We have a new treat today: an HUNL Cash video from highly regarded HUNL Cash pro Barewire (also known as KRab42 on PokerStars). In this video, Barewire reviews two-tabling games against an opponent that he has a history with, but he analyzes the hands from the perspective of only using information that would be available from within the games and ignores his history with villain so as to make this video more useful to a wider range of viewers.
Although HUNL Cash can be very profitable to those who know how to win in this format, the format's somewhat niche status makes finding guides and instructional content a little more challenging. Barewire is renowned for his knowledge and skill in this format, and he has published two major video packs with us. The first one is a well-rounded and complete pack designed to introduce the format or raise the skills of those who are not yet experienced in it, while the second one follows that up by being targetted at players that already have a solid footing in the format and focuses on expanding on certain topics with more challenging content.
nice vid!!
i just not understand why at minute 5:27 whit set on the river u sizing this big.... isn't better to size smaller cause something like 250?
Thank's in advance
Thanks for the question - your sizing should correspond to the strength of the range you're representing here. I'm unlikely to be in this spot with anything other than K5s/55 for value, both of which are certainly stronger than a raise to ~250, so my sizing will reflect what I think maximizes the EV of those hands.
Check out my blog (Updated 4/10) and my coaching page!
Thank's for your explanation.
Thanks for the video Barewire, it was very interesting & insightful. I wondered too about the bet sizing of the 55 hand, but unless I've misunderstood, respectfully, I felt your explanation was begging the question. EnigmaJonny question is really asking why is this the right bet, why does it maximize EV?
Would your bet-size alter here if it had included a few more combinations of some 2-pair hands? The natural interpretation of the sizing from a game optimizing view, assuming you're always front, the bet size protects the bluffs you're making at a frequency of around 30%. So given there are only around 5 combinations you will have here (2x K5s and 3x55), that leaves 1 to 2 combinations of bluff hands. From an exploitative point of view, I assume you figure he has a tendency to pay off the 300 raise more than half the time he pays off the raise of 150 to 250?
Thanks again for the video.
My intention was not to pick this size exploitatively against a very good opponent. Rather, I simply feel that my hand here (and my raising range in general in this spot) is too strong to only raise to 250. The stronger my hand's equity is vs his range for betting the river, the larger my hand is able to raise for value without overplaying. Of course, if my only value hand on the river was the first nuts on this board, my optimal bet size would be allin. 250 appears at first glance to be an appropriate raise size for this situation if my value range was to include hands like AJ, but that hand class is never in this situation for obvious reasons across multiple streets. For a hand like 55 we could likely go even bigger than this, but there are some practical restrictions like the psychology of representing a bluff and also a somewhat unknown frequency of traps for villain. With those uncertainties plus an interest in raising some thinner combos for value I think my sizing ends up being very near maximizing EV.
Check out my blog (Updated 4/10) and my coaching page!
So when you know your value hand range represents a very strong range the challenge could approximately be distilled down to winning the maximum number of pots without being called (against a rational opponent) - as you demonstrate all in with a 1-hand nuts range example. Presumably, part of the problem with this all-in play with hand virtual nut-hands like 55 is that it becomes rational for your opponent to start switching strategies and checking with sets and a straight more frequently.
Thanks very much for your explanation.