Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by DeathDonkey (High Stakes)

i like this format and i think that the content is great, as usual. the only gripe i have is that you don't have availability to the villain's stats this way. how can you properly analyze a session when the proper line is going to vary depending on your assumptions about the particular villain's ranges/actions.. much of which is based on the HUD statistics? any thoughts on how to incorporate this aspect into our personal review? thanks.

Time Link to 00:14:03

DD here is somthing I've been thinking about. Villain in this hand fires QTo again for a cheap SD on A64;9 after 3-betting pf. I don't think he should be allowed to do that! IMO it is important that our strategy is designed such that this is a misstake. What I mean is that we will XC a mixture of draws and made hands on the flop thatis used to punish these second barells.

QT makes no better hands fold and it is too weak in my mind to have the "right" to bet for protection. Kind of a backwards way to think. I discussed it some in RE ep8 (though I don't have a great method yet). I don't like if we peel a ton of middling hands like T7o and XR all strong hand + draws. I just feel we should have a plan for punishing these second barells. Also XR T7 here helps balancingour range IMO.

Do u agree? Should we try to "atack" QTo on this flop by calling a threatening range? How do u like the idea of "designig" our range to atack second barells from specific hands?

i like this format and i think that the content is great, as usual. the only gripe i have is that you don't have availability to the villain's stats this way. how can you properly analyze a session when the proper line is going to vary depending on your assumptions about the particular villain's ranges/actions.. much of which is based on the HUD statistics? any thoughts on how to incorporate this aspect into our personal review? thanks.

This is a very good question. Think of it this way, I am not necessarily trying to analyze a student's (or my own) plays and judge them as 100% correct or not, I'm more trying to see lots and lots of situations and see if I find something that is routinely "wrong". Very often what happens in one of my coaching sessions is that I have some notes on a hand like "you should do X instead of Y" and then the student will say to me "yeah normally I do X but villain was <some description of villain> that made me think Y would be better here". And then sometimes I will go "ok you are right, Y makes perfect sense here" and other times I'll say "well now that you've told me that I think you should have done Z, or possibly X is still correct against this type of villain". It leads to really interesting poker theory discussion.

So basically my point is this method of analysis will not 100% lead to the "correct" answer but it will always lead to a good discussion. And sometimes there are just plays that seem "wrong" or suboptimal against literally any opponent type.

DD here is somthing I've been thinking about. Villain in this hand fires QTo again for a cheap SD on A64;9 after 3-betting pf. I don't think he should be allowed to do that! IMO it is important that our strategy is designed such that this is a misstake. What I mean is that we will XC a mixture of draws and made hands on the flop thatis used to punish these second barells.

QT makes no better hands fold and it is too weak in my mind to have the "right" to bet for protection. Kind of a backwards way to think. I discussed it some in RE ep8 (though I don't have a great method yet). I don't like if we peel a ton of middling hands like T7o and XR all strong hand + draws. I just feel we should have a plan for punishing these second barells. Also XR T7 here helps balancingour range IMO.

Do u agree? Should we try to "atack" QTo on this flop by calling a threatening range? How do u like the idea of "designig" our range to atack second barells from specific hands?

I mostly agree with you. I think I try to design my range to combat this problem by being fairly stubborn with high card hands and small pairs in these spots (in particular on this A64 board that means king highs, 4x, and sometimes 6x). Also this is a good board to c/c Ax and CR turn.

I like this format and think this has some potential as well for the forum in terms of how we discuss hands. It allows for the possibility of doing session reviews in the forums.

I definitely think this would make a great idea for a video series. And more DeathDonkey would always be a good thing as well!

I REALLY liked this format, and would greatly appreciate seeing more like this in the future!

I found it seemed like much more concentrated learning this way.

Also, the walk-through of how to use the Hand Converter site, and HEM filters, was a great tip!! I've been looking for a "system," or method of reviewing hands that works for me, and I'm going to give this a try!

One of my favourite Deuce's videos watched!

like this format. question about your handconverter website, in order to give a friend the link for viewing our own hands, do we need to click "store in THC.com database"?

also, does it only convert 100 hands at a time or could you do much more?

like this format. question about your handconverter website, in order to give a friend the link for viewing our own hands, do we need to click "store in THC.com database"?

also, does it only convert 100 hands at a time or could you do much more?

Yes the hands need to be publicly stored so that others can view them. This is the default option, I allow the other option for people concerned with privacy issues, though your screen name is always hidden and inaccessible to others.

It can do more than 100, though I'm not sure how many is beyond 'reasonable' - we might limit it as there have been some server issues recently and we are sort of guessing at the cause, but someone converting 1000+ hands could cause a lot of slowdown.