Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by terp (Micro/Small Stakes)

Hey guys, thanks all for your input. We already filmed episode three but we'll definitely be taking into consideration your criticisms for future videos. This next one has more hands in it (and less pp slides) so perhaps that will be a nice change of venue.

Even though the form is i bit rough imo, the content is really great. Some very good advice in comments how to make it even better...

meh, this could have been a 20min vid with the same information in it.

Just started watching the series, and enjoy the content so far.

Critique:
- The sound, as others have mentioned, isn't at the top of your range.
- I think the font-size on the slides is too large. It's fine for headlines, but reading the actual content is annoying.
- Don't write "Ace, queen, five, four" when enumerating what will change the board. "A, Q, 5, 4" is a lot faster to read while listening to your thoughts. This might go hand-in-hand with the font-size "issue"

Other than that, great stuff so far.

I hope you can use some of this for a later series

Just started watching the series, and enjoy the content so far.

Critique:
- The sound, as others have mentioned, isn't at the top of your range.
- I think the font-size on the slides is too large. It's fine for headlines, but reading the actual content is annoying.
- Don't write "Ace, queen, five, four" when enumerating what will change the board. "A, Q, 5, 4" is a lot faster to read while listening to your thoughts. This might go hand-in-hand with the font-size "issue"

Other than that, great stuff so far.

I hope you can use some of this for a later series

Dude just shut up who cares about the font size....

tard..

Is there a discussion on the first hand somewhere? I covered up the action and tried to assign my own ranges after they gave the reads, then slowly uncovered each street and analyzed the villain's range.

As far as I could tell, the villain's range on the flop is heavily discounted sets for the value part (because he's going to flat most of the time), and a ridiculously wide range for bluffs that we're crushing (SCs, BW, Axs, some weak pairs-turned-bluffs). This lead me to conclude that the best option was to go for a c/r on the turn because we'd let him bluff us again. One possible line he might take is check behind on the turn, but then we can be very sure he's got air because his sets would want to keep betting. Thus, on the river, the only way we extract is to induce a bluff, which he's fully capable of doing.

This assumes, of course, that the villain won't level us and realize what we're doing. Since I don't play 1/2, I don't know what level we should default to when playing regs without much history.

I felt like the instructors had good stuff to say, but maybe didn't express it well enough, or maybe they were forcing a lesson through the hand that wasn't well examplified. I didn't understand their reasoning for choosing an alternative play, it seemed like they were implicitly jumping between different levels the villain thought on and just dismissed the c/r as bad play as transparent, while call/turn donk would be just as transparent and would minimize out EV.

I think that while our line (or any line in fact) makes our hand transparent, the villain's range is also transparent (largely bluffs), and it's going to cost him a ton of EV to balance it (he'd have to raise with sets a lot as they're a tiny % of his range, as well as other stuff). So on the whole, our range here is protected by the fact that the villain has no incentive to force us into this position, so we don't need to disguise. From the villain's perspective, this seems like a horrible raise because it only works on level 1 opponents that only play their hand and maybe level 4+ guys who can self-level by thinking this is a terrible bluff spot. The 2-3 level guys, which is what small stakes regs are, will not behave as he wants.

Extending this thought further: since our hand is so "transparent" and we're effectively turning TPTK into a bluff on the turn (because his range is mega-polarized and hugely skewed), we can basically do this with whatever we want. If we get raised on this flop, just flat and check back the turn with intention of going all in with any 2. If he checks, we got 2 cards to hit a little something or backdoor something, so it's not terrible either. What I'm saying is villain's raise is insanely exploitable, much more so than our hand despite the fact that our range is so narrow while his is so wide.

What's wrong with my thought process here?

Other than that hand, the rest was well explained.

I think you guys did a great job.
The audio is a bit off as others have mentioned but it's very helpful. You guys talking over each other is really hard to understand but I chalk that up to audio issues and leave it at that. I think it might be good to have a download-able file with the hand results in them because, even though you are trying to teach us not to be results oriented, I think it would be fun to see if we are right about the hand ranges.

Great series,
Thank you for making it

thanks LC, and great idea about the downloadable file. i'll talk to orange about that but i imagine at this point we'd lack records for all these hands (though we might remember). still, a good idea for future videos of this type.