---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by KRANTZ (High Stakes)

fwiw I've learned a ton so far, so please keep doing what you're doing.

I think the stats stuff and PTR thoughts were great. I watched both videos twice. I think both of these videos worth more then 30$ by itself.

DC is crazy cheap IMO

Hey when did this become 2+2 with people flaming each other...

Ps I am going to do all the hu videos here while waiting for the rest of the series...while going back to husngs for a while to rebuild roll and confidence....still love hu...

Did you watch the video? I'm curious what words you'd use to describe the hand history/hand range/stat interaction/HEM player breakdown analysis other than "hu strat" ?

Thanks

maybe my language in the first post was not kool and im sorry, but i had so high expectations from u and jay, dont get me wrong, ive learned so much from u in the past and the only thing i pay my subcription is to watch ur hu vids wilt.
i just wanna induce action lol

maybe my language in the first post was not kool and im sorry, but i had so high expectations from u and jay, dont get me wrong, ive learned so much from u in the past and the only thing i pay my subcription is to watch ur hu vids wilt.
i just wanna induce action lol

I dont understand why your unhappy. Everything they explained is the process of every beginning of HU matches.

We have through episode 4 recorded. I think you guys will be happy.

why cant i criticize ur work? im paying for it (30 bucks lol) and have some degree of expectation (lol) but the first 2 videos seemed to me like a never ever ending intro... and u know that! unless u plan to do like 40 episodes this is not ok!

so please get into hu strat already wich i suppose this series is all about.

Mindless and inaccurate. I dont think WoT and KRANTZ need to defend their work. I have learned a lot from it, in all series.

DO you actually listen to their thoughts etc? Or are you happier watching a live sweat video to see some big pots?

We have through episode 4 recorded. I think you guys will be happy.



Hey wilt..ever seen Misery? If you don't put out videos faster you will be called WiltonStilts.

lol never seen that

Kathy Bates didn't like what here favorite author, James Caan, was writing so she cut his leg off. If you had seen moving you would have been rofl.

LOL Charlie Sheen analogy back fired

maybe my language in the first post was not kool and im sorry, but i had so high expectations from u and jay, dont get me wrong, ive learned so much from u in the past and the only thing i pay my subcription is to watch ur hu vids wilt.
i just wanna induce action lol

I have watched first 2 videos and so far this looks like the best series I've ever seen for heads-up cash. Videos where people are actually playing might be interesting to watch as a railbird, but for studying they are ALOT worse imo.

- Midstakes HU NLHE player.

Why should we think that the button shouldn't be able to show an auto-profit by raising? (Sorry if this came up in E1 and not E2.) I understand that if it's possible to keep your opponent from profiting we should, but why should we think it's possible to keep your opponent from profiting here? If I have a K in razz and bring it in and the last guy raises, he can definitely turn an immediate profit by autoraising, and I should be happy with that. Preventing my opponent from turning an immediate profit would be a big mistake--I'd just be making an automatically profitable situation _more_ profitable.

You might object that hold'em games are different from stud games, but the basic point is the same. Sometimes one guy just has an advantage (e.g., when one guy is marked with a draw and then the joker hits). Preventing Villain from auto-profiting can be a big mistake.

So I think it's very misleading to describe folding >50% when your opponent is getting 1:1 on a button open as "leaking." The math provides no _a priori_ guarantee that preventing an auto-profit should be possible. (FWIW, this is also a mistake that Sklansky/Malmuth make in _Hold'em Poker For Advanced Poker_ and maybe also in _Theory of Poker_.)

Thanks so much for these videos--they're great and I watch them avidly.

Good question. To be honest I don't have a great answer for you but I'll throw some things out there to think about.

I can't really comment on the stud/razz example but given all things being equal in terms of skills of the players involved, in hunl if you are both minraising 100% of buttons and one guy is defending right at 50% and the other guy is defending 40%, there is going to be a pretty significant leakage of money from the 40% guy.

If you're saying that some of those borderline hands like 97o are ones that you end up losing more than 1bb with so you'd rather fold it compared to defending it, I can't really argue there that certainly could be true... then the focus should be figuring out how or why we can't seem to profit with that hand.

The button will have an advantage simply because he's in position, but saying an advantage doesn't necessarily quantify what that advantage is, given our holding... maybe the statement should be expanded to "stop him from auto profiting 1bb when we have hand that could be played for less than a 1bb loss" but then the next counter would be "why is that magic number at 50% of hands" to which I don't really have a good response except that sometimes I definitely play looser vs poor players and might fold some top 50% hands vs very tough players if I think playing them will net me > 1bb loss.

So maybe the statement should be further revised to say "if possible, we should stop our opponent from auto profiting on his raise assuming that playing the hand will net us less than a loss that simply surrendering would result in (1bb)." Of course that is pretty hard to quantify and we will likely never know what that cut off is vs our current opponent until it's too late, so shortening it up to a basic strategy saying about 50% of hands has seemed to work in practice for me and others I discuss hands with...which I don't necessarily like saying because it sounds like a cop out answer.

EDIT: I just thought of another way of basically saying the same thing...but given that edges are constantly in flux as players are adjusting so we will never truly know whether or not we are >, <, or = to -1bb oop with certain hands, it seems to make sense to construct an oop strategy where we are playing the top 50% as a starting point, when our opponent gives himself 1:1.