Phil Galfond's Four Tables of HSNL (2)

Discussion for Phil Galfond's Four Tables of HSNL (2).

moooore Phil and Giggy !!!!!!! love it

Good video. 30 min, You raise KJo at 994ss 3B pot against The_endd. What do you think about raise hand like 88 and call allin here?

in the KJoff on 994 hand, what range of hands would you raise/call here? especially non nut flushdraws, are we raisecalling J high flushdraws here to balance?

i guess this is a spot were we can be imbalanced and dont worry too much about it since alot of players just dont play back enough, right?

Around 20 minute (not too sure but close to that) you c/c on a t32r flop as pfr and turn a Tx with a set and decide to lead turn because you say checking doesn't accomplish much against someone who rarely bets turns.

This may be a silly observation/question... but I feel like you have to decide on wether you want to c/c donk turn him a lot or just c/r his flop bets a lot so that either your turn donk or your c/r doesn't seem as strong as you said it did. It seems like you were saying you would never have a bluff there which is why it looked so strong, so why don't you bluff there? What are the advantages of c/r flop with backdoor/overs/airballs + nut hands as opposed to c/c both and trying to exploit his passiveness/one barrel behavior

Basically:

- why don't you just c/r flop when he rarely bets turns anyway?
- do you really need to have strong hands to c/c with in your range to avoid getting barrelled off against him? (I'm assuming you don't since your c/r range may likely be all bluffs :P)
- Pros/cons of c/r vs floating+donking a lot?

Ty in advance, good vid :)

q: 54s hand, where heart rivrs and u fold a pair.... why cant you have/rep flush on rvr... not saying u should but u say u can't and i was confused by that.... his turn bet was small... were odds still so bad that u would have raised or folded that turn with 78h etc. and he'd know that?.... or cant u have a flush here instead of a q or 54d? speaking of 78... u were talking about calling with it oop pf and how that weakens your light 3bet range and forces q5o etc into a polarized range... isnt the answer that sometimes 78 is called, sometimes 3 bet with it, so range is still semi-ok? i realize that even sometimes calling means less chances to3bet it and so affects3bet frequencies but... seems we dont need to autobot hands into one range 100%. no?

B/c I guess he would 2ndBarell mostly FDs here after donkleaded the flop - the same goes of course for Trips+-hands.

Hence he cannot rep fluhes (which came in) and Trips+ very credibly on the river by turning his weak SD-Valu (which he cannot call b/c of his mentioned reasons) by C/R the river.

Re 1010 flat in sb to UTG raiser. I am not a high stakes player so take this fwiw but if the standard open in 25/50 is to 150 in both ante and non-ante games, because of the extra chips in pre- one should be opening lighter in all positions in the ante game. Then if the UTG opener is aware of this and is opening correspondingly lighter, his range should be wide enough that 3-betting with 1010 is correct.

THIS QUESTION IS FOR ANYONE: Ive been playing poker for about 6 years now and i just recently became bothered with a particular concept. this is mostly relevant in a pot that is heads up or a pot that consists of chips that came approx. 50% from your own stack. --its always taught that if pot size is 1 and you bet 1 (as a bluff with 0% equity on the river) that you need this bet to work 50% of the time to be profitable. but what i struggle with on this topic is that you only really profit the % of pot that didnt come from your stack...so you are actually only profiting 0.5 units (in a h/u pot) as opposed to the entire 1 unit. So by this logic it seems that you would need a pot sized bet to work 75% of the time. Profit 0.5bb three times and lose the 1.5bb once. Seems ridiculous...but heres why.... Can anyone disprove this example? Your stack starts at 100bb in a h/u pot, pot size is 10bb by river (so your stack size is 95bb). You bluff 10bb to win 10bb on river and when you win the pot your resulting stack size is 105bb....but when you lose your resulting stack size is 85bb...and checking leaves you with 90bb. Therefore there are only 3 possible outcomes to the entire hand +5bb(successful bluff) or -15bb(unsuccessful bluff), or -5bb (check, give up). If you think about how resulting stack size varies if the bluff works exactly 50% of the time...starting with a successful bluff and alternating with unsuccessful bluffs it looks like this (1 success followed by 1 fail& repeating): 105/90/95/80/85/70...etc if it works 66% (2 success followed by 1 fail & repeating)...>>105/110/95/100/105/90...etc (***still downward trend***) only at 75% success do we break even (3 success followed by 1 fail & repeating) >> 105/110/115/100/105/110/115/100...etc and of course everything +75% success is profitable but this is a stark contrast to the 50% that i see taught all over the place... so someone please tell me am i fucked up? and if so where, because i dont see it...

broanit I didn´t say UTG had a really tight tange preflop. It´s just that normally people don´t stack off light here. I never rarely see a guy raising utg and then 4b calling off 99 when SB 3b. And this is because sb rarely 3b an utg open, so don´t expect him to 4b bluff alot either. But sure if you 3b UTG opens alot from sb with bluffs go ahead and get 1010 in, Just watch all videos here, do you often see someone 3b 56s in sb when UTG raises? It happen,s but not often.

ssslipnsslide: Its a downward trend because you have already "lost" 5bb by the river. We talk about EV desicion, not EV for the entire hand (which is completely irrelevant). In your example the difference if the bluff works is 10bb either positive (105-95=10) or negative (85-95=-10) value, and thus have to work 50% to be a profitable bluff.

@welcome_back: Why is EV for the hand irrelevant? Seems like the most important overall factor in poker is overall profit which is a collection of how profitably you played all of your hands combined. I mean if there was a posted blind of 10bb by our opponent and nothing else in the pot then we would break-even on a potsized bluff that worked 50% of the time but yet in any other case (like the previous ex.) we need it to work greater than 50% for the overall hand to be profitable.

And for your coughing problem: You might want to check out "Emster pastille" if you have the chance to. I've tried out many similar products but that's what reduces my coughing the most when talking.

31:30 - Phil, please make that concept video about high intensity vs. low intensity players.