---

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

Thanks for your comments cam. When dealing with those I believe are confrontational for the sake of being confrontational/because the get a kick out of it/because that's just how they are, then I prefer to remove the debate, as there is no genuine debate to be had.

I think you may have misconstrued Alexhandros' comments/tone and as a result gone on the defensive a bit here Inavaccum.

Here you have the opportunity to learn about yourself from this hand and yet you write off any potential discussion as some sort of affront. I think that in itself is the biggest leak you've displayed here. It seems like your ego is getting in the way of your potential to learn from a logical debate.

That upsets me the most as someone in your position should display an openness to new ideas and discussion.

Finally, if villain were to have shown down with QJ,AJ,QK,AA,QQ or any hand that has you beaten here. Would you have presented the hand to us with the same thought process attached, or would the hand have simply been dismissed as too mundane for your audience? Serious question.

It's not that I think you're a fraud, but I do feel as though the hands you selected here are very results oriented, and that your egocentrism hampers your ability to give a complete analysis of the hands, and acts as a blockade to the viewer's learning experience.

Another self proclaimed genius on a poker forum... yawn.

congratulations alex.. u win we all think you are super smart. what does egocentrism and blockade mean btw?

So you're just going to completely ignore the part where I talk about how you suggest that the 100nl player should be calling three streets in a single raised pot readless with Ace hi simply because the flop was paired and our opponent's value range is confined?

I admit that this comment:

It's not that I think you're a fraud, but I do feel as though the hands you selected here are very results oriented, and that your egocentrism hampers your ability to give a complete analysis of the hands, and acts as a blockade to the viewer's learning experience.

was a bit unnecessary, but I'm quite frustrated by your apparent refusal to address my actually valid points, and instead just make a mockery of me.

My intention is not to make a mockery of you but instead to critically evaluate your content as a producer, and to state that I have a pretty big problem with the advice you are giving the viewer in hand 1, and the lack of arguments you use to justify your decisions. I also firmly believe that had the villain showed you a weirdly played KQ or A2 or J7, we would never be seeing this hand.

Another self proclaimed genius on a poker forum... yawn.

congratulations alex.. u win we all think you are super smart. what does egocentrism and blockade mean btw?

Wish I hadn't said that...if any of my comments were out of line it was that. I'm just pretty frustrated by the fact that, from my very first comments, this producer dismissed me as a joke, and completely ignored my valid points about the way he assessed the hand. While I agree that there are very few 2x in an unknown's preflop calling range, this alone is not enough to justify a 100bb calldown with ace high.

I also firmly believe that had the villain showed you a weirdly played KQ or A2 or J7, we would never be seeing this hand.

Lol. Thanks for the laugh. The villain is unknown so the assumption is bullshit, but you assume something about inavacuum, who is unknown to you.

I think you may have misconstrued Alexhandros' comments/tone and as a result gone on the defensive a bit here Inavaccum.

Here you have the opportunity to learn about yourself from this hand and yet you write off any potential discussion as some sort of affront. I think that in itself is the biggest leak you've displayed here. It seems like your ego is getting in the way of your potential to learn from a logical debate.

That upsets me the most as someone in your position should display an openness to new ideas and discussion.

I don't know inavacuum and I'm just a user here, but why is it do you think someone can post as rudely as he wants and a video maker is required to respond with utmost humility and acknowledgement of the wisdom of rude comments?
I love the internet. In person, call someone a stupid retard what do you expect the response to be? But do it on the internet and the response must be obsequiousness.

I've noticed, however, that unlike CardRunners, DC member feedback tends to be overwhelmingly positive, sometimes just for the sake of being positive. When I see a video that I feel is lacking in content, I feel the need to voice my concerns. Saying that I'm being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational not only makes a lot of assumptions about my character (you're good at assuming) but disregards the fact that I specifically outlined why I thought your analysis was bad.

Hi Alex,

You are more than welcome to your opinions. It's HOW you are brining your opinion that is not welcome in the DC community. Constructive criticism is encouraged here. For example what if your first post:

Really bad analysis in the first hand imo

Discounting 2x because of preflop hand combos is pretty standard but using the fact that he minraised (and didn't raise bigger) to discount Jx is completely ludicrous. Fish minraise all the time, with random hands and on random board textures. Using his flop sizing to basically justify sticking in 100bbs with no pair is absurd.

"He can't have a flush draw and he can't have a jack, because if he had it, he'd be trying to put more money in the pot, and not give us the right price if we have a pocket pair to counterfeit him"

Essentially you're making certain assumptions about his game that he's capable of thinking about sizing his value range appropriately ("if he had a jack, or a flush draw, he'd raise bigger), and at the same time making the assumption that he's nonthinking and doesn't realize he's repping an extremely thin value range on this texture.

You're making way too many assumptions with no info on the player. As the board ran out I don't completely hate the calldown. I'd expect a lot of fish to randomly raise a jack on the flop (for information, or whatever they think they're doing it for), but the queen rolling off on the turn and our opponent betting $20 should discount a jack a bunch. I feel a lot more confident in this assumption vs an unknown than about any assumptions about his flop range. Seriously, you see so much random stuff from fish on this flop, including hands like 33-TT and weak Jx, as well as a bunch of total air, and 2x if they ever get there with that pre

Was actually this (now, I have not had time to watch the hand in question, and doing this rather quickly but...):

I'm concerned about your analysis in the first hand.

Discounting 2x because of preflop hand combos is standard however using the fact that he minraised (and didn't raise bigger) to discount Jx does not seem correct. Weak players minraise all the time, with random hands and on random board textures. Are you using his flop sizing to basically justify sticking in 100bbs with no pair?

When you say, "He can't have a flush draw and he can't have a jack, because if he had it, he'd be trying to put more money in the pot, and not give us the right price if we have a pocket pair to counterfeit him"

You seem to be making certain assumptions about his game that he's capable of thinking about sizing his value range appropriately ("if he had a jack, or a flush draw, he'd raise bigger), and at the same time making the assumption that he's nonthinking and doesn't realize he's repping an extremely thin value range on this texture.

There is not enough information on the player for such assumptions, imo. As the board ran out, the call down seems OK but I'd expect a lot of weak players to randomly raise a jack on the flop (for information, or whatever they think they're doing it for), but the queen rolling off on the turn and our opponent betting $20 should discount a jack a bunch. I feel a lot more confident in this assumption vs an unknown than about any assumptions about his flop range. You see so much random stuff from weak players on this flop, including hands like 33-TT and weak Jx, as well as a bunch of total air, and 2x if they ever get there with that pre

I think the discussion in this thread would be entirely different and probably quite good. If you are looking for recognition, take an approach that moves your ideas forward and many in this community will respond.

Thanks,
Joe

Not sure I agree with river shove on 3rd hand (2 6 ). You said villain opens 17% and folds to 3b 60% giving him a defending/4b range of ~6.8%. Obv not exact range but this leaves him with a defending range something like T9s-KQs, KQo, AQs, AQo, 99-QQ (assuming he doesn't always 4 bet QQ).

combos getting to the turn - (40)
T9s - KQs of spades, AQs, AQo, 99-QQ

combos getting to the river - (34)
T9s - KQs of spades, AQs, AQo, TT-QQ

combos that fold river - (16)
T9s - KQs, JJ-QQ

combos not folding – (18)

so folding the river 47% of the time and with river shove we need him to fold 48% of the time. Also something could be said about discounting JJ-QQ as JJ might fold turn since he's weak passive and QQ might 4bet pre. I might be wrong but it looks pretty thin/-ev especially w/o JJ-QQ in river range. Really we probably shouldn't be barreling turn since we're only folding out 99 and maybe JJ and setting ourselves up for a thin jam only when the flush draw misses.

Wow. So I should aim to be as politically correct as possible, soften stances that I feel strongly about so they seem more neutral and suggestive, and use language that I don't actually use, because that is what the DC community is about? All the while accepting that if I don't do that, my comments will be considered worthless by the producer and ignored, except to make a mockery of me?

Freedom of speech? I've always found it bizarre that when a CardRunners instructor makes a bad video, he receives strong negative feedback (and he should), whereas here there's almost a huge stigma against making strong negative remarks.

I would love to hear some comments from inavacuum on the hand itself. I'm not going to do things like take out the words "ludicrous" or "essentially" or "You're making way too many assumptions" when I feel that such strong remarks accurately reflect my conviction in my statement. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are important to me.

I do admit that I stepped over the line with my "egocentric" paragraph, something I've admitted above. I'll do my best to avoid such personal atatcks as they can detract from constructive discussion.

I do find it interesting, Joe, that you've completely glossed over inavacuum's reaction to my statements. Not only did he state that there was on genuine debate to be had, because I was being confrontational for the sake of being confrontational (nowhere near true), but he mocked me several times.

We learn as kids two wrongs don't make a right. Even if I was somewhat out of line in the tone of my original comments, inavacuum's response is pretty unacceptable if you ask me, and Joe I'm surprised you don't have a comment on that.

It's interesting that all the members in this thread are attacking me, and I've shown this vid/thread to four different friends who have all sided with me. Of course, this beahvior (siding with your group) is extremely common, but I'd love to have a neutral panel of judges determine who is out of line here as I really think I'm being quite reasonable.

All that being said, I know that this thread has been completely hijacked, and that was not my intention. I'd love to actually get some constructive criticism on the video going. I have a few questions:

1) In Hand 1, why do you feel comfortable making such strong postflop assumptions about a complete unknown? Do you feel that a minraise here is always a bluff, or that there are player types who would minraise hands like Jx, 2x, 77 or flush draws?

2) In the 62s triple barrel bluff, how are you reacting on heart rivers? Spade rivers? I think this can be kind of a cool spot to fire three because we know our opponent will 4bet AK, and we have reason to believe ( I think you had history ) that he'll raise sets on the flop. So his range might be capped at AQ. What runouts do you give up on, and how does your play change if he is either deeper or shallower?

3) Would you consider posting some hands you lost? Either hands you thought you played well but ran into the wrong part of your opponents range or hands you feel you misplayed.

Wow. So I should aim to be as politically correct as possible, soften stances that I feel strongly about so they seem more neutral and suggestive, and use language that I don't actually use, because that is what the DC community is about? All the while accepting that if I don't do that, my comments will be considered worthless by the producer and ignored, except to make a mockery of me?

No one has said this, you have misunderstood. I was giving an example on how to same the exact same thing but likely get a better outcome. There is likely an infinite amount of ways to say what you have said and expect a better outcome.

Freedom of speech? I've always found it bizarre that when a CardRunners instructor makes a bad video, he receives strong negative feedback (and he should), whereas here there's almost a huge stigma against making strong negative remarks.

Constructive feedback is encouraged here, negative and positive. this is your site after all, I just work here. We have great discussions here when everyone is working with each other toward the same goal.

F-Torres9, despite naming yourself after Fernando, I think you have made an excellent post and one I am happy to reply to seriously.

I think you may have misconstrued Alexhandros' comments/tone and as a result gone on the defensive a bit here Inavaccum.

Here you have the opportunity to learn about yourself from this hand and yet you write off any potential discussion as some sort of affront. I think that in itself is the biggest leak you've displayed here. It seems like your ego is getting in the way of your potential to learn from a logical debate.

That upsets me the most as someone in your position should display an openness to new ideas and discussion.

The state of my ego has very little to do with anything. What it boils down to is that I am happy to respond to any and all questions put to me in a polite manner. The poster in question has a habit of posting in an incredibly rude way whenever he doesn't agree or doesn't understand. I am not going to reward that behaviour.

Finally, if villain were to have shown down with QJ,AJ,QK,AA,QQ or any hand that has you beaten here. Would you have presented the hand to us with the same thought process attached, or would the hand have simply been dismissed as too mundane for your audience? Serious question.

I would be happy to share the hand. As it happens, I don't have another hand that plays this way. I do not have many NL100 hands available to me, and that was the only one I could find where villain took that line. If I had played a supremely interesting hand at NL100 I would use it regardless of the results. I also rely on students to send me hands for use in these videos and I can't control whether they win or lose the hand.

I would be happy to create a midstakes version of Yin and Yang, I would have plenty of interesting but also losing hands, but that is deviating strongly from the concept of Yin and Yang and may have to be a different series. For example, in the episode of Yin and Yang where I included losing hands at 200 and 400, although the episode was well received, no one really commented - this is because the audience is primarily SS/micro players.

Not sure I agree with river shove on 3rd hand (2 6 ). You said villain opens 17% and folds to 3b 60% giving him a defending/4b range of ~6.8%. Obv not exact range but this leaves him with a defending range something like T9s-KQs, KQo, AQs, AQo, 99-QQ (assuming he doesn't always 4 bet QQ).

combos getting to the turn - (40)
T9s - KQs of spades, AQs, AQo, 99-QQ

combos getting to the river - (34)
T9s - KQs of spades, AQs, AQo, TT-QQ

combos that fold river - (16)
T9s - KQs, JJ-QQ

combos not folding – (18)

so folding the river 47% of the time and with river shove we need him to fold 48% of the time. Also something could be said about discounting JJ-QQ as JJ might fold turn since he's weak passive and QQ might 4bet pre. I might be wrong but it looks pretty thin/-ev especially w/o JJ-QQ in river range. Really we probably shouldn't be barreling turn since we're only folding out 99 and maybe JJ and setting ourselves up for a thin jam only when the flush draw misses.

He will always 4bet QQ, thinking about it now I highly suspect from this position he always 4bets JJ. He's not a loose/passive fish, but he is very passive postflop compared to other regs. We do fold 99 on the turn as you say, and also 88 plus any kind of 7x/worse SD that has no FD.

[1) In Hand 1, why do you feel comfortable making such strong postflop assumptions about a complete unknown? Do you feel that a minraise here is always a bluff, or that there are player types who would minraise hands like Jx, 2x, 77 or flush draws?

I can't pull out some kind of EV calc to prove this is good here (well, I could, but it would be subjective) and as such it may be that were will be hands I can't get everyone to agree on. Which is fine, obviously. I do not think villain is a fish, looking at the villain's stats I think it would have been obvious he wasn't a loose/passive after the small sample. I should mention this if I don't, unfortunately I don't work to a script and sometimes may leave something out. If he were a fish, I think he could easily minraise 2x, Jx and FDs (as well as air), but then I expect him to check or pot the turn. If he's not some kind of fish I don't believe he would ever minraise the flop with Jx or a FD or better, it's not something I see non-fish do vs other non-fish. But I do see them do it with air. Although I do not play much SS anymore when I did play it a great deal I would see this over and over and over again and I do not believe much has changed. When I just call the flop and nothing scary happens (like another Jx, or the FD coming in) I feel it's simply up to him how far he goes with what is always a bluff. I do actually think there is a danger of seeing something like 33 and I think that is far more likely than ever seeing Jx, but I think that chance is so small that I am happy to continue. The fact that we have no history actually works in our favour because he does not expect us to bluff catch when there is no history. If we do have history with a non-fish it becomes more likely that he is taking a line like this with a made hand to rep air and induce a bluff catch.

Here are some other hands played vs relative unknowns (but not fish) at 100 in a similar vein. Some of these are not minraises, however I think if the opponent is not a fish they are less likely to employ a minraise but will still have a very face-up size that indicates a bluff and is essentially exactly the same as minraising, as if they want to bluff small but realise the minraise may be viewed as a bluff/has less FE. The ones that don't think about this just minraise instead as with villain the AK hand in the video. I would have played the AK hand the same if I had bet 4 and he'd raises to 10 or 11 rather than 8.

The 99 I am calling the river if he bets. The A2 I am folding the river if he bets, but he chooses not to rep one of the few hands it makes sense for him to have. The K6 I may be floating if I had Ax+. In all hands our hand strength is the the equivilent of AK if we think about what villain is repping when they raise (with the exception of T8, which requires more explanation but serves to illustrate the raise size/repping issue).

Boss $100.00 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 1026260
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

SB: $100.00
BB: $81.30
UTG: $148.57
MP: $65.50
CO: $97.75
Hero (BTN): $107.65

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is BTN with K 6
3 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, 1 fold, BB calls $1.50

Flop: ($5.50) 7 Q 2 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $4.00, BB raises to $8, Hero raises to $14, BB folds

Final Pot: $21.50
Hero wins $6.00
(Rake: $1.55)


Ongame Network $100.00 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players - View hand 1026263
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

BB: $80.45
UTG: $100.00
CO: $107.50
Hero (BTN): $110.30
SB: $107.60

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is BTN with 8 T
2 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, SB calls $2, 1 fold

Flop: ($6.00) 6 3 J (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $4.00, SB raises to $10, Hero calls $6

Turn: ($26.00) 9 (2 players)
SB bets $19.50, Hero calls $19.50

River: ($65.00) A (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $29.00, SB folds

Final Pot: $65.00
Hero wins $29.00
(Rake: $3.00)

Ongame Network $100.00 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players - View hand 1026266
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter
Hero (BTN): $98.00
SB: $131.05
BB: $103.00
UTG: $182.90
CO: $98.25

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is BTN with A 2
2 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, 1 fold, BB calls $1.50

Flop: ($5.50) K J 2 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $4.00, BB raises to $11, Hero calls $7

Turn: ($27.50) 4 (2 players)
BB bets $18.00, Hero calls $18

River: ($63.50) 9 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Final Pot: $63.50
Hero shows A 2
BB shows T 7
(Rake: $3.00)

Betfair $100.00 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players - View hand 1026267
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

UTG: $142.25
CO: $134.00
Hero (BTN): $98.50
SB: $88.65
BB: $167.08

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is BTN with 9 9
2 folds, Hero raises to $2.50, SB calls $2, 1 fold

Flop: ($6.00) 2 3 T (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $4.00, SB raises to $11, Hero calls $7

Turn: ($28.00) 3 (2 players)
SB bets $20.00, Hero calls $20

River: ($68.00) 7 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Final Pot: $68.00
Hero shows 9 9
SB shows 7 9
Hero wins $65.00
(Rake: $3.00)

2) In the 62s triple barrel bluff, how are you reacting on heart rivers? Spade rivers? I think this can be kind of a cool spot to fire three because we know our opponent will 4bet AK, and we have reason to believe ( I think you had history ) that he'll raise sets on the flop. So his range might be capped at AQ. What runouts do you give up on, and how does your play change if he is either deeper or shallower?

I'd rather see hearts than spades for obvious reasons, but I don't have a problem shoving either. He can have either of them, but on the flipside he considers folding AQ, especially vs spades and he definitely folds other Ax. I'd be reluctant to continue betting if the A paired simply because of how I expect him and most people to react to that card, rightly or wrongly. If he were shallower it is unlikely I would have 3bet in the first place. If he is deeper it can only get better for us as he will play his range almost exactly the same only we will be betting bigger on each street for the same result - although not quite the same, as his will now actually fold even more hands if the pot is large enough.

3) Would you consider posting some hands you lost? Either hands you thought you played well but ran into the wrong part of your opponents range or hands you feel you misplayed.

Yes, please refer to F-Torres9's post. Hopefully DC and I can make this happen at some point.

F-Torres9, despite naming yourself after Fernando, I think you have made an excellent post and one I am happy to reply to seriously.

The state of my ego has very little to do with anything. What it boils down to is that I am happy to respond to any and all questions put to me in a polite manner.

lol Fernando

Thanks for taking the time to respond. I should add that my comment about ego wasn't meant as a personal attack, it's just that oftentimes in poker and life ego will get in the way of making good decisions. I don't think you took it as a personal attack but just wanted to clear that up.

I do think alexhandros has made some good points in his post though and we'd all be better served focusing on that, as opposed to arguing.

@ inavacuum's hands - yeah, but how much did you lose?

Hhmmm...

Interesting topic this facing C/R on dry paired flops . I see it a ton on european network.

This video has given me a couple of ideas for counter-attacks, tx for that...