Hey just a few questions/comments about the vid.1) 1st match about 5 minutes in, stack sizes around 30 effective bb's (25/50 blinds). You get dealt ATo and open for 2.5x (125) and Rabbit 3bets to 550. After some discussion you decided to push as you think often players that 3bet this size are doing it because they don't want a call. Tbh, it looks like Rabbit is going for a "go and go" because of stack to pot ratio's, and don't think we have much fold equity. I mean, if he's committing so much of his stack to the 3bet with intentions of shoving any flop then I think he's calling our 4bet. Also, I find most decent players will "go and go" with ATs+, AJ+ so were probably going to be in bad shape if we shove.2)10:00 - Thought calling JJ oop was interesting. Is this a more specifc play for decent/thinking players like Rabbit (doesn't flat 3bets too often or raise over them light) and given game flow/your overall strategy to incorporate some light 3bets? Also, is JJ the worst-best hand you make this play with (TT, QQ, KK, AA)? I don't play very high, so this play is not very applicable to me yet, but think vrs thinking players it could be a very powerful tool.3) This question is kind of a comparission between 2 hands that occured in the video - one hand in game 3 and the other hand in game 4.Game 3, 13:00 xSCWx has 94o oop in a limed pot, stacks are relatively equal. Flop comes Q59cc and xSCWx decides to check as he doesn't want to get raised off his hand and allow rabbit to bluff. Rabit bets 45/60 and xSCWx calls. Turn Kh and xSCWx c/f's to Rabbits bet of 120/150.Game 4, 36:00 xSCWs - 1600 chips and Rabbit has roughly 1300 chips, blinds 15/30. xSCWx has A5o oop and flop 57Tdd. xSCWx c/c's a flop bet from Rabbit (45/60) for what i presume are the same reasons he did in the hand mentioned above. He states folding wouldn't be to bad either. Turn brings a K and Rabbit pots it after xSCWx checks. xSCWx decides to call this bet as well as he thinks Rabbit will be betting this turn with his entire range and doesnt expect to many K's to be in his range unless he has something like KT or 2 pair.So I guess my question is what is the difference between the hand in game 3 and the hand in game 4? If we are calling the turn in hand 4 should we be calling the turn in hand 3?4) General question about checking behind on the flop with show down value. This is something I've been trying to work on (not mindlessly cbetting every flop) and noticed a few spots where you took this line:a)02:30, xSCWx opens 56o otb and cbets a 572dd flop, folds to a c/r - thinks a check behind might be better as it's a fairly drawy flop.b)07:00, xSCWx opens Q5o otb and checks behind on a 567 flop, turn A gets checked through, river Q xSCWx bets river for value with 2 pair. Says the flop is pretty drawy and that he has some sd value with bottom pair.c) 14:30, xSCWx opens A8 otb and checks behind on a J82ss flop, raises Rabbits lead on a turn 8 and pushes over Rabbits river 3/4 bet on a K river. Says the flop is pretty drawy and he's unsure how Rabbit plays his flush draws, or T9 type hands (if he plays them fast).d) 17:00, xSCWx opens 55 and cbets a A48cc flop but thinks a check behind is also a good play as he would expect Rabbit to play back at him a fair amount.e) 24:00, xSCWx limps K2s otb and checks behind on a QJQ flop. Says he doesn't expect Rabbit to c/r bluff him often and thinks a bet could be good as well to prevent Rabbit from pairring on the turn or river.I think there were a few more spots (T9s hand where xSCWx cbets a 49Ass flop and gets c/r ai) and am wondering generally what factors do we consider when we check behind on the flop with show down value.From what I understand we should be considering our relative hand strength, board texture, effective stacks, and how our opponent is playing, with all these points being interrelated.a) Relative hand strength. I guess if we have some marginal sd value (bottom pair, weak mid pair, A or K high, underpair) on a fairly drawy flop we should consider checking behind as often we will be bloating the pot with a marginal hand on a board texture that can hit a lot of villains range (and a lot of turn and river cards will improve their range).b)Board texture. Similar to relative hand strength we should be considering the strength of our hand compared to how hard villain's range hits the flop (so checking behind marginal hands on drawy flops is probably best by default). Also, if villains like to c/r paired flops, dry K high flops or whatever then we may want to check behind with our weaker made hands?c) Effective stacks. The shorter the effective stacks the more chips we are investing with our marginal hands. Does this mean we should be more inclined or less inclinded to check behind with marginal hands? Being aggressive allows us to pick up the pot but with each bet inflating the pot and being a larger % of our stack - what is best?d) Opponent. Their calling ranges, do they c/r often, their skill level, how well they're range connects with the flop, how they play post flop, will they allow us to see a cheap show down, ect. So, if an opponent bets the turn often when we check behind, should we with marginal hands? What if they like to overbet? Should we be checking behind our marginal hands vs opponents that call wide oop? Float the flop wide? Anyways, great video or sorry for suck a long post.
1) I think that most players assume that I would never flat in this scenario so I don't really see people try to pull off a go&go against me very often. I think that nowadays you won't see me folding ATo preflop 30BB deep very often unless I have some really serious reads.. it seems like most of my opponents are capable of bluffing pre, especially reg vs reg.2) At the time I was concerned that my first 3bet would be viewed as a lot stronger than my range actually is so I wouldn't be called very light. Nowdays I would probably just 3bet but keep the sizing a little smaller which I believe is a better play because he has really good implied odds against my hand when I flat. For example, if he flops 2 pair or better he will have a decent chance of stacking my overpair, whereas probably the only thing he flops that is behind me yet still big enough to get in would be top pair good kicker.3) My thinking nowadays might deviate a little from how I felt at the time of the video, but I think that in limped pots if you check into someone they will bet into you almost 100% of the time so I've stopped leading light in these spots for the most part. I'd be hesitant to call the turn bet in the game 3 hand because in addition to the scare cards on the board there are two cards that will make a 4-card-straight on the board and will be tough for me to call another river barrel. As far as the game 4 hand goes, I'm not sure what my reasoning was in the video but I don't think many people limp KX hands (especially not KT). The king is a good bluff card in both scenarios but I think that the only really significant difference between the two is the potential to a four card straight coming out. Since this spot is marginal already it is enough to push me toward always folding here. In the scenario from game 4 I could see myself calling or folding depending on the opponent and the game flow. His range is kind of polarized so 3rd pair versus 4th pair at the turn probably doesn't mean much.4) I cbet a lot more than most players so I might not be the best person to ask for this. I think I do a lot better in 2 and 3 barreled pots than most players so I try to use that to my advantage. I cbet more now than at the time that I made this video. You should be considering how often your opponent folds to your cbet and how often your opponent will bluff against you when you check back the flop. I think that your opponent's fold to cbet % should be by far the biggest factor in this decision.a) I don't think checking behind is terrible here but probably close to his entire "air" range is going to have at least 6 outs against us as overs so I think I prefer cbet/folding. If we had the same textured board but with higher cards I would be more inclined to check back, but I think that with how good his "air" equity is against us I like the cbet.b) I think that I cbet this now too. Overs have a lot of equity and it will push out gutshot straight draw hands which have good equity against us also. Additionally, there aren't really many good turns for us so it might be difficult to make it to the river after showing weakness.c) I think that this is pretty close to the hand from 4a but is a higher flop which is why I'm a bit more comfortable checking it back. Checking back middle pair helps with some balance issues (so you aren't always bottom pair or ace high) so I think it is worth doing once in a while against people who will adapt to you.d) I'd open shove this preflop nowadays because this hand plays postflop really poorly. I think that checking back this flop is probably close to neutral in comparison with checking it back. I'd base my decision off of how my opponent is playing and what sort of hands I expect to get check/raised with on the flop or how often my opponent will bluff when I check back the flop. I would check back JX here occasionally as well as any sort of straight draw (I would bluff the straight draws on turn if checked into again).The effective stacks are relevant to your decision to cbet but I think that it should impact your cbet size moreso than it should impact whether or not you actually cbet. If your opponent is being put to a shove/fold decision then you should know whether you plan to call or plan to fold before making the bet.
Many thanks for the replies xSCWx.As for leading light in limped pots, so you are more willing to c/c with btm pair or mid pair on a dry board? (i usually lead limped pots with a lot of hands - air, bottom and mid pair or might c/c, c/r with a good hand if I have a read that villian auto stabs limped pots ip). I'm always hesitant to c/c with weaker made hands in limped pots as I've been in so many situations where they double barrel the turn over or I get vallue towned by a better turned or river card.As for the hand 3 vs 4 - your thoughts in the video were very well thought out, and I was thinking the same thing to your answer about hand 3, just wanted to make sure i was on the same page.Answer for question 4 - "You should be considering how often your opponent folds to your cbet and how often your opponent will bluff against you when you check back the flop. I think that your opponent's fold to cbet % should be by far the biggest factor in this decision." This is an interesting statement, and I was wondering if you could expand on it a bit. I am definitely going to be thinking about this for a while. Talking with another husng player, he suggested that if I am considering calling a bet then I should be betting instead - how applicable is this to your statement? Is it better to cbet if they will call often (say in hand (b) or (c)) or to check behind and call a bet on the turn if they fire the turn a lot when you check behind on the flop. Are we more willing to check behind on the flop with marginal sd value hands if villain is folding a lot to our cbets but firing turn when we check behind (a-drawy flop; b- wet flop), or is it best to fire flop and re-evaluate turn (this gives us the option of cheking behind on the turn if he calls the flop. think I need to sleep on this... "The effective stacks are relevant to your decision to cbet but I think that it should impact your cbet size moreso than it should impact whether or not you actually cbet. If your opponent is being put to a shove/fold decision then you should know whether you plan to call or plan to fold before making the bet." thanks for this, really good advice.
Disclaimer: I've been up grinding a while and I tend to make stupid mistakes when replying to people while tired. I think that without history most opponents in limped pots will lead close to ATC. It really depends on if you agree with this, but if you lead then you will get called by all of the hands that paired up which is a much stronger range putting money in than the range if you had checked and let them bet. If you think they are going to check back then a stronger argument could be made for leading. How profitable your cbet will be depends on how much you are betting, the size of the pot, and how often your opponent folds. If you are betting 50 into 100 then you need to win 1/3 times to be profitable. If your opponent is folding 50% of the time then this will be a very profitable because you are not only gaining money from the fold equity but you have a potential to win an even bigger pot as it plays out. If your opponent is folding to 10% of your cbets and is a huge calling station then you should be strongly considering checking back anything that you aren't betting for value. How far your opponent deviates from the breakeven call % is going to determine how profitable your cbet is. Also, it is important to note that just because your opponent is calling your cbets a lot doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't profitable. There are a lot of players who call cbets light but give up really easily against double barrels which can be exploited very badly. They could also be calling you with hands that just aren't going to be profitable to try to take to showdown. On the opposite end, if they are folding too much then this bet WILL be profitable no matter what.As far as betting hands that you would plan on calling a bet with - I think that this is far too general to really be applicable. For example, if you call someone's preflop raise and flop top set, it would be retarded if you just bet out instead of checking to let them cbet. In some cases you shouldn't even be raising these hands because you could flat call and just let them keep barreling off with air. Disregarding the intiative, I think that optimally you should be leading for value against loose/passives and checking to induce bets against any sort of aggressive players. You should be basing how you play off of how your opponent is playing.