Marc Goone IP on Ace-high flops

You got my attention b/c I like Marc. He’s all about the exploits. After reviewing the examples, this is my view:

In the first example hero had nothing & the check back led to another check by villain on the turn which meant villain likely had nothing, so the bluff goes thru. If villain had bet the turn, it would have been a fold. So, it better defined V’s hand & giving up the initiative was best.

2nd example hero had a made hand, so the plan was to get to showdown cheaply. Keeping the initiative & betting the flop was to fold over-pairs that might bet out on the turn & force hero to fold. From there, expecting V to check to the raiser on the turn so hero can check back, keep the pot small & evaluate the river.

So, yes they are subtly different in the info they seek. 1 - not wanting to invest more unless villain shows great weakness. 2 - not wanting V to catch/bet a turn card that forces hero to fold and lose equity.

He only advocates check/overbetting a high flops in single raised pots.
3bet pots, he advocates cbetting small.

@Freecard - yes Tommy had a very weak made hand in a pair of two's, but Marc here is telling Tommy that he should have been betting on the flop (and thereby contradicting everything he was advocating in his strategy video I linked to.) So both situations seem to be very similar, and Tommy seemed to be following Marc's earlier training when he checked back on the flop, only to have Marc tell him that a check here was incorrect. So I'm not surprised that Tommy was confused - so am I!

Marc loves to set fish up for the 'monkeystab', a phenomena where fish autobet 100% of their range when they perceive weakness because they dont understand what a value bet is. So without seeing those clips my guess is he likes to check back some TP IP the same way he likes to check a lot OOP, to induce idiots to just aimlessly stab at pots for no other reason than because you checked.

Guilty at times - got to pay attention to this more & become less predictable. I tend to attack if you show weakness. How can I better determine when this is a bad idea?

Another situation where Marc seems to have forgotten his own teachings is at least one video where he advocates a 10x xr with a set or other strong hand OOP. You'll search in vain in his '$100 challenge' vids for such a big xr - each time he flops a set OOP he xr a more standard 5-7x. From one of his teaching vids: We get 99 and OR 25 in the CO, only the Btn calls. Flop is J92ss and we check. Btn bets 30 and we should now xr 10x. Marc says they will call with almost the same range for 300 as they would for 120. He says that this play "will win less medium pots but many more large pots." So what do you guys think about the 10x xr size in this situation, do you agree with Marc that it would win more $$ in the long run?

I think you either should take his words as the poker bible or take it as educational videos instead of trying to use your own interpretations to debunk his teachings.

Also, most of our pool are very different than his pool.

5-7x raise isn't "standard" in any way or shape. 3-4x is more "standard" imho.

Also, as I said he plays 3bet pots differently than single raised pot. You just want to believe what you wanted to believe.

I myself only try to learn from his videos and not try to find faults in his logic or whatever.

After watching his videos, now whenever I see a capped range I will think to myself is villain capable of folding to big bets with capped ranges vs my uncapped ranges. Of course it doesn't always work. It is very very villain dependent. At the end of the day, you aren't supposed to take his word exactly. Instead try to understand his reasonings.
Or the easy way out is just overbet vs capped ranges with value and bluff as a way to balance it instead of exploitative lines.

Also, it's like you're just trying to find faults in his teachings.
What good does it do to you when you do find faults in his words/logic????
Does that make you a better poker player??? Wtf does it even accomplish after you watch his videos and say he's contradicting himself. I personally don't find his statements contradicting maybe you haven't watched enough.
Marc Goone is crushing live poker for a reason. He's a winning player for a reason. Yet you try to find faults in his teachings when you don't even understand wtf he is saying.

I'm not saying Marc Goone is the goat or anything but we should be open minded and learn from his teachings. Sure we should adjust to our pool and vs some villain we need to overadjust.
There's a chinese proverb, "Those who learn from me will live, those who imitate me will die".
You're not supposed to imitate his actions and use it immediately. You're supposed to "learn" from them and understand the logic behind each and every one of his moves.
As Marc Goone like to put it, he say most people who watches his videos misuses his teachings 90% of the time.

Tldr; ffs, just watch his videos and learn from them. And not criticize them unless you crush live high stakes poker. Sure his videos are open to interpretation but why don't we just all learn from them. Instead of trying to criticize it word for word.

dangomango,

Why are you bothering to argue with people who are set in their ways in this forum? You are trying to open their eyes to high level strategy when they are not seriously interested in getting better.

For example, there are guys like GG who incorrectly reference Marc Goone YT videos regarding SB preflop strategy versus BTN straddle to draw a parallel with their silly UTG limp reraise strategies.

99% of this forum wants to keep playing their current styles and don't seriously want to improve. So you are going to waste your time if you think that you can change the culture here.

dangomango

Don’t stop being you….
One of my favorite posters

I appreciate the time and thought that goes into your posts. There’s an old Zig Ziglar proverb, “You can have everything in life you want, if you will just help other people get what they want.”

As smoola says, some people would rather justify their ideas and are not open to other opinions. Some want to compare themselves to others and stick out their chest, but just like reading players in a game, we see who seeks the truth.

When I used to go to football clinics, I was happy if I could find one idea that I could apply. This forum offers many ideas, opinions, and perspectives, but ultimately we are just looking for ways to improve.

Why do you bother?
Because there’s a lot of negative energy that creeps into this forum and you try to put a positive spin on learning rather than ranting. Thank you for that.

They're both going to die...

It's interesting that someone decided to make a thread about this HH topic, because I watched a couple videos from the HH a while back and the whole not betting on A high-range-bet-boards was where he lost me too. After that I decided to watch other content creators instead as it just made me think that maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I can understand the argument that checking back some strong hands could be higher EV in some scenarios.

Where he lost me was when he advocated for checking back air-type hands on boards that are well known to be profitable range bets (mainly A high disconnected boards). He said something to the effect that when our opponent checks a second time their range will be more well defined, which I agree with. He said we could then bet turn to take it down.

The part that didn't make sense is that we're passing up on a profitable flop stab with hands that will then have to fold if our opponent bets the turn. So basically when both players have trash we're potentially enabling our opponent to bet small and win instead of leveraging our strong hands with a range bet so that our opponent has to fold. There's a reason the solver bets range in these spots.

He speaks so authoritatively, and he does have some good exploits in other spots, so it makes you want to just take his word for it. That can be a dangerous combo though, and I don't want to be mislead into developing leaks.

I would prefer someone say something like, "I have a working theory, " especially if they're advocating a play that clearly goes against solver solutions that are known to be best at equilibrium.

Anyway that's my take. It also bugs me how he says he's going to try to make $100/HR in "low stakes, " and it's like deep stack 5/10. That might not be nosebleeds but it's pretty misleading to say you're making $100/HR in low stakes when probably the majority of cities in the US don't even spread games that big.

Anyway I'm still hoping for the big $500k Hungry Horse vs Helmuth heads up match that was proposed on here. Let's see which of the most supremely overconfident players will win.

Regarind Marc deviating from prescribed strategies, all I can say is it was probably table dependent. I play 2/5 regularly with a legit billionaire, and plenty of millionaire local business owners. Sometimes they gambool it up, sometimes they stick to the 25/50 homegame, and sometimes they try their hardest to play well. But these stakes have no meaning to them whatsoever. I could see them casually calling off massive overbets because it's relative pennies to them. They'll call just to see how you play. Other times they'll wind their stack down to 20BB's before reloading. It all just depends in the moment.

My 0.02$: Mark's approach is good at a deep 2/5 or 5/10 game and break-even at best at 1/3. It relies far too heavily on getting V to make folds.

There is a reason why solvers do what they do, And it is because they aren't playing against humans. HH suggests a large bet or check strategy on these boards because the population overcalls, while, the population he plays has pretty much adjusted to the small range bet and more or less placed correctly against it.

If you are adopting a large bet strategy, then naturally you can't be range betting. So the question you have to ask is the population you are playing against, going to overpay you more on your large bets then you are giving up in other situations where a small bet would be better. I think he would be the first one to say that if the population you are playing is different than you should change your strategy. If you are sitting in a 1-2 game where people are folding anything unpaired on a ace high flop to one third sizing - do that.

But he is playing 5-10 in LA and he believes that OTT the population will stab too frequently and give away their hand strength with their sizing allowing him to fold or call and take down the pot with a river bet.

I think with all of these, it is important to understand how he came to his conclusions, And test whether or not the same is true in your game. Not just blindly adopt any rules and follow rules for the sake of following rules.

The point is that if you are just range betting because a solver told you to range bet, you're playing lazy poker and probably leaving money on the table. You should at least consider raising big or checking because your opponents aren't playing like a solver.

Your game probably isn't exactly like Marc's game. So figure out what ideas work in your game.

You came up with a more cogent argument for why he's doing it than the reasoning he gave in the video I watched. I'm a professional poker player, BTW. I haven't played 1/2 in a bit.

What I take issue with is the way he's presenting things like, "You're playing ace high boards wrong by range betting!" He's presenting things like he's some sort of authority, while doing nonstandard stuff and selling it to a low stakes audience.

I think a lot of people likely just assume he knows what he's talking about and try to emulate what he's doing.

Sure it's possible in his exact games given a specific set of assumptions his approach may be better. However, I'm pretty sure most of his audience would be better served by taking the profitable range bet when they open from early position, the big blind defends and the flop comes A93 rainbow.

am pretty skeptical of most of what he says tbh

His strategy isnt meant to get folds, it's just pure and simple range analysis. Sometimes you want a fold and sometimes you want a call. It takes a couple of streets of betting to funnel someone's range so you can decide what you really want to do on the river. Problem is at microstakes there's too many shortstackers so there's very little postflop play. Your only goal is to flop TP or a big draw and get it in. If you open to $6 every pot is a bomb pot. If you open to $20 the guy with 88 is just gonna ship it.

Who the **** is Marc Goone and why are people on his dick so hard?

Nice trifecta of arrogance, ignorance, and homoerotic imagery.

Testerone has entered the chat...

yeah it was pretty obvious you were trolling. Now go run your mouth in the highstakes thread

ok you didnt read my post I guess. A major part of his strat is getting V to believe we have a better hand by the river on various textures. I never said he bluffs every hand lol

I like the guy.

In the last video I watched he said that he believes he gives out better free content than the paid sites. I’ll listen to anyone, and Marc has some good ideas. I’m not convinced that paying a million dollars for his boot camp would help me that much, but I like what I’ve seen.

Honestly, I think I admire him because he talks so fast… but in my opinion he does bring thick value with his posts. Don’t understand the value of trying to discredit him.