Yeah, interesting video.
I was just wondering whether you would have continued this particular match had it been it your normal limits and not a coaching video. To me, it seemed that the situation was pretty bad there given that he was relentlessly aggressive and the fact that you kept running into bigger hands in bad spots and that your bluffs didn't work. Also, there weren't too many easily identifiable leaks in his play, although he did overplay some hands on big streets, so it was not clear at that point that you were such a big favorite that the tide would eventually turn around.
I mean, the mental edge, or the momentum, was heavily on his side and like we saw in this video it's hard to counter-attack.
I know you're a tough professional, but it did seem like the typical "I will show this guy who's the better player" type of mentality, although I'm sure you wouldn't fall for that kind of thinking. I do know that it takes time and a bit warmer deck to be able to find the weaknesses of such a player, but somehow it seemed that there would have been many good spots to just quit the match.
One particular thing I would like to note is that while his 3-betting frequency was ginormous, and definitely represents a super-light range, he didn't actually showdown a lot of complete garbage hands. There was a T9o or something, which is definitely a bit "out of order", but still reasonable "semi-bluffing" 3-bet hand, given that the dynamic of the match was on his side. Also, his strategy worked just the way he probably intended. You folded a lot of flops and second barrels, obviously because you didn't connect well and he did have the initiative, so it was probably just re-inforcing this strategy.
It's difficult to pin-point how much of this was because of the run of cards, but it was a good demonstration of the power of relentless aggression, at least with a bit of help with the cards.
What's also interesting that how widely you probed for different exploitative strategies. I guess the other approach is to opt to play kind of like the "game theory optimal" style and trying to identify leaks by directly seeing them and then to pound on them. ("Game theory optimal" doesn't mean fit-or-fold or ABC, by the way, if anyone's wondering. :-) I think you made big swings of strategy, which requires a lot of experience and nerves, but in a sense probably works a bit better. Though not to say that it's easy to play game theory optimal style either.