Brad Owen: I can't be the only one folding here? (3 Viewers)

jr8719

jr8719

4 of a Kind
Joined
Apr 13, 2019
Messages
5,264
Reaction score
17,110
Location
UK

The hand in question can be found from 13:28 onwards, but it's probably worth watching the whole video to gain some context into the session.

In a nutshell, it's a $2-5 game with a $1,000 max buy-in — until a guy comes in from the blackjack table at 6:41 with over $40,000. Sounds like everyone at the table agreed to take the cap off the limit so they could try and win this guy's money.

For those of you who don't watch the whole video, the guy with $40,000 has been playing like a maniac; calling all-ins with just two overcards etc. Everyone thinks he's a fish, simply put.

But I actually think he's deceived everyone at the table: he's been making those shocking plays and creating that image in order to set up a situation like the one that can be found with Brad at 13:28.

Regardless of my conspiracy theory about the 'fish', I can't be the only one not willing to risk my entire stack by calling with just an overpair in that spot? Would be good to hear your thoughts first, before explaining more about my rationale for folding.
 
Last edited:
jr8719 said:

The hand in question can be found from 13:28 onwards, but it's probably worth watching the whole video to gain some context into the session.

In a nutshell, it's a $2-5 game with a $1,000 max buy-in — until a guy comes in from the blackjack table at 6:41 with over $40,000. Sounds like everyone at the table agreed to take the cap off the limit so they could try and win this guy's money.

For those of you who don't watch the whole video, the guy with $40,000 has been playing like a maniac; calling all-ins with just two overcards etc. Everyone thinks he's a fish, simply put.

But I actually think he's deceived everyone at the table: he's been making those shocking plays and creating that image in order to set up a situation like the one that can be found with Brad at 13:28.

Regardless of my conspiracy theory about the 'fish', I can't be the only one not willing to risk my entire stack by calling with just an overpair in that spot? Would be good to hear your thoughts first, before explaining more about my rationale for folding.
Click to expand...

At first I thought the same thing and then remembered a hand about 3 months back where I called off with QQ on a similar board vs. 2 players in a 2/5 game. One was like $1700 deep and a maniac and the other was like $900 and also a bit loose. Turns out I was right that I was ahead held and had a massive win.

In a spot like this your probably ahead like 80% of the time and it sucks when you lose, but it just comes down to how much variance your willing tolerate.
 
I don’t like going broke there with just one pair. Plus opp didn’t bomb any other pots previously for $35k. I think he wants the bet to look fishy to induce a call with his top set.

P.S. I dislike variance, and believe I will find a better spot to contend.
 
Payback said:
At first I thought the same thing and then remembered a hand about 3 months back where I called off with QQ on a similar board vs. 2 players in a 2/5 game. One was like $1700 deep and a maniac and the other was like $900 and also a bit loose. Turns out I was right that I was ahead held and had a massive win.

In a spot like this your probably ahead like 80% of the time and it sucks when you lose, but it just comes down to how much variance your willing tolerate.
Click to expand...

Were you check-raised all in on the hand you described?
 
I'm not a cash player, probably because of situations like this. And I've never had $3k in front of me, so what's my opinion worth. But no way am I folding there. For all the reasons he didn't fold. How often does he have ten ten here? And how often does he overbet with ten ten here? I'll lose my stack in that situation every time.
 
Didn’t the maniac CALL an all in with JT vs KK on a 942 board....then proceeded to river straight with Q on the turn, river K?

I hate calling off that much with an overpair but seeing him do that would make me think twice about calling. I’d probably wait for a better spot but tough to say.
 
I hate this guy's vlog lol, but I'll offer this nugget of advice when playing against huge fish like this. You can catch more fish casting downstream than you can casting upstream.
 
This is definitely a tough spot given the way in which the guys with the monster stack has been playing the rest of the session — but I'm never, ever risking my entire stack in that spot with just an overpair.

For me, the clear physical tell that indicates strength is the fact that he uses five orange chips to make his raise; alarm bells were ringing at that point, and my gut was telling me that Brad was beat. Likewise, he sounds confident and not at all nervous when he says to Brad: "Tough spot."

Pocket Tens are massively in his range here, as are pocket twos and threes to a lesser extent = people who flat preflop three-bets are often set mining.

And I don't think Kings or Aces are out of the question either following the check raise. If he is the fish he's made out to have been by Owen, then a two pair combo of threes and twos are likely, too.

Like others have said, I'm just waiting for a much, much better spot to take advantage of a monster stack like that.
 
Last edited:
RainmanTrail said:
I hate this guy's vlog lol, but I'll offer this nugget of advice when playing against huge fish like this. You can catch more fish casting downstream than you can casting upstream.
Click to expand...

Since im a measly perch. I don't get this statement lol
 
Yeah that’s a weird spot. The snap overbet looks weird now. I wonder if that was the largest he had overbet all-in at the session?
 
detroitdad said:
Since im a measly perch. I don't get this statement lol
Click to expand...
Hahah, I liked the comment from Travis, but ditto... Would love to know what it means as it sounds like the kind of phrase I want to start using!
 
That's not a place I'm shoving. Regardless of what Brad thinks of the player's perceived ability, a pocket pair is definitely in their range, and with that overbet, alarm bells are going off that they hit a set. That's not a good spot to call a LAG-ey player like he's representing himself to be.
 
JMC9389 said:
That's not a place I'm shoving. Regardless of what Brad thinks of the player's perceived ability, a pocket pair is definitely in their range, and with that overbet, alarm bells are going off that they hit a set. That's not a good spot to call a LAG-ey player like he's representing himself to be.
Click to expand...
100% with you on this! I do really like Brad as a vlogger, and think he's been huge for the game over the past few years. But I think he needs to realise that, once you start showing the way in which you play to the rest of the internet and poker world, you're leaving yourself really vulnerable to situations like this.

His play seems to have gotten progressively worse since the start of his vlogs, too.
 
Last edited:
Lol... Just lost my entire stack in a low stakes online sit and go... With pocket Queens, no less, ha! Maybe I should practice what I preach next time...
 
I seemed to think that most you on this thread are being results oriented. When I first saw this video, I thought Brad got his money in good but fell victim to a bad beat. As mentioned earlier, poker is a game of variance but I did pause after reading some of the comments to check my thinking. I decided to do a little analysis.

DISCLAIMER: My thoughts are based on the limited information that Brad gave and I am a marginal poker player looking to improve.

First, lets look at the perceived image of the villain.

His table image through out this video is that he is willing to gamble but based on the hands Brad documents. It doent look to me like he is a total fish. Unfortunately, we don't know much about the positions that this guys is VPIP'ing and only see a few hands. So I'm not sure I would call him a maniac just yet. He does have piles of chips during this particular hand that he looks like he wone through the night. He cant be completely lucky. Brad makes us think that the guy is willing to play in most pots. So for the sake of this argument, I think he will be playing an extended range but it wont be crazy.

Second, what is the villain's possible range here?

Villain is UTG and opens the action with a 15x raise ($75), which Brad mentions earlier is standard for him all night. An average range for a UTG open is about 10 -12% of starting hands. Since he is a gambler we can extend his range some what to be closer to 15-18% of hands weighted toward the suited side.

1588714049442.png

22+,A5s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,87s,ATo+,KQo

The UTG+1 calls and Brad makes a standard 3-bet with his queens to $275. I think you can argue for a larger bet size here due to the UTG being so deep but to be honest Im not sure I can say with confidence what that would be. My poker knowledge is limited.

The villain flats the raise and I think this is interesting. If he was holding AA, KK, AKs or even A5s (as a bluff) based on what we know would he 4-bet? He is super deep so why not? Or does Brad think he doesn't have a 4-bet range? I wonder if this went into his decision making. UTG+1 follows along.

Ok so before the flop does Brad think the villains range is capped? Say he thought that the villian had a 4-bet range which means we take out the AA, KK, and AKs ofhis current holdings. His range would be more like this:
1588714225639.png


Brads :qd::qh:'s are WAY ahead of the villain's range here, about 75/35 and he has position.

When the flop hits :td::3c::2d: the villain checks, the UTG+1 checks.

A good question for this group would be how do you proceed with this flop knowing only the information from this post and not the the result.
Would you play your queens passively or would you try to build the pot? If I was this far ahead I would have taken the line Brad did.

After a bet of about half pot, $400, the opponent immediately check raises all in to $2750 effective. If villains is a thinking player could be doing this with a variety of hands. Tens are the glaring answer here but he could also do this with QQs, JJs, :ad::jd:,:ad::5d:, :ad::td:, and maybe even :8d::9d: or :jd::9d:. There are three possible sets that crushes him based on this assigned range. Even if we tighten up the villains range to those hands Brad has a shade under 50% equity here.

I think for me I'm calling 9/10 times here. His pot odds are correct to call putting in $2750 to win $6300. Based on the reads that he got and that he is so far ahead of the villain's range I'm getting the money in. This looks like a winning play in the long run. I'm curious about everyone else's' thoughts.
 
jr8719 said:
Regardless of my conspiracy theory
Click to expand...
About to watch the video, but I just want to point out that this is not a “conspiracy theory”, unless you think several people were involved in crafting this guy’s image, and backing him financially in order to fleece the unsuspecting dupes at the table. :D
 
Last edited:
Beakertwang said:
About to watch the video, but I just want to point out that this is not a “conspiracy theory”, unless you think several people were involved in crafting this guy’s image, and backing him financially in order to fleece the unsuspecting dupes at the table. :D
Click to expand...
Hahah, not a matter of several other people at the table helping craft this guy's image; but rather that he made some seriously loose / horrendous calls throughout the night to intentionally make people at the table THINK he was a fish. Thinking that everyone else has a perceived image of him, he simply waits for his moment to take down a huge pot like this one — using his actual 20+ years of playing experience to do so!

Far fetched, I know, but...
 
jr8719 said:
Hahah, not a matter of several other people at the table helping craft this guy's image; but rather that he made some seriously loose / horrendous calls throughout the night to intentionally make people at the table THINK he was a fish. Thinking that everyone else has a perceived image of him, he simply waits for his moment to take down a huge pot like this one — using his actual 20+ years of playing experience to do so!

Far fetched, I know, but...
Click to expand...
Not terribly far fetched, but if he’s not conspiring with anyone, there’s no conspiracy, so you just have a theory.
 
Beakertwang said:
Not terribly far fetched, but if he’s not conspiring with anyone, there’s no conspiracy, so you just have a theory.
Click to expand...
Hahaha, that's true! Conspiracy theory probably not the best term. You folding?
 
johnnyesper said:
I seemed to think that most you on this thread are being results oriented. When I first saw this video, I thought Brad got his money in good but fell victim to a bad beat. As mentioned earlier, poker is a game of variance but I did pause after reading some of the comments to check my thinking. I decided to do a little analysis.

DISCLAIMER: My thoughts are based on the limited information that Brad gave and I am a marginal poker player looking to improve.

First, lets look at the perceived image of the villain.

His table image through out this video is that he is willing to gamble but based on the hands Brad documents. It doent look to me like he is a total fish. Unfortunately, we don't know much about the positions that this guys is VPIP'ing and only see a few hands. So I'm not sure I would call him a maniac just yet. He does have piles of chips during this particular hand that he looks like he wone through the night. He cant be completely lucky. Brad makes us think that the guy is willing to play in most pots. So for the sake of this argument, I think he will be playing an extended range but it wont be crazy.

Second, what is the villain's possible range here?

Villain is UTG and opens the action with a 15x raise ($75), which Brad mentions earlier is standard for him all night. An average range for a UTG open is about 10 -12% of starting hands. Since he is a gambler we can extend his range some what to be closer to 15-18% of hands weighted toward the suited side.

View attachment 453424
22+,A5s+,K9s+,Q9s+,J9s+,T8s+,98s,87s,ATo+,KQo

The UTG+1 calls and Brad makes a standard 3-bet with his queens to $275. I think you can argue for a larger bet size here due to the UTG being so deep but to be honest Im not sure I can say with confidence what that would be. My poker knowledge is limited.

The villain flats the raise and I think this is interesting. If he was holding AA, KK, AKs or even A5s (as a bluff) based on what we know would he 4-bet? He is super deep so why not? Or does Brad think he doesn't have a 4-bet range? I wonder if this went into his decision making. UTG+1 follows along.

Ok so before the flop does Brad think the villains range is capped? Say he thought that the villian had a 4-bet range which means we take out the AA, KK, and AKs ofhis current holdings. His range would be more like this:
View attachment 453425

Brads :qd::qh:'s are WAY ahead of the villain's range here, about 75/35 and he has position.

When the flop hits :td::3c::2d: the villain checks, the UTG+1 checks.

A good question for this group would be how do you proceed with this flop knowing only the information from this post and not the the result.
Would you play your queens passively or would you try to build the pot? If I was this far ahead I would have taken the line Brad did.

After a bet of about half pot, $400, the opponent immediately check raises all in to $2750 effective. If villains is a thinking player could be doing this with a variety of hands. Tens are the glaring answer here but he could also do this with QQs, JJs, :ad::jd:,:ad::5d:, :ad::td:, and maybe even :8d::9d: or :jd::9d:. There are three possible sets that crushes him based on this assigned range. Even if we tighten up the villains range to those hands Brad has a shade under 50% equity here.

I think for me I'm calling 9/10 times here. His pot odds are correct to call putting in $2750 to win $6300. Based on the reads that he got and that he is so far ahead of the villain's range I'm getting the money in. This looks like a winning play in the long run. I'm curious about everyone else's' thoughts.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Unimpressed. Proof that a bankroll, camera and your own blog doesn't make you a pro. He was played like fiddle.

I have played in roughly 200 live sessions at various casinos, mostly $1/$3 NLHE. Brad made multiple unforced errors prior to the last hand, including overlooking key pieces of information.

I would have like to seen the hand Hero described where the Villain called the over-bet jam with J,T.

I don't have Brad's breadth of experience playing $2/$5, but the stakes don't really matter in this case, and in terms of skill, players scale up at different rates.
 
And all of y’all that are putting QQ in your bet/fold range on T32dd against THAT guy, he also has about 20 combos of JJ/Axdd/45s/A5s/ATs in addition to the 9 sets and 3 32s that beat u. You’ve got like 60% and need less than 40%.
 
Mojo1312 said:
Unimpressed. Proof that a bankroll, camera and your own blog doesn't make you a pro. He was played like fiddle.

I have played in roughly 200 live sessions at various casinos, mostly $1/$3 NLHE. Brad made multiple unforced errors prior to the last hand, including overlooking key pieces of information.

I would have like to seen the hand Hero described where the Villain called the over-bet jam with J,T.

I don't have Brad's breadth of experience playing $2/$5, but the stakes don't really matter in this case, and in terms of skill, players scale up at different rates.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100% that he was played like an absolute fiddle — and is just hiding behind the fact that he's made this other guy out to be a complete fish.
 
Perthmike said:
Why? I actually really like them.

He's just not a very good player and has no fold button lol
Click to expand...
Yeah, I like the vlogs themselves as they are decent production wise — and he's one of the only vloggers that consistently films his hole cards and live footage of the hands (can't stand it when you just see them talking about their hands directly to camera with graphics on the screen).

Like you said, it's just that his play is pretty questionable at times.
 
Last edited:
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.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

Machine
  • Sticky
New Members start here!
5 6 7
Replies
206
Views
36K
LittleRedRooster
L
Jimulacrum
My First Time Catching a Cheat (Yes, Really)
9 10 11
Replies
327
Views
29K
Jimulacrum
Jimulacrum
Back
Top Bottom