the only issue is that then we probably don't benefit from our opponent potentially overfolding as I mentioned in my response to the first comment.
At 26:07 you see villain which called 3bet is having KK+ at 100% freq. so he does not 4bet preflop in this sim. is this a mistake?
Hey, no it is not, I gave him monker-like ranges and the sims I have look like that.
Thanks Alex. Watching your videos has been working out quite well
High quality video alex .
Hello,
Very clear and concise video....my question is in regards to the 99 hand at 18:15. If you do decide to use the smaller sizing you are advocating, how are you reacting against a c/r?
Hey, thank you. You mostly want to be calling your entire range, but 99 is one of the few hands that don't actually mind getting it in given how much protection it needs, so I would base my decision on how aggressive I think my opponent is check raising.
Alex, love your content!! what do you think about the first hand TT in a midstakes tourny, you said it was a 3b call for eff 80 vs a jam but do you think population have enough 4b bluffs in a 55/109 to 3b call for stacks? cheers and keep coming !
Hey, thank you! I think that we won't really face that many jams, we can call a 4bet relatively easy and when we do get jammed, AK will be a very big portion of that range so even though we aren't very happy, I think we should still call vs most people.
Love your style, please continue verbalizing important concepts, such as when you say stuff like "we don't want to be betting monotone boards against a sb". Some coaches forget to verbalize the stuff that's obvious to them. I do have a question about the hand at 22.40. You fold A9dd to a flop c-bet on Kh8dQh board. Seems like a major overfold with an Ace high and two backdoor nut draws against an LP raiser? I always thought that calling the flop in such spots was mandatory, am I wrong?
Hey, thank you for your comment. I think you probably misread the hand, I am the original raiser and x/f the flop.
Hey 23minute I found it interesting in hlhe. What is our suited threshold? A2s+, K2s+ ,Q2s, J5s+, T6s, 95s+, 85s+, 74s+, 63s+ and suited connectors and gappers. Does it seems reasonable?
Hey, it does yeah. I think generally I would be a bit tighter than you described, especially in the qx department.
You've become one of, if not my, favorite instructors here. Thanks for your content and approach to teaching. @4:50 you go into the sim for the SRP CO vs SB roughly 40bb effective. Can you elaborate what factors you think contribute to Pio preferring the small size? Given the texture of the board and that it's T high, villain calling from SB, the flush draw present, and stacks not being that shallow, all of that would lead me to go half pot or larger in game. Obvi not disagreeing with the AI, just curious what's making it prefer the small bet.
I think if I had allowed for a half pot sizing, that would have been used very often and likely more frequently than 30%. One reason that 30% appears to be enough is that SB has a ton of autofolds on a board like this and most of his range is inelastic to sizings, so a smaller sizing accomplished a lot already.
Like the vids, keep them coming
@30:30 you have A3o in the BB vs a btn open at around 40 BB’s effective and u say its a standard defend pre - recently I’ve been 3betting my Axo combos in these specific types of spots (30-50 BB’s effective in BB vs a wide LP raising range) with the blocker since calling pre kind of sucks as we will be x/folding most boards as its hard to flop equity but if we make it say 8x pre he will fold out a lot his range/equity which is a win, and if he calls at this stack depth thats kind of okay too because our hand doesnt need all that much post flop barreling potential as a flop cbet will get him to fold out equity sometimes as well given the stack depths
Thoughts?
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.