Sick River Bluff-Catch vs Check-Raise All-in! (1kNL Stylin')
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 02. 2024
- In this week's video, Uri makes a few brilliant plays. Standard, really. But check out this sick hero call on the river vs a check-raise shove...
-----------------------
Be sure to check out Uri's highly-acclaimed course, Elite Cash Game Exploits! Exploit your opponents; print money. Become a master of exploitative poker and watch your win-rate soar!upswingpoker.com/elite-cash-g...
----------
Want a 10% discount on a great HUD and database analysis tool? Try Hand2Note:
Link: hand2note.com/?aid=5e47
Code: guerrillapoker10 - Hry
Before looking at the sim I suspect 5x and Ax are important when you xJam the river. 55/54s/88/A3s/AA are the slowplayed value on the turn in Uri's shoes. I just eyeballed the ranges from Uri's course (pretty sure they are 200nl monker ranges). Obviously my frequencies are going to be a bit off but it looks fine. The results: the best bluffs are 86s, A5s (not spades) and A8s. 65s (not spades) also raise but the EV is quite low. I'm new to solvers so could be screwing this up but it makes sense so far. 66 is mix fold/call but never raising. 88/55/A3s never slowplay in Uri's position but still in practice some people will.
That sounds correct, I think the error with 66 is focusing on the 67s blocker which is not a signifcant part of what's going on at all
Great vid!
17:00 The A3 hand is indeed pretty interesting. At quick glance my first intuition would be that the spot is generally underbluffed from our perspective, we would try to get folds from Top Pair after all, while Villain is also uncapped, and thus can afford to only call with 2-pair+. It might become more of a shove against BU ( wider range for Villain), at lower stakes ( against absolute stations who cannot assess hand strenghts) , or at nosebleed scenarios ( where we bluff with high frequency ourselves) , though.
Remember this was a recreational though!
Great vid :).
Hi Uri :)
I might be off but your desire to always rabbit hunt and calling more than you should sounds like a fear of missing out. You are afraid that if you let it be or just fold you are missing out an opportunity that might not ever happen again so you want to capitalize on it and refuse to give it up even if that wouldve saved you mental energy/money or making a mistake. It could potentially be related to your magic tournaments history. While it is true that you likely wont ever play this particular spot/board vs this particular player and once you fold its over, the flaw here is that if you let it go and learn from the experience even if you missed it this time you will have another similar spot vs similar opponent in the future and then you can use your knowledge and experience from the past to make +ev sound decision rather than emotionally gamble in the present. Food for thought :) Thanks for the vid!
Very interesting, thanks I appreciate that. Will give it some thought.
Great video. For the KT hand: On 245 board solvers tend to prefer a larger flop sizing here. Would you recommend deviating on the sizing here against most of the player pool at these stakes? Do we prefer the smaller size because our opponents are not continuing as many hands as they should be?
QT top pair hand, snap check river might give opponent the feeling that you won’t fold
16:30 is it that close Uri? What do you think about receeationals messing up their ranges and bet mergie stuff? I feel your tought process gives too much credit for logically constructed ranges… what’s your tought about that? Thanks in advance! Great stuff as always
I know what you mean... the issue for me was i don't expect random ace highs to barrel a lot, so i'm not sure there is much of a bet-call range other than hands that beat me.
Any IP hand not a set/straight is a pure bluffcatcher, right? So rather than blocking slowplays, OOP would want more to unblock your bluffs - A6s/A7s/A9s/K6s, so I guess that is why 66 is a bad bluff? Isolates IP range to slowplays and bluffcatchers. Hard to find any natural bluffs though that don’t contain 7/6
looking at sim, OOP is bluff shoving ATs targeting JJ+ 😅 (looks like that’s only because IP checks most Tx on flop in the sim, and barrels the rest of Tx on turn) - If IP has proper amount of Tx on river for value bets, AT pure calls, and bluffs come from 33/65s/A5s/AQs/87s - so looks loke most important principle is blocking 55, and unblocking 6x/7x, which I guess is why 77/66 are -EV bluffs like Uri correctly predicted. Not only do they block nothing since IP is not checking 76s on turn, they block IP’s natural bluffing combos that would check turn to not get their 6x/7x gutshot equity denied
Rabbit hunting can give you more blockers to what opponent didn’t have. Gives you more information. If this is true, you should probably just spend a few extra seconds to always rabbit hunt online.
I agree, A3 was borderline. With his tankcall its abviously not a optimal jam on the river
Great vid as always! Think 1/3 on the flop with the K10 doesn’t really achieve anything on that board. And whilst blocking 67 isn’t necessarily that relevant, I don’t think his play with the 6’s is that bad at all with how the hand played out, he is generally going to have more sets in that spot and it does actually appear to be a solver approved shove..but before you called with the K10 I was pretty confident that it was going to be 6’s or 7’s which have some showdown turned into a bluff as the line looked pretty obvious so I think against a lot of players it’s probably not optimal but certainly vs players you think overfold too much I think it has its place
Hello Guillermo, I ask you, the bluffcatch hand versus the Argentine, did you end up paying him because he probably doesn't play valuable hands like that?
Multiple reasons but yeah i think on the ten, i'm not perceived to bet a lot, so less likelly to get for a check-raise for him.
@@shavuri Of course, what also caught my attention is that their "insta call" on the flop sounds weak, I think that at NL1k they are going to raise quite a bit and even donk bets turn the sets. I do not know what you think? I play micro-stakes (NL25) so I don't really know, it's a perception I have. Other than that on the river, I would think he will be frequently betting strong hands to induce or call SD hands.
18:10 don't we want to call instead of 3bet, because we've got weaker player on the BB that we got reads on?
67s would have barreled the turn, so is not a relevant blocker. To Bluff we want to block the best Ts? And block sets possibly ? So A5s, A4s, K5s could jam as a bluff there ???
I believe it could be relevant in a way where it blocks the bet calls if they somehow 3bet T6ss/T7ss, but overall I think blocking the stronger value range is a better choice
Why not raise smaller with A3?
Look at how much villain has behind, you can only jam here. No other size makes any sense.
Amazing stuff, but new editing isn't ideal. It's easier to follow an action when we see 4 tables all the time
Editor here: maybe we can take a poll on this or something, but fwiw I did this by request of posters on the last couple Liveplay videos. One person said that they found it harder to follow with 4 small tables on the screen at once instead of just focusing on one. Another person suggested I look at Saulo Costas videos, so I did, and I noticed he basically focused on just one hand at a time, most of the time, in a style like this. At least he did in that one video I watched... In this video, sometimes Uri talked about two hands at once so I thought the little picture-in-picture approach would be a nice way to handle that.
I can assure you though that every single hand that is talked about, or any hand where anything even remotely interesting is happening, is shown on the screen from beginning to end. We actually got lucky this time in that there was very little overlap/jumping from table to table in the middle of hands. In fact, one of the tables was sitting out/unfilled for a long period of time; the rest of everything I didn't show was just a lot of uninteresting folding. Also, to help with what you're saying I tried to show all 4 tables sometimes, and to also show where each zoomed in/isolated table "came from", i.e.: I showed the table in it's original position before zooming it in or moving it over the the PiP spot, so you can tell which of the 4 tables it was. Although in hindsight I think I did those transitions a little too fast, I should slow those down a bit to make it more clear, and/or also i could label the tables 1-4 so you always know which one you're seeing at any given moment.
For now though just fyi I hear you but I think I'm going to continue trying a style like this, but it can definitely be optimized better, Im just kind of feeling things out. I'd like the space below Uris' camera for instance to be used for things like notetaking or maybe some Pio blurbs/facts/stats etc but Uri and I need to work together and prepare/plan better for some of that stuff, which isn't always possible these days.
Anyway. The bottom line is that this was a response to feedback, both in YT comments and in private; it's actually been suggested to us recently that our videos (and thumbs and titles, etc) have "room for improvement", so I'm just trying to find a good style that is both functional and eye-pleasing, while also being easy to follow (but also easy to see!) for everyone. I def can't please everyone all of the time, but input from all on this matter is welcomed (the more, the better). Thanks for speaking up!
(But also I hate it because this took a lot of extra work, I was secretly hoping somebody would complement the new style, not disapprove of it!)
As someone watching videos mostly on phone, I definitely enjoy this way of editing more
I like the tables larger !
@@shavurimake a poll cos i fs prefer the current style
somebody tell him to bet on a new fucking microphone