PUNISH Live Regs With This OVERBET (Don't Miss Value!)

[@pandaimpress8726]

Thanks for the overbet analysis James! I'm curious about the table image aspect of the overbet. How do you factor not showing your hand should Villain fold into your decision? Would you overbet, even for slightly less EV, to protect your looser image?

[@slow3131]

overbets in certain spots are fantastic because they look like bluffs, and players can get into the mindset that they got you caught and want to defend the pot, but really you had it all along and they're just giving you cash, overbet is definitely a move to keep in mind when playing!

[@roy12386]

this type of videos are the best, please keep making them!

[@michaelthomas1614]

Hi Poker Bank, I just wanted to thank you for your valuable content! Its amazing what quality you are providing for free man! I especially enjoyed your Video about Combos! That was so incredibly useful. Much love

[@nonenonerson7130]

Great video, live overbets are very rare and this only adds to their ability to confound your opponents

[@capt.underpairs1167]

Love your vlogs! Amazing thought process and detail!

[@poker_baldhead8399]

This is a great play!!! Can you do more videos & hand analysis at the 2/5 level.

[@Chenx4]

But how do you balance this overbet sizing with bluff combos?

[@TimeNap]

Had an interesting overbet spot last night actually. 46o in BB. 1/2 at Sane Fe Station in Vegas. ~300 effective w Villain who said it's his first live session but he's "been watching poker on TV for years" and he was extremely inelastic when deciding to call or not and bet sizes didn't seem to factor in very much if at all. 2 Limps, SB complete. I Ck. Flop A78r - Pot 8 Cks around Turn 5 - Pot 8 SB Ck. I bet 20. Villain calls. Fold. Fold. River A - Pot 48 (43 after rake) I bet 140 (About 3.5x pot). He called. He had QQ

[@marko514]

WTF just write the answer

[@thierryfallingstar]

great job.thx for this video

[@eugenemills]

This is good stuff Sir. Love the live analysis that’s out of the normal live ideas. This is valuable, thanks!

[@sr4087]

Coulda started overbetting on turn; first hand; like bart hanson says bet amount matters more than pot proportion bet at these stakes and amount in pot; meaning 500 into 1000 much different than 100 into 50

[@M.S.Fitness]

🤨You didn't have your Splitsuit card protecter?

[@dynamicentry8321]

I use pot size bets only. Works every time

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

Thoughts on betting $140 , $170, or $250?

[@georgeskhater487]

Problem with huge bets like 250 or even 170 is that you're MUCH less likely to get called, unless your opponent is purely bluff catching. A good opponent would probably call with a set or even a weird 2 pair a 110 120 bet, but I don't think they'd do it that often with 200+. Some people might fold this even if they "know" you're bluffing just because the numbers aren't in they favor. But that's just my opinion, I don't claim to be good at the game but I prefer a 1.2x pot bet here

[@EricSmyth4Christ]

@@georgeskhater487 yeah I 2.5x pot overbet bluff A LOT It works every time

[@Edward-xd1td]

New subscriber enjoy your informative Vlogs but I do have a question and it's one I've asked myself to when you're in the top let's say 3 to 5% skill wise ofall poker players why do you play in such a small game.. The Rake must eat at least 25% of profits

[@taylorthrow7850]

He can't beat bigger games

[@Edward-xd1td]

@@taylorthrow7850 I don't believe that with his strategy and his thought process he could beat any 2 5 where I play and probably could hang with 510.. I demolished the 25 where I live and do okay in the 5-10 also few of these players have solid fundamentals and all of them have leaks in their game

[@Edward-xd1td]

@@taylorthrow7850 maybe he relies a little too much on solvers and GTO excetera for these smaller games you beat the fish with exploitive poker they all have terrible leaks in their games and playing good hands in position with aggressive poker prints money the players are scared to lose their stack and you can absolutely value bet them to death when you have it and even when you don't in position

[@MysteryKoshka]

He’s said several times in the past he plays these games specifically for the vlogs because these are the games his target audience plays in. It’s meant to be instructional for us. As far as relying on solvers, no one uses solvers at the table. And anyone who seriously studies the game uses solvers, range tools and equity calculators to run scenarios. The game has evolved as much in the last 20 years as chess has in the last 200 precisely because of these tools (and the millions and millions of online hands).

[@Edward-xd1td]

@@MysteryKoshka yeah that makes sense this guy have a really good game you can tell there's no reason to play in these smaller limits it's cool that he does it to give a lot of these other people that played these limits an example.. I'm sure he can hold his own at much higher limits

[@adriennes7739]

I love how even critiquing YOUR OWN play, you still get on him about betting too small 😂

[@MysteryKoshka]

I know, lol. Always on the bet sizing 😂

[@dolfhendriks9351]

Why isn't QJ in his range?

[@ThePokerBank]

It certainly could have been included, yup. That would add some extra hands that fold vs. both sized river bets

[@thevig9507]

I don’t think it’s a given that you get called by weak aces here at all. But it’s also lot likely that they get here with that much worse. You bet nearly the pot into 6 people and there were 4 people left to act behind the caller. Maybe a “tag” will peel one off with a ten that had a bd draws occasionally but that would be near bottom of his range on the turn and getting folded almost all the time to the turn bet. It’s not even clear that he’d call the flop bet with weak aces. I’d gladly fold the worst aces on the flop. If anything that’s more favourable for the argument of over betting the river but it’s such a unique spot that I’m not sure it tells much. It’s rare enough to have a hand that beats 100% of your opponents range. Rarer still that your nut hand is a back door perfect two cards, with very little else that would want to overbet for value. And even more perfect that your opponents range is mostly very strong second best hands.

[@tiltvpip1009]

Are you over betting the river with J 9 here as well? Or are we just taking this line with value every time exploitatively with 0 bluffs

[@Dyl3423]

Good question

[@noex100]

J9 (preferably with backdoor flush draws from the flop) is probably a decent bluff candidate since it double-blocks AJ and A9, 2 hands that would otherwise make sense for villain to play this way (limp pre, check-call flop and turn). Doesn't block a 10 but oh well. Probably would have like a 5:1 value:bluff ratio here so J9 seems ideal as my one bluff candidate.

[@GRice999]

@@noex100 No, at a 150% river bet, hero should be bluffing about 38% of the time. That would be a 5:3 ratio value to bluffs. Hero would bluff his worst hands that his continued with, which are J9s non flush draws (3 combos) and a few others such as KdJd, QdJd, JdTd, Td9d, or 7d6d, etc. if he limped with those hands on the button. Also, there are more hands villain will have that a "fun" player wouldn't call the river with. Those are QJs, QJo, 97s, and 97o, which is 32 combos of open ended/double gut straight draws. Additionally, villain would probably peel a card on flop with a gut shot with a backdoor flush draw. So I'd include KdQd, KdJd, Qd9d, Jd7d and 7d6d as well. That's 37 additional combos villain would fold that wasn't included in the analysis. That comes to over 60% folds to a $110 river bet if villain folds middle pair and worse to villain's likely bluffs. If villain is calling less than 40% percent of hands on the river, hero can bet all his turn bluffs, as villain should be calling with about 39.9% of hands to make hero indifferent to bluffing. The hand in hero's possible range that comes closest is JdTd, which villain calls 39.7% of the time against, so even that's still a profitable bluff.

[@masstransitrecords7865]

Bet large when you have it. Sage advice

[@angeloperezceo8101]

Amazing

[@StreetSoulLover]

In the last 2-3 months I have overbet maybe 10-15 times, usually on the turn and river, I haven't been called once Do what you will with this information

[@KissMyConverseFool]

this is a sort of specific situation because even though it makes a boat, the A on the river is going to feel weirdly like a blank, other than you knowing you made the nuts. so it sells like not just a bluff, but a badly chosen bluff, easy for someone to sell themselves ax or even middle pair reads... and you should get called here by lots of AX hands, live you'll even see Kx, KT thinking they're bluff catching and obviously you'll stack 22,2 a hand people do limp, then slowplay I would do this for value at live 1-2 or even 2-5 all day, give the passivity of the runout.

[@esdkaist]

All this depth and theory and u play 1/3 fighting for pennies. Show us ur edge printing money in higher stakes.

[@timelkin838]

Omg I've been over betting for years. I'm doing something right. In poker terms that's like making out with the prom queen

[@csisoldier]

I’d rather make out with her best friend in poker terms of course

[@jeremyboston]

Are you a winning poker player?

[@RamiJaschek]

The overbet is of course good - but the math presented is not clear/ doesn't make sense. It is not clear what the EV is calculated relative to. If we bet 110$ into a pot that is already ours - the best result is that the player will pay and we pick up an extra 110$ - there is no way we are making 163$ relative to what we had before. The math I assume the sheet is making is overall win of the pot minus what we put in now - but everything that is already in the pot is already ours (when we have 100% equity) - so that presentation doesn't make much sense.

[@MichaelShinosky]

Would like to see Splitsuit's response to this concern presented.

[@pieterhoekstra6826]

@@MichaelShinosky It isn't actually already ours (even though in virtually all situations it will become ours). You can fold at any time. Basically, any action that keeps us in here will have positive EV (including checking), and since our equity can't be realized until we take some action that leads to the hand ending with us still in, we can't say the pot is "ours" already and leave it out of the EV calculation. Instead this is just a hand where all of our possible actions besides folding are going to start well into the black.

[@FCarraro1]

when equity is 100%, EV is simply Pot*F+(pot+bet)C , where F is the likelihood oppo folds and C is when oppo calls. If you bet 110 into 73, final pot is 183 and if there is 0.18 chance that he folds you win 0.18*73= 13$. If they call you the EV is 0.82*183= 150. 150+13=163 makes perfect sense ;)

[@FCarraro1]

keep in mind that the Ev is not 163 MORE than if you didn't bet, but the net overall EV. If you checked behind, your EV would be of course 73, but if you bet 110, then it would be 163, which is more than double.

[@RamiJaschek]

@@FCarraro1 I figured the math was something like that - but I still claim it is not the right way to look at things. You are considering two options: Betting (for possibly different sizes) and Checking. If you check - you win the pot. If you bet - you may win more (if he calls). Expected value for the bet should not (in my eyes) include cash you get also when you check. Let's take this to extremes to clarify - if the pot was 1M$ and you could only bet an extra 100$ which you would get called for 100% of the time. you would say the EV of a bet is 1.0001M$ or just 100$?

[@taylorthrow7850]

Nonsense