Okay I thought about it some more. What the minclick potentially accomplishes is if the player puts u on a bluff, minclicking gets nut flush to simply call, as ur nut flush wouldn't go all in there. So if you go all in, he's going to call u. So his plan was if u simply call, he'd check river having repped the flush draw himself and to get a cheaper showdown, than to simply call turn and call river jam. minclicking turn, might get a cheaper showdown on river? as your single Ax may check back river a decent % of the time for showdown value. But then that is easily exploitable because he shouldn't have any flushes on the river that check back after minclicking turn. All his flushes that get to river should jam. I think ur opp just punted. I can't say the play was good. You should have jammed river cuz all ur Kx flushes that call turn, would go all in on river. U need to incorporate this KJo combo as a bluff or else u always have value on the river there when u jam.
Could the player have misclicked? Minclicking 88 does nothing to your draws and he has to fade a spade. Minclicking increases the SPR, which accomplishes nothing. It's a super risky play cuz u could have jammed turn or jammed river. I can't imagine he wanted to induce a jam on river with his holding. Only hands that minclick are JTs, J9s, J8s that don't think u raise UTG with K8s, K9s, or KTs. Turn sizing at 75% means u don't have nut flush though. The question is does ur opp take this line when they have a flush. I think they would jam river themselves if they have a flush. So what hands is he balancing with that min click river and check back to induce bluff. AQo, AJ with J of spades. AT with T of spades. But then if they have that read why not simply jam turn to deny equity.
Hey I absolutely love your content. KQ hand 46:15: Could you lay out the math for this one, on why you chose the 33% sizing over a jam ~80%? I see you use a lot off small sizings with the reasoning of "I want to get called _every time_ by x" when you have the nuts. I did some quick calculations (without including the added frequency of villain raising a small bet), and it seems like villain really needs to fold a lot to a 75-100% size bet and call a ton to a 33% to make the 33% the same EV
By using a huge squeezing size, would it be too easy trap by the caller (AA/KK)) or 4bet jam by the initial raiser (with JJ+ and AK). Losing more blinds when we are squeezing with medium hand like (KQs KJs A5s AJs AQo ATs KTs) and fold to jam each time. Unless we only squeeze with the huge size with linear range like QQ+ and AK.
Hi yolan nice to see your video mate! I am guessing that this guy, ru-vid.com?search_query=%EC%84%B8%EC%B5%9C%ED%8F%AC( his youtube link) , is your fan boy or something. I guess he is utter lunatic and mentally ill person. Is he your fan boy? he metioned you in his latest video .... lol
When you jam 100 big blinds on 10 - wouldn't you accomplish the same thing with like 50 Bigs, the danger of being re bluff shoved should not be too big , what am I missing?
Intro makes it look like you were playing your life position (IE being wealthy enough to play way higher than this) to basically turn every medium strength showdown hand into a bluff. What’s 20 buy ins at 25 NL to someone who plays 200/400?
Meme si tu a caché la main que tu fold en exploit a 20:20 (surement pour que vilain ne s'adapte pas trop facilement avec la video) on peut la voir en bas a droit de la table au moment du fold
If you bluff T9 on the T9225 board, a lotta regs will pure fold JJ but mix in some bluff catches with Tx bcuz of blockers, and that would really be sick for your hand
Hi Yolan, thank you for the video. I have a question about the bigger squeeze and 3bet sizing. In most casinos near me the buy in structure to 2/3 capped at 300-500. If someone open and there are 2 limper behind with the bigger squeeze size I would be committing around 30+%of my stack pre flop. What adjustments should I be making without the spr awkward? Thank you so much!
For the 4b size or ai thing, you can add that in the calling scenario ( lets say he calls TT in both scenario)->runouts can still make him fold where you would have won his entire stack when going allin, which makes the ev of all in higher
