awefawes's avatar


6 points

Post | awefawes posted in Other: Looking for a short-deck coach.

Hey guys.

Is there anyone on the RIO-team or perhaps on the forum who is beating online short deck games, if so I'd like to buy some coaching.

Send me a pm or write contact info here and i'll get back to you asap.

May 13, 2019 | 12:21 p.m.


I'd probably think we'd want to have two sizes here - One is a big size trying to punish his lack of trips and boats. Second is a small attacking his non FD part of his check/calling range.

I think this hand goes into our big sizing 75-100%. To this range we'd add some As* and few J* for bluffs and for value nutflush+.

For our small sizing I'd go 20-40%. In this range we'd add flushes+ for value. He will be in a difficult spot with his J* and QQ+ and we can follow up river with another small bet if we think hes lacking flushes and hence will fold too much.

However I think this is these type of boards we have to be careful that we aren't being too creative. Since I think a lot of the field isn't balanced and actually have a very strong c/c range that lacks some of the combos (non fd madehands) we'd expect him to fold to our small turn betting range.

Oct. 30, 2018 | 10:35 p.m.

Awesome with a HU series Phil. I can't stop thinking about your calldown with A743 at 46:30.

You say that his bluffing range is hands with Kc, Qc, Jc Tc. How often are we checking turn with Thigh flushes and better? - The straight is there so if we go ck turn / bet river we lose value from his straights and if we go ck turn / ck river we lose value from his bluffcatchers on the river.

So to me it looks like a spot where we don't wanna be checking a lot of our flushes. We check some lower flushes to protect our range and a few of our highend flushes (Those with pair and straight blockers). If this is true then it should be better for him to be using a lower club as a bluff and better for us to pick hands with the club that is most frequent in his flushes (perhaps like 9c or Tc?).

Oct. 16, 2018 | 11:31 p.m.

Yeah definitely shipping this in. As Pierre points out, his range is wider than that. Also consider this, if his range is narrow here, it's hardly -ev, if however you're wrong, it's a horrendous mistake and you end up betfolding a lot.

March 23, 2018 | 12:20 p.m.


I assume that your book takes a standpoint in 6m/full ring but the theory can be applied elsewhere (I'm playing HU)?

March 23, 2018 | 12:15 p.m.

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