# Premier League Event - Analyzing Amateur Play

• MTT
• MTT
• Shorthanded

Free membership

## Description

Melanie continues her in-depth hand history review series by reviewing a hand from the televised series 'Premier league poker'.

## Tags

• #1

Enjoy the newest video from Melanie Weisner.

If you have any suggestions or feedback please leave them below.
• #2

interesting video.
• #3

suuuuuper weird hearing a female's voice doing a poker video.
positively weird, though!
• #4

Content delivers, really nice and unique stuff!
• #5

Yeah, really liked this video too. Such a gross spot b/c abc internet pkr says: "fish won't ever be bluffing when they raise river, so we have to bet/fold our straight". The problem, like you said, is that Misljimi ISN'T bluffing. He's just incorrectly value raising a hand that should now simply be a bluffcatcher. All the backstory provided useful context. Thanks and more please!
• #6

Thanks <3
• #7

zzzzzzzzz 9min into the vid and still introduction zzzzzzzzz
• #8

The video is really good. The content aswell. My question:river spot - call 126 into 512 is not under 25% right? If he calls the pot will be 512+126 so we divide 126/638=0.197=~20% pot odds. Or is my math wrong?
• #9

Also the way Misljimi looks when 7 hit the board - it's like he rly hit it so my guess is 7 or Td9d,Ad7d,6d7d smth like that. After this judgement i saw he had 22 so now his range now should be all sets,two pair etc so that would be a call for me in both judgements.
• #10

I also don't like folding very strong hands vs fishes anyways.
• #11

I noticed one very fundamental math mistake in the video which was made twice and which alot of pros and commentators make.
When you are getting x:1 on a call then you need 100/(x+1) % equity to be correct and not 100/x %. Like when Dom was getting 6 to 1 to call on the turn he needed 14.3% equity to continue and not 16.6% as stated in the video. Also on the river against the shove he is getting almost 4 to 1 to call so he needs to be correct 20% of the time and not 25%.
Besides this, great content! Keep them coming.
• #12

I've been playing some live poker recently, mainly low stakes with my fiends or random guys who you would all cansider fishes. Two things i noticed besides of the math behind decision that in Nitsche spot I'd lean towards calling. The first thing is villains phisical reaction when a diamond came on the river. For a brief moment he looked far from happy nor confident. The second thing which i find SO SO much indicative in fishes behaviour: HE CHECKED HIS CARDS. How on earth fish would forget he has a flush? Good players do it for deception, but not fishes. I've noticed it's like 9/10 cases if a fish checks his cards on flush card or a mono flop he simply doesnt have it.
• #13

Why he couldn't make that 60k bet??
• #14

Because he was string betting. In live poker you have to put in all the chips that you want to bet in one motion. You can't first put in 30k and then grab another 30k and put that in aswell. However, if you first announce that you wish to bet 60k, you may put the chips in however you want.
• #15

i guess melanie laughed right away by choosing that title picture with the big beard santa on the right :D
• #16

sorry about that @autheking, totally right just forgot to add the last bet in (it's 14.28%). guess it undermines a bit of the math "have to call" part but dominik said that he felt it was a mandatory call on the turn given the size so i guess he thought it was close enough :) thanks for pointing out the error
• #17

so long intro :<
• #18

I like you. :>
I also like the video and analysis.
I actually analyzed the hand prior to watching this.

For me it is a mandatory call against his shove. Given the situation, the way the hand was played and his gestures, it is unlikely that he has a flush in this spot. I would rather put him on a set, two pair or at max the same hand - 54 - for a split.

A higher straight would be extremely unlikely because every JT, except the JdTd - which would have made a flush-, would have given up on the Flop or the Turn.

If he had a flush, why would he check the River and risk a check behind for no additional value? He must be aware that Nitsche is also drawing and might have a better flush (if Misljimi actually had one) than him. If he had a solid hand with the Ad or Kd he probably would have reraised preflop, so he would have a queen high flush at best.

But if Nitsche does suspect a flush, he could just check the River without any additional risk. He must have thought this through before betting, just in case of a checkraise.

Lets consider the situation after the hand. If he had called and won, he would have been at the final table with a very comfotable stack.
If he had lost the 126k more he would still have a stack of 314k and about 30 big blinds. So it's definitely not over and he still can come back quite nice with such a stack, as Thoms demonstrated pretty good with his set against your queens. - My smpathy for this bad beat though. :)

I won't go into much detail on Misljimis gestures. They look weak all the way on the River. First the slight discouraged check of his cards, the check to Nitsche and then his behavior as he shoved. This behavior looked like it wanted to say "I have the nuts!". But in general this gesture would be weak because if someone has the nuts he certainly want to get called and don't discourage his opponent with such behavior from calling him.

Again, it would have been just 126k more to call. This amount doesn't make that much of a difference in Nitsches further play. So given all the information and consideration, for me it is an easy call there.
• #19

I think, this hand is a pretty good example why the pure mathematical approach to Poker, live Poker especially, is not the best way to go. You have to adjust to every single situation. Mathematics can help you in finding the right decision, but they don't offer it in any case. This is also the reason why people with limited mathematical skills can still play winning Poker if they understand the game and their opponents as well.

- fin - :)
• #20

Ps: Just spotted a mistake in my comment. When I was talking about a higher straight I meant Td9d not JT. With an 8 high board, JT would have had no straight.