This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

Feedback-thread for Internet`s Hu-part 2 (analyze vs Insyder)

    • IronPumper
      Joined: 03.01.2008 Posts: 15,014

      Right now im watching following Vid together with a buddy (obv. also and cause we have some questions, I have decided to start this thread (mb its also interesting for other ppl):

      Min. 5 - A4s:
      As you have already said yourself, we think its a bet OTT..
      But as played,
      we like your check, but we just do not get get reasoning for your size there?
      I mean, wouldn`t it be better to just C/R your whole range inclusive bluffs to like 3,5x or anything?
      Here you say alter that you also think a smaller size would have been better, but you still advocate your sizeing regards to the vacuumplay....
      But also vacuum-wise, we just do not get your sizeing , cause what shall call this massive overshove?
      most FDs are OTT combodraws as well and would likely bet there....

      6.45 - 66:
      I do getyour underbet-size OTT in term of thatyour airrange is kinda benefiting form it.
      But waht is your general size then OTRwith a little over 1:1-SPR?
      Do you just slight overjam thenyour bettingrange there?

      09.00 - KQo:

      at 6max-games i would usually agree with you having a high-frequency cbet-gameplan on this board.
      But at Hu ppl defend passively oftentimes like K2s-KJs, K2o-KJo, A2o-A9o; A2s-A9s - those are already ~22%.

      Now also all gutters and FDs will not fold...

      Like when Hu-player coldcall vs BTN-Minr. on average between 50-60%,
      then already bout 33% overall and hence between 66% and 55% of their average passive defendranges are connecting here with this board:

      So Im actually not so sure if this board is a good "Cbet-Board" and if we wanna have a high-freq.-cbet-gameplan, in general... what you think bout it?

      and great vid so far btw. ty very much, sir:)
  • 1 reply
    • IronPumper
      Joined: 03.01.2008 Posts: 15,014
      To be continued....

      29.45 - Q9s:
      We had this one time in the past, and again I get here not your reasoning for overbwetting here - imo your reasoning ist just in theory wrong:

      -> you said something like: " I have here a lot of strong valuehands (str8s) and those i wanna valuebet big and hence I also wanna bet here my bluffs big"

      But in reality the opposite is correct:
      The bigger your bluffingrange in relation to your valuerange, the larger your betsize should be and vice versa...
      (unless mb in spots where you have literally no bluffingrange, then mb make it big just to get caleld in some % by 2nd/3rd nuts...).

      edit: in vaccuum I think your size is nice, but I just do not get your general reasoning for it....