WCOOP Deep Run Hand History Review with Andrew Brokos (Part 2)
[Total: 25 Average: 9.2/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Andrew Brokos (Part 1 | Andrew Brokos (Part 2 | Andrew Brokos (Part 3 | Andrew Brokos (Part 4 | Andrew Brokos (Part 5 | Andrew Brokos (Part 6 | ith Andrew Brokos (Part 1 | ith Andrew Brokos (Part 2 | ith Andrew Brokos (Part 3
Concepts In This Video: 3-Betting • Aggression • Bet Sizing • Bluffing • Board Texture • C-Betting • Deep Stacks • Early Stages • Expected Value • exploiting tendencies • Flatting • Floating • Hand Reading • High Stakes • Implied Odds • Large Fields • Limping • Math • Note Taking • Poker Stars • Popular Online Series • Position • Post-flop • Pot Building • Pot Control • pre-flop • Ranges • Reads • Single Table • Table Dynamics • Theory • Value Betting • WCOOP
W1ispher
love it…..such detailed thought process second to none
cap
great video man! im quite curios on your toughs in the faraz-jthaddeus hand. very weird line by faraz, in my mortal level of thinking…
ATrainBoston
Gave this one a top rating for the detailed clear analysis. I saw the first 2 parts, and I’ll be watching and studying this series carefully. You do seem to fold a lot, at least pre-antes at this tougher tournament. My question is, what do you think of playing styles that mix it up a lot more early in a MTT, such as raising small with lots of cards in earlier position, or lots of light 3-betting? Do you think such styles are inherently suboptimal at most tables, or do you just feel more comfortable usually playing tighter early? Can I get by being pretty much a nit pre-ante for the rest of my MTT career?
piefarmer
I want to echo this sentiment/question. I think lots of folks favor playing loose when deep and they tighten as stacks get more shallow. I find this series very informative.
Foucault
This is very much a function of the table composition. Position is tremendously important when deep-stacked, especially against good players, I think a lot of people tend to use deep stacks as an excuse to play “speculative” hands from any position. But if you think about it, deep stacks can’t benefit everyone, and in truth you should be even less inclined to play 74s from early position with 200 BB than you would be with 50 (assuming no antes in either case), at least with competent players at your table. I assure you I’m quite capable of playing a 50% VPIP at a really weak and passive table, it’s just that you find those live more than you do online so they don’t end up making it to the videos 🙂
Can you “get by” while playing nitty in the early levels? Of course, but if you’re going to do that you might be better off just late registering. You will certainly miss some of the best opportunities to win big pots against the weakest players in the tournament, though.
WHO-AM-I
Why wouldn’t rebluffing that guy on the 89Q7J board be effective? Expensive, sure, but you can very credibly represent all flushes, he very rarely has a flush himself, and you have the nut blocker.
There’s probably some price at which he folds Tx enough to justify bluffing. And there may be enough weirdly-played non-straights (2p that he doesn’t want to check-call with, or stuff like AQ/KQ/K9 that he now feels like he “has to” bluff) to justify bluffing smaller, even if it makes him call Tx a little more frequently.
You’re probably right that bluff-raising there is spew, but I think there are plenty of justifications for it (including using AdX to balance the KT/many flushes in your value raising range).
Anyway, great video, looking forward to consuming the next ones.
Gareth Chantler
I think we have to ship it if we raise river in the Ad2x hand. That being said, I’m a pretty big fan of shipping there. How can he call?
Foucault
You’re right, I was too dismissive of bluffing. I think a good case can be made for shoving when we hold the Ad.
Al29
When there is an obvious straight out there for villain I’m not sure about this line, in my experience people find it hard to fold a straight on a board when the flush hits on the river and an all in shove looks more like a bluff than a value bet. I prefer this line when you actually have the flush!
MASTERHOLMES
the 84suited vs ace nine off on button that you observed.. a common thing for beginning mtts is to fold the turn on paired boards. when the villain over bets the river he either is bluffing or got trips/full/flush and just top pair is a losing hand vs that possible range of the sb special (which in this case was 84). if you were in the ace 9 could you get away from it I know you said it wasn’t call. but I think if it was the micros it would be a clear fold. ?
Foucault
The less good your opponent is, the more inclined you should be to fold. Better players can recognize that if you never call with less than a good flush, you will be very exploitable by bluffing.
A few other things I want to clarify:
1. If you put Villain on either trips/full/flush or a bluff, that doesn’t necessarily make top pair a loser. It just makes it a bluff-catcher. Then you have to estimate how often your opponent will be bluffing. But there are plenty of cases where it can be correct to call when your opponent is representing either a better hand than yours or a bluff.
2. I wouldn’t call this a “sb special”. That usually implies that the blinds got to play for free or cheap and therefore could have a much wider range of hands than they would if they called a raise. In this case the SB did call a raise, so without a read on him I wouldn’t assume that 84s would be in his range in the same way that I would if he’d merely completed in a limped pot.
xtremeungar
This combined troll… not appreciated.