ProView: Brian Rast reviews Big Fiszh at 6-Max Zoom NLHE (part 1)
Posted by Brian Rast
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 29 Comments...
might be one of the simplest and best vids iv seen in the last few years, more please
thank you Adam
Awesome! Got to consider Brian for honorary mod now! ;-)
I'm curious about the AQo and QQ hands where hero flats. I get the impression that good players online prefer to flat them more often recently against UTG opens. It doesn't really impact the analysis of the hand in the video, I'm just curious what other people think. Maybe someone who plays more NLHE than I do has more on this?
I wanna preface this by saying that I have a ton of respect for you as a player and am appreciative of the work you put in.
I did feel though that while none of the advice was bad that it was a bit outdated and maybe just you are a bit out of touch with the online games. I much more enjoyed the hand history review videos you had been making on your live hands from Macau--especially the ones that incorporated deeper play. The PLO ones I thought were great.
It is true I haven't played online in about 2 years since BF. That said, I would like to bet anybody a large amount of money I can beat 1/2$ zoom poker over a reasonable sample size. If anyone is interested, I'm sure I can arrange this within the next few months. That said, perhaps my advice is outdated - in which case I would actually like to know specifically. If you could go through the video and find 2-5 examples, so that we could discuss what I'm saying vs. what a more up-to-date analysis would say, that would not only be beneficial for me, but for the members paying attention to the discussion.
I definitely wasn't suggesting you couldn't beat 1/2nl zoom. LOL. I think you're a great player, you're someone I look up to. Also, there's nothing wrong with being out of touch with the games. It's not like you're supposed to just magically know how things have progressed without actually playing in them--you really don't need to make some big wager on some silly challenge to assert your skills as a player. Nobody was doubting those.
I was mostly just trying to express that I preferred your deepstack live hand review videos as I didn't feel I was able to learn much new in this format. I don't have the time to go back through the video and point out all the spots but it's not like I was implying in anyway that any of your advice was bad.
i completely disagree w/ what u just said fastbreak10 .... I think what Brian is saying during the video makes sens, and the logic to be fancy, or crazy to be up to date, is not objective ...
I really don't think poker is about specific trend or fashion but more about doing the right thoughts process on the right time , and the job is done with talent during this video.
And for my part I really enjoyed it.
James Hudson (200BB+) and Michael Dolle (100BB+) each just did a 6 max 6 Table $1/2 (No Zoom Fad shenanigans).
I think you should do a proview on someone that plays a comparable game where RIO members could learn thought processes some of your high stakes creativity!
Proviewing 200BB games would make a great film that can be applicable to all NL members b/c most players when doubling up are going to be 200+ BBs. Who knows, you might find some spots where ES are 400+BBs?!
I reached out at the RIO lounge during Phils Q&A as a 'live' (ugh) semi-pro 5/10 NL 200BB+ NHLE player. I mostly voiced the desire for a deepstack 200BB+ 5/10+ to lend live poka players your thought processes! Trying to make the jump to High Stakes is really daunting these days ...
Often times I see that younger players (like myself) play really poorly after doubling to 200-400ishBBs and not defending with aggression by stealing the initiative on later streets and I think I need to learn how to play my marginal hands aggressively vs villains with the initiative on later streets (usually versus better opponents) and find some spots to increase my 3 barrel ranges!
Love the material so far, GL in the big games!!!
That sounds like a great idea... my problem right now is I don't have any of my own material to review. I'm not sure the next time I will go to Macau, probably in 1-2 months. Before then, for my next video, I'd love to review a deep stacked game, and I wholeheartedly agree with you that this area is one that most online players are the weakest, and one of my strengths - thus perfect for me to do a video review. If you have any good footage, let me or Dan Quinn know for my next video.
would love to see some deep play. looking forward to future videos
enjoyed this video. i'm not sure what was outdated or out-of-touch about it. perhaps it would have been nice to hear more about your thoughts on sizing in certain spots, and more of an opponent range analysis. but even without going into great detail about that stuff, this video was a good review.
the 77 hand was pretty interesting actually, pretty sure BigFishz was just utilizing blockers and 3 barreling as a bluff, so it was kind of funny to hear Brian approaching it more like a possible valuebet.
It's a strange hand for sure - on one hand its tough to get a lot of better hands to fold, we aren't getting called by worse, and we do block the straight combos. Earlier streets kind of play strange as well - flop is an agreeable c-bet probably, turn is already like, if we check we turn our hand/range kind of face up and can get valuebet against thinly and bluffed a ton, betting however kind of lets villain get away from all his floats etc and just narrows his range even further. River just becomes kind of ??? Can't valuebet, c/c seems so dirty, cf seems too weak and bluffing seems optimistic as well.
i agree with you, the 77 spot is an interesting one. In the video, I did not approach it solely like a value-bet. I analyzed it from both sides. I think that in retrospect, I should have written off a little quicker the idea that it's a value-bet... that said, it's hard for me to like it as a bluff with no history. I just can't see most people folding a 10 anywhere near often enough to make this profitable... much less better than a 10. I do think it's a fold you can get someone to make once you have some history, however, depending on what that history is.... but one of the facets of zoom poker is that you generally don't have a lot of history with people - i.e. it's "vacuum poker".
After thinking some more about the hand, I don't really like a c/r in general as a bluff in this spot - as it's ambitious for value vs a ten vs a standard opponent... I am going to make some generalizations here, but in my experience I think that most opponents will click call her with a ten or better, simply because their hand is strong enough, a decent amount of draws missed, and it looks like a spot someone might bluff if they got to the river with a bluff. I think that a good hand/range readers might be more likely to fold a ten here, because they will realize that there isn't a whole lot of hands that you get to the river with worse than a ten AND some of them might c/c or c/f, such that if you are calling with all your tens, than you will probably be paying off too much on this river. So if they feel that you're not likely to be bluffing in this spot, then folding a ten, especially the weaker ones (if you wanted to only fold a certain %), is totally reasonable. I just think that most opponents actually will not do this, and especially not without history. So, it is definitely a reasonable bluff - but it is a little too ambitious vs an unknown opponent in my opinion. I just tend to find that without history, you tend to get called here by a ten. This is my intuition of how people seem to react in these spots, without reads - in a vacuum - and I don't have much to back it up besides just my experience playing poker for years. If anyone has a different intuition/experience, than please share.
I hope that was helpful?
First of all, thx Brian for the nice and helpful review!
Regarding the HUD, here´s the explanation of my HUD:
http://i.imgur.com/OwoMIvG.png
And concerning the missed 3bet spots, you´re completely right!! When I recorded this video I was actually coming back from vacancies so I was a bit rusty - and additionally I´m not a Zoom-player at all, just played it to get more hands in for the video. So, in some spots I might have been overly scared by the "zoom-tightness". :-)
Looking forward to next part ...
Could you perhaps elaborate on your thought process in the 77 hand where you bet-bet-bet on T65 2tone 4o Ao COvsBTN ?
i am sorry but not 3 betting qq on the BTT vs a 65 bb open on 100nl zoom who is likely a fish is just insanely terrible
Great video Brian, keep em coming.
Would defo appreciate more info on sizing in future vids.
Great vid Brian! I'm curious on your take regarding balancing in live poker. I've watched a bunch of gto/theory vids on RIO for enjoyment and learning purposes, but feel they apply a lot more to a 100bb online type game. As a live player what's your take on playing a balanced/gto style? Does this only apply live vs good players who you play with often? I've tried to gain insight into this area from other instructors but most play online w shorter stacks whereas I play 5/10+ live w 200-500 bb's.
I think you are doing yourself a good service watching gto/theory videos and at least paying attention to that facet of the game. It's very important to understand the concept, and know how to apply it to your game. I think that it's important to have a good idea of GTO-optimal play for "vacuum plays" in situations when you are just starting out to play against people (even live, like in tournament situations where you're readless and don't have much else to go off assumption-wise) and against good, thinking players especially ones you play wit,h with any kind of regularity, it's important that you pay attention to gto and balancing with your overall gameplan and your bet sizing.
That said, I find that against most everyone it is important to deviate from GTO-optimal to varying degrees based on their own tendencies, as well as how you believe they are perceiving your play. And thus you make exploitative adjustments, which are deviating from GTO-optimal play. I think this applies even against very good players live, and especially against players who go down the totem pole from there. I find that against "fish" or weaker players, I quickly abandon approaching my play vs. them in heads-up situations from a GTO standpoint, and am solely trying to figure out what they are doing and how to exploit them.
20:41- 77 hand
Brian you`re saying you dislike the 3barrel and would prefer
to x/call river.
My first thought was x/c river will not be +EV since there
won`t be too many combos he can bluff with on the river but still there are
some he might fold when we 3barrel.
Therefore i made a CREV analysis:
Parameter:
15% call open pre
call flop: 3rd pair+, fd, gs+, Ax +bdfd
call turn: mp+, fd, oesd
call river: tp+, 50% Tx
bet river when checked to: tp+, ANY busted draw
EV for bet river = + 2,59:
EV for x/call river= - 3,87:
-> the BE point for the riverbet beeing + EV is him folding 60% of his Tx combos (including T9,JT)
-> the x/call river line will be - EV even when he`s not valuebetting lighter than Ax and bluffing ALL of his busted draws
Love the analysis... thank you for your input. I have thought a little bit more about the hand, some of which is related to your post, and some of which isn't.
1) I think CR the turn is an interesting idea which I never brought up and hasn't been discussed. With 35$ in pot and 177$ in stacks, I think we have a good hand to CR... and here's why. I think a lot of the hands that we beat (mid/bottom pair) will check back - which is totally fine as those hands often have few outs so we don't mind giving them a free card. If they do bet, CR them is fine anyways. A lot of the floats and draws that didn't raise the flop will bet... probably about 25-30$, and we get to CR risking 177$ to win the 60-65$ in pot, but putting them in a spot where it definitely looks like we are going with the hand (we are) and thus with little FE they can't continue. We can get hands that have a lot of equity to fold and win the pot. And perhaps the best reason is that tens will bet in this spot pretty frequently, and I think that sometimes we can get a ten to fold... and even if we don't we have decent equity with 10 outs. Also, we are blocking straights with two 7s, and we also have the 7s to block OESF draws. Overall I think this is a good hand to include in to our CR range here on the bluff side in order to balance with the times we do it for value... In fact, in retrospect I think it's probably the best play.
2) Now to answer your post since I've gotten that out... I obviously can't argue with your math given your assumptions, but I can ask a few questions about your inputs. The only things that I question are the 15% call percentage preflop and the 50% call with tens on the river. I'm not positive, but I think both are low. For sure 15% is low for a VPIP% here for the button with 100BB stacks... now obv the button will be 3betting a reasonable amount, so maybe 15% is a reasonable call% if you subtract the times he 3bets, but even then it feels low to me - and I also question whether or not the program has factored that in to the range of hands you are giving the button for this hand (ie is it taking out 3bet hands, and using the 15% of hands for a likely call range?). The next question I have is... I feel that you will be called by a ten on the river in this spot more than half the time, I estimate the call % to probably be 2/3 or 3/4 of the time personally against an unknown in this spot. Could you address these questions, both by debating the validity of my assertions, but also by putting in the numbers based on my assertions in to your equity calculator and figure out changed equities based on what I'm postulating.
hey Brian,
"For sure 15% is low for a VPIP% here for the button with 100BB stacks...
now obv the button will be 3betting a reasonable amount, so maybe 15%
is a reasonable call% if you subtract the times he 3bets, but even then
it feels low to me"
The 15% call open means only the hands he calls (3bet range excluded). 15% is not his VPIP in that spot since VPIP is composed of PFR%+Call open%. I would argue a standard % for a reg`s call open on the BTN is definately! < 15% , especially with 2 regs in the blind and 1 reg opening.
"And I also question whether or not the program has factored that in to
the range of hands you are giving the button for this hand (ie is it
taking out 3bet hands, and using the 15% of hands for a likely call
range?)
the range is put manually - 3bet range excluded
"The next question I have is... I feel that you will be called by a ten
on the river in this spot more than half the time, I estimate the call %
to probably be 2/3 or 3/4 of the time personally against an unknown in
this spot"
villain needs ~30% equity for calling the river to be break-even. Even against a range that is not valuebetting worse than Ax and bluffing ALL busted draws a hand like JT imo won`t have 30%:
Board: Ts5s6c4hAh
Equity Win Tie
MP2 73.61% 73.61% 0.00% { AA, TT, 66-44, ATs, A7s, 97s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, AsKs, AsQs, KsQs, AsJs, KsJs, QsJs, As9s, Ks9s, Qs9s, Js9s, Ts9s, As8s, 9s8s, As6s, 8s6s, As5s, As4s, 6s4s, As3s, As2s, ATo }
MP3 26.39% 26.39% 0.00% { JTs, JTo }
-> that`s why i would not assume Tx is calling way more than 50% on the river.
"also by putting in the numbers based on my assertions in to your equity
calculator and figure out changed equities based on what I'm
postulating."
when we are calculating with a 20% Call open range on the BTN (3bet range excluded) and further a call river with Tx of 75%+ 3barreling will definately become - EV but i would argue that those parameters just aren`t realistic. As mentioned before the break even point for 3barreling against a 15% Call open Btn happens when villain is calling 60% of his Tx combos.
I am not too familiar with CREV analysis, and while it feels like a good tool... I do have a problem with the large number of assumptions you have to make to use it. This has convinced me that 3 barreling in this spot with 77 is definitely reasonable, and perhaps the best way to play the hand (given a turn bet - I've already stated I think a turn CR is probably the best line). I have a few problems with the assumptions... first, I feel like there are some more bluff hands that can make it to the river. 97cc, 98cc, 98suited of any type, and possibly hands like KJcc, KQcc... I think some villains will decide to double barrel turns with these hands that weren't included. That said, they won't 100% bluff rivers... which can make up for that. Second, and perhaps most importantly, I will say also that it seems that most villains will have raised a lot of their 2pair+ and especially sets either on flop or turn, and thus won't have them in their ranges at the river with call/call lines. In fact, I think this is an especially important assumption, because given how draw heavy the board is on flop and even more on turn, I actually think most villains will raise their sets... thus including them in the range is probably wrong. Additionally, a lot of villains will raise NFDs on flop or turn as well... hands which suck out on a ten on the river. Thus, I think a lot of the assumptions used in your CREV analysis are off...Given my problems with your assumptions, I'm now not sure what the best line is anymore... you've definitely convinced me that this is closer than I previously thought. It also might be the case that C/F > C/C on river.that said, CR turn seems best at the moment!
Hello brian, Always refreshing to hear your thoughts and excellent video.
@13:30 70bb eff ....UTG raises 3bb, we just flat btn with QQ
So if you wanted to 3bet 80/call 20. Maybe choose one of the six specific combo of QQ that we arent 3betting? I should prbly start doing this more instead of randomly guessing, :).
Flop comes down 244ss (6bb)
..He bets 5bb, we make it 13.5bb
I like raising too but lets pretend there is no fd on the flop. Despite QQ being an awesome hand to raise on both boards, I feel like our whole strategy probably shouldn't be raising the flop much on 442r in theory to protect our other holdings? Thus, have no raising range ever here? And on 442ss we can have way more value hands/semi bluffs/bluffs and play completely different postflop strategy.
As for 77 hand, otr I initially thought...(without listening to your thoughts)
c/f river or bet river >> c/c river >>>> and c/r river.
The more likely he is to station otr the more likely we should just c/f. But I think we should def. be turning the 77 into a bluff otr a lot of the time and 77 will fit in nicely with our <JJ-KK, Ax, sets, etc> for its blockers to straight and we shouldnt have that many bluffing combos otr. But if you think he is calling a T that much of time (over 50%), I def. think the math would say betting is inferior to c/c but I would estimate as low as 5-25% (big margin lol).
side note: I think there is a big skill gap between 1/2 and 2/5 in terms of skill level and people are far worse and less aware of what they are doing at this limit. So I think assumptions can vary greatly across those two games where at 2/5 playing closer to a gto style seems much more important. However, I cant say that I am that in touch with these games either. So when I say it would be nice to have a little history, I am hoping to have a somewhat better grasp on frequency of their ability to fold a hand like Tx before I make betting my standard play.
As you already pointed out, usually when we cr on the river works we had the best hand 90% of time. He is betting to polarized to either having a hand that can snap or we were good anyway and could of saved a lot of $$ by cc. Unless we think he is going to give our cr a ton of credit and fold something pretty strong but in a vacuum thats a lot of assuming.
Also love the crEV analysis but agreed there are to many assuming paramaeters and listening to you say I think he calls Tx 50%+ more of time and thats why you think cc >> betting is more valuable to me then seeing CREV but thats just how I learn at given moment and it is different for everybody. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
i appreciate the work you put in to your comments, and your evaluation. Thank you as well for sharing your thoughts.
I also agree that we should be bluffing some of the time on this river... and while 77 blocks the straight, it also beats smaller pairs that might check back. Whereas if we made it to the river with any bluffs or missed draws, those hands have 0 showdown value, and if I were to construct a range I feel like I'd rather bluff with some of them and check 77, despite the blocker value - which I feel is kinda not that big a deal in this particular spot, although def. nonzero value.
My other issue is I feel like if a CREV is telling us to bet 77, than it would be telling us to bet everything weaker... and if not, then why? In that case we are basically betting this river nearly always (as we probably bet QT/KT+ for value) ... which is a possible, but somewhat odd occurrence if true.
So despite the crev argument... I feel like for the assumption issues I had, as well as my other responses, I still would lean toward Check - and I'm not convinced on c/c vs c/f tbh. That said, the fact that multiple people have weighed in on bet, as well as the crev analysis as shown to be decidedly weighted towards betting have given me pause, and I can't say I feel strongly about this spot on the river... and in fact it's probably very largely player dependent - and if you started to have any reads on someone, I would attempt to use them to make the best play in a spot like this exploitatively. I guess if we are discussing the best GTO play, in this type of zoom situation, than this goes out the window (but even in this spot our hero had stats on his hud!).
Here is a very good article I found which discusses exploitative vs. balanced (GTO) play, and serves as an explanation as to why I think on this river spot you should try to exploit if at all possible as opposed to trying to find the GTO play (which is balanced, but non-exploitative) http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78/micro-stakes-full-ring/cotw-exploitative-vs-balanced-strategies-1148105/
OK, I wanna chime in on the 77-hand - and I apologize to d0zer who even asked me to reply, but I didn´t recognize that.
First of all ... I´m not even sure if I got enough reads on my opponent to pull off this bluff with 77 (obviously it was a bluff). But FWIW, basically all my "arguments" had been made by From02Hero already, as we did the CREV-calculation together. :)
In game, I thought the triple-barrel from a moreless readless opponent (me) on the A river had to be scary enough to get him to fold even a T often enough to make this bet +EV.
Furthermore, it completely eliminates the opportunity to bluff from Villain, as I´m pretty sure (as the CREV shows pretty well) that we can´t ever x/c profitably. So the alternatives would´ve been x/f and bet.
One real downside had been for me that a bunch of his flush draws improved to TP, but the calculation shows that it´s still not sufficient to make my bet bad, as long as he doesn´t call with Tx too lightly (which I still doubt). As far as calling with Tx goes, the break-even-treshold, once we remove sets and 2-pairs from his range (as mentioned by Brian) even goes up to roughly 70%, so once he folds at least 30% of his Tx, my bluff is successful.
As mentioned, there really is NO argument / range (shown so far) that could convince me of x/c being profitable at all. So between the choice of x/f and bluffing (and needing him to fold like 30% of Tx) I still think, even readless, the play might be close but it should definitely be arguable.
It seems that your CREV analysis has found a common leak in the $1/$2 Zoom community's river play.
Hello,
First of all sorry for my english. I want to ask kinda complex question because your are most experienced holdem player here.
You played this session with perception of online play where you think regulars 3bets 99 SB vs MP for example as standard, but nowdays preflop strategy moves goes tight especially with 4bet/call AI preflop, regulars want to realise their skill advantage on postlop, nobody wants let their destiny to variance hands. Because when you 3bet 99 all the time from SB we play hard vs cold 4bet from BB and we goes to circle of adjustments.
My question is all about your perception of game 100 bb comparing to deep stacks, why regulars who plays live game with deep stacks, plays 100bb more liberaly starting from preflop 3beting 99 vs MP, (20min of video) raising flop T65s with Ten mandatory in your perception of game, overall depolarization to early (maybe not?) with value hands. Because you know, polarizing is most important thing in game.
What is our advantage of this vision in game with going to wide our value ranges? - Maybe you understand what I mean better, I just tried write final question to complete logically
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.