Niman's TomJetland Review (2)

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

Dated:
Nov 9th, 2011
By:
Niman Kenkre
Game:
NLHE
Stake:
Small Stakes
Teaching Method:
Session Video 3+ Table
Language:
English
Type:
6 Max
2714 Views
3 Comments
10.0010
(5 Ratings) 10.00

Niman continues with part 2 of his review of TomJetland's play at 200NL.

More From Niman Kenkre  Get RSS Feed For Niman Kenkre's Videos

Comments

  • NimanKenkre NimanKenkre Bluefire Pro Poker Pro
    1191 Posts
    Niman's TomJetland Review (2)
    10 Nov 2011 at 1:20am
    Discussion for Niman's TomJetland Review (2).
  • tompoker88 tompoker88 Poker Trainee
    78 Posts
    Re: Niman's TomJetland Review (2)
    10 Nov 2011 at 9:15am

    Thank you again for the in-depth analysis and going into alternative lines.

    Here are my thoughts and questions about some spots in this part:

    AA 8:45 BU vs SB:

    I 4bet because he made a tight impression so far and I didnt want an overcard to come for his TT-KK + maximizing vs AK.


    AJs 13:00 (BU 2,5BB open, we are in BB):

    I agree with it being played too passive in a blind-steal situation. What is our plan against a 4bet if we 3bet? What about a check-raise on A32cc flop?

    Riverspot (Turn Q River 9):

    If we bet, we have an Ace or a busted flushdraw which decided to cc on the flop, so our range is very top pair heavy and he could fold KQ vs a bet, but if we check, our range is (especially after not 3betting preflop) not A heavy but PP heavy + 45c
    46c, therefore i check the river to induce (he can represent a Q and somewhat an Ace still) and for balancing. Actually Phil's first philosophy video featured some very similar hands to illustrate that concept if i remember correctly.


    Suited one-gappers 13:30-16 minute:

    I think you overvalue the suitedness of hands vs shorter stacks. i can not understand folding QTs CO vs BB when the 40 BB stack raises to 14$ vs 6$ bet, but calling 35s vs a 10$ raise vs 4$ bet BU vs BB. The number of flops where we can continue with QTs but not with 35s clearly outweights the dominating factor in my opinion.


    A6 CO vs BU on K26ss A 3s 28:30 riverspot:

    If he had a bluff / wanted to bluff, he would propably do so on an ace, so i guess it is likely he had an ace, which he will never valuebet himself on this river, giving us KQ (which will not call) and even flushdraws (which he is obv behind). By betting i do not represent KQ-KT anymore, but he can still make a crying call. That is why i made a smaller bet which was still too large, because we can not really have bluffs here.

    On the other hand, maybe cc river is better because we can not have any bluff and we usually have Kx which he might bluff us off now, but when we bet the river we do NOT have Kx.

    I am really confused why one of the both thought processes is clearly rignt and the other clearly wrong and what the underlying thinking mistake is to prevent such mistakes in the future.


    K8 BB vs SB (45BB) on K66rs 9s Qs (40:00):

    Air is a much bigger part of his range than a King in my opinion, and he could even be trapping (not saying that trapping is good here). I do not want to do such sophisticated plays against unknowns where i can not expect him to think like that, which is the case for a shortstack on those limits i guess.  But i thought about doing the shove anyway.

     

    Thanks again!

    Tom

  • tompoker88 tompoker88 Poker Trainee
    78 Posts
    Re: Niman's TomJetland Review (2)
    12 Nov 2011 at 12:43am

    I thought about the A6 hand again and i do think that both, cc and bet/fold are reasonable plays on the river without further reads.
    The cc line is already fully analyzed by Niman, therefore i just want to deepen my analysis on the bet/fold line:

    Most importantly, there ARE bluffs i can and will have in this exact spot with this exact betsize, namely 77-QQ which will be turned into a bluff a good portion of the time. My range now is those bluffs + flushes and maybe AK and slowplayed sets and the hand i do have (+A2).

    When he checks behind the Turn (Ace) he can try to represent the Ace by checking behind and betting the river, or just representing the flush himself if it comes, to reduce the variance in his bluff, but he can easily have the Ace as well (AT, AJ, AQ, suited Aces especially with a spade !) after checking it back for pot control and not assuming i would call two more bets with just a king + he could be afraid of getting check-raised and not knowing what to do.

    Now if he DOES have an Ace, a river bet is by far the better play, because he can not see value (MAYBE except A3cc which is 1 combo if he does not recognize that it has the same value as A4 in this spot), because i will not call a King or a pocket when he can easily have the Ace or a flush. On the other hand, i can have stronger hands than an Ace which will not fold, namely slowplayed sets, maybe AK and a flush. So if he does get called, he is >>50% behind which makes a bet with an Ace -ev.

    But if i do bet, i can have stated "turned into a bluff hands" and hope for a crying call, the only way to get value from an Ace.

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