$200K Guaranteed User Review - Part 2

  • MTT
  • MTT
  • $55
  • Fullring
(8 Votes) 6894


Free membership

Join now


AaronLambert begins his new series with the review of Hand history provided by Ihuffa from a 9-max (Full Ring) SNG, $55.


$200K Guaranteed User Review series User Session Review

Comments (21)

newest first
  • EuanM


    Enjoy the video and please keep the comments in English!
  • ihufa


    the QsJd hand i'd snapfold to a 3bet on the flop, and i don't expect to get played back at on that flop. I don't think calling with Q hi oop is a good idea there
  • ihufa


    around min 47 you (again) say you dislike defending QJ vs a BU raise which i just have to completely disagree with :) And ofc im donk/3betting to get it in and I'd never dream of folding QJ there, so c/raising and folding to a shove as u proposed seems ridiculus. Seems a little rambly to me :S
  • ihufa


    And a little later i hero call 99 and i think villains only range for betting river is a king. An ace never plays like that and neither does any other pair. Thing is a king is either AK/KQ/KJ and maybe KT. AK and KQ bet flop or turn, so his range for valuebetting is just ridiculusly thin. I really have to say i dislike your argument for folding here.
  • ihufa


    And for all the hands i defend or call behind in position; I like to play more LAG in these supersoft fields. In a 109$+R i'd shove the 99 pre, but in that hand BB had the perfect squeeze shove stack in addition to the raiser (and BB) presumably being very bad
  • ihufa


    I feel like I should join you so i can explain the handreading behind some of the hands like the A4s riverbluff :D

    Good video, looking forward to the last(?) part.
  • MarcPS


    guess I shouldn't leave ihufa alone in the comments! :D

    i think the herocall with 9s is pretty standard to be honest. you basically have the nut no-hand and Villain's value range is just reallllllly thin. there's just nothing he can have here apart from KK which he checks on the turn in a weird pot control line or bluffs. he can have KJ too i guess but since that basically plays the same as KK on that board it doesn't make too much sense.

    plus also since ihufa checks flop and turn *his* value range is really small which means Villain can bluff really profitably vs him.

    solid vid imo though. looking fwd to the next part.
  • AaronLambert


    @2 I just feel like with 3rd nut flush draw and two overs turning your hand into a bluff here just doesn't make much sense. I am ok with the raise with the idea to fold to a 3bet so that approach is fine I would just prefer the first move.

    @3 I'm never a huge fan of donking... I can see why you would be stacking off here considering he can raise wide it just seems like a marginal spot. A ton of hands beat you here so I feel like you are over-valuing your hand a little bit.

    @4 Interesting thoughts on 99 here. I just got the feeling he may bet on turn with small pairs to turn his hand into a bluff. But I guess not :)

    @6 Ya if anyone knows how to setup dual commentary for a HH I would be happy to do it. It just seems to complicated to make it work (it has been in the past).

    @7 look @4
  • ihufa


    thanks for your feedback Aaron. Can you give some hints as to what hands you'd defend in the blinds? If you don't defend QJ vs button then it seems like you never ever flat? In a soft tourney that seems pretty wrong to me
  • Guesswhat


    Nice vid!
    This 99 hand keeps on turning around my head.
    What hands does Villain bet on the river:
    TT, JJ, QQ, Kx maybe AJ, AT AND his bluffs => 21 combos to a badly played boat and about 30 Kx combos. If his bluffing range consists of about 20 combos we have a call.
    His bluffing range consists of 22-99 and maybe 76s, 78s => in this spot the call is mandatory.
    If he turns his hands, which do have showdown value, into bluffs, this spot is of course really close.
  • ihufa


    @10 now remove TT JJ QQ AJ AT and most Kx from his range because he can't have those by river since he checked flop and turn. This skews it a little bit more towards a call aye
  • AaronLambert


    I try to avoid defending very often unless I'm deep because you are stuck check folding very often. If I were deep I could defend why but my range from the big blind would be wider than my range from the SB.

    I simply lean towards 3betting most of the time knowing my opponent is on a wide range preflop and I think that is a better course of action for several reasons. 1) It will narrow your opponents range because we know he is super wide that just calling leaves you no real information on where you are. 2) If gives you strength that will allow you to bet and get several folds post flop. 3) The strength in itself will often times make you much stronger than you really are.

    3bets are important in late position poker!
  • ihufa


    But 3betting QJ isolates us against KQ+ AJ+ pretty much, when we can be playing a smaller pot against a big range where we outkick most of his toppairs instead of the other way around.
    Can you confirm that if you're 30bb or less deep u shouldn't flat any hand in the SB?
  • AaronLambert


    I'd say 25 or less... but you are exposing yourself to the same range of hands for your entire stack. 3betting with QJ you are 3betting with two blockers on hands he is likely to want to stack off with in position. JJ QQ AQ AJ maybe. But of course it is 3bet folding.

    In this situation you have chip leverage why not use it against a wide range preflop?
  • ihufa


    I was 30bb deep with the last QJ where u said 3bet > fold > flat.
  • AaronLambert


    but you need to also consider your effective stack since you have your opponent covered.
  • ihufa


    I was 30bb deep effectively, being 60bb deep myself
  • ihufa


    actually 33bb
  • AaronLambert


    true BBs is what I refer too my bad
  • Gameslave


    Just a little thing to the 99-hand: he doesn't have to be right 30% of the time but 25% because he is getting 3:1 if that makes a difference.
  • NatRPheM


    I would really have loved to see Jonathan Little`s review of this.