Episode 213: Straight-Up Strategy

Don’t bet the under! Nate and Andrew manage to review three hand histories in barely an hour. There’s a four-barrel bluff from a NLHE tournament, a turn donk bet from a NLHE cash game, and even a spread-limit Omaha 8-or-better hand!

Timestamps

0:30 – Hello & Welcome
8:14 – Strategy

Strategy

Hand 1

We’re on the bubble, with 20 players remaining and 18 to be paid. Blinds are 1500/3000, and I raise to 6000 UTG (7-handed) with Tc 8c. The only player at the table to have me covered 3-bets to 12K from HJ, and I call.

Flop (34K) Ks 9h 7h. I check, he bets 15K, I raise to 45K, he calls.

Turn (124K) 4h. I bet 45K, he calls.

River (214K) Qc.

Hand 2

$1/$2 NLHE, seven-handed, $300 effective stacks.

UTG+1 opens to $15. CO and BN call, Hero calls Qh 6h in the BB.

Flop ($55) Q97r. Hero checks, UTG1 bets $20, CO and BN fold, Hero calls.

Turn ($95) 6. Hero bets $35, UTG1 raises to $100, Hero shoves.

Hand 3

$2/$5 Spread Limit O/8 with a $100 Max Bet, 9-handed, $250 effective stacks.

Hero limps AA92 UTG, several calls, Button raises to $40. Folds to Hero…

 

4 thoughts on “Episode 213: Straight-Up Strategy

  1. I also agree with Andrew about the reasons to bet.

    We benefit from people folding out equity, but there is no good reason why there should be an iron curtain at 50% equity that separates “bluffs” from “protection bets”. We wouldn’t say “I don’t know if I have 49% or 51% equity here and so I don’t know if this I’m doing this as a bluff or for protection. Sad trombone.”

    Few different games mentioned. A good example of a pure protection bet seems to come up in Razz. You crush him on board and he can’t call even if he is perfect in the hole but you might as well bet to make him fold out what little runner-runner equity he has. Or maybe that’s the wrong strategy – it’s what I do anyway 🙂

  2. If we define a value bet as getting worse hands to call then denying someone their equity share is counter to that at least in terms of that street. But if on a later street your opponent has the ability to turn a bluff out into a bet or raise you might fold to, than I can see the reason behind denying their equity earlier. A good example being the 1st hand described in the podcast. I imagine this would be most relevant to flop bet-sizing. Against an elite player a larger flop bet size to deny them their equity (or at least charge them more for the privilege) might make some sense. Against an opponent who is incapable of that (i.e. can’t recognize you are capped or that a certain turn card hits their range better than yours, or they are just not capable of bluffing on later streets) then denying equity makes less sense as if they raise you later you can more comfortably fold knowing you have the worse hand. The only reason to bet size that type of opponent larger on the flop is if they are inelastic when calling with worse holdings. Just my $0.02

  3. Where I come from, even if you’re not officially Dr Meyvis after you get through the viva, you’re Dr Meyvis to everyone and in any way that really matters. Congrats!

Leave a Comment

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.