Nabsuu's avatar


8 points

How many hours of material there is? Are any of the material in written format? Tried to glance trough the course-page but couldn't find the answer.
Also I've tried those "hypnotherapy"-style files in PrimedMind and they really aren't my thing. How much of the course is class-style teachings (like your free vid was mostly) and how much of it is PrimedMind style stuff?
Thank you very much!

April 26, 2019 | 11:34 a.m.

Nice video once again. I have one quick question: In your CREV simulation, what is the worst hand that Rhje should be valuebetting otr with that sizing? 


May 9, 2014 | 8:56 p.m.

So are you betting this flop with marginalish valuehands (lets say K6 or QQ-TT) with the plan to xb the turn and call bet on most rivers? If so, how do you decide which hands work best as a xb flop and which as a cb flop/xb turn? I assume that we should use hands which can call a checkraise more comfortably like weak Kx or 9x to cb and xb QQ-TT (?). 

I have been checking weaker then ~KJ or KQ hands on these boards basicly 100% of time so far. I feel like I reduce villains 'bet turn after flop x thru' and 'flop checkraise'- ranges EVs by doing that, without really losing value myself with those hands (we can still get 1-2 streets of value). Apparently I have some leak in my thought process here and would be nice if you could point it out.

I know my question(s) is/are very broad, but it would be nice if you could come up with some quick answer.

Thanks a lot!

Feb. 27, 2014 | 10:45 p.m.

Great, great video as always.

At around 13 mins on the top left table villain calls your bet wA2 on the river and you say it's not a good play. Could you explain a bit why it is a bad play and with what hands are you calling that river with?

With my strategy I think A2 would be in that part of my range where I need to be atleast considering calling that river bet. With A2 villain doesn't block any of your bluffs, and basicly we shouldn't have that many better hands to calldown with (or atleast I wouldn't have). Maayby 44.

So yeah mayby what my question comes down to is this: do you have a "bet flop-check that turn" valuerange otf as a BTN? I would cbet that kind of flop really polarised IP (with valueportion that I am barreling that turn ~always) and am concerned now that there is a problem in how I construct my cbetting range.


Feb. 27, 2014 | 10:51 a.m.

Great vid as always! Your vids are actually the only reason why I'm still keeping the elite account here tbh :). Hopefully you'll start making them once a week again.

That being said, I do disagree strongly with your value 3-betting range. I think we should definately have hands in that range, that aren't necessarily 5-bet jamming over a 4-bet. I consider hands like KQ and AJ very standard value 3-bets BTNvBB against most regs in midstakes. My GTO coach once said, that every hand, that has >50% equity against villains flatting range versus 3-bets, should be a value 3-bet (this is obv against standard opponents who aren't 4-betting exploitably high amounts or anything). I know that this will narrow your overall VPIP a bit, but I still feel it's the most +EV way to play our range. Thoughts?

One thing why I was waiting this video so much, is that I wanted to see if you were in the "3b-polar OOP"-camp, or "3-bet merge (linear) OOP"- camp. This is kinda the same thing that Zizek already asked about in his post earlier. I know some good players (Sauce mentioned something like this in his NL500 ZOOM vid for example) say that we should 3-bet linear range OOP and some say we should be polarized. Have you ever though about 3-betting linear OOP? Do you have any strong mathematical justifications why 3-betting polar makes our overall range more +EV than 3-betting linear?

Thank you very much for your vids so far and please keep them coming!

March 9, 2013 | 11:23 a.m.

Post | Nabsuu posted in NLHE: NL400 - AK 3bp, akward turn spot
IPoker, $2/$4 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

MP: $592.35 (148.1 bb)
CO: $1,027.95 (257 bb)
BTN: $416 (104 bb)
Hero (SB): $461.35 (115.3 bb)
BB: $493.70 (123.4 bb)
UTG: $400 (100 bb)

Preflop: Hero is SB with Kd As
3 folds, BTN raises to $8, Hero raises to $32, BB folds, BTN calls $24

Flop: ($68) Td 8s Qs (2 players)
Hero bets $40, BTN calls $40

Turn: ($148) Ah (2 players)
Hero ??? (eff. stacks 344 $)

I have only 277 hands on villain and so far he has been playing solid and aggressive poker (24/19). His BTN steal is 67%, fold to 3b OTB 60% and 4-b range OTB 13%. His fold to flop cbet is 35% and raise flop cbet 18%.

I know that flop cbet is marginal, but I need some AK combos in my range so I think its okay to cbet once in a while.

What would you do on the turn wAK and how would you build your range? Also I would like to know how would you proceed on the river if you choose to xc or bet.

Both of our ranges are really strong and we have very few non paired bluffhands. Please note, that I'm in SB so I'm 3betting simply top 15-17% of my hands without flatting range pre. This obv means that this board hits my range extremely well.

I feel really lost here and won't seem to be able to make my mind even after thinking it quite a while already,

Thank you very much!

March 5, 2013 | 8:38 p.m.

Okay thanks! Hopefully someone can tell more about that setting.

Feb. 4, 2013 | 10:59 p.m.

"if your CREV is just preflop and then check down it isnt't likely to be super accurate as the CH/D settings will have a huge impact."

I don't know any better methods to use for calculating preflop EVs than this. I think that giving the realisation equity (or w/e it's called) will give you somewhat close answers to these pre spots. For example when I set the checkdown for BB after calling the BTNs min open, I made him realise 80% his equity, if that makes sense.

"of course 3B a more linear range will give you more equity vs their calling range but it doesn't consider playability and equity realization."

Yeah obv, but this isn't what I ment in the last post (if you prefer to it). Sorry if it's a bit unclear.

I ment that we will be able to realise more equity IP when STP ratio is bigger, and more equity OOP when STP ratio is smaller. Therefore it becomes more attractive to flat thin valuehands IP and 3-bet them OOP. I'm not sure that this is the reason why CREV gives this kind of ranges, but it might be part of it. Thoughts?

Feb. 4, 2013 | 5:42 p.m.

Yea this makes sense. Now that I watched my simulations more accurately, all of the hands BB decides to 3bet have little bit more then 50% equity against BTNs calling range. I think i made a mistake yesterday by evaluating how much BB realises equity when he flats pre too low which led to hands like QJs rather 3-betting then calling (QJs doesn't have even near 50% equity against BTNs calling range in my simulation). Now that I raised the % of equity that BB realises after flatting, the 3betting range came more reasonable (but still very linear).

Feb. 4, 2013 | 11:24 a.m.

I may have figured one thing that leads to more linear 3-betting ranges OOP. I used checkdowns after flop, and obv the equity which BB will be able to realise is bigger in 3-bet pots than 2-bet pots, since the pot is bigger leading to a lesser positional advantage for BTN.

And in COvBTN case this is the other way around, and BTN will not be able to realise that much equity in 3b pot, than he is in 2bp because of the stack depht (still over 100% tho imo) => thin value 3-bets rather flat pre and realise more equity.

Might this actually be THE reason why CREV suggest non-linear 3-betting ranges IP and linear OOP?

Feb. 4, 2013 | 10:55 a.m.

"i'd also like to know how you got CREV to lead you to 3B linear and not polarized?"

Thats pretty hard question to answer :D. I just did basic pre simulations BTNvBB and COvBTN. Haven't done one in HU yet, but I'm going to today.

Feb. 4, 2013 | 10:55 a.m.


I have pretty quick question. When I make preflop EV calcs wCREV, it suggests that I should have polarised 3b ranges IP and depolarised OOP (simply top X% of hands without any bluffs).

Why is that?

To me it seems very counterintuitive to have a range with no "bluffs" in it. Or to "valueraise" a hand which has less than 50% equity against villains calling range. I've used polarised 3-betting ranges from blinds both HU and 6-max, so if the case really is what CREV suggests I have big leak in my game.

I realise it's very possible that I made some kind of a mistake with my calcs, but I also remember Sauce speaking about having linear 3b range OOP in his newest vid. Unfortunately he didn't go into anymore detail about why :(

Sorry if this stuff is standard to you guys and thanks in advance for replies!

Feb. 4, 2013 | 3 a.m.

Load more uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy