You say it's a joke, but I was extremely disappointed with this video. Why would you sort the hands by most money won and then review those? Easy to look good when you look back at hands where you made a shitload. How stupid would the last hand have been if villain had QJo and flopped open ended? All of your commentary was purely results oriented and would have sounded completely hilarious had villain had QJ.
New member, probably going to cancel. I don't need to watch pros teach me how to play when I demolish boards.
around 15:50 you mention that you're more likely to check turn with nut flushes and more likely to bet weaker flushes. Have you considered the merits of doing the opposite? When checked to, depending on his sizing and strategy, IP's betting range (for the sake of argument, let villain be an unknown reg with whom you have no history) might look something like 2p+ for value (I think hands worse than a flush will almost always check back river), with 87, QJ, and off-suit AsX as bluffs. In congruence with what you already said in the video, bluffing turn with 87 or QJ no spade is quite unattractive for IP, so I would heavily discount these hands.
In my opinion, the problem with the strategy you employ is that the strong hands (flushes) in our checking range block the hands with which he will double barrel bluff (AsX). However, when we check with the more marginal parts of our range (e.g. JJ-AA), we are more likely to get bluffed against since that part of our range usually does not block As. Whilst that latter bit will be true regardless, checking weaker flushes on the turn will at least let us get to river with some hands that can easily defend against a double barrel on blank rivers.
I momentarily considered that perhaps we can induce bluff raises from AsX when we bet turn with our weaker flushes. However, like you said, our betting region on this turn is quite small. And when we do bet, our range is quite polarized. This gives IP little incentive to develop a raising range on the turn.
TL;DR: checking turn with nut flushes significantly reduces how often he will double barrel bluff, since his main (perhaps only) double barrel bluffing hands contain As. Checking weaker flushes on turn and betting nut flushes instead seems to solve this problem.
I should mention that my arguments are purely qualitative/intuitive, and I have not run any sims on this spot. Thus, I'm sure that I'm quite susceptible to being completely wrong here. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
I agree with everything you said. Perhaps I'm assigning too much weight to the invulnerable nature of nut-flushes and not considering it's blocking effects. I think the strategy you outlined is very reasonable.
8:30. You forgot to conclude the times where you get 4bet and fold. In this case you also don't see a flop but don't win the pot.
You mention the initiative a lot which game theory speaking is not really a thing. Do you find that people overfold a lot vs c-bets compared to GTO in those squeezed pots? This wasn't really clear to me.
23:50. You mention you want him to bluff a hand like 2 suited gutshots so like 8 combos. You don't talk about the fact that he can have like 12 combos KQ, 12 combos KJ and JT, QT which might only be suited aswell, so many pair + gutters. Do you think he will fold that on the turn if you bet? Personally my feel is that he will call all those hands always if he is a fish but check back if you check. This seems to be a lot more combos to worry about than the occasional suited bluffs if you check to him. Add the fact that he is likely to maybe not even bluff (passive fish u said) makes it seem better to me to bet here. Thoughts?
*Not trying to attack obv, just trying to see where my thought process goes wrong.
but I think the way he uses the word "initiative" in this video is often interchangeable with "stronger range". You're right, initiative on its own is meaningless from a GTO standpoint. However, having initiative usually means having the stronger range (with some exceptions, such as when the PFR opposes a condensed cold calling range).
Hmm yeah and like Tyler showed in one of his last videos that means u often get more than 1-a folds on boards like Kxx even if villain is playing GTO. Thanks Paul
I do find that most people still over-fold everywhere and generally play quite poorly vs aggression, so there remains value in having the betting lead or 'initiative'. As Paul stated, oftentimes this implies having a range advantage as well. In the future I'll try to be more attentive to ensure I'm not mis-applying terminology.
23:50: I think the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years, to the point where they no longer play HORRIBLY. At the time I expected his turn folding frequency to be very high given flop just-call + blocking all the turned TP's (which represent the bulk of his turn cont. range). I wouldn't hate a turn bet but if he has a bluffing range OTT then XC almost certainly trumps betting in terms of EV.
I think youre making a good point here. As you mentioned there are a lot of combos that the fun player shouldn`t be betting here, and if the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years he will check all these hands back and I think we are losing value. (because he I think he will call the turn with these hands)
23:50: I think the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years, to the point where they no longer play HORRIBLY. At the time I expected his turn folding frequency to be very high given flop just-call + blocking all the turned TP's (which represent the bulk of his turn cont. range). I wouldn't hate a turn bet but if he has a bluffing range OTT then XC almost certainly trumps betting in terms of EV.
But, are you expecting the Fun Player to bluff made hands ? I mean Pair+GS.
Do you really expect that hands to bluff ? because i think that´s the only hands we are pointing to bluff us. (and ofc hands like J9 and Q9). Obv i mean OTT.
I would be very grateful if you explain a little bit more why checking Turn is better than betting, because the only way i see checking is better than betting is when the Fun Player starts bluffing with some made hands.
16:52 you say that the turn is an extremely unattractive bluffing spot with QJhh, or 78dd. On a turn that forces you to check so much of your range, i dont see why these hands become speculative bluffs
They aren't drawing to the nuts/equity is quite poor vs my XC range, villain might not expect much FE OTT and he's sometimes drawing dead. I expect them to be bluffed at a small frequency which should be fine/good as it enables villain to have bluffs on 4-flush rivers.
Good video :)
I would love a follow up where you focus on squeezing hands like 99 and TT since those seem to perform very well as squeezes vs late position but somehow always give me trouble.
Hello, good concept for a video :) Im interested in seeing part2 and I also have a few questions id love to hear your thoughts on.
Regarding the difference between squeezes and regular 3bets, would you generally squeeze the same range vs same opening position, for example say squeeze x range BU vs MP and CO, and 3bet x range BU vs MP as well (given that other factors such as stack depth and skill edge are constant)? Or would you alter your squeezing range to be stronger than your regular 3betting range, given that youre going to be facing stronger defending ranges. And if so, would you alter it by including less "bluff" hands while keeping the same value range, and skewing your value to bluff ratio more in favor of value, or would you rather keep the ratio the same while tightening up the value range and therefore "bluff" range as well. What value to bluff ratio do you think is optimal for 3betting IP, and 3betting OOP?
Also, when 3betting or squeezing light with the worst hand in any of our 3betting ranges, should we be expecting to show a profit with that hand, or simply be 3betting it to balance our value range and probably losing money with that hand, but increasing the value we get from getting more action when we have the stronger hands in our range?
I apologize if this is too many questions, I am a new member to runitonce. Ive watched most of your videos and found them to be very good, keep it up! :D
Generally players will be squeezing a tighter range than they will be 3betting (EG. mine is 8% vs 9% respectively). This makes sense because we are facing two live ranges and we're forced to risk more money on our preflop raise. As such, the ranges will vary and range-construction should depend significantly on table-facotrs, positions, stack-sizes, villains tendencies etc..
Generally speaking, you shouldn't make 'speculative' or 'bluff' squeezes if they are going to be -EV. The added balance or board-coverage benefits will seldom compensate for simply making a losing play. That said, I think you should be able to make money squeezing some more 'speculative' holdings in select spots.
This video was focused on pots that I won, so obviously I'm going to be making lots of strong hands/coolering people. I hope you're able to take more away from this video than make nuts --> take stack.
Just when I was looking for a video on squeezing you release one! :)
What I would like to see next is a video that focuses purely on preflop, preferably a complete squeezing range construction for different situations.
For example:
-UTG reg opens & MP reg calls. what is our squeezing range in the button?
-UTG reg opens & MP reg calls. what is our squeezing range in the BB?
-MP reg opens & CO reg + BU reg calls. what is our squeezing range in the BB?
That's what I would personally be most interested in seeing. How the positions of the opener/caller(s) & your position influence your squeezing range, if possible.
78s hand looks interesting for me. Against two regs sqz 78s looks good, because of this hand playability against their range and board coverage. As we can see at the end, he flat calls A6o, so he calls A7o, A8o too. That means a lot of offsuit combos that dominates us and we are playing a big pot against him. We can make him pay us off in a small pot anyway.
It's nice to have initiative and fold reg like ~2/3 of the time, but we don't win a lot doing a cbet against this guy, because, he has a lot of A in his range, we do need barrel a lot of turns. And I don't like the idea of bluffing the fish :))
My sqz range in this spot would be ATs+, 88+,JTs+, KJ+.
I would like to hear your opinion on that.
Linear is definitely the way to go vs players who don't fold. 78s should still be a +EV squeeze, albeit less so when we have diminished FE pre and post. Your range seems reasonable.
Sorry this is off topic and unrelated to this video, but I'm very curious to know why you use the specific bet sizing buttons of 54% as opposed to 50 or 55% and 79% rather than 75%. I'm starting to wonder if that's your secret :P Another question do you have anything to say about your older videos, as in is there anything substantial you were doing wrong or along those lines. Keep the videos coming. I've been studying them all like a hawk! thumbs up
I think Insilicio is making a good point here. The fun player (23:50) has a lot of combos (KQ, KJ and JT) so many pair + gutters. If the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years like you said than he shouldn`t be betting here with these hand an he will check all these hands back and I think we are losing value (because he will call all these hands on the turn)
Hi do you think when playing at the micro limits that a player should tighten his squeezing frequency due to many players not folding? I have been consciously working on increasing my squeezes at 10nl with some success, but the sample size is very limited as I do not feel comfortable in many spots.
IMO not necessarily, to widen or tighten your range would depend on villains tendencies. If they have a high fold to sqz frequency you should widen and polarize your range, if they have a low fold to sqz frequency you shouldn't immediately tighten your range but linearize it.
I agree a bit with seanshephard, not that I´m cancelling my membership.
But I thought that most /all of these hands pretty much play themselves after the actual sqeeze. I would´ve hoped for trickier spots after the squeeze. Not that the AAA hand wasn´t tricky on the river but you know what I mean.
This is a solid poker video from a pro I definitely respect. Keep in mind when looking at any hand analysis that it's ultimately a discussion about range versus range. If you won the hand or not is largely secondary. Obviously, on any hand, if your opponents wakes up with the exact nuts holding you are going to lose. You can say that about any hand. Poker analysis is about teaching effective ways to think through hands. As we all know, you can outplay your opponent and get unlucky just as easily as you can play poorly and wake up with the nuts. It's about developing a winning thought process that you can apply to different situations.
On second hand, AA vs JTs, on the river Solver doesn't bet JTs at all, instead it would bluff with some T9s or 88, JT have great showdown value and almost allways get call by better hand, strate mostly.
I’d like to see some videos where you squeeze and completely brick. That’s what I struggle with. What do I do when I squeeze n miss the flop. In this video you never missed so it’s easy user to be profitable even if you play these spots horribly. But what happens when you miss the flop
Loading 36 Comments...
I guess the message is squeeze, cbet flop, turn the nuts and check?!
Jokes of course, good vid ;)
You say it's a joke, but I was extremely disappointed with this video. Why would you sort the hands by most money won and then review those? Easy to look good when you look back at hands where you made a shitload. How stupid would the last hand have been if villain had QJo and flopped open ended? All of your commentary was purely results oriented and would have sounded completely hilarious had villain had QJ.
New member, probably going to cancel. I don't need to watch pros teach me how to play when I demolish boards.
Hey Cameron,
around 15:50 you mention that you're more likely to check turn with nut flushes and more likely to bet weaker flushes. Have you considered the merits of doing the opposite? When checked to, depending on his sizing and strategy, IP's betting range (for the sake of argument, let villain be an unknown reg with whom you have no history) might look something like 2p+ for value (I think hands worse than a flush will almost always check back river), with 87, QJ, and off-suit AsX as bluffs. In congruence with what you already said in the video, bluffing turn with 87 or QJ no spade is quite unattractive for IP, so I would heavily discount these hands.
In my opinion, the problem with the strategy you employ is that the strong hands (flushes) in our checking range block the hands with which he will double barrel bluff (AsX). However, when we check with the more marginal parts of our range (e.g. JJ-AA), we are more likely to get bluffed against since that part of our range usually does not block As. Whilst that latter bit will be true regardless, checking weaker flushes on the turn will at least let us get to river with some hands that can easily defend against a double barrel on blank rivers.
I momentarily considered that perhaps we can induce bluff raises from AsX when we bet turn with our weaker flushes. However, like you said, our betting region on this turn is quite small. And when we do bet, our range is quite polarized. This gives IP little incentive to develop a raising range on the turn.
TL;DR: checking turn with nut flushes significantly reduces how often he will double barrel bluff, since his main (perhaps only) double barrel bluffing hands contain As. Checking weaker flushes on turn and betting nut flushes instead seems to solve this problem.
I should mention that my arguments are purely qualitative/intuitive, and I have not run any sims on this spot. Thus, I'm sure that I'm quite susceptible to being completely wrong here. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Solid video as always, bud. GL!
I agree with everything you said. Perhaps I'm assigning too much weight to the invulnerable nature of nut-flushes and not considering it's blocking effects. I think the strategy you outlined is very reasonable.
8:30. You forgot to conclude the times where you get 4bet and fold. In this case you also don't see a flop but don't win the pot.
You mention the initiative a lot which game theory speaking is not really a thing. Do you find that people overfold a lot vs c-bets compared to GTO in those squeezed pots? This wasn't really clear to me.
23:50. You mention you want him to bluff a hand like 2 suited gutshots so like 8 combos. You don't talk about the fact that he can have like 12 combos KQ, 12 combos KJ and JT, QT which might only be suited aswell, so many pair + gutters. Do you think he will fold that on the turn if you bet? Personally my feel is that he will call all those hands always if he is a fish but check back if you check. This seems to be a lot more combos to worry about than the occasional suited bluffs if you check to him. Add the fact that he is likely to maybe not even bluff (passive fish u said) makes it seem better to me to bet here. Thoughts?
*Not trying to attack obv, just trying to see where my thought process goes wrong.
Thnx
Obviously not ishter,
but I think the way he uses the word "initiative" in this video is often interchangeable with "stronger range". You're right, initiative on its own is meaningless from a GTO standpoint. However, having initiative usually means having the stronger range (with some exceptions, such as when the PFR opposes a condensed cold calling range).
Hmm yeah and like Tyler showed in one of his last videos that means u often get more than 1-a folds on boards like Kxx even if villain is playing GTO. Thanks Paul
I do find that most people still over-fold everywhere and generally play quite poorly vs aggression, so there remains value in having the betting lead or 'initiative'. As Paul stated, oftentimes this implies having a range advantage as well. In the future I'll try to be more attentive to ensure I'm not mis-applying terminology.
23:50: I think the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years, to the point where they no longer play HORRIBLY. At the time I expected his turn folding frequency to be very high given flop just-call + blocking all the turned TP's (which represent the bulk of his turn cont. range). I wouldn't hate a turn bet but if he has a bluffing range OTT then XC almost certainly trumps betting in terms of EV.
I think youre making a good point here. As you mentioned there are a lot of combos that the fun player shouldn`t be betting here, and if the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years he will check all these hands back and I think we are losing value. (because he I think he will call the turn with these hands)
But, are you expecting the Fun Player to bluff made hands ? I mean Pair+GS.
Do you really expect that hands to bluff ? because i think that´s the only hands we are pointing to bluff us. (and ofc hands like J9 and Q9). Obv i mean OTT.
I would be very grateful if you explain a little bit more why checking Turn is better than betting, because the only way i see checking is better than betting is when the Fun Player starts bluffing with some made hands.
16:52 you say that the turn is an extremely unattractive bluffing spot with QJhh, or 78dd. On a turn that forces you to check so much of your range, i dont see why these hands become speculative bluffs
They aren't drawing to the nuts/equity is quite poor vs my XC range, villain might not expect much FE OTT and he's sometimes drawing dead. I expect them to be bluffed at a small frequency which should be fine/good as it enables villain to have bluffs on 4-flush rivers.
Good video :)
I would love a follow up where you focus on squeezing hands like 99 and TT since those seem to perform very well as squeezes vs late position but somehow always give me trouble.
Hello, good concept for a video :) Im interested in seeing part2 and I also have a few questions id love to hear your thoughts on.
Regarding the difference between squeezes and regular 3bets, would you generally squeeze the same range vs same opening position, for example say squeeze x range BU vs MP and CO, and 3bet x range BU vs MP as well (given that other factors such as stack depth and skill edge are constant)? Or would you alter your squeezing range to be stronger than your regular 3betting range, given that youre going to be facing stronger defending ranges. And if so, would you alter it by including less "bluff" hands while keeping the same value range, and skewing your value to bluff ratio more in favor of value, or would you rather keep the ratio the same while tightening up the value range and therefore "bluff" range as well. What value to bluff ratio do you think is optimal for 3betting IP, and 3betting OOP?
Also, when 3betting or squeezing light with the worst hand in any of our 3betting ranges, should we be expecting to show a profit with that hand, or simply be 3betting it to balance our value range and probably losing money with that hand, but increasing the value we get from getting more action when we have the stronger hands in our range?
I apologize if this is too many questions, I am a new member to runitonce. Ive watched most of your videos and found them to be very good, keep it up! :D
No problem!
Generally players will be squeezing a tighter range than they will be 3betting (EG. mine is 8% vs 9% respectively). This makes sense because we are facing two live ranges and we're forced to risk more money on our preflop raise. As such, the ranges will vary and range-construction should depend significantly on table-facotrs, positions, stack-sizes, villains tendencies etc..
Generally speaking, you shouldn't make 'speculative' or 'bluff' squeezes if they are going to be -EV. The added balance or board-coverage benefits will seldom compensate for simply making a losing play. That said, I think you should be able to make money squeezing some more 'speculative' holdings in select spots.
Would like to see continue this serie where you get squeezed as PFR or as the caller.
Noted. I might do a video on defending vs squeezes as the cold-caller as I find this quite difficult myself.
Great!
Good idea. I think I overfold way too hard because of the sizings.
your explaining slow playing the nuts :\ a7ss nuts, AA pre nuts squeeze, pretty sure anyone gets max value against villain there.
This video was focused on pots that I won, so obviously I'm going to be making lots of strong hands/coolering people. I hope you're able to take more away from this video than make nuts --> take stack.
Good stuff. Any chance of a vid on gypsy mind reading in the near future? I hear that's a speciality topic of yours.
Just when I was looking for a video on squeezing you release one! :)
What I would like to see next is a video that focuses purely on preflop, preferably a complete squeezing range construction for different situations.
For example:
-UTG reg opens & MP reg calls. what is our squeezing range in the button?
-UTG reg opens & MP reg calls. what is our squeezing range in the BB?
-MP reg opens & CO reg + BU reg calls. what is our squeezing range in the BB?
That's what I would personally be most interested in seeing. How the positions of the opener/caller(s) & your position influence your squeezing range, if possible.
Video on flop cbetting/checking and bet sizing?
78s hand looks interesting for me. Against two regs sqz 78s looks good, because of this hand playability against their range and board coverage. As we can see at the end, he flat calls A6o, so he calls A7o, A8o too. That means a lot of offsuit combos that dominates us and we are playing a big pot against him. We can make him pay us off in a small pot anyway.
It's nice to have initiative and fold reg like ~2/3 of the time, but we don't win a lot doing a cbet against this guy, because, he has a lot of A in his range, we do need barrel a lot of turns. And I don't like the idea of bluffing the fish :))
My sqz range in this spot would be ATs+, 88+,JTs+, KJ+.
I would like to hear your opinion on that.
Linear is definitely the way to go vs players who don't fold. 78s should still be a +EV squeeze, albeit less so when we have diminished FE pre and post. Your range seems reasonable.
Sorry this is off topic and unrelated to this video, but I'm very curious to know why you use the specific bet sizing buttons of 54% as opposed to 50 or 55% and 79% rather than 75%. I'm starting to wonder if that's your secret :P Another question do you have anything to say about your older videos, as in is there anything substantial you were doing wrong or along those lines. Keep the videos coming. I've been studying them all like a hawk! thumbs up
The first hand, MrSwingKK. I have a strong feeling he is from Denmark....am I right??
I think Insilicio is making a good point here. The fun player (23:50) has a lot of combos (KQ, KJ and JT) so many pair + gutters. If the average fun-player has improved significantly over the years like you said than he shouldn`t be betting here with these hand an he will check all these hands back and I think we are losing value (because he will call all these hands on the turn)
Hi do you think when playing at the micro limits that a player should tighten his squeezing frequency due to many players not folding? I have been consciously working on increasing my squeezes at 10nl with some success, but the sample size is very limited as I do not feel comfortable in many spots.
IMO not necessarily, to widen or tighten your range would depend on villains tendencies. If they have a high fold to sqz frequency you should widen and polarize your range, if they have a low fold to sqz frequency you shouldn't immediately tighten your range but linearize it.
I agree a bit with seanshephard, not that I´m cancelling my membership.
But I thought that most /all of these hands pretty much play themselves after the actual sqeeze. I would´ve hoped for trickier spots after the squeeze. Not that the AAA hand wasn´t tricky on the river but you know what I mean.
This is a solid poker video from a pro I definitely respect. Keep in mind when looking at any hand analysis that it's ultimately a discussion about range versus range. If you won the hand or not is largely secondary. Obviously, on any hand, if your opponents wakes up with the exact nuts holding you are going to lose. You can say that about any hand. Poker analysis is about teaching effective ways to think through hands. As we all know, you can outplay your opponent and get unlucky just as easily as you can play poorly and wake up with the nuts. It's about developing a winning thought process that you can apply to different situations.
On second hand, AA vs JTs, on the river Solver doesn't bet JTs at all, instead it would bluff with some T9s or 88, JT have great showdown value and almost allways get call by better hand, strate mostly.
Great video!
The a7 squeeze hand very interesting in that kqs can’t get away after turn especially with the check call line.
Are we ever leading the turn and river? Or are we always check calling/jam on turn and river? Can button with kq ever raise flop?
I’d like to see some videos where you squeeze and completely brick. That’s what I struggle with. What do I do when I squeeze n miss the flop. In this video you never missed so it’s easy user to be profitable even if you play these spots horribly. But what happens when you miss the flop
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.