Indeed.

@@CrushlivePoker Oh Yeah!

He could even be bluffing with something with a random spade and you still lose

Polarization happens at lower stakes more, not higher. Skilled players know when they're supposed to be polarized and thus can mix it up against other good players.

Eric dohn it’s unlikely for this sizing .. I mean he can I’m saying he won’t .. Bart

I completely agree. This is a $$$ losing call in long term. Villain could easily have Aces or Kings with a spade or As x hand and take this line. Having said all that, if the villain is too aggro and you know this (and since he 3-bet K 7 suited he maybe that type of villain) you can maybe make this call

Roman Perkis for sure and this 3 bet is just completely out of line if he’s 3 betting this he’s 3 betting everything suited basically I understand what he’s saying about maybe getting position and getting the button to fold and the looser player he’s played with for a long time to call but just too spewey

Bart did mention this in the video. I think you should watch the whole video before calling it terrible.

Mike Cantin I did watch the whole video? Does it not make it true that it’s a terrible call? Lol so I can’t say it? BETAA

@@sticktoFL repeating what the guy who's video you're watching and framing it as your own criticism. That's definition of beta. Like dictionary definition

(how does 3-betting with 96s in the big blind look now?) Don't 3-bet so wide out of position BAM.

You are ignoring the other I player I ran the solver numerous times and it said when there is a fifth club to use a large sizing. Unless of course a card higher than the ace comes then we must re evaluate

@@greatwhite3676 The sizing doesn't change the fact that villain needs to be balanced (what do you mean "card higher than the ace?"), and hero needs to balance based on villain's bet size. The larger the size, the worse odds hero is getting on a call, and the fewer hands he should call with. In this hand hero brings up his history with villain which we can't evaluate because he didn't provide enough information. If villain is exploitable because he bluffs too often, then calling with a higher frequency than GTO suggests is warranted. But you need to see a lot of hands from an opponent to know something like that for sure. In a small sample size you can easily be misled because an opponent just happened to be called the times he was bluffing, or visa versa.

@@GRice999 dude i'm joking!!!!

@@GRice999 where did / do you learn your jam?

Of course. I grew up in the Boston area and have seen every game since '86.

@@CrushlivePoker Man, love you even more, or maybe why I loved you in the first place! Thanks for all the great content, and making my poker stronger! You the man, Go Pats!!! Boston strong. Thanks again.

because those hands usually bet turn to protect against Ax with the ace of spades that Bart could have, no point in slow playing a small flush hoping to hit your straight flush outs. I don't see Ts7s and QsTs 3 betting, (even if he is 3betting Kd7d), people usually just call with these kind of suited gapped hands to play post flop anyway. I think 7s6s is the only reasonable 3betting hand of the 3 you mentioned, and even those will most likely bet turn to protect against Ax with the ace of spades and Kx with the king of spades. Just my 2 cents

Connor JoDon he checks for sure I may bluff but probably take the showdown.. Bart

(Bluffs)

It doesnt matter what can value bet it matters what is value bet at this level. Bart

Easily manipulated tell, I look at my cards both good and bad to throw people off.😁

geoff beyer I’m all about pointing out my own mistakes.. it’s how we get better. Bart

@@CrushlivePoker After seeing more of Barry play, I see why you made the call. He bluffs a lot of rivers in certain situations. It seems he made good use of his image there.

DanielSong39 I definitely don’t think I was losing to 1/3 of his bluffing range. Bart

Is fear a predominant factor when you’re at the table? Because that can always make thinking logically fuzzy. I have devised my own personalised poker check list which I go through before I play based on my own tendencies to feel fear before playing and it’s working out. May be worth thinking about the good sessions you’ve had and what you think made you play well and ensuring you are in a similar headspace before you start playing. Best of luck to you.

Go down in stakes is my recommendation when ur at the table u have to be 100% comfortable and willing without fear to go broke without the fear of it influencing ur thought process.. so if that means playing with a quarter the stack size at a quarter of the stakes that's what u have to do.

Bart is basing all this on that he has either the nuts or nothing,i dont know about that when as you say some of the bluffs may beat you,that should tip you into a fold.also who knows he may have a str8 or set(doubtful) and is afraid Bart will check back a lesser hand.

@@Gos1234567 Bart needs to call about 60% (or fold about 40%) of the time here to make it unprofitable for villain to bluff any two cards (based on the size of the bet). If Bart thinks villain bluffs too much he can call all of the time with a "bluff catcher" and show a profit. However, if villain's bluffs contain hands that Bart can't beat with some of his "bluff catchers", some of those bluff catchers are not bluff catchers at all, they're just losers. Also, by default, if Bart blocks some of villain's otherwise legitimate bluff hands, in order to have enough hands in his bluffing range, villain will have to bluff with a stronger range of hands (97d and 65d are two busted straight draws villain could otherwise bluff with but can't because of card removal). What are villain's bluffing hands? Busted straight and spade draws are candidates. One pair hands normally wouldn't need to bluff, but considering the number of flush draws that got there, he needs enough bluffs to balance his betting range (villain needs to bluff 29% of the time to make Bart indifferent to calling with his bluff catchers). And if he bluffs too much (more than 29%), what exactly are his bluffing hands? He may need to add in hands like middling pairs that beat a pair of sixes to have that many bluffs. On the other side, Bart was the aggressor in this hand and figures to be polarized. So he's betting all of his over pairs or better. He's also betting his draw's and possibly some one pair hands eights or lower. He will give up betting on some of the bluff hands on the turn, as his bluffing frequency decreases on each street. So the $64,000 question is whether 96d is in his top 60% of hands he needs to call with on the river (and if borderline, should he fold because of card removal?)? And the next question is that if 96d is indeed in his calling range, is it because he was bluffing with too many hands worse than that on the turn and was forced to call with it on the river to avoid being exploited by a river bet?

@@GRice999 Agree with everything but the Ac hit river which now reduces the chances Bart was betting a flush draw and got there,so Barry could bet here if holding two pair thinking Bart if more single pair heavy and will just check back.I just dont agree that Barry has to be polarized here. The two hands are totally different scenarios,Besides hand combos is the play.The pfr bet/check on flush turn/now bets on 4 flush river for a large amount and Bart has a decent hand(doesnt matter that much on a 4 flush though) it just looks a bit fishy whereas Barry is playing exactly as you would with a flush draw and Barts hand is so bad it can even lose to bluffs.

Then why wouldnt he just check? Or bet smaller to get called by worse?

Wilfork?

lol that guy is terrible,hilarious to watch these donkeys

Leo Chen actually the hand is from last week. And $2k into $2900 in this spot is going to be a flush or nothing..

@@CrushlivePoker Bart said he would defend both calls. And sure enough, he just did.

It's not just the size of the bet that makes it polarizing, it's the situation. SB has bet representing a flush. He probably has a flush or a busted hand. He could have aces up or a slow played set, but he has to fear the flush himself then, and would probably bet less than 2/3 the pot. Even if he bet the same, he's still polarized with that range, it's just wider and vulnerable to a call by a better hand or raise (And he's betting because the third club might cause BB to check behind). Would he bet that much on Ax of spades? I doubt it, as he'd want to get paid off with a lesser hand, not scare it away, and effectively turn it into a bluff. The same with other hands--betting them turns them into bluffs. Of course if he knows BB will call down in that spot with all of his bluff catchers, then he won't bluff and bet all of his good eights or better. In that case his range is linear and not polarized. But that's probably unlikely.

ty for ur detailed explanation

No offence but you call him a fish while you sound yourself like a big fish 😂

Get a job, improve your game, rebuild a roll and get back on track! losing is learning, GL!

@@luukverhoek4243 I have a VPIP of 5. I have a leak, which is leveling myself into calling river bets too wide against players who haven't demonstrated they can bluff because I'm trying to avoid the emotional pain of losing the pot or ending the session down. And I don't manage my bankroll very well. Those two things, combined with the fact that the rake takes half the pot in a Los Angeles 1/3, make me a losing player. Whenever players get out of the way on the flop after missing, their call gets raked away, so if they play fit-or-fold, and they often do, they can speculatively call with a wide range and I cannot profit even if they miss constantly. The house profits in that case. Eventually I will cooler them, but as I said, I pay off too much when they hit, and the river bets are, of course, the biggest bets, and have no marginal rake, so that leak alone is enough to be fatal. Are you a long-term winning player in a game with $6 rake and $50 stacks? The professional consensus (Bart, Little, Torelli, that I've asked so far) is that these games are either unbeatable or only marginally beatable, and your hourly might make them not worth beating depending on your cost of living. I survived for 2 months in these card rooms paying $4000 in expenses a month for, I don't know... 240 hours a month? I doubt a fish can survive 480 hours in a 1/2 or a 1/3 with such a structure and not-quite make $8000. On the contrary, they'd spew that amount in a week.

Before this hand you were obviously on a down swing given that you said you were making a living off of the game? I'm not judging or taking the piss either, but if it's the case shoot me an email at beyer.ltd@gmail.com I might be able to help you out. I'm not a coach or selling anything, just to be clear.

@@hymnofashes "I have a vpip of 5" ......... Thats terrible. And sure a fish can survive 480 hours. A fish easily can get on a heater and survive 10k hands or more.

Imagine being so uninteresting that sportsball is a big part of your personality

99% of you won’t GET IT what is a big leak?

You call way too lightly

Think of it this way - think Slater in SB LI why did he call heads (Which was a strategy) in OT? Cause it had been tails on the 1st flip to start the game. When you are in a polarized situation it’s basically a coin flip if you don’t have any additional OBJECTIVE information off your opponent. Hence you make a hero call earlier in a polarized situation which is a coin flip 50/50 - the odds of you being right when you call again in any given session (small sample size I know) decreases.

35 suited against KK is a %21 hand. It'll win 1 out of 5 times, if you're going to be results oriented and not think about the long run, you shouldn't be playing to begin with. Run that hand 10 times with a $1,000 stack and you profit $6,000, statistically.

@david u are wrong. U assume the 3 5 will go broke even after not hitting any pair on flop against KK. Other guy raises 38 preflop and loses whole stack. Run that scenario 10x like u said and the 3 5 has to beat KK once to make profit in the long run...

@@johannesvanderburgh5831 oh wow I never thought about it in that way I usually think the same way the guy above does that 3 5s vs KK is a profit all day and give me that any day but like u said when 3 5s doesnt hit a set orca flush draw he just check folds but when he hits a set or a flush vs KK he takes KK for his entire stack.. wow so the long run might be a convoluted assumption based off of some results and being more aware with overpairs to ur opponents play.. thanks for that. If I'm understanding that right

When u led for 100 and he called u didnt completely rethink whether u were good or not with 33 out there i would be very concerned when he calls a 100 bet on the flop. I would proceed with caution next time that's all.

Leonardo Guerrero Solorio you stink