Members HH Reviews

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please sign in or Sign Up Now!

Dated:
May 6th, 2011
By:
Martin Fournier Giguère
Game:
NLHE
Stake:
Mid Stakes
Teaching Method:
Replayed Hands
Language:
English
Type:
6 Max
5422 Views
26 Comments
10.0010
(7 Ratings) 10.00

Giggy reviews 4 interesting NLHE hands sent in from BFP members!

More From Martin Fournier Giguère  Get RSS Feed For Martin  Fournier Giguère's Videos

Comments

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Members HH Reviews
    7 May 2011 at 2:10am
    Discussion for Members HH Reviews.
  • iggyping iggyping Poker Trainee
    66 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    7 May 2011 at 6:38am

    Results of hand number 2: http://www.handconverter.com/hands/1253684

     

    Ty for mentioning I suck, now everyone knows :-p

     

    edit: excluded result because I didn't want you to already know result when analysing the situation because of the actual hand villain had that surprised me a bit.

  • halvadron halvadron Poker Newbie
    105 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    7 May 2011 at 8:06am
    thx, finally new vid) come on bluefire, keep more effort)
  • Tricarico Tricarico Poker Newbie
    41 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    7 May 2011 at 12:26pm
    Very interesting video.
  • iggyping iggyping Poker Trainee
    66 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    8 May 2011 at 4:34am

    If we have AA in the 88 hand, would we also CIB or would calling than be better because our hand isn't vulnerable?

     

    Also, 9$ isn't my usual size but I hadn't seen a lot of people make it 2.3x so I just guessed an amount that was right for that :p

  • paul3thomson paul3thomson Poker Newbie
    5 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    8 May 2011 at 11:40am
    In hand #3 where the Hero holds 77 and check-raises a 862r flop, I'm pretty sure that Dr Giggy made a mistake in his analysis, but I think it actually illustrates an interesting point about turning made hands into bluffs and balancing ranges. So Dr Giggys says that the Hero should be check-raising hands on the flop which do best against the Villain's calling range. His logic is correct, but his analysis of which hands have the highest equity against the Villain's calling range is wrong. I'm on a mac right now, so I can't post any numbers, but I've done this analysis quite a few times in the past and am pretty sure that I'm correct. (If I remember correctly, it's a combination of having the back-door straight draw and being ahead of the two lower sets). But what I find interesting about this spot is what it suggests about our balancing range. There's a traditional 2p2 rule for beginners, "Don't raise a hand when worse won't call, and better won't fold". More or less, it's saying to not take a hand which strong enough to call and turn it into a bluff by raising. While this rule might seem to apply here, it in fact doesn't. And the breaking of this rule gives a little nuance into DrGiggys original point of what type of hands to check-raise. How do we decide what hands to check-raise, call and fold here? You should follow these steps in this order. In other words, you should not take a hand which is +EV to call and turn it into a bluff: CHECK RAISE FOR VALUE = The range of hands which are ahead of our Villain's check-raising calling range CALL = Call with all hands which are +EV, but are not ahead of Villain's check-raising calling range CHECK RAISE AS A BLUFF = The range of hands which are not +EV to call, but they do best against the Villain's check-raising calling range. So since 77 is not ahead of the Villain check-raising range, it would at first appear that it's strong enough to check-call. Although it has more than enough 30% equity against the Villain's betting range to call, as DrGiggy suggested in the video, we are going to be in bad shape against good Villain's who will barrel us on the turn and river. DrGiggy suggested that this might be a good opportunity to practice our check calling frequencies on the turn and maybe that's not a bad idea, since our equity is actually pretty good with this hand. However, the fact remains, if our hand is not +EV to call the flop over the entire hand, then then we should either fold or check-raise it. And maybe some players can play it +EV, but I think against an aggressive Villain who balance his bluffs well, it will be a -EV call for many players. Therefore, we should check-raise the hand, since it does best agains the Villain's calling range. Although it's implied in the paragraph above. We obviously need to balance our check-raising for value with our check-raising for bluffs on the board above. We likely have 9 or more hands in our check-raising for value range on this flop. I'm not sure exactly for this hand, but I think to be game theory optimal we need to be raising as a bluff here between 50-60% of the time. Therefore, we need around 10 hand to be bluffing here. The best hands to be bluffing is the T9s which makes us 4 hands. And assuming that we don't have 54s or T9o, I think 77 probably makes up the next best 6 hands for check-raising as a bluff in order to stay balanced. So it's actually an interesting spot where we take a made hand and turn it into a bluff because it doesn't have enough equity to call, and it's one of the best hands to bluff against the Villain's check-raising calling range.
  • paul3thomson paul3thomson Poker Newbie
    5 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    8 May 2011 at 11:41am
    sorry not sure why the paragraphs didn't work.
  • paul3thomson paul3thomson Poker Newbie
    5 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    8 May 2011 at 7:41pm
    Whoops, I just reread my post. I forgot to mention that 77 has higher equity than two over-cards like DrGiggy suggested.
  • felipepiv felipepiv Poker Newbie
    3 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    9 May 2011 at 11:14am
    I think that one thing he didnt mention on the 77 hand that is important, is that not only KQ has more outs against calling range, but also when we do hit, it`s more like to get action. for exemple, if vilain is bet/calling A8 or a hand like JJ, when a K or Q comes, it`s usualy a card that vilain expects us to keep barreling more often then a 7. Also a 7 hits much more of our perceived bluffing range, considering he`d expect us to c/r gutters and stuff. So, I do agree with him that KQ is MUCH better, not only becouse we have way more outs most of the time, but becouse we`re more likely to get value when we hit them.
  • Emmoyouesee Emmoyouesee Poker Newbie
    1 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    13 May 2011 at 6:44pm
    thx for reminding me about my laundry
  • TryToCallMe TryToCallMe Poker Newbie
    7 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    14 May 2011 at 2:04pm
    Big thanks for this video =) That's awesome. And thanks for your intonation of voice in some moments :D Its realy funny.
  • MadBoy MadBoy Poker Trainee
    81 Posts
    Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    15 May 2011 at 1:44pm

    paul3thomson wrote:

    In hand #3 where the Hero holds 77 and check-raises a 862r flop, I'm pretty sure that Dr Giggy made a mistake in his analysis, but I think it actually illustrates an interesting point about turning made hands into bluffs and balancing ranges. So Dr Giggys says that the Hero should be check-raising hands on the flop which do best against the Villain's calling range. His logic is correct, but his analysis of which hands have the highest equity against the Villain's calling range is wrong. I'm on a mac right now, so I can't post any numbers, but I've done this analysis quite a few times in the past and am pretty sure that I'm correct. (If I remember correctly, it's a combination of having the back-door straight draw and being ahead of the two lower sets). But what I find interesting about this spot is what it suggests about our balancing range. There's a traditional 2p2 rule for beginners, "Don't raise a hand when worse won't call, and better won't fold". More or less, it's saying to not take a hand which strong enough to call and turn it into a bluff by raising. While this rule might seem to apply here, it in fact doesn't. And the breaking of this rule gives a little nuance into DrGiggys original point of what type of hands to check-raise. How do we decide what hands to check-raise, call and fold here? You should follow these steps in this order. In other words, you should not take a hand which is +EV to call and turn it into a bluff: CHECK RAISE FOR VALUE = The range of hands which are ahead of our Villain's check-raising calling range CALL = Call with all hands which are +EV, but are not ahead of Villain's check-raising calling range CHECK RAISE AS A BLUFF = The range of hands which are not +EV to call, but they do best against the Villain's check-raising calling range. So since 77 is not ahead of the Villain check-raising range, it would at first appear that it's strong enough to check-call. Although it has more than enough 30% equity against the Villain's betting range to call, as DrGiggy suggested in the video, we are going to be in bad shape against good Villain's who will barrel us on the turn and river. DrGiggy suggested that this might be a good opportunity to practice our check calling frequencies on the turn and maybe that's not a bad idea, since our equity is actually pretty good with this hand. However, the fact remains, if our hand is not +EV to call the flop over the entire hand, then then we should either fold or check-raise it. And maybe some players can play it +EV, but I think against an aggressive Villain who balance his bluffs well, it will be a -EV call for many players. Therefore, we should check-raise the hand, since it does best agains the Villain's calling range. Although it's implied in the paragraph above. We obviously need to balance our check-raising for value with our check-raising for bluffs on the board above. We likely have 9 or more hands in our check-raising for value range on this flop. I'm not sure exactly for this hand, but I think to be game theory optimal we need to be raising as a bluff here between 50-60% of the time. Therefore, we need around 10 hand to be bluffing here. The best hands to be bluffing is the T9s which makes us 4 hands. And assuming that we don't have 54s or T9o, I think 77 probably makes up the next best 6 hands for check-raising as a bluff in order to stay balanced. So it's actually an interesting spot where we take a made hand and turn it into a bluff because it doesn't have enough equity to call, and it's one of the best hands to bluff against the Villain's check-raising calling range.

    @paul3thomson:

    In order to calculate how many bluffcombos you could blufff here in a GTO-manner, you have to do it obv. with using the combinatorics and the Odds which Villain will get when facing a C/R, not calculating how many hands you need to bluff... this will not give you a correct frequency.

    I also turn myself madehands into a bluff by C/Ring vs. aggr. good opponents, but I don`t agree that a 2ndpair with 2 outs is the best hand you can do it with.

    I much more prefer to C/R here a bottompair or depending on the opponent even a MP -> just b/c I should have much more EQ vs. Villain`s cbet/Callrange.

    btw.

    here you can make your post easier to read :)

    ->

    http://www.bluefirepoker.com/forums/video-forum/reply/47724?p=47754

     

  • MadBoy MadBoy Poker Trainee
    81 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    15 May 2011 at 2:19pm

    Great Vid and rly many deep thoughts inside – I like it very muchLaughing

    Only wanna thing:
    For example me even did not know that you have been searching for some hands – maybe you or BFP can find in the future some better ways to make such a search public so that most BFP-members will be aware of this^^

    Btw.,  also respect for your solid entertainer-skills, I love it Cool

    2nd hand – 88:

    I love the click-it-back on the flop in this spot, as well.

    On the turn you are saying that you do not want to check b/c a check on such a dry Board still looks pretty strong (after gay3betted the flop) – I guess on a more drawy board we would be much more inclined to check to induce in order to rep draws which are giving up…

    Although on a wet Board we would be likely more inclinded to shove on the flop instead of using a click-it-back_Strategy…

    As played,

    You said that you don`t mind it so much to give Villain great Odds on his str8Draws  by gaybetting on the turn b/c w our 8s we in fact block many str8draw-combos of Villain`s range and also Outs regards to other str8Dtwas of Villain`s range..

    What if we would hold here , Idk, A7?

    4th hand – JTo:

    I also agree that his is a very good spot to go for 3barells given the turncard and our both perceived ranges (Villain`s range and ours obv.). 

    btw. Would you stab here 66 on the flop? - I would checkback b/c as you said I do not expect so many folds on the flop like n other boards like for example JT8s and I do not want to barell with 2 outs – but I would stab here MPs and BPs  - what you think about this?

    But as played on the river,

    I am rly not sure if this is after missed the turnbet a good and credible spot to bluff delayed.

    Reason: Yeah, everything gots there, but if hero is aggressive, he would perceived continue firing the turn with str8draws (also weak pairs+str8draws) and FDs -> so in reality and also perceived imo  we cannot rep so much -> by betting we imo rep more a deperate bluff b/c we have missed on the opportunity to barell on the turn.

    Hence btw. I wouldn`t be too surprised if Villain has noticed that hero is somewhat capped and started a C/Bluffraise by truning a weaker madehand into a bluff like a weak TP or JJ-KK…. b/c Villain is not capped to hands like especially AsXs...

    But that makes imo anyways the bluffjam of hero here not better. (maybe it would be more interesting if we would have in our hand the As, but even then we would perceived mostly bet any TP on the turn for Value, as well, even with the NutFD…)

  • rhalala rhalala Poker Newbie
    18 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    17 May 2011 at 4:57pm
    Just want to say , there are interesting hand offcourse , but i think you can have a looot better hands for you to analize , Thank you for the video , i will check your blog more frecuently for hands request :P
  • iggyping iggyping Poker Trainee
    66 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    17 May 2011 at 5:00pm

    I'm not sure drgiggy would like to analize you :P

  • rhalala rhalala Poker Newbie
    18 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    17 May 2011 at 5:18pm
    i dont said that, I have some very interestings hands (mine and not mine ) in various .txt,,
  • rhalala rhalala Poker Newbie
    18 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    17 May 2011 at 5:25pm

    sorry if you get hurt, your hands are obv interesting, but i think we can found hands better

  • iggyping iggyping Poker Trainee
    66 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    17 May 2011 at 7:41pm

    I didn't mean to sound like a douche, but I couldn't resist making a joke :p

     

    The word is analyze, not analize :p

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    18 May 2011 at 1:33am

    iggyping wrote:

    If we have AA in the 88 hand, would we also CIB or would calling than be better because our hand isn't vulnerable?

     

    Also, 9$ isn't my usual size but I hadn't seen a lot of people make it 2.3x so I just guessed an amount that was right for that :p

    Hmmm I think this depends mainly on your opponent's tendencies... you want to CiB if he's the type of guy who never believes anyone and randomly spazzes out in random spots, and you want to slowplay if he's the type to just aggress any sort of weakness.

    The more you know your spazzer the more you can exploit him.

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    18 May 2011 at 1:35am

    rhalala wrote:

    Just want to say , there are interesting hand offcourse , but i think you can have a looot better hands for you to analize , Thank you for the video , i will check your blog more frecuently for hands request :P

    Maybe, but people didn't send them ;)

    And I liked these ones pretty well tbh

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    18 May 2011 at 1:41am

    paul3thomson wrote:

    In hand #3 where the Hero holds 77 and check-raises a 862r flop, I'm pretty sure that Dr Giggy made a mistake in his analysis, but I think it actually illustrates an interesting point about turning made hands into bluffs and balancing ranges. So Dr Giggys says that the Hero should be check-raising hands on the flop which do best against the Villain's calling range. His logic is correct, but his analysis of which hands have the highest equity against the Villain's calling range is wrong. I'm on a mac right now, so I can't post any numbers, but I've done this analysis quite a few times in the past and am pretty sure that I'm correct. (If I remember correctly, it's a combination of having the back-door straight draw and being ahead of the two lower sets). But what I find interesting about this spot is what it suggests about our balancing range. There's a traditional 2p2 rule for beginners, "Don't raise a hand when worse won't call, and better won't fold". More or less, it's saying to not take a hand which strong enough to call and turn it into a bluff by raising. While this rule might seem to apply here, it in fact doesn't. And the breaking of this rule gives a little nuance into DrGiggys original point of what type of hands to check-raise. How do we decide what hands to check-raise, call and fold here? You should follow these steps in this order. In other words, you should not take a hand which is +EV to call and turn it into a bluff: CHECK RAISE FOR VALUE = The range of hands which are ahead of our Villain's check-raising calling range CALL = Call with all hands which are +EV, but are not ahead of Villain's check-raising calling range CHECK RAISE AS A BLUFF = The range of hands which are not +EV to call, but they do best against the Villain's check-raising calling range. So since 77 is not ahead of the Villain check-raising range, it would at first appear that it's strong enough to check-call. Although it has more than enough 30% equity against the Villain's betting range to call, as DrGiggy suggested in the video, we are going to be in bad shape against good Villain's who will barrel us on the turn and river. DrGiggy suggested that this might be a good opportunity to practice our check calling frequencies on the turn and maybe that's not a bad idea, since our equity is actually pretty good with this hand. However, the fact remains, if our hand is not +EV to call the flop over the entire hand, then then we should either fold or check-raise it. And maybe some players can play it +EV, but I think against an aggressive Villain who balance his bluffs well, it will be a -EV call for many players. Therefore, we should check-raise the hand, since it does best agains the Villain's calling range. Although it's implied in the paragraph above. We obviously need to balance our check-raising for value with our check-raising for bluffs on the board above. We likely have 9 or more hands in our check-raising for value range on this flop. I'm not sure exactly for this hand, but I think to be game theory optimal we need to be raising as a bluff here between 50-60% of the time. Therefore, we need around 10 hand to be bluffing here. The best hands to be bluffing is the T9s which makes us 4 hands. And assuming that we don't have 54s or T9o, I think 77 probably makes up the next best 6 hands for check-raising as a bluff in order to stay balanced. So it's actually an interesting spot where we take a made hand and turn it into a bluff because it doesn't have enough equity to call, and it's one of the best hands to bluff against the Villain's check-raising calling range.

    I hope I got everything correctly, this does give a headache to read (although I understand it's not your fault, this damn site always does that when you comment under the video instead of in the forums).

    But I would definitely like to see those numbers on which you say 77 has more equity than let's say AJ here against villain's calling range. Not that I doubt you, but it's against my intuition and would open my eyes a bit in certain other spots as well. I do agree that the backdoor straight gives us some so you could def. be right.

    And I agree with the rest of your analysis, as long as your argument about 77 having more equity than most 2 overcards hands is right you def. have a good point.

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    18 May 2011 at 1:43am

    felipepiv wrote:

    I think that one thing he didnt mention on the 77 hand that is important, is that not only KQ has more outs against calling range, but also when we do hit, it`s more like to get action. for exemple, if vilain is bet/calling A8 or a hand like JJ, when a K or Q comes, it`s usualy a card that vilain expects us to keep barreling more often then a 7. Also a 7 hits much more of our perceived bluffing range, considering he`d expect us to c/r gutters and stuff. So, I do agree with him that KQ is MUCH better, not only becouse we have way more outs most of the time, but becouse we`re more likely to get value when we hit them.

    This is definitely true, but the counterpart to that is that when you hit with let's say KQ, it's a lot less certain to be good than if you hit a set or a backdoor straight and it could cost you a medium-big pot.

    So I think those 2 arguments kind of balance themselves, should've included both in my review ofc.

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Re: Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    18 May 2011 at 1:45am

    MadBoy wrote:

    @paul3thomson:

    In order to calculate how many bluffcombos you could blufff here in a GTO-manner, you have to do it obv. with using the combinatorics and the Odds which Villain will get when facing a C/R, not calculating how many hands you need to bluff... this will not give you a correct frequency.

    I also turn myself madehands into a bluff by C/Ring vs. aggr. good opponents, but I don`t agree that a 2ndpair with 2 outs is the best hand you can do it with.

    I much more prefer to C/R here a bottompair or depending on the opponent even a MP -> just b/c I should have much more EQ vs. Villain`s cbet/Callrange.

    btw.

    here you can make your post easier to read :)

    ->

    http://www.bluefirepoker.com/forums/video-forum/reply/47724?p=47754

     

    Definitely a good point about how check-raising with something like bottom pair and 5 outs is imo much better than with 77, I just don't see how including 77 in our bluffing range here would be optimal tbh. (although I could be wrong, I've never really put efforts in the more advanced maths concepts... I just tend to follow my intuition from my past experiences on those).

  • MartinGiggy MartinGiggy Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    539 Posts
    Re: Re: Members HH Reviews
    18 May 2011 at 1:58am

    MadBoy wrote:

    Great Vid and rly many deep thoughts inside – I like it very muchLaughing

    Only wanna thing:
    For example me even did not know that you have been searching for some hands – maybe you or BFP can find in the future some better ways to make such a search public so that most BFP-members will be aware of this^^

    Btw.,  also respect for your solid entertainer-skills, I love it Cool

    2nd hand – 88:

    I love the click-it-back on the flop in this spot, as well.

    On the turn you are saying that you do not want to check b/c a check on such a dry Board still looks pretty strong (after gay3betted the flop) – I guess on a more drawy board we would be much more inclined to check to induce in order to rep draws which are giving up…

    Although on a wet Board we would be likely more inclinded to shove on the flop instead of using a click-it-back_Strategy…

    As played,

    You said that you don`t mind it so much to give Villain great Odds on his str8Draws  by gaybetting on the turn b/c w our 8s we in fact block many str8draw-combos of Villain`s range and also Outs regards to other str8Dtwas of Villain`s range..

    What if we would hold here , Idk, A7?

    4th hand – JTo:

    I also agree that his is a very good spot to go for 3barells given the turncard and our both perceived ranges (Villain`s range and ours obv.). 

    btw. Would you stab here 66 on the flop? - I would checkback b/c as you said I do not expect so many folds on the flop like n other boards like for example JT8s and I do not want to barell with 2 outs – but I would stab here MPs and BPs  - what you think about this?

    But as played on the river,

    I am rly not sure if this is after missed the turnbet a good and credible spot to bluff delayed.

    Reason: Yeah, everything gots there, but if hero is aggressive, he would perceived continue firing the turn with str8draws (also weak pairs+str8draws) and FDs -> so in reality and also perceived imo  we cannot rep so much -> by betting we imo rep more a deperate bluff b/c we have missed on the opportunity to barell on the turn.

    Hence btw. I wouldn`t be too surprised if Villain has noticed that hero is somewhat capped and started a C/Bluffraise by truning a weaker madehand into a bluff like a weak TP or JJ-KK…. b/c Villain is not capped to hands like especially AsXs...

    But that makes imo anyways the bluffjam of hero here not better. (maybe it would be more interesting if we would have in our hand the As, but even then we would perceived mostly bet any TP on the turn for Value, as well, even with the NutFD…)

    -Yeah, only posted it in my blog, I guess I'll find another way next time by a video or forums or something like that

     

    88:fwiw I still like the CiB on a wet board, because it looks even more suspicious and it gives a last chance for your opponent to spazz a weak draw that couldn't call a shove. And for let's say A7 on the turn, I still think the pluses of gaybetting are enough so that it remains my favorite play, even without the blockers.

    JT:I like your idea of checking back your 2 outers and barelling your 5 outers... although barelling your 5 outers isn't absolutely necessary, especially if you already have a really aggressive image, the risk sometimes isn't worth it.

    I agree that we are not representing much here... but the fact is, on that board, against someone who is likely to be multitabling a lot, most opponents who aren't really focused and/or great hand-readers will just look at most of their 1-pair hands and tell themselves "ahhh fuck it, on to the next hand". Not that it will work every single time, but I think that will work often enough for a bluff to be +EV.

    And I kind of disagree about villain potentially turning a made hand into a bluff on that river... I think hero looks really polarized here (with tons of absolute "air" in the range), so someone who might be suspicious of that bet would normally be more inclined to call with most of their 1-pair (unless it's something really weak like K7s). But all in all I think if villain has any respectable showdown value he's more likely to call and hope hero was on like you said a "desperate bluff" than to try a big bluff himself, a bluff that would mostly make hero fold air anyways.

  • MadBoy MadBoy Poker Trainee
    81 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    20 May 2011 at 11:56pm

    Hey ,thanks again very much for responding:)

    @JTo:

    Here you are of course right and my thought, that it is a decent spot for Villain to turn his weaker SD-Value into a bluff, is wrong.

    Idk why i thought this suddenly when I was watching the vid b/c I have said before that perceived Villain would bet all his TPs on the turn -> his riverbettingrange is here indeed very polarized, like you said^^

  • mischkoville mischkoville Poker Newbie
    48 Posts
    Re: Members HH Reviews
    21 Nov 2012 at 7:50am
    results off the last 2 hands? guess he lost haha

You must be logged in to post comments. Take a minute to sign up if you don't yet have an account.