Welcome.

Take a tour. Enjoy some free sample content.

How it works

Free Video: CLP Video No. 287: Home Game Bart Reviews His Splashy At $1-$3 Deep Part 2

Free Podcast: CLP Podcast No. 54: Time Warp And Turn Value
New to Crush Live Poker?

Crush Live Poker Video No.244: Come Play With Me (Part 1)

CLP_CraigCLP_Craig Posts: 799Administrator
Come play an entire session with me as we analyze the play, make adjustments, and figure out the optimal way to attack this passive 5-10 game

http://www.crushlivepoker.com/videos/come-play-with-me-part-1

Episode posts at 2PM ET.
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • tryingtoimprovetryingtoimprove Posts: 8Subscriber
    13 minutes in and Dave hasn't analyzed one hand.
    Thanked by 2GreggT Arenzano
  • DeorumDeorum Posts: 55Subscriber
    Hi guys, I'm a Sacramento player so I'm very excited that CLP has begun to use the Stones Live Stream footage for its videos. The idea of going through an entire three hour session to see how a game unfolds and to highlight how to take advantage of information as it comes is an excellent one. This video did not disappoint, and I look forward to the next installment. One quick note I'll make is that the coverage team often gets the stack sizes wrong. They sometimes miss add ons, get bet sizes incorrect due to dealers forgetting to relay the action to them (that's why the dealers wear those headsets), etc. In the first hand where Jay flops a straight and Rick flops a flush, for instance, it looks as if Jay has more like 400-500 before check raising the turn rather than the 240 under his name.

    Being familiar with many of the players on the live stream, not only from having played on stream with some of them but also from having played many hours with them off camera (I used to prop at Stones and currently prop at another card room in Sacramento), perhaps I'll be able to provide some additional insight into things that may not be readily apparent from just the footage itself. After spending 40 hours a week playing poker in a card room as my job, watching CLP videos in my free time, listening to podcasts while I drive, and analyzing my own hands away from the table, it's sometimes not the most appealing idea to come home to hop on a forum to talk about poker. But this is an awesome opportunity for me, personally, so I'll try.

    Anyway, let's talk about the video. In the hand where David over limps with A K and Matthew checks his option in the BB with Q J, Tuchman states that he doesn't like a turn call very much here, and I agree for the reasons he states. But what about a raise? If we assign a range of KT+, 22, some heart draws, occasionally JJ, and very rarely KK and AA to our opponent (yes, weak passive players will occasionally over limp AA and KK in this game - often weak passive players try to combat passiveness by becoming more passive because they don't expect to get action when they are aggressive) then I think David has a lot of one pair hands in his range, all of which fold if Matthew raises to, say, 300 (with the possible exception of AA due to the "I've underrepped my hand" factor, even though AA is the same as KQ here). KT may be a bit discounted due to the turn sizing.

    Matthew is in the BB in a limped pot, so he has all of the flopped two pairs in his range. Most players at this level aren't sophisticated enough to realize that the turn is pretty unlikely to have made Matthew two pairs, so the idea of turning two pairs may scare David too. In fact, if Matthew raises and gets jammed on, I think David almost always has a set. I think a turn check raise may even freeze KJ. He won't fold it, but I think he just flats with it a lot. Also, because the turn check raise looks so strong, if we get called by a combo draw like A T, T 9 or 8 X, David never bluffs the river. We then get turn value against hands we are beating when the board bricks out. When the river is a heart, we get an easy shove that gets looked up by weaker hearts and KJ. And when the river is a Q or J we have an easy check fold, because David never bets anything worse here.

    Thoughts?
  • charby58charby58 Posts: 11Subscriber
    edited May 2016
    This is video is interesting for me in that it is very close to the type tables I find myself playing on, albeit it will be on $1/2 or $2/5 tables. This $5/10 table is unusualy passive this wouldn't be the case at the casino I play. Nevertheless, I like the concept of having a video that shows all of the hands in sequence because this is how tables can be at times uneventful and boring. To not necessarily break down a specific hand but to discuss the overall table dynamics and how to adjust to it is great. Profiling the players, making mental notes on each player's tendencies, stack sizes, how they stack their chips, are they paying attention to the game or are they simply playing their hands in a "fit or fold" fashion.

    By the way, Jay in seat 1 reminds me of a player that plays at my casino. He buys in short, doesn't seem really interested in what is going on at the table (plays with iPhone etc) and simply sits and waits until he hits a hand. And even when he hits a hand he plays it passively exept when his stack has widdled down to nothing at which point he just wait for a spot to shove pre-flop. How to we exploit these type of players? Have them on your left and raise them constantly?

    Maybe some of the points may appear trivial for some subscribers and certainly the points brought up in this video have been mentionned before. But for me I know that, although I can intellectualize some the concepts discussed on this site, I know that I often fall into common traps such as playing suited connectors out of position because the table is passive and I don't expect to be raised often. Or I will play on automatic and start to be predicable and exploitable "bet when I have it" "check or fold when i don't". The two main takeaways for me are:

    1- how to exploit these types of tables (play in pos, raise more often than not, expect very little 3-bet pre, buy the BTN and expect to be called pre by weak hands); and
    2- keep asking yourself: why am I betting? or what is my opponent trying to accomplish with his or her bet?

    Looking forward to the rest of the 4 part series.
  • olisim02olisim02 Posts: 2Subscriber
    Enjoyed the video Tuck, thanks a lot. Personally, I'm pleased you chose this type of game to tackle in this way. It's very similar to my local £1/£2 game although my game is a bit more loose passive whereas this seems to be weak/tight passive.

    I've recently been trying different styles to adapt to such a loose passive game, my concern is this; when I raise in late position with value and speculative hands and getting 3 or 4 callers, I feel that C-Bet bluffing is setting money on fire as people are calling with bottom pair or gut shots even. This has meant that my C-Bet bluff frequency has decreased to the bare minimum, meaning that I'm having to hit hands to drag a pot. Any advice on further adjustments that I should make?

    Cheers
  • ArenzanoArenzano Posts: 1,464Subscriber
    13 minutes in and Dave hasn't analyzed one hand.

    It would be so much more enjoyable to view these videos from Tuch without the lengthy diatribe in the beginning.

    Get to the substance. Save the gab for the UTG podcast.

    Thanked by 1David Tuchman
  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    Arenzano wrote: »
    13 minutes in and Dave hasn't analyzed one hand.

    It would be so much more enjoyable to view these videos from Tuch without the lengthy diatribe in the beginning.

    Get to the substance. Save the gab for the UTG podcast.

    Use the time markers to jump to the first hand. That's why we put them in there. That way, the intro is there for people who like it and for others, you can jump directly into it.

    Thanks for the input!
  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    olisim02 wrote: »
    Enjoyed the video Tuck, thanks a lot. Personally, I'm pleased you chose this type of game to tackle in this way. It's very similar to my local £1/£2 game although my game is a bit more loose passive whereas this seems to be weak/tight passive.

    I've recently been trying different styles to adapt to such a loose passive game, my concern is this; when I raise in late position with value and speculative hands and getting 3 or 4 callers, I feel that C-Bet bluffing is setting money on fire as people are calling with bottom pair or gut shots even. This has meant that my C-Bet bluff frequency has decreased to the bare minimum, meaning that I'm having to hit hands to drag a pot. Any advice on further adjustments that I should make?

    Cheers

    Unfortunately, in these kinds of games, you'll have to make some hands to make money. That said, make sure to get VALUE when you do make hands.

    You can also barrel a few flops where you have some equity (overcards, gutshots, etc...) Give Bart's c-bet matrix a listen. He goes over which kinds of flops you should be cbetting and barreling.

    end of the day, these games aren't always the most entertaining, but they can be very profitable.
  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    charby58 wrote: »
    This is video is interesting for me in that it is very close to the type tables I find myself playing on, albeit it will be on $1/2 or $2/5 tables. This $5/10 table is unusualy passive this wouldn't be the case at the casino I play. Nevertheless, I like the concept of having a video that shows all of the hands in sequence because this is how tables can be at times uneventful and boring. To not necessarily break down a specific hand but to discuss the overall table dynamics and how to adjust to it is great. Profiling the players, making mental notes on each player's tendencies, stack sizes, how they stack their chips, are they paying attention to the game or are they simply playing their hands in a "fit or fold" fashion.

    By the way, Jay in seat 1 reminds me of a player that plays at my casino. He buys in short, doesn't seem really interested in what is going on at the table (plays with iPhone etc) and simply sits and waits until he hits a hand. And even when he hits a hand he plays it passively exept when his stack has widdled down to nothing at which point he just wait for a spot to shove pre-flop. How to we exploit these type of players? Have them on your left and raise them constantly?

    Maybe some of the points may appear trivial for some subscribers and certainly the points brought up in this video have been mentionned before. But for me I know that, although I can intellectualize some the concepts discussed on this site, I know that I often fall into common traps such as playing suited connectors out of position because the table is passive and I don't expect to be raised often. Or I will play on automatic and start to be predicable and exploitable "bet when I have it" "check or fold when i don't". The two main takeaways for me are:

    1- how to exploit these types of tables (play in pos, raise more often than not, expect very little 3-bet pre, buy the BTN and expect to be called pre by weak hands); and
    2- keep asking yourself: why am I betting? or what is my opponent trying to accomplish with his or her bet?

    Looking forward to the rest of the 4 part series.

    Thank you very much for the input!

    When a player like Jay or the guy at your casino is at your table, we love to have a guy like that on our left. Generally speaking we want predictable players on our left.

    One thing you can do against guys who are playing fit or fold is putting more delayed c-bets in there. The predictable player won't bet when checked to and depending on the turn, you can put a c-bet on the turn with a higher percentage of success. Obv, this isn't something you always want to do, but it can definitely be effective against players who aren't betting unless they hit their hand.

  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    13 minutes in and Dave hasn't analyzed one hand.

    Again, feel free to jump to the first hand. We usually put markers in there for that purpose. I didn't on this one because I wanted to capture the dynamic of the table.

    I'll make sure to put the markers in going forward so you can jump to the first hand.

  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    Deorum wrote: »
    Hi guys, I'm a Sacramento player so I'm very excited that CLP has begun to use the Stones Live Stream footage for its videos. The idea of going through an entire three hour session to see how a game unfolds and to highlight how to take advantage of information as it comes is an excellent one. This video did not disappoint, and I look forward to the next installment. One quick note I'll make is that the coverage team often gets the stack sizes wrong. They sometimes miss add ons, get bet sizes incorrect due to dealers forgetting to relay the action to them (that's why the dealers wear those headsets), etc. In the first hand where Jay flops a straight and Rick flops a flush, for instance, it looks as if Jay has more like 400-500 before check raising the turn rather than the 240 under his name.

    Being familiar with many of the players on the live stream, not only from having played on stream with some of them but also from having played many hours with them off camera (I used to prop at Stones and currently prop at another card room in Sacramento), perhaps I'll be able to provide some additional insight into things that may not be readily apparent from just the footage itself. After spending 40 hours a week playing poker in a card room as my job, watching CLP videos in my free time, listening to podcasts while I drive, and analyzing my own hands away from the table, it's sometimes not the most appealing idea to come home to hop on a forum to talk about poker. But this is an awesome opportunity for me, personally, so I'll try.

    Anyway, let's talk about the video. In the hand where David over limps with A K and Matthew checks his option in the BB with Q J, Tuchman states that he doesn't like a turn call very much here, and I agree for the reasons he states. But what about a raise? If we assign a range of KT+, 22, some heart draws, occasionally JJ, and very rarely KK and AA to our opponent (yes, weak passive players will occasionally over limp AA and KK in this game - often weak passive players try to combat passiveness by becoming more passive because they don't expect to get action when they are aggressive) then I think David has a lot of one pair hands in his range, all of which fold if Matthew raises to, say, 300 (with the possible exception of AA due to the "I've underrepped my hand" factor, even though AA is the same as KQ here). KT may be a bit discounted due to the turn sizing.

    Matthew is in the BB in a limped pot, so he has all of the flopped two pairs in his range. Most players at this level aren't sophisticated enough to realize that the turn is pretty unlikely to have made Matthew two pairs, so the idea of turning two pairs may scare David too. In fact, if Matthew raises and gets jammed on, I think David almost always has a set. I think a turn check raise may even freeze KJ. He won't fold it, but I think he just flats with it a lot. Also, because the turn check raise looks so strong, if we get called by a combo draw like A T, T 9 or 8 X, David never bluffs the river. We then get turn value against hands we are beating when the board bricks out. When the river is a heart, we get an easy shove that gets looked up by weaker hearts and KJ. And when the river is a Q or J we have an easy check fold, because David never bets anything worse here.

    Thoughts?

    I love the thought process...and I'm always a fan of taking risks. That said, I'm pretty certain the tight guy has minimum top pair on the turn...(and he might even check back his weak top pairs). I'm just not convinced we're getting him to fold top pair or better???

    Many super nits wait all day to pick up a hand and hit a flop. When they finally do, they don't like to fold. We make money off these players because they can't fold. I'm generally not trying to get these kinds of players to fold top pair or better.

  • Mr.SpecialMr.Special Posts: 330Subscriber
    David,
    for this video there are no time marks.

    Anyhow, great video. Really good series as a follow up by you, as the last series concentrated on making adjustments during a session, which in my eyes is one of the biggest moneymakers in 1/2 and 2/5, and I assume will come up in this series quite a lot too.
  • olisim02olisim02 Posts: 2Subscriber
    olisim02 wrote: »
    Enjoyed the video Tuck, thanks a lot. Personally, I'm pleased you chose this type of game to tackle in this way. It's very similar to my local £1/£2 game although my game is a bit more loose passive whereas this seems to be weak/tight passive.

    I've recently been trying different styles to adapt to such a loose passive game, my concern is this; when I raise in late position with value and speculative hands and getting 3 or 4 callers, I feel that C-Bet bluffing is setting money on fire as people are calling with bottom pair or gut shots even. This has meant that my C-Bet bluff frequency has decreased to the bare minimum, meaning that I'm having to hit hands to drag a pot. Any advice on further adjustments that I should make?

    Cheers

    Unfortunately, in these kinds of games, you'll have to make some hands to make money. That said, make sure to get VALUE when you do make hands.

    You can also barrel a few flops where you have some equity (overcards, gutshots, etc...) Give Bart's c-bet matrix a listen. He goes over which kinds of flops you should be cbetting and barreling.

    end of the day, these games aren't always the most entertaining, but they can be very profitable.

    Thanks a lot Tuck. I've been making sure to value bet the hell out of them but like you say, just need to make the hands which can be a little boring/frustrating and can lead to questioning the approach when you're card dead for a long run.

    I did re-visit Bart's C-Bet matrix, very useful.

    Looking forward to the next instalment in the series.

    Thanks again

    Oli
    Thanked by 1David Tuchman
  • ArenzanoArenzano Posts: 1,464Subscriber
    Arenzano wrote: »
    13 minutes in and Dave hasn't analyzed one hand.

    It would be so much more enjoyable to view these videos from Tuch without the lengthy diatribe in the beginning.

    Get to the substance. Save the gab for the UTG podcast.

    Use the time markers to jump to the first hand. That's why we put them in there. That way, the intro is there for people who like it and for others, you can jump directly into it.

    Thanks for the input!

    No markers for this video....
  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    MrSpecial wrote: »
    David,
    for this video there are no time marks.

    Anyhow, great video. Really good series as a follow up by you, as the last series concentrated on making adjustments during a session, which in my eyes is one of the biggest moneymakers in 1/2 and 2/5, and I assume will come up in this series quite a lot too.

    I purposely didn't put time markers in because it's an examination of the dynamic of play at the table, but I will make sure to do it going forward since I see that a few of you really prefer to skip over the intro and get right into the hands.

    Thank you for your kind words...
  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    Arenzano wrote: »
    Arenzano wrote: »
    13 minutes in and Dave hasn't analyzed one hand.

    It would be so much more enjoyable to view these videos from Tuch without the lengthy diatribe in the beginning.

    Get to the substance. Save the gab for the UTG podcast.

    Use the time markers to jump to the first hand. That's why we put them in there. That way, the intro is there for people who like it and for others, you can jump directly into it.

    Thanks for the input!

    No markers for this video....

    I'll make sure to put time markers in all my videos going forward so you can skip the 'Gab' ;)

  • MasonIsAClownMasonIsAClown Posts: 102Subscriber, Professional
    David,

    I actually enjoy the intro and the fun bit of gab but I think time markers are always necessary to skip it because I think the introduced is always pretty time sensitive and really doesn't play well months down the line.

    Good video.
    Thanked by 1David Tuchman
  • David TuchmanDavid Tuchman Posts: 792Pro
    I've already recorded episode 2 in this series and you'll be happy to hear, there are Time markers!

    Tuck
  • irwinbetirwinbet Posts: 408Subscriber
    I'm just starting the video now. During your "diatribe" you mention that there seems to be a disconnect between training & actually playing in a game. I know this theory applies to me as I definitely make mistakes or overlook things at the table that I don't when using the materials on CLP or spending time on the forums. Any thoughts on what I can work on to break down that disconnect? Thanks Dave. Keep up the great work.
  • irwinbetirwinbet Posts: 408Subscriber
    I understand that the point of this series is to play a session with you but do you think it would be possible to edit out the shuffling in future videos so we could review more hands? Thanks.
  • irwinbetirwinbet Posts: 408Subscriber
    Just started the 2nd half of this video. You mention you chose this video over others that may have had a couple maniacs or fish because this game is actually pretty boring, which makes it a challenge to remain focused. I paused it the second you said that. I find myself in games like this all the time & the biggest leak in my game is losing focus & overcoming boredom. I think a game like this is closer to the average game being played than a game with a maniac or a huge fish. I like how you are stating the adjustments you would make in this game as it gives me ideas of things I can focus on in a game that can be pretty boring at times.
    Thanked by 1David Tuchman
Sign In or Register to comment.