Escapist

Enjoyed the video. Want more hold'em!!

1. No, I'd play the same way for the most part.

2-3. So pots at 1360 and our stack is at 1350... it's gonna take a lot for us to fold. I think a check is good, there's not a whole lot of value here as Tx is probably folding and they shouldn't have much Kx, just KcXc which they might find a call with, but that's about it. Ton of missed draws, I'd want to be checking to check/call pretty much any bet from HJ. If BB calls HJ's bet, we may find a fold depending on the sizing, but if it's anything around half pot or less I am not folding. If BB raises HJ's bet, it's probably a fold.

(I also don't mind a smallish sizing bet, like $420. Their ranges should be pretty polarized here; aside from the KcXc they should have either monsters like 6x+, some mid pairs like Tx, or busted draws. No reason to bet a lot versus such a range.)

I feel like turn should be an overbet shove? Our range here is basically 2pair/sets, straights, and strong draws like AdXd. When we bet 1100 into 2000 on turn with 1900 left 3way it seems very hard for us to be semibluffing.

Given that we are OOP, I'd ship it. Calling makes future streets very difficult (both in extracting value and continuing on missed turns versus aggression) due to position.

Basically what I do vs human players ;p

If we call, we'll have 800 left behind with the pot at 1400... just doesn't seem like he will shove a blank turn thinking he has any fold equity at all (then again he is drunk so who knows). Assuming he never shoves turn with a draw, we're giving him 2 free cards unless we call and then donklead, which would be very weird. I think in general we're better off shoving flop and folding out his draw equity; we should be doing this with our good draws too. SPR seems too low for a call.

Hi Felipe!

Always enjoy your videos.

About the A5s hand, I'm surprised the villain shoved KQs vs your ck/raise with those stack sizes. I would usually flat. It seems like too weak of a hand to shove for value, too strong of a hand to shove as a bluff. Maybe it's fine because there are so many other combodraws in your perceived calling range that it dominates?

LOL OUTED NOOB

edit: woah i didnt expect reply to work.. how come i can reply but not leave new comments? (i'm non-elite member)

I think it's a call. Turn changed nothing, his sizing is exactly the same as flop. He's gonna have pretty much the same range, so why fold now? We'd need a read that he has a tendency to give up bluffs on turns after cbetting flop.

I'm also curious why you think it's unlikely he has a K. Barreling K on flop and turn is extremely standard. Him having fewer Kx would be more reason to call, and perhaps even raise if he's really that capped.

Hi Phil,

At around 47:00~ you talk about an interesting concept:

"if they're gonna bet the river with a polarized range, it lets them leverage the value portion of their range. the luxury of betting with a polarized range does add value; it adds ev to you. whereas the player who is not doing the betting and is doing the bluffcatching against that polarized range loses some value, in terms of their relative equities against each other."

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a polarized range being able to 'leverage its value portion.' My guess is you're saying that the polarized range is almost always going to contain the full extent of its value portions, whereas the bluff portions may or may not be less represented, which makes it hard for the bluffcatching range to know how often to call. (I dunno if I'm anywhere near the ballpark with this interpretation.) Also, does the polarized range's ability to choose the bet sizing have anything to do with it?

In any case I'd love a video about this concept. I greatly enjoy all your concept videos!

I don't see a bigger tourney as being "outside the long run" but rather a part of it. If he's got 1% more equity against Seiver's actual range, then he should go for it, no? If he doesn't, you could argue that 2% more equity isn't enough either... what would be enough then?

I think playing explo is great, it's arguably the most interesting part of the game. However, I don't see how the prize pool should have to do with it. It should be dependent on your opponent. An explanation that makes sense to me is "I think I'm behind my opponent" rather than "the prize pool is so huge, I'm gonna wait for a better spot." The latter just sounds like scared money.

It's interesting that he bet small to raise big, instead of the more standard check/raise. I think he might have a lot of 9x hands in his bluff range, initially trying to get a cheap showdown plus a bit of value on the river, and when raised he can comfortably bluff with the 9 blocker. However it's somewhat tough for him to call turn with just a 9 (like 95o) so it'd have to be J9 or a 9xss hand. He could also have T7 and play it this way.

Not really opting for a call; I'm not sure how many bluffs vs value hands he'll have.

Moarrrr!

Great series, very enjoyable to watch.

I wish you played more NL!

Small check/raise if he bets very small, shove if he bets more than 150.

The way you described him, I don't think he's raising lower 2pair on turn. This looks like a straight, slowplayed set, or some kind of weird semibluff.

If you expected him to jam and he jams, maybe you should call. That or check river.

Readless I agree with calling a blocker hand like KsQd rather than what we have, though we are probably not betting KsQd OTR. Come to think of it, there are very few blocker hands we'd actually play this way, other than 66d and 99d.

I don't get it. Why should we change our play when it's a more important spot? The goal should be to play as well as you can, given all the info you have. I mean, if you think Seiver's range is going to be different due to the size of the tourney, you can make your decision based on that, but to say the tourney buyin itself should dictate how you play makes absolutely no sense to me.

Can we hero call river? It seems unlikely that villain would check Ax or clubs on turn since it's such a great barreling card, and we are fairly capped at JJ~

E: I see villain's cbet turn is 0, so maybe not such a great idea.

Somewhat awkward stacks, I think a shove could be good. A smaller 4bet like $320 is gonna get called a lot, so it's really hard for us to have any kind of bluffs. A slightly bigger 4bet like $420 forces us to commit with our hand, so it has the same problem. If we shove, we can maybe be shoving low pocket pairs as bluffs, and value shoving AK and QQ+? I guess $370 is also okay but I'm not sure.

Just saw the hand vs De Wolfe... pretty impressive, I've never seen anything like it.

Anyway, I didn't mean to suggest Reinkemeier is a fish, just that his line is, well, ridiculous. I don't play much live but if this was online I could never imagine myself folding, so I have to think that the chat had a lot to do with his decision.

Also, I don't see how the fact that it's a huge tourney is relevant. Do you think he would play differently if the tourney prize pool was smaller? He's still playing against Seiver, the board is still the same, he still has the same cards, etc. Even if it was for play money, he should be playing the same way as long as he's trying to play well. If he's not trying to play well due to apathy or whatever, he probably shouldn't be playing in the first place.

Only thing I can think of is that Seiver's chatplay threw Reinkemeier off somehow. Ridiculous fold if you consider Seiver's shoving range.

Looks like a fold, we have flushes in our range so it seems utterly insane for him to do this without a flush, especially with your description of him. Maybe once in a blue moon if he's on utter monkey tilt.

More theory vids!

loved it! more tricky board play!

I really enjoyed this video.

Would love to see a similar format, but for NLHE.

really liking this series

awesome video with great info. short and sweet too

awesome, as usual