JohnCarmack

Adelstein actually raises hijack and Berkey 3bets from the SB, not the BB.
Interesting analysis anyway!

Dissapointing that we have to subscribe to the twitch channel to be able to see the videos..

It's mislabeled, Sam says it's Part 4, never doubt the Sam.

Nice video Paul, more of these please.

One thing to note about snowie's preflop ranges (referring to the QQ BB vs Hijack scenario) is the betsizes used. Snowie uses 3x RFI -> pot reraise -> pot 4bet -> 0.5 pot 5bet
which will lead to more polarised ranges i presume

No, the cbet frequency is more polarized and for 3/4 pot in this case. Actually i thought it was dependent on the amount of A2s-A5s in SBs range but even giving SB all the combos of suited aces and a major advantage in Ax combos, IP still has more EV and SB still only cbets 37% in total (preferring 3/4 pot), when i give SB 44 and all the setcombos, the EV shift but not the frequencies. I ran the same board with wide HU ranges and to no surprise SB cbets almost 100% range to 1/3 potbet as you are familiar with. The major difference is in the amount of "nothing" in IPs range on this kind of flop comparing to a tighter CO vs SB range. Which maybe means there is more incentive to cbet in a HU scenario as the preflop aggressor, since SB underpairs are more vulnerable to overcards so the EV gain is noticable when folding out IPs air.

Note: using snowies preflop ranges which are on the nittier, but still reasonable side.

Kevin,

4:30 SB 3B vs CO. Ad4d5s flop. I think you might be applying heads up ranges to this spot which doesn't seem optimal, even including a very generous Ax range for the SB. CO actually has alot more EV on this flop with more sets and 2 pair hands, where SB has more Ax. As a result PIO wants to mostly check on this flop (68%) and that will skew turn/river ranges very differently.
If we choose to cbet 1/3 pot, PIO wants to check turn almost never and mix between betsizes.

It's like trying to understand a Picasso painting while listening to Van Gogh - it's alot more comprehensible now!

Great format, more of these please!

Cool video, more of this please. I like that you cover hands you don't play in aswell.

I watched your excellent earlier video about ignition rake just now and realise it's due to rake. Sickens me.

Thank you for good content as always Tyler.
What strikes me as surprising is you very rarely using suited connectors in your 3-bet range. For example 98ss BTN vs UTG raise which you choose to fold and JTss out of the blinds where you prefer the conservative line of calling. I know atleast snowie uses them to some degree and Sauce seems to love to incorporate them in his 3-bet range. Any particular reason for this? Thanks

Solid and well thought out video as usual Lucas. A video about capped ranges would be appreciated for sure!

Alot of tournament poker is about getting your frequencies right, as to what range to profitable open, shove, what range to open but not shove etc. You make it sound like something you have figured out, i highly doubt it since the best tournament players in the world are not perfectly accurate deciding that in game, in reality often far from it. I agree they are basic HRC situations but still, seeing a player of Luke's caliber going through the ranges helps alot since he has shares his excellent views on it and points out things i wouldn't. Don't make it sound like you have everything figured out, because you don't. I'm extremely happy Luke teaches solid sound poker and goes over situations that seem easy but still situations the majority of people just autopilot. If that isn't alright with you there are other instructors on this site to watch.

Beginning of the video. 49bb deep. You 3bet luke opening UTG from the SB with AKo. As he has to stack off very tight here vs you considering ICM i guess your plan is just to fold against his 4bet since calling will have him put 1/3 of his stack in the middle and you almost will have to stack off any time you connect with the flop?

Really great video and concept i love. Your voice is clear and soothing to listen to. One bit of criticism is to be more clear when making a point. You tell an interesting story or give an example but then i got lost with the whole point of it. Like the example of playing poker when suddenly an elephant storms then room. I got that the person complained about such bad luck but not really understood the whole point clear enough, so it wouldn't hurt to really make sure your viewers got the important messages. Keep up the great work!

You said in video (@45:30) that one should 3bet with a bigger size with a more wider/linear range and smaller with a polarised 3b range. I have heard the exact opposite before so i'm very curious to why this is?
We want to extract more value with our nuts and gain more fold equity with the bluff side of our polarised range who play really poorly postflop, where our linear range containing more good-to-medium value hands invites more calls from villain. Thanks

I think this video didn't get enough love for sure. Really appreciate you sharing this/new ideas with the audience and I truly think this concept is very underrated. Like you said, it's all about getting ahead of the curve in any way. Good job J-P!

Great video overall JP, but 34mins in, the AA hand just made me confused. I would slamdunk call on the river as played taking your line, since many (and he apparently) shoves worse for value not expecting you to check turns with overpairs and we beat everything but the absolute top of his range, when alot of draws missed, but the turn decision was more interesting i think. From what you said in video you bet very polar on the turn (sets/JT for value) and a ton of semibluffs? I haven't counted combos but aren't you heavily overbluffing this spot with such a narrow valuebetrange? I would treat AA as clear value and bet it most of the time, but this made me think about it and i can see arguments for checking aswell. But since we have so many (semi)bluffs i would feel unbalanced not valuebetting AA.

@jamo, 25% comes from the pot odds villain is getting on the river call.

@thebeegan, villain is never folding his Tx to any sizing and we want to make it as cheap as possible the times we bluff, but still a size where we fold out all his missed flush draws, 2pair and sets, hence the smaller bet.

Absolutely love this video format Lucas, thank you for doing this and breaking down hands so thoroughly. More of this please.

Enjoyed the video Chris. I have a question: In the AQo hand you mentioned that people behind are going to stack off about 7 percent of the time each, on the conservative side. Where did you get this 7 percent from? Is it with regards to beating AQo in particular, or in general they wake up with a hand worthy of stacking off after this action? Seems like useful info for future.

Excellent series Sam. Really enjoyed it.

Jean-Pascal, another excellent video. Thank you for this insightful stuff.

My question: You said in part 1 that your strategy versus the blinds, specifically the BB who defends wide (a competent player) is to vbet about 30% of the pot very very light and bluff a ton due to his wide range and overall lack of checkraising to combat your strategy. A function of that is that you have to check back alot of turns when called because BB's range usually becomes stronger than yours on the turn when you cbet as much as you should on the flop and then you have to do alot of bluffcatching on the river as a result.
I like it and it makes perfectly sense, in this part however almost identical you open JJ on the HIJ and BB defends, we had no reason to believe that he would defend tighter than the average player so strategy applies, but now you cbet Q32r flop and talk about betting again on a Tc turn to extract more thin value on this 2-street hand. I don't really get why this spot is different from your reasoning in the first part vs. BB. Could you expand on why this turnbet is a cbet on the turn and goes against your general gameplan vs BB. Thanks!

Sam is a beast! congratz to him!

Hi Stevie, solid video!

How do you go by calculating the "seat average", average stack needed to win a seat in satellites. Could you please elaborate on this.

Jason, what's the bottom of your calling range here?
I actually think the K9s fold is marginal at best. K9s has 30.5% against even the tightest of 3b ranges here (TT+/AK+), and we are given extremely good pot odds to call 50bb deep, i think it's good and connected enough with position to see a flop. It's not like we have to stack off post flop everytime we flop equity for the call to be good and he should play straightforward, especially after just doubling up.

It's actually 12/(bluff[12]+value[27])39 combos. Yes it is.

Afaik, because of the pot odds that are given on the river, Sam needs to be good about 1/3 of the time. He counted villains value combos to 24, so he needs to be bluffing at least 12 combos (12/36) for Sam's call to be +EV or he would be losing money on the call.

Why can't villain have 33 in this spot? He's deep with you and leoe29 will call a ton from the bb the way he plays. So i wouldn't discount it actually. I agree with the reasoning but am curious to how you came up with 34% against that range. Is it because you removed some AQo/KQo combos from his callingrange pre that he probably will 3bet some % of the time?

From his assumed bettingrange on river, you beat JTs, J9s, T9s (12 combos) - lose to AQ, KQ, 88, QJs, QTs (27 combos) against which AhKh has 30.7%.

He's also bluffing ~30.7% of his bettingrange and you have to be good over >28.5%.

Adding 33 to his range, you have 28.5% with AhKh which makes it a breakeven call.

Maybe i'm missing something here, math isn't my strongest aspect. :)

Another fantastic video! Love your analytical, thorough approach of every spot, very helpful and surely one of the best tournament instructors on here. Should definately get some more love.

Have a question about the video; @ 33 mins, when you calculate the ICM math here. How did you end up with those exact numbers (gkap calls and wins/gkap folds), using an ICM-calc?
Thanks

@daniel, as he said in the video, theoretically if utg opens and gkapp shoves, it's a fold with TT (because of their tight ranges due to ICM), but now since he didn't and also made an ICM error and tried to induce with JJ, Sam might have some perceived fold equity. He also views gkapp as someone who could potentially be 3b a little bit too often. Totally depending on how you view your opponent in this spot. Since TT is close i think 99 might still be be a fold. And yes he would have called with TT if gkapp would have shoved in this scenario. Great video btw!