---

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

What pr1nnyraiding 1 did for my game was insane. i have a good feeling about series #3

A bit off topic, but what is that forest map? It looks a bit like Zelda: A Link to the Past, but it's arranged differently.

Okay, I'll be quiet and watch the video now.

A bit off topic, but what is that forest map? It looks a bit like Zelda: A Link to the Past, but it's arranged differently.

Okay, I'll be quiet and watch the video now.

Definitely looks like A Link to the Past, possibly after you "beat" it and it switches?

Time Link to 00:16:26

From my experience grades are not useful very early in the match (obviously it's better to go to the premium tab after looking at grades).
I use grades early to figure out an aggression of an opponent. FE. There are winning regs these days who have something like C/C (more aggressive "than optimal") grades for preflop. which means they're simply 3betting a ton (around 25% if not more). Also guys who are generally aggressive postflop (red line winners) will have lower grades (more aggressive than usual) so u know before even match starts they'll be barreling a lot. It's also easy to recognize passive guys with grades.
One more thing: grades/stats can be misleading if a guy plays fish and regs because he can play differently against them which means stats/grades will not be accurate.

A bit off topic, but what is that forest map? It looks a bit like Zelda: A Link to the Past, but it's arranged differently.

Okay, I'll be quiet and watch the video now.

confirmed link to the past lost woods

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=564GGLXZ

Think my hud beats your hud

Time Link to 00:47:00

If villain's strategy doesn't change, p=42% over 12 samples means that we could be looking at an underlying population with p=30% to p=68% based on 2 standard deviation range.

game=other?

Time Link to 00:14:22

oh btw ptr doesn't track fulltilt any more(surprised you didn't mention it). they show how fresh are their hhs they're selling and you only see a few hands here and there on fulltilt

oh btw ptr doesn't track fulltilt any more(surprised you didn't mention it). they show how fresh are their hhs they're selling and you only see a few hands here and there on fulltilt

We didn't know because we rarely use ptr.

great vid! very helpful - definitely helped my understanding of using stats.

Time Link to 00:52:42

If his flop calling range is mostly made up of decent equity floats that he didn't want to waste with a flop raise, then can't we be taking the stack a donk line as a bluff as well (obv more expensive than barreling, but we also win more).

With regard to being confident that he will bet the turn for us allowing us to check the turn going for a c/r - doesn't his flop calling range also consist of a lot of marginal made hands like weak pairs in addition to floats? If so, then won't he actually be checking the turn back with a lot of his flop calling range, unless he just bets the turn for protection a lot? If he's betting his floats on the turn but checking back with his marginal showdown value hands, does that change the strategy we'll want to employ when we have a hand with an equity lock (i.e. should that make us want to take a stack a donk line less often?)?

Time Link to 00:32:55

I was a bit confused about what Krantz said here - he said flatting alot oop is gonna be great when you do gin something vs a player like imfromsweden who doesn't like folding, but he also says something about getting good bluff equity out of position. What does he mean here by getting good bluff equity vs a player who doesnt like folding - isnt the reason it's so good when you hit a strong hand is that he doesnt fold much, meaning you have reduced bluff equity?

I was a bit confused about what Krantz said here - he said flatting alot oop is gonna be great when you do gin something vs a player like imfromsweden who doesn't like folding, but he also says something about getting good bluff equity out of position. What does he mean here by getting good bluff equity vs a player who doesnt like folding - isnt the reason it's so good when you hit a strong hand is that he doesnt fold much, meaning you have reduced bluff equity?

you have reduced folding equity in a vacuum, but when you look at your entire range that's going to be putting a lot of money in, it shapes up to be really strong and has a lot of pot equity against a range that is comparably weaker

If his flop calling range is mostly made up of decent equity floats that he didn't want to waste with a flop raise, then can't we be taking the stack a donk line as a bluff as well (obv more expensive than barreling, but we also win more).

With regard to being confident that he will bet the turn for us allowing us to check the turn going for a c/r - doesn't his flop calling range also consist of a lot of marginal made hands like weak pairs in addition to floats? If so, then won't he actually be checking the turn back with a lot of his flop calling range, unless he just bets the turn for protection a lot? If he's betting his floats on the turn but checking back with his marginal showdown value hands, does that change the strategy we'll want to employ when we have a hand with an equity lock (i.e. should that make us want to take a stack a donk line less often?)?

yes and yes. board texture is a major factor you need to consider in these spots, as well as what you've been showing them. when you check the turn, do they expect you to nearly always check/fold or check/call? if so, they'll be betting more hands (floats, thin value, protection) more often.

Time Link to 00:37:38

Can't we be leading turn with all most all bluffs and checking going for c/r's with almost our value hands until a couple hands get to showdown and we think he's likely to catch on and adjust? In other words, why do we have to be somewhat balanced with our turn leading range if his turn range after checking back the flop is unbalanced and weak? Shouldn't we be aiming to play exploitatively so that we can maximally exploit his unbalanced and weak range and then adjust once we recognize indications that he may be adjusting?

Also, does this change when you are playing 2 tables compared to when your are playing 4+tables? Like, with 2 tables it seems like it's a lot easier to keep track of hands that went to showdown and adjust/maximally exploit accordingly. With 4 tables, however, it seems like it might make more sense to aim to just play a more balanced game (still making the big adjustments, but just not as many detailed adjustments as with 2 tables) than you would with 2 tables because you don't have time to really think about how every showdown might change the dynamic of the match in full detail and then drastically shift your ranges in a lot of different spots - so playing more balanced can sort of make up for not having the time to always be looking over your shoulder and make sure your adjusting properly?

I think dog is head talked about this in one of his videos (not sure if it was a DC vid or not), so I'm curious about your guys' opinions on it.

Time Link to 00:12:35

Sick level using this video to attempt to cover up the fact that you've been rumbled on PTR.

Can't we be leading turn with all most all bluffs and checking going for c/r's with almost our value hands until a couple hands get to showdown and we think he's likely to catch on and adjust? In other words, why do we have to be somewhat balanced with our turn leading range if his turn range after checking back the flop is unbalanced and weak? Shouldn't we be aiming to play exploitatively so that we can maximally exploit his unbalanced and weak range and then adjust once we recognize indications that he may be adjusting?

IMO this particular opponent would catch on to that right away. other opponents, prob not. basically, the weaker and dumber and less attentive your opponent is, the more you can take extremely transparent lines in every situation. you just always need to be conscious that you are likely contributing to the building of frustration and inducing an adjustment (more on this next episode)

Also, does this change when you are playing 2 tables compared to when your are playing 4+tables? Like, with 2 tables it seems like it's a lot easier to keep track of hands that went to showdown and adjust/maximally exploit accordingly. With 4 tables, however, it seems like it might make more sense to aim to just play a more balanced game (still making the big adjustments, but just not as many detailed adjustments as with 2 tables) than you would with 2 tables because you don't have time to really think about how every showdown might change the dynamic of the match in full detail and then drastically shift your ranges in a lot of different spots - so playing more balanced can sort of make up for not having the time to always be looking over your shoulder and make sure your adjusting properly?

I think dog is head talked about this in one of his videos (not sure if it was a DC vid or not), so I'm curious about your guys' opinions on it.

in this case i just wouldn't play 4 tables against someone until i could keep track of everything. i guess i would agree with this if you're doing it as an exercise to get better at 4-tabling.

you just always need to be conscious that you are likely contributing to the building of frustration and inducing an adjustment (more on this next episode)

Cool, looking forward to it.

How much of the time when you want to play are you actually playing. How much of is it spent sitting out waiting for someone to sit or looking up someone who is sitting to see if you want to play them? I am assuming the % time is higher at 50NL and decreases as you move up.

How much of the time when you want to play are you actually playing. How much of is it spent sitting out waiting for someone to sit or looking up someone who is sitting to see if you want to play them? I am assuming the % time is higher at 50NL and decreases as you move up.

i have to wait hours for heads up action sometimes...which is why I also play some short handed games, try to start 6h tables, etc. Also, as you move up, you want to start sitting at a range of stakes...like at least 3-4 different stake levels to increase the likelihood of getting action.

Usually I don't bother looking ppl up on ptr when I get action because I'm happy to get action, but I will use it on occasion.

I just played my first HU cash and got slaughtered....what a fun game...lots of bad luck and bad play on my part...like normal...blew through my stop loss without even noticing...lots to learn...that's why I am here....at least I dropped my big pots with big hands....Any chance these videos can come out twice a week?????

I just played my first HU cash and got slaughtered....what a fun game...lots of bad luck and bad play on my part...like normal...blew through my stop loss without even noticing...lots to learn...that's why I am here....at least I dropped my big pots with big hands....Any chance these videos can come out twice a week?????

Theres a ton you can watch while waiting, ive been rewatching them myself:

Pr1nnyraiding 1-2, Dogisheadsup, Pokersense is also very good too for general thinking.

unless u guys start talking poker, this 3rd series will suck ballz imo. what a waste of time srsly. i swear i didnt expect that from u.

unless u guys start talking poker, this 3rd series will suck ballz imo. what a waste of time srsly. i swear i didnt expect that from u.

thx for the read

thx for the read

cant say if u muck me, hope u dont cause i have great respect for u and wilt and i hope the next videos will just be strat and not random/useless rambling about stuff like ptr etc etc. tx

cant say if u muck me, hope u dont cause i have great respect for u and wilt and i hope the next videos will just be strat and not random/useless rambling about stuff like ptr etc etc. tx

if you have great respect for someone you don't tell them that their work will suck and that it's a waste of time. constructive comments are appreciated, your post is not.

as far the content, it's not useless at all to many people, and it's a necessary step in building to where we want to go in this series.

if you have great respect for someone you don't tell them that their work will suck and that it's a waste of time. constructive comments are appreciated, your post is not..

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.

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

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

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.

Aaron--

Thanks very much for the response.

I agree that 50% is something like a magic number--I've played a lot of HU and worked with my stats a lot.

Also I think I agree with almost everything else you said. I guess it sounds like you agree with what I said? As long as I'm not grossly mistaken when I say that there's no _a priori_ or game-theoretic reason to think you should be able to keep the button from autoprofiting preflo, then I'm OK. I was just concerned because in the video the latter thing was what it sounded like you two were claiming. I definitely think there are good _empirical_ reasons to shoot for around 50% (e.g., it works, and the 50%ish hands feel breakevenish to good players).

Thanks again. I'm currently loading a bunch of your videos onto my iPad for the flight to Vegas.

I wish pokermoney made some comments about what he thinks about the analysis of his c-betting strategy. Then again, its probably plus EV to remain silent on this issue for him. Assuming he is a strong player, I think too many assumptions are being made about how weak his check back range is and how strong his flop betting range is. It is very possible and actually likely that he has worked out a decently balanced c-bet strategy where he is checking back big hands, big draws, and his air some amount, while also still c-betting hands from each of those categories some.

In one of the Ansky vs. Durrrr videos, Dani points out that just because Dwan had a 4-bet percentage of something like 1 or 2 percent, that doesn't mean he has a ridiculously strong range. He is still going to have air in that range, and maintain balance he is also going to be flat calling QQ+ some amount. This supports your video's assertion that stats are a starting point. We can come up with ideas for how to play against someone who c-bets a low amount, but makes sure not to cling to preconceptions about how such a range would be constructed.

Also, while it is clear the vacuum play with 94o discussed at length around the 40 minute mark is to c-bet against pr1nnyraids weak defending range and high Fold to CBet, pokermoney has to be more concerned about balance against a player of KRANTZ caliber and not just looking for all the juicy vacuum plays because that would be too transparent. Sometimes he just has to give up with this hand or else his betting range is crazy weak, especially making the reasonable assumption that he checks back some strong hands given his lower c-betting percent.

Time Link to 00:48:36

Why would the fact that he raised allow you to remove top pair from his range? Because he flatted top pair medium kicker in this instance? I would think he is defiantly capable of raising KQ AQ even QT here and possibly even worse.

Why would the fact that he raised allow you to remove top pair from his range? Because he flatted top pair medium kicker in this instance? I would think he is defiantly capable of raising KQ AQ even QT here and possibly even worse.

it's because we see he's flatting top pair medium kicker here AND he's also raising so many flops in general. it doesn't allow me to remove every single combination of top pair, just the weaker ones and some combos of the strongest ones.

Ok, that makes sense. Thanks