Podcasts Poker Forums

I'm listening to Bart's review of two hands he and I played in a $5/$10 live cash game.

By getting the effective stacks incorrect in the first hand, he pegs me as a recreational player who overplays he KK because he stacks off with them on an 8s6c7s board. The hand started with 100bbs effective and after my cbet and his raise, it was shove or fold. His 45o flopped the second nuts and I paid him off, so apparently that makes me a weak, recreational player.

The next hand I'm again 100bbs deep. I open from mid position to $35--again, he gets this wrong and claims there was a limper ahead of me--SB calls and Bart in the BB makes it $160. I call because Bart frequently 3bets light and I'll see a flop in heads up and in position.

I flop the joint and he stacks off to me. His justification is worth listening to. Please give it a listen and let me know if stacking off with kings on a wet board against the most aggressive player at the table gives him adequate info to label me --bad, spewy, recreational, etc...

Fun to listen to.

Bart claims we started the first hand with $1500 effective. I had just under 1k.

I'm listening to Bart's review of two hands *me and him* played in a $5/$10 live cash game.

You're kidding, right?

You're kidding, right?

hahah

Why do you care what Bart Hanson thinks about you? If you're actually a really good player and he thinks you're a donk, get in the game with him and take his money.

The image you want is of a recreational donk, go dressed in a suit Crush Bart!

Why do you care what Bart Hanson thinks about you? If you're actually a really good player and he thinks you're a donk, get in the game with him and take his money.

I'm petty that way.

And, Bart is always good for the game.

Barts pretty open open his "stereo typing" so I wouldnt get too offended, he's never going to pigeon hole everyone correctly

Please give it a listen and let me know if stacking off with kings on a wet board against the most aggressive player at the table gives him adequate info to label me --bad, spewy, recreational, etc...

Do you actually want an opinion of whether Bart had adequate information to label you a recreational player? Possibly. I don't play no-limit but other people on this site do. Try posting in the strategy section.

Or are you trying to criticize him/his podcast? If so, it seems this would be an appropriate opportunity. Earlier in this podcast he basically questions whether some listener correctly records/remembers hand histories they email into the show, and whether or not the action actually happened. That doesn't seem like the most customer friendly way to approach this podcast when people pay for it. Plus, he mentioned their names--at least he left you anonymous.

...SB calls and Bart in the BB makes it $160. I call because Bart frequently 3bets light and I'll see a flop in heads up and in position.

Did the SB fold out of turn after Bart raised? See how this works?

And, Bart is always good for the game.

If he CC'd your raise w/ 45o, you probably shouldn't bring it to his attention. But that's up to you.

I'm listening to Bart's review of two hands he and I played in a $5/$10 live cash game.

By getting the effective stacks incorrect in the first hand, he pegs me as a recreational player who overplays he KK because he stacks off with them on an 8s6c7s board. The hand started with 100bbs effective and after my cbet and his raise, it was shove or fold. His 45o flopped the second nuts and I paid him off, so apparently that makes me a weak, recreational player.

The next hand I'm again 100bbs deep. I open from mid position to $35--again, he gets this wrong and claims there was a limper ahead of me--SB calls and Bart in the BB makes it $160. I call because Bart frequently 3bets light and I'll see a flop in heads up and in position.

I flop the joint and he stacks off to me. His justification is worth listening to. Please give it a listen and let me know if stacking off with kings on a wet board against the most aggressive player at the table gives him adequate info to label me --bad, spewy, recreational, etc...

Fun to listen to.

JT--

I definitely make some gross generalizations about the ability of unknowns because in live poker you deal with a lot of incomplete information. I definitely did not recognize you as an opponent I've played with before and I am pretty sharp when it comes to remember faces. I also truly believed that you had something like $1500 going into the KK hand and remember you snap shoving over the top of my flop raise. If you had only $1000 then that is my mistake but I was in the mindset that you had just bet 3 bet insta-shoved on an 867 board in a single raised pot. I also recollect you open limping from the cutoff once, so yes, I tagged you as a weak player.

As for the second hand I actually got a little lost in the spot as demonstrated by my analysis on the show. I'm still not sure what the optimal line is.

Limp, JT raises to $35 with $950 stack, call, I make it $160 out of blind with KJ, fold he calls, fold.

FLOP AKJr. Check Check.

Turn: 4-- I bet $225 he ships. I tank call he has QTos.

If I am in the mindset that you are a decent player than I think my decision is a little easier. However, like I said on the show, I have seen bad players make idiotic moves with Ax here, thinking there strong and overplaying their hand. My call is still probably slightly bad but I couldn't get over the snap ship from the hand before with KK. I then go on to say "obviously this guy is a very poor player", referencing the incorrect call preflop, which at the time I believed. Obviously if you are on Deuces Cracked, study the game and subscribe to the podcast I may be making a mistake.

I hope that you don't take this personal and if I knew you were JasonTornado, I never would have used your name on the show or come on to a forum and say "OMFG I think Jason Tornado is a donk". I am almost 100% sure that none of those other players listen to DPP so you are the only one that knew who I was referencing until you brought it up on this public forum. I guess you can take this as an ego hit but it was not my intention to single you out and say that "YOU" are a weak player but rather the person in your position who made those plays at that time was weak.

As for me being good for the game I really hope that that is the imaging than I am giving off--just like you gave off a different image to me.

And thank you for being a subscriber--

Bart

JT--

I definitely make some gross generalizations about the ability of unknowns because in live poker you deal with a lot of incomplete information. I definitely did not recognize you as an opponent I've played with before and I am pretty sharp when it comes to remember faces. I also truly believed that you had something like $1500 going into the KK hand and remember you snap shoving over the top of my flop raise. If you had only $1000 then that is my mistake but I was in the mindset that you had just bet 3 bet insta-shoved on an 867 board in a single raised pot. I also recollect you open limping from the cutoff once, so yes, I tagged you as a weak player.

As for the second hand I actually got a little lost in the spot as demonstrated by my analysis on the show. I'm still not sure what the optimal line is.

Limp, JT raises to $35 with $950 stack, call, I make it $160 out of blind with KJ, fold he calls, fold.

FLOP AKJr. Check Check.

Turn: 4-- I bet $225 he ships. I tank call he has QTos.

If I am in the mindset that you are a decent player than I think my decision is a little easier. However, like I said on the show, I have seen bad players make idiotic moves with Ax here, thinking there strong and overplaying their hand. My call is still probably slightly bad but I couldn't get over the snap ship from the hand before with KK. I then go on to say "obviously this guy is a very poor player", referencing the incorrect call preflop, which at the time I believed. Obviously if you are on Deuces Cracked, study the game and subscribe to the podcast I may be making a mistake.

I hope that you don't take this personal and if I knew you were JasonTornado, I never would have used your name on the show or come on to a forum and say "OMFG I think Jason Tornado is a donk". I am almost 100% sure that none of those other players listen to DPP so you are the only one that knew who I was referencing until you brought it up on this public forum. I guess you can take this as an ego hit but it was not my intention to single you out and say that "YOU" are a weak player but rather the person in your position who made those plays at that time was weak.

As for me being good for the game I really hope that that is the imaging than I am giving off--just like you gave off a different image to me.

And thank you for being a subscriber--

Bart

We played together once before. You berated the dealer and told me about how bad the regulars were--I won't mention names--and then we talked about your podcast and I showed you that I had some downloaded to my phone. Ive made a living at the $5/$5 for the last 3 years, and have only been playing the $5/$10 (when the game is good) since February.

I definitely had no more than $1k because that's what I've been buying in for as I get accustomed to the higher stakes. Obviously there is a huge difference between shoving an overpair with 100bbs vs 150, and I think you'll agree that if it's bad, it's only marginally bad and certainly not bad enough for you to build such a specific profile of my game.

I may have limped from the c/o, though it's something I would have done consciously because I was experimenting with doing so at $5/$10. Open limping is almost always bad, especially from the c/o, obviously, so if I did it, I can assure you it was because I was conscious of it and more concerned with seeing how the hand played out than whether or not it was right in a vacuum. I don't think you find many live players who study the game--and study their own game--as much as I do, so it's possible you can see me make all types of plays as I get accustomed to new stakes. I think you'll agree that the game at HP is often juicy and taking a standard line isn't always optimal---you can get away with a lot more there.

One other thing to note, especially with regard to the second hand, is that you have an image as well. You had been actively 3betting both in position and out. As such, your 3bet looked like an obvious squeeze--a great spot for it--and from a metagame perspective alone, I wasn't going to fold to what I thought was a squeeze. Not when Im in position. Out of position I might have 4bet there, but since I think I had a better idea of your range in that spot than you had of mine, I felt like my actual hand was irrelevant. Unless you flopped as strongly as you did, I think you'd agree you were done with the hand. What were you going to do, open shove the flop if you hadn't connected the way you did?

Granted, I would have liked to have been deeper to make the call, but again, I didn't feel I was up against a big hand that I'd have to outflop.

I took it personally, but really it was more of a disappointment that someone I listen to for "coaching" is drawing so many conclusions from a spot where a lot of players would go broke. Your image obviously played a role even in the first hand, as I gave you credit for making a play on a scary board. If you remember, the first thing I asked when you called was whether or not you had the straight. It isn't like I didnt consider the possibility that you had a strong made hand, just that at 100bbs I thought folding to a raise was bad with kings and calling was worse.

As for you being good for the game, I simply mean that you generate action and build big pots. That inevitably causes everyone else to loosen up and a bad game can quickly become a good one--especially at HP.

I respect your skill as a player and coach, but I think for your own sake you should play a few more hands with a person before building such an elaborate profile.

JT

Do you actually want an opinion of whether Bart had adequate information to label you a recreational player? Possibly. I don't play no-limit but other people on this site do. Try posting in the strategy section.

Or are you trying to criticize him/his podcast? If so, it seems this would be an appropriate opportunity. Earlier in this podcast he basically questions whether some listener correctly records/remembers hand histories they email into the show, and whether or not the action actually happened. That doesn't seem like the most customer friendly way to approach this podcast when people pay for it. Plus, he mentioned their names--at least he left you anonymous.


Did the SB fold out of turn after Bart raised? See how this works?


If he CC'd your raise w/ 45o, you probably shouldn't bring it to his attention. But that's up to you.

True, the SB was yet to act when I called, but I assumed (correctly), that the person first to act after the flop would fold based on the action. Pretty fair assumption, I think.

Last comment:

At 37:50 he talks about the possibility of me having AA and says that because my preflop sizing was "small" (3.5x), he discounts aces because "these types of guys dont want to get their aces beat so they raise bigger", ignoring the fact that I opened with KK for $35 in the first hand. Or is it only AA that I don't want beaten?

Note for future play against me: I tend to make my preflop bet size uniform regardless of the strength of my hand. Perhaps in earlier position I'll size my hand bigger, but thats position based not based on the strength of my hand.