Hawkish

I feel like this inherently would be asking for flame by posting; but if I didn't post about it, I would be missing out.

In a lot of the videos I watch, I hear a very common line "this spot is really really close". Which means - to me - the difference between choice A and choice B at this spot is very minimal in overall EV.

If that is true, and there is a minimal difference between the two options, then why focus on these spots? Wouldn't it be of more benefit to say "here's a spot that seems close but actually isn't. Here's why." or..... "here's a spot that seems really obvious, but here's why its a close spot"

Lopping off spots where my EV loss is significantly magnified would be a much more valuable video series/process compared with watching a video where spots are always "close".

Thanks for reading.

I get the desire to keep the bad player in, but you have to get AA heads up preflop. Calling CO is an invitation to have a five way pot, which you don't want with AA. 3B to $1.10. I wouldn't overthink it. Get a bigger pot, in position, and thin the field down to heads up or so.

As played, the BU was along for the trip the whole way so perhaps you'd have been OOP to him throughout the hand even if you repopped it preflop. Flop hits UTG range hard, so you should be raising there and getting the money in, especially after the big bet on the dry turn.

Great insight Frankie, I really appreciated hearing your thoughts and how this is used in-game. You mentioned a couple of times about how "everyone has their charts" or something like that and referring to preflop charts.

Noob question probably, but where would I find legitimate charts for say, 100NL?

Thank you!

Noted. Thanks for the feedback. I hadn't really considered the 3b/fold aspect as a counter to the high rake environment, rather, I was mostly thinking about not inflating a pot vs. an opponent who could be somewhat unpredictable postflop.

Appreciate the viewpoints.

but why would I shove? If I call, I'm beating all of his bluffs and losing a smaller amount on hands I lose to. If I shove, I beat all of his bluffs and lose more to hands I would otherwise lose to when I would have just called.

At a simplistic view of this....if I'm just looking to get bluffraised with a hand, should I just bet 1/2 pot more often against non-recreationals?

In your video (and in some other videos as well), it seems like betting 1/2 pot is mostly seen as a nonsensical sizing - so an exploit seems to be that betting that way against thinking players when you have a value hand could be beneficial.

Really enjoyed the video. Looking forward to #2

If I'm shoving the river, what am I getting called with that I beat? It seems like that would be a pure negative freeroll.

Yeah, I hear you. I feel like there's so much random wierd stuff that you see people doing on WSOP, I just felt like there were a few value hands I was still beating, but with the random stuff - I had to click call on the end. Thanks for the thoughts.

Hi Buddha, I play in the $50 and $100 NL games on WSOP as well. From my experience, this is a pretty underbluffed line at these stakes.

No one at this level on WSOP is ever betting the Q of diamonds for value. The overbet on pot into two players (including the PFR) is incredibly strong on this site. As a result, I like your fold - as you've essentially just got a bluff catcher and his line feels very much like a flopped set and a rivered boat.

Scared to let it check through on the flop, so he bets big; checks the scare card on the turn, bombs the river when he's essentially nutted.

Good fold IMO.

-Ken

I guess I can understand if someone has an objection to gambling, but I use this as a way to frame less outcome-based behavior in my kids. E.g. AA vs. KK wins a specific percentage of the time, and KK wins the remaining percentage of the time. So as these things have elapsed, my son (13 y/o) is able to understand at a deeper level about how I don't care about results, I care about making the best decisions you can with the information you have.

So now, he looks at things from a less perfectionistic mindset and more of a "did I do the best job that I could, and did I think the process through" - if he did, then the results don't matter. Keep making good decisions over time.

Its an abstract twist on it, but thats worked for me with my kids.

Thanks for the graph, helps me button that down. I generally play 50NL, and in general, the play is relatively suspect, so I think I've slowly started to let calls creep in.

I definitely get the point about rake. Which makes it much more of a 3b or fold scenario. Thanks for the assist Raoul.

Great video, love the analysis. Glad you're back.

at the 20:46 mark, don't we want to be building a bigger pot so we can take advantage of his 9x range to get stacks in, as well as forcing his draws to pay a bigger price while drawing dead. You mentioned he'd raise your small bet with 9x, but wouldn't he also raise a bigger bet with the same holdings?

I think I'm probably checking the flop here. We don't have any real nut draws or nut blockers, and in a case like that, I feel like we want to keep the pot small. When he min-raises the flop (essentially setting up a pot sized shove on the turn), I'm folding there since there are only two cards (either K) that gives us confidence to continue.

x/r river (as was in your title) would be leaving plenty of value on the table just as the other commented indicated, there are spades that would call behind. I expected the villain's range to be significantly stronger than he showed up with, especially considering he called a UTG open immediately to act after. With that, I expected to see pocket pairs or suited broadways - which easily could have a spade to call river.