Stop Playing RIVERS Like A Fish! | SplitSuit

Grab your copy of The One Percent and deep-dive into advanced #poker play: www.splitsuit.com/the-one-per...
Simply put, most players approach the river in one of two ways. They either bluff a ton, or they bluff too rarely. Very few players continue a correct amount of the time, and even fewer understand how many bluff combos they should raise with, and even fewer still understand which combos offer the best bluffing features!
SplitSuit breaks down a common leak 99% of players have, that while not occurring 20x per session, is systemic within their strategy as a whole. Facing a river bet too many players fold often and raise almost zero bluffs. This nitty approach to the river opens the door to inviting more river barrels and allows the villain to make easy folds when facing a nutted raising range.
· Why do players do this to themselves?
· How often should you be raising?
· Which combos bluff the best?
SplitSuit answers all of these questions while breaking apart typical leaks that players don't even realize they have. You may need to watch this video a few times to get every gem - but it's worth understanding these concepts in both their zoomed-in and zoomed-out points of view.
If you are looking to rebuild your poker strategy from the ground up, to bridge GTO and exploitative play, and to prepare yourself for playing against tougher opponents - The One Percent is a course you don't want to fold on. Develop an actual frequency-first approach to the game based upon simple rules, ratios, and tenants that you will use over the duration of your poker career. We'll see you in there (and remember to use the code KZbin to save $10)!
RELATED LINKS
· The One Percent Poker Course: www.splitsuit.com/new-poker-c...
· Combos & Blockers Video: www.splitsuit.com/poker-combo...
· Pot Odds: www.splitsuit.com/easy-poker-...
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL
· Twitter: / splitsuit
· Facebook: / splitsuit
· Instagram: / splitsuit

[@ThePokerBank]

Want to practice your river plays? There is an entire chapter dedicated to rivers in SplitSuit's *The Postflop Workbook* which is available here: www.splitsuit.com/postflop-poker-workbook

[@2cardarsenal310]

Important to note, you CANNOT bluff a bad player. Your opponent is everything when making these moves. You CAN bluff a bad player when they miss their draws. :) Great video

[@hushpuckena126]

Just watched Maria Ho triple barrel vs an opponent who called a flop bet facing two overs to his pair. While she's printing money facing either a strong player or one who overfolds, that play was bad against someone who calls down with any pair.

[@theshonuff8956]

I just started playing poker a few months ago and usually played too "tight", always relying on the math. Profits definitely can be made when when you grind it out this way, although it was so hard to come up really big, but when I learned to follow your "2 rules", what a difference. I can see now that poker is a skill where if you are "dialed in" to the table, there are some nights where I just felt unstoppable. My profits increased, and I continue to learn more and more. Thank you for making this video and keep up the great work!

[@Alex-nc3cq]

same here, when i am one with the table i feel unbeatable

[@mingi1489]

People think I play tight but I just rarely show my bluffs

[@gesus.christ99]

@@mingi1489 always looks like a tight pkayer

[@mingi1489]

@@gesus.christ99 yeah it has helped me a lot with bluffs like in a multi way pot I look super strong when i bet

[@alexalternateacc]

@@Alex-nc3cq bruh

[@Getsitdone]

So good.. learning so much. A lot is new to me, but I like exposing myself to these concepts, and then revisiting the info again and again.

[@chanceneck8072]

Great video, James! Even though, I´m not that interested in poker anymore (since I´m not playing anymore AND they passed a law, that makes it illegal to play, where I live, too), you´re the one to find EXACTLY the right topic for a video for me to click and watch in its entirety! I just read the title and thought "Oh my god, that is SO true...." lol

[@splitsuit]

Cheers!

[@grauepoker]

I took this information down while watching it and will go over it again 2 times or so on 1.5 or 2x speed. I will experiment with the extra questions and do my own exercises as well. Im not at the limit where this is suggested for but im going learn it apply it and when im up limits later I'll already be ready! Thanks so much already bought the math workbook and I will buy the 1% course eventually. I love this even if it's 4 years old it's very useful to this day and always will be. Look forward to more videos. This is the first time I took out time to watch a training video and really use it as attended and im super pumped!! Thanks so much love it 10 fold lol

[@dondio9920]

Great video ! Thanks for the good content, keep it up !

[@Its__Good]

In my local tournament games, I pretty much only raise with nuttish hands on the river. And I am constantly amazed by how wide people are calling. When I start seeing some increases in frequency of folds; i.e. people not calling down with middle pair, then i'll consider bluff raising.

[@splitsuit]

It sounds like they break the rules and you are adjusting properly =)

[@robsalvv5853]

I've only just come across this vid. The problem with this in my thinking is that whether the button's bluffs have value really depends on the kind of player the HJ is and whether they have enough bluffs of their own in their opening and triple barreling range versus your hand. If they are a maniac lag that open raises every time it folds to them in the hi jack, then that changes things considerably compared to someone who has 20/16 overall stats. But then again, the button only called capping their range, but the board runs out heavily in the capped range's favour... I don't play enough cards for frequency based play to lead to an edge. If I was the button with 99, I might peel one on the flop hoping to steal the turn, I might float the brick deuce hoping to steal the river, but that river bet into me, someone who has happily come along for the ride with a hand, makes things fairly polarised. I might pause and do a Caro on the villain hoping to illicit a tell to help fudge the assessment of whether my 9's have enough equity to make another call or a jam if I think there is enough fold equity there. I struggled with the 1% book and this vid hasn't left me any less struggling. :(

[@AllOutPsycho]

I followed your advice and continued more, especially on the river. Played a couple of hands online and had my opponents fold a majority of the time. Keen to do this more! Thanks

[@ThePokerBank]

You're very welcome!

[@Jay13lazeIsReal430]

Wow split suit your the man! Your videos have elevated my game to an entire different level. You explain everything so well. Cheers man!

[@ThePokerBank]

Thank you Jamual! And congrats on putting in the hard work to upgrade your strategy =)

[@Cowtymsmiesznego]

This is way more GTO-oriented than most videos I watched from you ;) Great content, I love it. The thought process you were talking about is indeed extremely important. Regarding the actual hand, not sure if 99 should be a flat pre-flop from the button vs a HJ raise, or maybe a 3-bet is better. And you absolutely have to 3-bet QQ, don't you?

[@splitsuit]

Cheers! And I could come up with a few assumptions (albeit rare ones) where flatting QQ is better than 3betting it preflop fwiw.

[@Cowtymsmiesznego]

Maybe, I'd pretty much always 3-bet, cause I really don't want to go 3-way to the flop with QQ and see a king or an ace. But I'd probably have other sets in my river raising range instead.

[@splitsuit]

Fair and fair =)

[@hleecheng1979]

I wouldn’t treat QQ as AA.

[@dkoul3686]

This video make me understand that having a 9 in my hand in this situation makes my hand a bad bluff catcher. It blocks some value hands, but it blocks more bluffs

[@goodguycwyzz4768]

This is a good video and why I love poker. That extra level is always there. Your opponent knows you never bluff rivers and most people don’t. He thinks your river raise is always value. So why would he call if you only raise the nuts there? Perfect spot to exploit their thinking. Then when they realize you bluff rivers you get paid off more when you bet huge with the nuts on the river

[@splitsuit]

Cheers!

[@sergius4691]

For the first reviewed hand, wouldn't the BTN 3bet PF with QQ, thus we can exclude QQ from the value combo pool?

[@Mdevlin0]

Great video. Looks like I was 4 years too late. Hard to find videos that help me grow from my level. I see too many videos that are too basic or too complex, so this was exciting to watch for me.

[@saucetowncity]

Thank you! Will watch right after I finish Math II, ;)

[@splitsuit]

Math II is important - take your time with it =)

[@MichaelBeleson]

So one of your value bets was J9s for four combinations but would you really continue on the turn with anything but J9 of spades? This changes the ratio of value to bluff to 4:3 which would be to bluff heavy right?

[@mercilpb]

I let out an audible victory yell when I came up with all the same bluffs as Split when he told me to pause and find our bluff raises

[@splitsuit]

Great job Peter!

[@franzmaier4364]

At 21:29, the video says that if the button decides to shove, he will give the hijack pot odds of 2:1. The pot size after the shove is $1592, and the hijack needs to call $430, giving him odds of 1592:430 = 3.70:1. I hope that's right, I'm not too used to using fractional odds. Expressed in decimals, the hijack has to call $430 to win a $2022 pot, which gives him pot odds of 0.213. I don't think that's 2:1. That would mean, IMO, that about 80% of river raises should be for value. If you have 11 value combos, you should only add 2.75 (or 3, to round it to a whole number) bluff combos.

[@PhonyBologna]

I 100% agree, but I'd also throw in 10's and Q 10 into my value bet jam raise (both should get to the river a decent chunk of the time without raising or folding). There are 4 combos of Q 10, and 3 combos of 10's, so 18 combos of value 6 combos of bluffs, which is about right. 75% value and 25% bluffs.

[@Trephining]

Saying "...which gives him pot odds of 0.213" is not expressing pot odds on decimals. You already expressed the pot odds correctly as 3.70:1. When you calculated that value of 0.213, it means the HJ has to win 21.3% for them calling the shove to be correct, or +EV. What you were doing there was switching from odds to probability. Those are two things that people often confuse for one another.

[@alextriay4932]

really efficient. thank you :)

[@kevinconnelly2486]

Good video. I think this applies to pretty high level polls though. Bad players (both nits and whales) aren’t folding top pair often enough spot to make the 99 bluff raise profitable. IMHO.

[@sayewilliams7413]

Love the content!!! New poker player and your content is AMAZING!!!

[@ThePokerBank]

Cheers Saye!

[@StrongwillGameTheory]

does rake affects the nash equilibrium? im talking about shortstack hu cash game.

[@nintendokings]

I play mostly $25NL on stars, and when a TAG triple barrels that board OOP; AQ is the bottom of his range, aside from a few rare bluffs (which you block some of). My issue on stars is that I call down too much with top pair mediocre kicker type hands, because I put all the bluffs in their range and conclude a call is correct. But they very rarely show up with the bluffs lol. Nitty regs

[@mikelong2756]

nintendokings we need more MPFs lol Massive Payoff Fish.

[@nintendokings]

Keep being a nit and waiting for the stations, you'll never advance

[@noex100]

If the players you're up against are nitty, then adjust; don't play GTO. And how are you going to advance if you literally admitted to being a calling station who can't exploit the strength of their opponent's betting range?

[@Gos1234567]

Most of the advice you see on poker vids is GTO or applies to playing higher stakes.At lower stakes when someone raises,bets,bets,bets river he has a top pair hand and is not letting it go.Bluff raise in the face of this agression on the river and youre ligting money on fire, So fckn what if youre not balanced,who will notice online anyway?What percentage of your hands do you opponents actually get to see anyway?

[@rubenbarreto7836]

@@Gos1234567 I mean I play low stakes and I make successful bluffs like this all the time. Plenty of bad players at low stakes.

[@yztyzt1]

excellent tothink about River play

[@brenthill3241]

Terrific video and narration.

[@richardwoolley7854]

Player leaving the game sees a fellow player and announces ' I bluffed six times this morning and never got caught! " To which the fellow player replied, " you didn't bluff enough!! "

[@stacanmart]

Does the bluff shove still have any fold equity by the river when starting with $1k effective? It's basically a min raise by the river and a middling hand will call at that price

[@idantshabes4162]

tnx splitsuit thats very deep staf that makes sense when thinking about it. i guess i`ll have to watch this video a few more times to get to the bottom of it.

[@TaylorWeston]

Incredible content. Thank you so much. Subscribed!

[@splitsuit]

Cheers Taylor!

[@yztyzt1]

I am going to find out more of the course and decide between the $50/mon VS the pure edition and the you tube code promo. Thx and the reason_ I am considering it is that d like the Way you teach

[@splitsuit]

Cheers! If you have any questions about the differences, just shoot me an email (my alias @gmail.com)

[@Dropdrollos]

Interesting theory, but I feel like the example just doesn't make sense. Except for the J9 and 97 of spades, those 'value combos' simply shouldn't be in your range, right? QQ would have 3bet preflop. And for the others: villain raises preflop, cbets flop ánd potbets turn. Why on earth would you still be in the hand on the river with just a straight draw? Because of your first rule? I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound like a very sound rule to begin with. Here, I feel like this can never be an EV+ move... You never have the implied odds to call, unless you plan to bluff it off when you don't hit on the river, which looks like a very questionable move in this case (since the HJ looks very strong and you wouldn't have those 'nutted combos' in your range to begin with). Even if you don't agree with this, it troubles me that you don't address these glaring issues in your video. Makes me feel uneasy about all the rest, although it does all sound very insightful.

[@TumTum1203]

Fantastic video!

[@jons2cool1]

How do you tell if you are playing too NITish? I'm a new player but I like to play conservative from the start and get a feel for the other players' playing style. Then I'll adjust my play style to them, if I notice the table is really passive I'll do a few small bluffs and just take everyone's big blind a few times or bluff them out of weaker hands. Usually this gets a chunk of them to play a bit more on tilt and I exploit that by imitating bluffs on my stronger hands. Any suggestions?

[@Robert02024]

excellent video thanks! what solver do you use?

[@splitsuit]

You're very welcome! And GTO+ is my main solver.

[@grimaceburgers4491]

I actually went to the casino last week and called and raised more than I usually do. I feel like I should have made more money because a lot of my bluffs got called. I also think I might not have gotten called as much if I didn't show up with some bluffs here and there. This video confirms that I need to keep calling and raising in the right spots.

[@splitsuit]

Nice job Tyler! And emphasized for importance *in the right spots*

[@tasihawaii]

Yeah, calling bluffs wildly will bust you real quick. It definitely is a timing thing. Not to mention, when you're playing live, all of your physical tells come into play, so other players might have picked up on non-verbal tendencies

[@franzmaier4364]

If the button flat calls the flop and the turn, he usually has a condensed range, which means he usually doesn't have many strong hands that he can raise for value on the river. He should normally raise the flop or turn with sets and strong hands. In addition, he should balance his range, and gutshots would be a good option. I looked up the sample hands in Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em, and gutshots are usually raised before the river. What would you do with the gutshots on the river if you miss? If the river is a blank? Unless you bluff, you cannot win very often, so you would have to bluff to win. But you don't have a lot of value raises if the river is a blank (let's say a deuce), so you can't bluff many of your missed draws, otherwise you would be unbalanced. In addition, the gutshots would have negative removal effects as they block missed draws that your opponent could have. If you do raise your gutshots on the flop or turn, there would not be many hands in the river range that can be bet for value. In the sample hands of Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em, the value river raising range is usually much smaller (only 4 or 5 combos). Exceptions occur mainly on boards where very strong hands can be comfortably slowplayed (such as full houses on a paired flop). You can raise the river only if you slowplayed strong hands on the flop and turn (and you shouldn't slowplay too many of them on this board IMO because of the straight and flush draws). Or if the river card helps some hands in your range, which would be the case for J9s and 97s on this river. But I don't think that you should flat call the flop and turn with gutshots.

[@noex100]

Rivered 2 pairs can be represented rather easily whether you have it or not. It is also very easy to slow-play sets from in position; if you're always raising with sets on the flop (especially a dry flop) then you kind of ruin your ranges for later streets. In general, raise your vulnerable value hands on the flop and just call with safe ones. Then, on rivers you can have either a slow-played monster or a missed draw and they can't tell the difference.

[@fernandesl]

Is this the kind of stuff there is in applications of no limit Holdem by juanda / poker math by Chen?

[@fundiver198]

Very long video but maybe also one of your most important ever. Great description of the difference between GTO and exploitative play and great explanation of the importance of blockers, whenever we choose to bluff.

[@splitsuit]

Thank you!

[@pokerandtravel6946]

Great video James.

[@splitsuit]

Thanks Stavros!

[@chazsmith20]

I'm curious what about hands that blur the line between value and bluff? Let's say in the example you gave where you have Q7 suited. You are blocking a lot of value QQs, Q10, AQ, etc. but also the hand might be value against random 10 hands, A10, K10,etc.

[@stevemacaok3]

when you mention to continue betting and to call opponents bet this is when it is heads up post flop correct? thanks

[@ThePokerBank]

Correct. MW pots are typically considered "bad events", and as such your continuance frequencies tend to drop

[@Joel-js2gk]

@21:30 you say that if Button jams, the HJ is given "around 2:1." I know you say it's just "ball-parky," but unless I've completely misunderstood the whole concept of pot odds (which is possible) that 2:1 estimation is way off. From the math that I did, the HJ would have to put in another $430 into a pot of around $1590 to call a shove from the BUT, which is giving the HJ about 3.7:1 on a call. This changes how many bluffs should be in our range dramatically

[@NewSchoolPOKERstrat]

SO GOOD!

[@win9975]

Excellent video! Just want to make sure I have this right: shouldn't your value combos be 8, since on a Q high board there are only 3 combos of QQ? I think only 1 combo of J9 suited makes it to the river (spades). In other words, should we take the board into account for how many value/bluff combos we have? Or am I thinking about this the wrong way?

[@splitsuit]

Cheers! And you are 100% thinking of this the right way. If you think only 1 combos of J9 gets to the river (J♠9♠), then it would change both your value combos AND thus your bluff combos as well (so maybe instead of all 99 combos you just take ones without a spade in them).

[@win9975]

thanks! u have a great poker mind, i've implemented many of the things you say in your vids and have plugged some serious leaks. was previously an upswing subscriber, but opening Q10s UTG in a full ring 9 handed live game was just too spewy. please let me know your training site, i'd be interested in further training.

[@splitsuit]

win9975 thank you so much. Check out www.redchippoker.com 😀

[@dawidd8054]

thx

[@abhishekchoudhury1295]

Super video!

[@slickrick2012]

Great video James. I would like to add this in my poker game. Only problem at my level at $1-2 live is that I run into a lot of players who are very sticky with top or middle pair which will call you down to the river despite a super wet and connected board. I would assume this only works with players who are nits or a decent regs who can actually hit the fold button. This is definitely something I would like to add to my game but I am a bit hesitant to do so at my stakes. Thoughts?

[@splitsuit]

Cheers! You are on the right track, but I think you should watch the full video again in a day or two and see how things sink in that second time around =)

[@goodguycwyzz4768]

Another thing to look for is if you get to the river with the nuts instead of a bluff with a player you described go for a much larger sized bet. 2x or 2.5x pot since they pay off so much why not exploit that too

[@grauepoker]

We don't bluff the super sticky if they really are. As video said many times it is oppenet dependent

[@geraldhenderson8474]

Having the block on made hand equals an effective bluff?

[@michaelgandalf1981]

When I make a pot-sized bet on the river my opponent has to call 67% of the time to prevent me from showing a profit by betting any two "blank cards". Thus the ratio of 2:1 value-to-bluff combinations. This makes sense to me...eventually your opponent will "guess" wrong and you'll show a profit. In reality not all bets are pot-sized. If I bet less than the pot, say half the pot, now my opponent has to call 75% of the time to deny my "automatic" profit. Should I then be using a ratio of 1:1 value-to-bluff combinations if betting half the pot on the river? "Poker's 1%"/this material is an eye-opening, one things with these ratios that give me pause is that assumes your value bets always win. However you could be betting second nuts for value and walk into the nuts. I'm a little wary of the term "nut-ish" is all I'm saying. Seems like most big pots are when players both have good hands. Mike

[@splitsuit]

The ratio changes as your bet size changes, and also based upon which street you are on (all things covered in the course). And you are 100% correct about the nuttish concept, especially as it relates to final pot size. That said, it's best not to be overly-fearful of slightly-better-nuttish hands in most instances =)

[@lanceknightmare]

michaelgandalf1981 This is true. Though if you have 10, 9 and the flop is 10, 9, 7, 3, 4. Chances are you have the edge. They might have 8, 6 which doesn't make it the absolute situation. Though, it isn't a bad situation to be in either.

[@timmills5598]

I know this sounds very "fishy" but I sometimes try to create a story before the hands even begin. I will play any 2 cards as though I have a very strong hand. I create the story and play accordingly. If the table believes my story and their cards are weak, I've won hands just by telling a good story. I know this isn't dealing with high level players, but I'm not doing this all the time. Am I doing something wrong?

[@FlyWhistle]

the poker lingo too strong my man, i no understand

[@MHGFTW]

Sparka I think he's way overthinking it. Just consider the amount you opponent has bet, then think about what kind of hands he's likely to have. Based on that make your decision. Just consider what hands have you beat, and think of the likelihood of them having it.

[@tobiaskarl4939]

I agree , unclear pronunciation see googles speech to text mechanism and unfortunately shoots out the words like a machine gun. So he limits his clientele to us native listeners.

[@jermainejohnson3678]

Is this for plo as well

[@mcpartridgeboy]

Amazing video.

[@chrisrichardson7373]

I love the Orange and White SU colors. Oh yeah, the concepts and logic are also top notch.

[@splitsuit]

I did go to Syracuse after all =P

[@nathangeudens6653]

ASSUMING villain is a good LAG reg : We have to ask ourselves what our opponents will fold to our bet with 99 : - villain's own bluffs ( x combos, 30,1% to be GTO with this particular raise size = 19 combos ) - AQ, AA, KK (24 combos) Than what villain will give us action considering our raise : - QQ, 88, 66, QT, 97s (2 combos as we have 99), Js9s (21 combos) Using a fold equity calculator, we need 49% of folds by villain. We can assume villain will fold 43/64 combos = 67,2% ====> our move is +EV in that case : +545,65$ -255,84$ = +289,81$ on average But what if we called ? If we call, our EV is (-350 x 45 combos) + (+812 x 19 combos) = 15750 - 15428 = +322$ Conclusion : calling here is gonna be more profitable on the long term, but raising with 99 as a bluff could also balance our raising range, and than allow us to be paid with our monsters when we are raising. PS : my entire comment makes no sense as 80% of 2/5$ live players are old nitty dudes always raising river with the 21 monster combos without balancing their own river bet ranges lol (under bluffing, no 3 barrel light, in short)

[@mikelong2756]

Massive Payoff Fish MPF crowned a new term my friend. Goes right in the mix with OMC and the rest

[@Alex-yv4vr]

Hello, where do I get the software so that i can input my poker hands into a table like above? I usually take my mac with me when I play poker, and would find it really useful if I could input the hand like in all these videos - so that it's easier to evaluate once I'e left the table. Thanks

[@splitsuit]

I just built this in PowerPoint manually. Sharemypair might be an option for you...

[@ekw555]

James, your "pie" chart looks more like a "sheet cake". ;-)

[@splitsuit]

lol. nhwpgg

[@hotliner2872]

I had the nine card and the ace of bass, it did not help! I had to drop a deuce which put a spruce in my step!

[@vinc7542]

Good stuff. How come I don’t see more results on Hendon mob?

[@splitsuit]

Cheers Vin! As for HM, because I'm a cash game player that plays almost zero tournaments per year =)

[@mjuhazie]

Honestly, If I was playing against a "poker machine" that was paying enough attention to my tendencies or if I was always playing against a lot of the same people every session then including bluffs like 99 here would be a solid strategy and needed in order to balance out my hands. But it has been my experience playing against live players that most of them are too busy listening to music, watching TV, or generally not paying enough attention to pick up on enough of what I am doing to make bluffing with 99 or T9 on the river a needed part of my game. I find that showing down a bluff on a hand cheaply is enough to ensure I get action when I have nut hands, or even showing a pre flop raise with K9 off will plant that seed in the tables head that I am a LAG. Against really good players this would be needed but playing 1-3 at the casino does not require this type of advanced range building. Bluff raising the river with 99 for all my chips is not a move I need to make. And in this example the villain has already put 600 of his 1000 chips in the pot...the only hands he is folding are hands that lose to 99 and pretty much calling with all hands that beat you. He is only folding a bluff to you and if you hero call here instead of bluff raising then you save yourself $400 when you are wrong and if you are right you take down a good pot and show the table you aren't going to fold up like a tent to aggression. Also, like you said since you block the nut hands with 99 that makes it more likely that he is bluffing because he probably doesn't have J9 and I doubt he has 79 the way the hand was played. I would be more likely to call his 350 bet with 99 than I would be to raise with 99. Other than J9 that we block and 79 that he doesn't have what else could he confidently bet 350 on the river after the T hits? QQ 88 66 or maybe TT. He has a lot more bluffs like AK,AJ,77, maybe 55 combos that he would fire the 3rd barrel with. The math in this example prohibits you from raising here because he is only folding pure bluffs, he is not folding AQ or better to another $400. This example would work better if the previous bets were smaller and you still had enough of a stack that he could realistically fold...he is getting wayyyy too good a price to call down lightly with too many hands that beat you. All that being said...YES, everyone should understand the concept of balancing ranges...I think this example maybe wasn't the best to drive this idea home.

[@christopherabelet4672]

18:46 is JJ also a correct hand to bluff here?

[@cedricadvice]

Do we really have 97s in the btn preflop calling range here? And counting all combos of QQ ? None 3bet ? Still a very good video. Quick question, having around 12 combos of value is the usual approximative nbr of value hands against 3 barrels? For 2/3 pot sizes?

[@splitsuit]

Are you really folding suited connectors and gappers in position 200bb deep?

[@cedricadvice]

James (SplitSuit) Oh ok it was 200bb deep. Fair enough! Thanks for your videos and your answer James

[@splitsuit]

Cheers =)

[@yeeluvspizza]

@@cedricadvice what about 100bb deep and 50bb deep in a single table any?

I think the Q86 river play is very good. but I think you should give a lot of credit on the vilain to make it work.

[@Goatboy451]

Whoah! Long video. I love your little 10 minute (or less) videos. I may have to come back to this one at some pont. ha ha. :-D

[@splitsuit]

I aimed to make it ~10min...buuuuuuuuuuuuuuut it got away from me lol

[@Goatboy451]

Ha ha. :-D

[@VintageEliiTV]

I’m new to the game . This video opened up my eyes.

[@ThePokerBank]

Welcome to the game!

[@rubberroast1598]

A river bluff fire of about $800 + here is what you are saying, but thats a expensive daring thing to do if you are wrong about it succeeding. Realistically is our basis that enemy will lay down everything one pair? Including Aces?

[@stevezag4145]

I don't like the 99 as a bluff because I wouldn't have called the turn with 99 unless I had some read that it might be good. (Also, I would likely have raised 99 preflop.) I like 9T a lot better, because I totally would have called the flop and turn with the double-gutter. The only combo that doesn't count is 9sTs, which I would have raised on the turn most of the time, so I have 11 bluff combos. However, sometimes with these I would, depending on read, just use the pair of tens as a bluff catcher -- maybe half the time. OTOH, I don't have the same 11 value combos, because the only J9 I would have here is Js9s. The others, which were only gutshots, would have been folded on the turn.

[@grauepoker]

Your not incorrect but you need really understand point of video. Your right but for that reason the 99 makes even more sense to have

[@maxwelldevooght3448]

How did you come up with 2-1 river pot odds on villains call? On the river hero has $780 left in his stack. (1000 Stack - 20 Pre-Flop - 50 Flop - 150 Turn) If hero jams his $780 stack Villain has to call $330 ($780 - $350) to win a pot of ~$1600. That gives him almost 5:1 on a call if my math is correct. This matters because it changes how you should balance your river raise range. The better price you give your opponents the more value heavy your range should be. In this case a completely balanced range would have 1/6 bluffs and 5/6 value (Villain, with a 5:1 price, must be right 1/6 of the time to breakeven), making villain completely indifferent to calling or folding. I also think we need to reconstruct your value river range as well as your bluffs. If you aren't raising 79s or J9s on the flop then how are you balancing your flop raising range (I'm assuming you're raising 88 and 66 for value because you didn't put them in your river raising range.) My river raising range would probably consist of TT (3bet QQ pre-flop) and J9s for 7 combos and arguably no bluffs depending on the player type. Generally pot pot pot lines in 2/5 are pretty exploitable and balancing a raising range isn't at the top of our priorities. Please comment if screwed up any math or my logic isn't sound I appreciate feedback!

[@bryanbell9103]

780-350=430 not 330, but your analysis is great. So with 3.7:1 odds how would this change your value to bluff ratio? Just divide your 7 VB combos by 3.7 to get bluff combos?

[@bz5344]

Yet, calling (even) 430 for a final pot of 2000 requires 21.5% equity, hence the bettor can afford 21.5% bluffs for indifference: his value/bluff ratio should be much closer to 4/1 than 2/1. And yes, that changes the analysis and outcome. I think Split should take this down and remake the video: the content is good as usual but this is a significant error (and the beginning is pretty long and repetitive).

[@stevenhubball7571]

QQ shouldnt be in range and how the hell are we getting to the river with 3 of the J9s combos?

[@anthonystabile5880]

Good stuff. The only problem I see with the hand example is that Hero is left with $780 by the river. If Hero chooses to bluff jam the river for $780, his opponent has to call $430 to win a pot of $1592. Villain would be getting pot odds of 3.7 to 1. Villain only needs to be ahead 21% of the time to call correctly which means bluffing all combos of 99 is too much. In this hand example, Hero should only be bluffing with half of his 99 combos.

[@alphabett66]

I started studying and playing seriously a month ago. Every week I come back to this video, and taking something more important than last week. This is the most important information to my growth at this point in time.

[@splitsuit]

Cheers!

[@alphabett66]

@@splitsuit 2 months later, is rule 1 because the pot odds V gives can't be less than 50%?

[@ogabyxok9066]

Seeing the first part of this video makes me realise that the 2 rules that are presented are about initiative. You want to keep it and put the pressure , or keeping the possibility to take it when we don't have it at the moment the opponents bet or raise. Am I right ? (I obviously know it's a really simple way to see it, but it's better than useless complication for a beginner like me)

[@splitsuit]

It's more about continuing more and folding less given the chance. Both actions give you more ways to win pots, actualize equity, and find win-conditions on later streets =)

[@andyhandyman2118]

Wow splitsuit!!!

[@jeffstevens5445]

A lot should be said about how long the opponent will be sitting at the table during his/her play. if you play by these rules, then you would want to expect the opponent/s you have history with to be there a while, so you can do the "long term" damage, just in case they get lucky on the first few hands. I agree with the concept, but table chemistry and history play a significant part to how the longevity approach is applied in the poker room, when players constantly get up, eat, fuck about with the hostess, etc, after they take down a big one, or worse yet - cash out. So the concept of playing for the long run approach depends on the expectation of your opponents ability to keep his/her ass in his/her seat, and not being a millennial (no offense) with his/her phone in his/her hands, and his/her "nittyness" behavior after winning a big one, taking a stack from you. Of course, you are playing against the "theoretical" player, not individuals, but revenge is so sweet, so i of course focus on the ones I have history with :) Cheers

[@shtcoinmaxi1367]

I just realized watching this video how unbalanced I am at the river with lack of reasonable check raise bluffs

[@johnnyblackrants7625]

At $0.1/$02., if you jam on the river in the spot at 12:26, you're going to get looked up by 83o for 3rd pair. No, that's not a hypothetical, that has literally happened to me multiple times. Makes it tough to get better. I'm gonna grind out $50 just to prove it and then move up.

[@jerroldneal]

Risk. That’s the problem. Consider what can happen to you because of the deal. I’m talking about bad beat scenarios that occur after you make the decision. Especially in a tournament. Risk avoidance get you deeper in a tournament. What if the villain is sitting on a set and slow playing. You will say that’s a rare event, but you will concur it happens a lot.

[@hogi99]

This is really dependent on the player pool you're playing in. In one of the card rooms I play in, it's so nitty sometimes, you cannot fold too much. The only way to make money is to catch them with basically with a cooler type hand.

[@colinmc2945]

Why is 98 suited not a better bluff in the example? Seems like it would be because you block 8s

[@dazeboy79]

I've been playing for years, and none of this ever occurred to me I think! Thanks James!

[@ThePokerBank]

You're welcome!

[@joe930709]

'baked in to math game'..lol I like that

[@cobaltium4943]

6:45 how did “your opponent broke the rule”? didnt he just said that he bet on the river after the turn as well?

[@niemand262]

The logic of GTO as presented here and elsewhere misses something crucial. If your bet size and range construction achieve the desired ambivalence... This does not cause you to win in the long run. When you manage to turn the game into a coin flip for them, it's also a coin flip for you. GTO is a lesson in how to make the game neutral, but poker is not won by achieving neutrality. You do not win by perfectly confusing your opponent, because in their state of perfection confusion they make (statisticaly) random errors. You win at poker by exploiting the non-random errors that people make. GTO is good for learning what a mathematicaly neutral position looks like, but a truly neutral position is never the optimal position to take.

[@markl1733]

With respect, in regard to potential bluffs, I fail to comprehend how spending a lot of time coming up with a range of bluff hands is productive. What you actually have in your hand on the river is nowhere near as important as what your opponent can reasonably be expected to put you on at that point in time in order to induce folding a superior hand to your bluff. It seems to me that what you should be thinking here is what hands you could potentially have had which would have been reasonably played with three consecutive calls only to be raised all-in at the river when the ten came, as well as whether your opponent will read your bluff as proof of your having had such a hand. If your opponent has a solid hand which beats you at the river if called, yet he cannot see how you could possibly have a much stronger hand under the circumstances, he simply isn't going to buy your bluff and instead will call and take his chances on the showdown. If you're going to bluff here, and I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't, you need to be able to reasonably represent a hand that scares the crap out of your opponent, depending on just how strong he is. With a ten on the river, your all-in bet may well cause him to read you as having had J9 or 97 and now have the nuts, or TT with second set, or maybe QT and two pair, assuming he thinks you would have called that large bet on the turn with those hands. If so, your bluff might get him to fold a pair of queens, and possibly even to think seriously about laying down something better such as two small pair. But what cards you actually hold at that point as you make that river bluff seem to me to be relevant only if you would have bet them exactly the same way as you would have bet the examples I just listed, otherwise your opponent probably won't believe you. And that's where I humbly suggest there is a problem with your analysis, at least so far, because I don't hear you talking about this concern. Many of the hands that are being illustrated in this video as examples that people should include in their range of bluffing hands are cards with which a reasonably decent poker player really had no business flat calling an opening raise and two strong follow-up bets, at least not in no limit play. It is fine on the button for you to call the hijack raise with 65s and take a shot at the flop, especially in a loose game. But when you get bottom pair with no flush or straight draw possibilities aside from the back door, meanwhile the raiser bets an amount close to the pot with a queen showing on the board, and then does the exact same thing on the turn, in most cases merely calling both bets is just plain stupid. If there seems a fair chance that the bettor has a strong hand like top pair or higher, you should kiss your sixes goodbye and fold, because even with implied odds, you aren't getting enough equity to continue. Or if you get a read that he just has overcards or a straight draw and is semi-bluffing, you should protect your bottom pair by raising him then and there and making him face a tough decision to continue. Also by raising before the river, maybe if he's the kind of player who has middle pair with an 8, you might also get a fold in the process which works to your advantage. Even if he doesn't fold to a flop or turn raise from you, he probably doesn't make that big bet on the river, allowing you to either check down your bottom pair and hope for the best, or to bet big yourself as a more credible bluff and make him fold. And if he does fire big again on the river after calling your raise, then it is a really easy fold for you because you are dead 99% of the time. However, if all you do is call him down to the turn with 65s, not only are you not getting fair value for your hand along the way, but your weak play up to that point makes that river bluff you are promoting here less believable. So really, what does it matter what cards you are actually holding if you choose make a river bluff at that point? From where I'm sitting, the only question is whether your opponent will believe you have that nut straight or set of tens or two pair and fold to you! If I'm wrong about this, that's fine, but please elaborate on why.

[@dimitrispolitis9393]

Hey that's some good thinking, thanks for this. But please next time you can use the spacebar a bit more often. Thanks :)

[@MK-13337]

Holy shit that's a wall of text if I've ever seen one. That's so hard to read that even if it was profound knowledge I don't know if I'd get through it all.

[@domenicfieldhouse5644]

@@MK-13337 I just read through it all and its mostly abstract jargon that kind of sort of makes sense but is lacking conceptually

[@Skwerll]

No line breaks, no read. Simple as that.

[@darklabel89]

Accurate analysis right here.

[@dutchjohansson2682]

but it doesnt block anything

[@quadrewpleup2359]

Question: is it too optimistic to consider 75 as a candidate for a bluff here? I’d say no, it’s not too optimistic, because you only have 7 high and you do have at least 1 blocker to 79. How about even 77?

[@rubenbarreto7836]

I think maybe 75 could work if it's heads up with the BB because of the BB range. HJ range is stronger so you want to hold blockers to the higher end of HJ range like the high end straight.

[@stravs8097]

Doesn't position, raise size, player type and amount of players come into the "2 rule" equation? I mean, if I'm in the HJ and have pocket 99 and raise it up and get 3 callers, and the flop comes out A 2 T rainbow, even if the small and BB check the flop I'm not auto continuing here. Sure I might get 3 folds and I might get check raised. Then, depending on the amount, I have to choose to fold or call to draw to a 2 outer with 3rd pair. Would rather see a free, or at least cheaper, card.

[@ChaseHollisRE]

I feel like I always play too tight and I am trying to get used to playing loser opportunities. I fall victim to people being able to bluff me in certain situations to over pot bets because the math typically doesn’t make sense with my hand only to be shown a bluff. However I am very very patient and typically someone at my table who is deep will think they can push me out on the flop and turn when I do have a made hand. I call a lot more with made hands on the turn In order to make them think they will be able to easily bluff me off with a large bet and I typically will be able to bait into my made hand and win full house over set or nut flush over flush. I am very new to live poker and grinded a lot of low stakes online where I feel like people adhere more to the stakes and play with a lot more structure. In 1/2 online if you 3x it is very common to be playing that hand heads up or 3 way. When I 5x raise in 1/2 live I am likely to end up with 3 callers, this results on my ranges being effected significantly based on the pot being 4 way and realizing less equity then needed to call or raise the turn. I follow my range strictly as I have studied for almost three years now and know what needs to be played in what position and am finding it hard to adjust to how lose people play at low stakes live. If anyone reads this and has any thoughts on if this strategy is +EV for small stakes while I learn to play live I would greatly appreciate it.

[@adeelali8417]

Just raise 7bb you need to discourage multiway pots for the most part.

[@boojay7076]

It’s not as simple as bet/call down.. also there’s a ton of variance so over 10,000 hand sample the most profitable strategy would be LOA and vice versa. New players should play with a basic HUD vip , 3bet and fold to 3 bet

[@AlluckyTV]

Unless I’m confused, the person betting on the river ISNT breaking rule 2 like you say. Why do you say they broke the rules first so you can break them??

[@Its__Good]

How do you distinguish between 'calling more often' and being a 'calling station'. Pretty much all of your videos suggest that we call when we have the required equity - are you suggesting that in general people are frequently underestimating this?

[@splitsuit]

Yes, I am 100% suggesting that. Most players leave heaps of equity on the table by folding too much and in turn massively F up their own frequencies. I'd rather continue too often than fold too often fwiw.

[@noyb154]

Exactly. You aren't going to get called later if you don't call enough now.

[@SetMiner]

In the 1% if I remember correctly your calling % goes down each street. I always throw in some river bluffs but not based on math.

[@splitsuit]

I would suggest re-reading the book to patch both of those statements =)

[@kennethlovering1454]

James says people are folding too much, yet claims HJ will often fold BU's AI OTR after the HJ has already put 57% of his stack in the pot & only has to catch the BU bluffing, or having a worse hand, $1592/$430 = 3.7. If BU only bluffs 1 out of 4, HJ loses $430 * 3 times = $1290 & wins $1590 once.

[@SetMiner]

Pause #1, The SPR is so low for the Hijack after his river bet that I don't see any bluff raise working. By the same token what can the Button take to the river and fold correctly?

[@branchtana315]

I think this video is more about the theories then it is application in this exact scenario. Having said that, I completely agree with you here. In the particular hand that has been laid our in this video, bluff-jamming the river is absolute suicide in almost any 1/2-2/5 game. Stacks just aren't deep enough. HJ V only needs to call off $430 (barely more than a min-raise) into what's now a $1592 (I think) pot. To expect an average V in the live 2/5 player pool to fold anything but total air on this board for this price is a losing proposition long term, and I say that with the utmost confidence. I agree with a lot of what's said in this video, I just think a better sample hand could have been used. Yes you'll pick up reads on players that are barreling way too much, and in general I think there's a lot of good things in this video to think about and start to apply, but this particular hand is a TERRIBLE spot to bluff jam the river, as the SPR is way too low to expect your average low stakes player to fire 3 barrels then fold on a dry board for so little more.

[@ekw555]

SPR is a "flop" measure/tool. in this case the SPR was ~15 (62 in the pot, 938 behind) you don't recalculate it on every street. that being said, your point on both players being pot committed (or close) still has merit.

[@SetMiner]

Why would you not consider stack to pot ratio throughout the hand? For instance if your considering calling a turn bet are you gonna ignore the possible river bet and stack size?

[@ekw555]

you are free to consider whatever you'd like on any street. and I am NOT saying you are wrong to do so. my argument is more a matter of semantics - "SPR" as a concept, is a flop measurement of commitment. see www.thepokerbank.com/strategy/concepts/spr/ which says, specifically: "SPR is worked out on the flop only. Stack to pot ratios are not going to be used for the turn or river."

[@branchtana315]

ekw555, okay, we'll call it effective stacks once we're on the river, does that make you feel better? LOL.. The poker bank can define SPR any way they'd like, but when you're determining if there's enough room to bluff-shove the river, and you're doing so by calculating the size of the pot against how much money there is behind, you are making a stack to pot ratio, even if you're not using the number you come up with as a guideline of how you should play the hand going forward like you would pre-flop. Yes, you're more determining if there's a 1/2 PSB, 3/4 PSB, etc. behind when you're figuring out if there's enough room to bluff-shove the river, but intentionally or inadvertently you are still are calculating an SPR, even if you're not doing so for the defined initial purpose of the commonly accepted concept. It is definitely just semantics.

[@k0ka1nch0]

20:02 how do you land on the river of all 4 combos of J9s and not J9 of spades specifically? Also wouldn't you fold flop with J9 of clubs since you can't turn any flush draws? In that case wouldn't that make 8 combos so you take half of you 99 combos to bluff. Preferably raise the 3 combos of no 9 of spades if they happened to get there with T9 spades.

[@robsalvv5853]

Grigor Dimitrov - J9 gives you an OESD.

[@pauljconroysr4080]

at 14:17 i would say 14 possible hands to play off on the hand showing not knowing other cards

[@boojay7076]

Another thing is if you bluff shove the River your opponent is getting 3:1 so is never folding top pair it even 2nd pair… only thing that folds is a missed draw or 3rd pair

[@SetMiner]

Hand reading is so important using this 1% strategy. I have stolen many pots late against weak players, you can't just blindly call and raise, this is advanced strategy.

[@LionAndALamb]

Situational awareness as well...position, opponent characteristics, table image, etc.

[@hleecheng1979]

So if they “all in”than you call too with 3 and 8