Mid Stakes Hand History Review
Posted by Tyler Forrester
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 10 Comments...
8:30 4b pot with Ad4d.
Flop stacks were 333, pot was 150. Is there ever a strong reason alter your bet sizing here slightly (either a tad larger to go 2 streets or a tad smaller to go 3) to make the turn and river SPR's more manageable? Betting 50 into 150 is a nice sizing for your range on the flop, but I feel like getting SPR 1.1 on the turn gets a little bit dicey when trying to size for 2 more streets (going linearly across turn and river would be about100 into 250 on turn and 183 into 450 on river) , yet jamming 1.2x pot on the turn probably isn't optimal either.
Wouldn't a good exploitation of him not folding almost ever on that flop be something like, cbet almost all but not all of your range (x/f some stuff like A4dd that has no backdoors) and thus cbet a slightly stronger range, and bet something more like half pot, then shove turn a lot with hands like AK or any gutshot?
Seems like he should have a folding range on the flop somewhere in the region of 1-a.
Playing a 3 street linear game is going to increase our overall game value so it seems superior to playing a 2 street game in the majority of cases. This could change if A) the board texture is wet enough that parts of your range won't be a value bet on certain runoffs, B) equities run so close that the game doesn't function quite like a nuts/air v bluff catcher scenario.
The idea on for the flop bet was to give myself 3 options for the turn and river play.
However my inability to do math caused the stack to pot to be slightly too large. :)
30:50
When you see an opponent peel AK5 mono, bet half pot on a brick turn then jam 2x pot on a brick river after you've presumably capped yourself, how do you adjust to that strategy? Would you prefer checking hands that function as good bluff catchers vs river over bets, or would you prefer checking very strong hands to protect that range. It seems you hurt your nut combos EV by having to start checking them (unless you're facing bet turn over bet river very often) so that leads me to believe that checking a hand that could be a marginal 2-3 street value bet and using it as a bluff catcher might be making more money, but that still results in us getting to the river with a relatively capped range.
Hi Jd,
We absolutely have to check some fraction of nuts hands on the turn and river to protect against the overbet. However what fraction is appropriate is open to debate.
Since this was a recreational player, rather than a reg, I would check my next nuttish hand to him hoping that by Bayes theorem that he is more likely a maniac that a tight passive player. However if I saw the same player play top pair and/or air more slowly. I would choose a strategy of betting with my nut hands.
Great video Tyler!
Thanks Knoxox!
19 mins: You mention that this hand is one the worst hands in our range, outside of missed draws (which cannot bluff catch and won't have many anyway). Given his bet size (%50) it seems we will have to defend %67ish. My question is whether it is more relevant to have a bigger pair, say TT, QJ, K9s etc, or to be unblocking all of his most obvious bluffs(Tx,Jx,Kx, cc,)? If the latter it seems likely that A2 w/o a club will end up as a top %67 bluff catcher. Let me know if I'm thinking of this incorrectly. I always enjoy your videos, thanks for so much great content.
Hi Caesar,
Thank you I appreciate the compliments :). A2s is likely a better call vs a very very strong opponent, but would be easily exploited by a player who value bet much thinner or turned 9x into a bluff. Since this player was recreational player I couldn't rule out some absurd strategies that easily make calling A2s negative, so I folded.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.