ProView: Sean Lefort Reviews Lucas Greenwood at $2.5/$5 NLHE Zoom
Posted by Sean Lefort
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 18 Comments...
22:51 Hero CO 44 is folded preflop to a 3x UTG open
do you include all low pairs when on the BTN facing an open from EP/MP or are these also folded to some degree?
I think it's close and something I would spend a good deal of time sharpening up if I were playing 6m NL as my main game again. One thing for sure (and I think I touched on this in the video) is that because I'm not 3betting these spots, having premium in my flatting range as protection allows me to VPIP that spot more liberally than most. Players opting to 3bet their premium in this spot are very vulnerable to squeezes and thus are more restricted with just how wide they can VPIP. Note that this is my opinion and it's how I feel about the situation intuitively, I'd have to look closer with freqs/equities/ranges etc to be sure.
is there some effective stack size where you would be no longer comfortable 3betting OOP?
No, although the complexion of our 3bet range varies with stacksizes.
30:00 PFR K8s BTN, 555
surely the merits of being able to represent a stronger range, being able to improve on the turn or river and the fact that villain cant really raise you mean you can fire liberally on this texture. if he had Ax or a low pair, yes he can call one or two bets but the turn and river will be a guessing game for villain and you can simply bet big. if villain had KQ-KT those would remain the best hand some percentage of the time.
You must be careful by labeling us with the "stronger" range here.. If we're STLing BTN 50%+ of the time and the shortstack is only VPIPing the SB 15-18%, he's going to have an overall equity advantage (inputting his range versus our range). Of course (as you imply), he likely 3bets premium and thus we can have AA-TT while he likely doesn't. However, just because ~5% of our range is the nuts doesn't mean we can blindly barrel off with the other 95% of our range against a range chalk full of bluff-catchers (he doesn't have a ton of easy folds). His GTO play is definitely going to be to call down w a bunch of his bluffcatchers, I'm pretty certain its not a situation where we can get him to correctly fold out his entire range (minus quads obv) by the river. Thus, we need to be at least a little selective with hands we barrel with. A/K-high hands are ofc the best candidates to chk back.
Good video as always Lefort
22:51 44 fold seems like a mistake especially vs what I assume in these games is a pretty tight/strong range. I can see folding from SB or BB vs an aggro CO or BTN open but IP for 3x this seems like an great spot to see a flop with over 100bb behind.
You didn't even mention this hand so perhaps you missed it or perhaps it an obv fold and I'm way off here, interested to hear yours and Lucs thoughts on this.
Talked about this a bit up there ^.
first hand a8s you say on the river we should pick a bet size that makes villain indifferent to calling With his bluff catchers on the river.I hear this concept being stated often and i don't quite understand it.The way i see it,is if he is indifferent to calling or folding it is impossible for him to make a mistake. Since Our profit comes when he makes a mistake,the way to make us tougher to play against in my opinion should be to pick a betsize that makes it possible for him make a blunder calling or folding against Our range.By choosing a bet size that makes him indifferent we are helping him play perfectly.
Hi Ziig. This is a pretty fundamental concept of game theory and how it applies to poker. I would suggest watching a few of my early GTO videos, or reading "Mathematics of Poker".
If you think you can make your opponent make a mistake with a particular non-optimal betsize, by all means, go right ahead. But in most situations, we simply just don't have that read. And more importantly, it's vital to have an idea what that bet-size is even if you do decide to stray from it for the sake of exploiting. Essentially, it's the basis of the understanding of the situation to have an idea of the GTO solution, and then deviate from there if you so choose.
If you don't have a strong read about deviating from GTO in these spots, GTO is always going to be your best strategy choice as it minimizes your opponent's option to exploit you.
Making your opponents indifferent towards calling your bluffs may make your bluffs 0-EV (as it should), but it maximizes the value of your range. If you're not bluffing enough wrt your bet-size, your opponent can fold his bluff-catchers and your VB-value goes down. If you're bluffing too much, your opponent will call all his bluff-catchers and you lose a ton with your bluffs (and consequently, with your overall range).
I don't understand why we have a "very easy value bet" on the river in the A8s hand in the beginning. Being in position we should be called at least 50% with worse, and I don't see how this is true here, considering we are UTG and the SB calling-range should be quite strong on the river. All AQ and many AK combinations are in villains range, the 2 ATs combos, TT.. AQ and AK do not always bet the turn either, since the 7 hits you more than him. Also, it is not certain that he will call the riverbet with JJ/QQ either.
Additionally, it is possible that he has a cr-bluffing range in this spot, which leads to us needing even more than 50% vs his calling-range.
What did I miss?
On another note, I do not understand what we accomplish with our turn bet when the 7 pairs. It's a wa/wb situation and we do not get much value from worse, which we can not get on the river unless a Q/K comes on the river. And when my thought process above is correct, we should not have 2 value bets either, making the turn bet worse in my opinion.
Hey tom. I think you're right, it was early in the vid and I was a bit NL-rusty wrt appreciating ranges and such. I think it's a bit over-zealous to go for two streets of value on this turn. I think I'd opt to chk back turn, bet river now upon review. As played, I don't think its horrible and its possible the river is good against most opponents (some definitely lead turn w better AX) but it does leave us a bit vulnerable.
Thanks Lefort, enjoyed watching that.
I'll comment on a few hands:
1. A2s c/r on the flop,
I chose to limp raise pf, because I thought villain was isolating me very wide (60-80%) of hands, my hand is certainly strong enough to call, but given that villain will barrel quite wide in position, and a large chunk of my hand's equity comes from needing to correctly showdown a winner with A high or a pair of 2s, I prefer limp raise. It's also a hand that I can choose to 5bet bluff shove if he 4bets and I believe I have some FE.
On the Flop my plan actually was to c/f, I think villain has a lot of hands that he won't fold to a bet and I'm not comfortable betting 3 with my hand so I opted to check/fold. However once he bet I changed my mind, I think its a spot where he will check back a lot of his marginal made hands i.e. Qx and maybe weak Kx, as well as 99 TT. I expect his pf range to be quite wide and include, most suited aces, and suited, connectors, as well as AJ AT, KQ, and middle pairs. When he bets I thought he could easily have any of the air hands (suited aces, suited connectors, middle pairs). and potentially AT and AJ, but I didn't really expect him to shove his gutters over me so I went for the c/r and it worked out.
2. AJo 21:00 Mins,
I agree with all of your commentary, I was planning on betting turn and river, I think he has a lot of AJ AQ 66-77-TT and will have a tough time calling down.
3. K8o 35:00
I chose to bet flop because I have the Kd, which in my mind makes it a good hand to bet 3 with, I think that there are 3 kings two eights and 9 diamonds, that I'm very comfortable betting twice, and potentially 3 depending on the specific river. I think checking is probably a better play in more aggressive games, however most regs at zoom don't c/r often enough so getting c/r bluff wasn't really a concern. I would expect big combo draws to c/r and sets and two pair so I was not worried about getting bluffed off the best hand too often.
Luc, Regarding the cr of A2s, when you explanation limp reraising in order to realize your equity and showdown A high/pair of 2's, are you limp reraising in order to steal the initiative and make the hand easier to play? Just wanted to clarify why limp reraising is preferable to a call.
Great vid lefort. At the 17:50 mark you debate whether betting KT w the Kc is the right play and say it prob is but you have to explore further. What type of process would you take when exploring the validity of a bet vs check?
Good question. Modelling the hand with CRev is definitely the nut answer.. Ben's latest vid (Toy Games) begins touching on how to use CRev properly, so I would recommend watching that series continuously to get a feel for how to use the program.
min 27 K2hh hand on TsTh5h: I agree with you that we want to delay our bluffs as our valuehands in this boardtexture, and xC is a better option, speccialy when we have one of the strongest flushdraws of our range. But you also said that if the turns comes a 7d now you would bluff your hand. Don´t you believe that K2ss is still strong enough to just call the turn again ? I run the equity against a standard cbet turn range by button and we have close to 32% equity against.
I think its not quite strong enough to call again, but I could be wrong on that. I just don't think we see SD when we're good w K-high enough of the time, and I'd rather turn it into a bluff.
Great video! Looking forward for part 2.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.