Brad Owen: I can't be the only one folding here? (1 Viewer)

[jr8719]

A player can be LAG-ey or give off that image all they want. They may play more hands going in with less equity than most would feel comfortable in hopes of stealing more pots post flop and on the subsequent streets.

In spite of how a player is read, whenever you're check raised on a pretty dry board, even with a good over pair, more often than not you're beat. Bullocks to equity in that scenario. I'm folding once I see the size of the overbet. That's not a good hand for Brad to go all in with.

100% this. The minute you make HUGE decisions like this based mostly on equity, you've completely lost the essence and most important part of the game: reading the individual player and scenario.

 

[Mojo1312]

Incorrect sir. Stakes matter a ton. At 1/3 this is a fold all day everyday. At 2/5 uncapped which is playing like 5/T this is a whole other animal.

I have to defer to you in this instance Payback, since I know this is your game. I have only played in a dozen or so $2/$5 sessions including one memorable game in Foxwoods when the casino refused to open up a $5/$10 table for six or so players. Every hand was $2/$5/$25.

I am interested in hearing your assessment of Brad's play overall. (From what is shown in the video.)

 

[JMC9389]

A player can be LAG-ey or give off that image all they want. They may play more hands going in with less equity than most would feel comfortable in hopes of stealing more pots post flop and on the subsequent streets.

In spite of how a player is read, whenever you're check raised on a pretty dry board, even with a good over pair, more often than not you're beat. Bullocks to equity in that scenario. I'm folding once I see the size of the overbet. That's not a good hand for Brad to go all in with.

I'll add a corollary to this before someone points out that two diamonds were on the flop. No one in their right mind is check raising like that on a draw, period, even if they're holding the King and/or the Ace of diamonds for a nut flush draw. My read when first watching the video was that villain either has the effective nuts with trip 10's or an over pair that is beating hero's queens. Villain doesn't check raise there with a set of 3's or 2's.

 

[johnnyesper]

I'm generally more of a feel player, and my gut reaction when Brad was check-raised was that he was up against a set. I think people often get carried away with the value of an overpair sometimes, and find it hard to let go of them as a result; with three other cards out there on the board, you've got to remember that you've still just got one pair, as pretty as that pair might look.

Appreciate your very detailed rationale, but even if it is indeed the right play in the long run, I'd just much rather wait until I have some sort of made hand with which to risk my entire stack.

I totally respect this point of view. I don't play in stakes higher then 1/1 at the moment. At these levels, I think players, myself included, play pretty face up. If check raised in this situation at low levels I think I would agree. But the math equity matters are you go up in stakes.

Incorrect sir. Stakes matter a ton. At 1/3 this is a fold all day everyday. At 2/5 uncapped which is playing like 5/T this is a whole other animal.

From what I have read about poker @Payback is 100% correct here. This is a 2/5 uncapped game. You will run into more intricate bluffs and nuances strategy. The equity matters more. Which is why he is a winning player overall.

 

[johnnyesper]

I'll add a corollary to this before someone points out that two diamonds were on the flop. No one in their right mind is check raising like that on a draw, period, even if they're holding the King and/or the Ace of diamonds for a nut flush draw. My read when first watching the video was that villain either has the effective nuts with trip 10's or an over pair that is beating hero's queens. Villain doesn't check raise there with a set of 3's or 2's.

So the question I posed in my post is that do you think the villian has a 4-bet range? In a 2/5 game do you believe that these players don't have one and would slowplay AA, KK, or AKs passively? Especially against the Hijack? I would doubt it but again these are not stakes I play at.

 

[JMC9389]

So the question I posed in my post is that do you think the villian has a 4-bet range? In a 2/5 game do you believe that these players don't have one and would slowplay AA, KK, or AKs passively? Especially against the Hijack? I would doubt it but again these are not stakes I play at.

That's another thing. A LAG-ey player especially would 4-bet the crap out of a strong hand like AA, AK suited, KK, et al in position preflop. Flat calling hero's three bet does look peculiar, but perhaps villain had a read that his 10's didn't have as much equity as hero's likely over pair did. Once he hit his set he knew that he'd be able to exploit hero, as hero's range is pretty narrowed to over pairs by the time the flop comes around.

 

[Mojo1312]

I totally respect this point of view. I don't play in stakes higher then 1/1 at the moment. At these levels, I think players, myself included, play pretty face up. If check raised in this situation at low levels I think I would agree. But the math equity matters are you go up in stakes.

From what I have read about poker @Payback is 100% correct here. This is a 2/5 uncapped game. You will run into more intricate bluffs and nuances strategy. The equity matters more. Which is why he is a winning player overall.

It should be pointed out that Brad has a wide choice of casinos/poker tables to choose from in Las Vegas. We don't know if he concentrates on playing in soft games.

 

[Frogzilla]

I'll add a corollary to this before someone points out that two diamonds were on the flop. No one in their right mind is check raising like that on a draw, period, even if they're holding the King and/or the Ace of diamonds for a nut flush draw. My read when first watching the video was that villain either has the effective nuts with trip 10's or an over pair that is beating hero's queens. Villain doesn't check raise there with a set of 3's or 2's.

If you have value, you should also include bluffs. Poker 101. As to bluffs, Ax diamond with 8 nutted outs is a pretty clear candidate.

22/33 are also going to clearly get value from 18 combos of QQ/KK/AA that are fistpump calling more often than coolered by 3 combos of TT.

Poker is about pushing edges and you’re advocating for a strategy that simply leaves way too much on the table

 

[JMC9389]

If you have value, you should also include bluffs. Poker 101. As to bluffs, Ax diamond with 8 nutted outs is a pretty clear candidate.

22/33 are also going to clearly get value from 18 combos of QQ/KK/AA that are fistpump calling more often than coolered by 3 combos of TT.

Poker is about pushing edges and you’re advocating for a strategy that simply leaves way too much on the table

Point taken. In summary, I'd wait for another hand to take villain's money and the other money on the table.

 

[Mojo1312]

If you have value, you should also include bluffs. Poker 101. As to bluffs, Ax diamond with 8 nutted outs is a pretty clear candidate.

22/33 are also going to clearly get value from 18 combos of QQ/KK/AA that are fistpump calling more often than coolered by 3 combos of TT.

Poker is about pushing edges and you’re advocating for a strategy that simply leaves way too much on the table

Poker 201, what does Villain think I have?

 

[Payback]

Poker 201, what does Villain think I have?

AK. They always think you have AK....

 

[Beakertwang]

You folding?

Probably not in the moment, because I’m a donkey.

 

[Mojo1312]

AK. They always think you have AK....

I am still interested in your analysis of Hero's play throughout the video.

Including breaking down the reasons why Hero's call with Queens was the correct play.

 

[Payback]

I have to defer to you in this instance Payback, since I know this is your game. I have only played in a dozen or so $2/$5 sessions including one memorable game in Foxwoods when the casino refused to open up a $5/$10 table for six or so players. Every hand was $2/$5/$25.

I am interested in hearing your assessment of Brad's play overall. (From what is shown in the video.)

In the hand, you have an UTG raise, and an UTG+1 call. There ranges are super strong and yet Brad only raises 3.66x. Mistake #1 IMO. He's playing ABC poker here and should be punishing the crap out of the Moby Dick.

UTG is a "maniac" by his definition so I'm going big, especially with two players in the pot. If UTG is calling, then we can basically almost always count on UTG+1 to call so I want to diminish the odds UTG+1 is going to get a bit more than usual. Maniacs don't tend to care what the raise is they want to see the flop. His open of 15x basically confirms so I'm going $400-500 and if this is a really special whale, then you could go 1k and still get called.

Flop Brad bets almost half pot here. I think this is mistake #2. In a 3-bet pot vs. 2 players I'd prefer more of a range bet here of around 1/3 pot. It also allow us to fold if UTG jams, UTG+1 jams then maybe we can find a fold (we didn't get a read on UTG+1 so that makes a huge difference if he's involved).

However, this is where Mistake #1, compounded into mistake #2 as if I'm making it $450 to go PF and get 2 callers now that pot is ~$1400. With an SPR of 2 I'm basically committed to anything barring an AKT all black board or something. You're at the top of your range here so your going to get punished, especially by a maniac at these stakes if your folding out the top of your range on a 2 flush board.

Either way, this hand involves a lot of variance which doesn't bother me if I'm playing in the game (otherwise I'd leave), so money is going in and in this instance maybe I get my Q.

 

[RainmanTrail]

Also worth noting is that maniacal fish love to trap with big hands. Villain easily could have had AA or KK in this spot as well. Just because someone calls off huge bets with questionable holdings doesn't mean their check-shoves are weak. He knew Brad had a big hand. He also knows his image. Everything about this hand screams "TRAP" to me. This is a classic rookie payoff, flavored with some justification after the fact. Brad would do well to learn from this mistake rather than chalk it up to bad luck.

I also agree with @Payback about the bet sizing here. Villain will overpay with a worse hand, so hero should be taking advantage of this with a bigger overbet pre flop. $275 is a bit weak vs this type of player. I also agree with the flop c-bet size needing to be smaller. 1/3 pot is better.

 

[johnnyesper]

In the hand, you have an UTG raise, and an UTG+1 call. There ranges are super strong and yet Brad only raises 3.66x. Mistake #1 IMO. He's playing ABC poker here and should be punishing the crap out of the Moby Dick.

UTG is a "maniac" by his definition so I'm going big, especially with two players in the pot. If UTG is calling, then we can basically almost always count on UTG+1 to call so I want to diminish the odds UTG+1 is going to get a bit more than usual. Maniacs don't tend to care what the raise is they want to see the flop. His open of 15x basically confirms so I'm going $400-500 and if this is a really special whale, then you could go 1k and still get called.

Flop Brad bets almost half pot here. I think this is mistake #2. In a 3-bet pot vs. 2 players I'd prefer more of a range bet here of around 1/3 pot. It also allow us to fold if UTG jams, UTG+1 jams then maybe we can find a fold (we didn't get a read on UTG+1 so that makes a huge difference if he's involved).

However, this is where Mistake #1, compounded into mistake #2 as if I'm making it $450 to go PF and get 2 callers now that pot is ~$1400. With an SPR of 2 I'm basically committed to anything barring an AKT all black board or something. You're at the top of your range here so your going to get punished, especially by a maniac at these stakes if your folding out the top of your range on a 2 flush board.

Either way, this hand involves a lot of variance which doesn't bother me if I'm playing in the game (otherwise I'd leave), so money is going in and in this instance maybe I get my Q.

I like this... I like this alot. Thank you sir.

 

[Mojo1312]

I believe Brad has hit his apex as a poker player. He completely dismissed the Villain during the post session interview.

It is important to note that the table agreed to uncap the game before "the whale" appeared at the table, who according to Brad "supposedly came in the week before and lost 30K in $5/$10." What stands out for me (and there is a lot) is Hero's frustration at how the game is not going in his direction.

He becomes even more frustrated after losing an additional $300 and decides to add-on for another $1,700 believing seat 1 is an easy mark.

Notice his comment when Villain says "Tough spot."

Horrible.

Moral of the day: Don't put yourself in a spot where you are making decisions based on negative emotions/frustrations.

 

[Payback]

Also worth noting is that maniacal fish love to trap with big hands. Villain easily could have had AA or KK in this spot as well. Just because someone calls off huge bets with questionable holdings doesn't mean their check-shoves are weak. He knew Brad had a big hand. He also knows his image. Everything about this hand screams "TRAP" to me. This is a classic rookie payoff, flavored with some justification after the fact. Brad would do well to learn from this mistake rather than chalk it up to bad luck.

If he's got AA/KK it's a cooler anyway you slice it. Same thing with TT out flopping him. If villain had JJ he might do the same thing. We just don't know. See my next response on why it's not a mistake to stack off here.

I do agree with you thought that Brad could learn a lesson, the one we both agree on, from this hand which would improve his overall game.

I like this... I like this alot. Thank you sir.

No problem. It's an interesting hand only due to game and the $ amount for most people. This game is basically 2/5/25 which means that his stack at 3k is just over 100bb and therefore should make the poker decisions easier. Basically I'm never folding an overpair to a maniac for 100bb.This becomes a more complex hand with stacks at 5k+ here.

For the record, I love Brad's videos I think they are entertaining but his poker skills are decent-slightly above average so I don't think they are the place to go to learn how to play at these stakes.

 

[upNdown]

Moral of the day: Don't put yourself in a spot where you are making decisions based on negative emotions/frustrations.

I think that's the easiest mistake to identify - he was targeting this guy from the moment he sat down.
Maybe pros make a living by targeting weak whales, I dunno, that's beyond my pay grade. But I do know that whenever I've focused on somebody, when all I can think about is how to "get" them, it usually doesn't end well.
But I'm still calling.

 

[Mojo1312]

I do agree with you thought that Brad could learn a lesson, the one we both agree on, from this hand which would improve his overall game.

For the record, I love Brad's videos I think they are entertaining but his poker skills are decent-slightly above average so I don't think they are the place to go to learn how to play at these stakes.

I wholeheartedly agree with the two above sentences in your post. Although I don't have your experience at $2/$5, I have spent plenty of time playing against a wide range of villains at different casinos. Brad is thinking "I have got this whale." And the Villain across the table is thinking "I have got this nit."

Brad had a preconceived notion of Villain and the Villain saw thru it.

Listen to Brad's derision: "UTG (Villain) would rather check himself back into the loony bin than let his cards go." Villain very deliberately puts out $35,000 across the betting line.

Brad: "I have been looking forward to a hand like this with you all night." Villain: "I know."

 

[jr8719]

Probably not in the moment, because I’m a donkey.

Hahahaha!

 

[surfik]

I don't think folding is a good play unless I know player wery well and I know he can not be bluffing. He could be having flush draw with two overs or bunch of other combo draws. Calling is fine, folding too. Anyway it's not terrible.

 

[shorticus]

Question, why would you let a guy with 40k sit at a 1k buy in table?

 

[johnnyesper]

Question, why would you let a guy with 40k sit at a 1k buy in table?

Before that guy sat down the table agreed to make it an uncapped game. Its likely they were thinking "Oh, I can add on a few more thousand before the end of the night." A whale sees the opportunity like "Uncapped game? Hold my beer..." lol

 

[shorticus]

I didn't watch the entire video so it wasn't like the guy was walking to the table and they decided that "oh, he wants to buy in for 40K, let's go ahead and change it now"

 

[JMC9389]

They thought he was a whale that was going to spew his chips, so the table agreed to uncap the buy ins. Little did they know the whale outplayed them all.