---

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

Time Link to 00:04:21

I like that analogy.

Time Link to 00:06:11

I will actually argue that if you have problems remembering something you have not understood it. In order words don't try to remember anything. Try to understand it. There are a few exceptions. One is equity estimates vs different ranges.

I haven't watched this, but shouldn't the idea be to decrease a learning curve instead of increasing it?

Time Link to 00:07:47

I fully agree. People should ask a lot more questions.

- Write down the question on a piece of paper.
- Try to narrow down what it is you don't understand.
- Try to spell out why you cannot find the answer yourself. What is holding you back?
- Create a forum post where you include your thoughts.

I used to watch 3 vids in one watching session. These days it takes me 5 sessions to watch one vid. I'm constantly pausing and taking notes of everything worth noting and thinking. Sometimes I tilt and don't pay attention and I have to rewind the vid back the latest second where I still did pay full attention and try again.. When this happens twice I am finished.. I usually get through 10 minutes of a video per one view.

I like the length, 30-35 minutes is perfect for a video like that imo

Time Link to 00:03:18

The advantages and efficacy of an "active learning" approach were also brought in The Talent Code, which I found an interesting read.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

Oh by the way, the attitude that I explain in the previous post, is probably the reason why I enjoyed Saibot's thought out and analytical SNG series so much - they were good for taking notes.. Everything seemed to be having been paid attention to and there was no useless minutes.

A few months ago I stopped being a member of a competing video site cause the minutes about parties at someone's hotel room where also a prob bet was laid about someone else eating a tuna fish was just wasted time.

I haven't watched this, but shouldn't the idea be to decrease a learning curve instead of increasing it?

no

no

Very helpful

Time Link to 00:06:56

get it, I will try to ask more questions

I haven't watched this, but shouldn't the idea be to decrease a learning curve instead of increasing it?

lol... I'm sure they meant accelerate the learning curve, not increase it.

lol... I'm sure they meant accelerate the learning curve, not increase it.

Ah yes. That makes sense. It's got to be either accelerate or decrease, regardless of doc.lemon's apparent thoughts. Unless of course this video does something I wouldn't expect

You need to learn to be more flexible and apply the term as used in context, seriously. Why would Saibot want to make you learn slower?

By increasing it Saibot means to make it steeper and increase amount learned per effort invested. I made a sketch for you:
http://i.imgur.com/I6cFZ.png

Haha nice sketch. I figured it was just a typo. It's pretty obvious that I don't expect him to desire to make us learn slower. I still disagree considering that increasing the learning curve would not increase the amount you learn though. It's actually the opposite. Working harder and more efficiently doesn't equate to a higher learning curve.

Ty for putting effort into your response this time. A simple "no" is rather unhelpful and insulting. It's akin to someone just saying "fold."

You need to learn to be more flexible and apply the term as used in context, seriously. Why would Saibot want to make you learn slower?

By increasing it Saibot means to make it steeper and increase amount learned per effort invested. I made a sketch for you:
http://i.imgur.com/I6cFZ.png

A++ pic

Time Link to 00:30:26

Hi Saibot, I definitely have enjoyed your series so far, I think you touch on a lot of key things that get overlooked by most players and coaches. Anyway, this kind of triple barrel spot with 7 high tends to be a lot more profitable OOP against aggressive opponents because on this river, you are allowing your opponent to take down the pot with busted flush draw type hands, which is basically the only hands in his range he could be turning into a bluff on this board(other boards could be even worse for you in position). While in position, I much prefer to just take down the pot on the turn with a huge bet over giving him the opportunity to bluff me off of any river as I can't call with 67 high.

Time Link to 00:20:11

you argue that you didn't lead the river because there's nothing that you could extract value of. that said I suppose that if you have Qx on Jx or stronger hands you will bet there for sure so you could extract from 2pair type hands . Kx and some Tx maybe. how would and which hands will you choose to balance that ck/r bluff range ?

Great video as always Tobias

I haven't watched this, but shouldn't the idea be to decrease a learning curve instead of increasing it?

You are probably right. I am far from 100% perfect with regards to my english

The advantages and efficacy of an "active learning" approach were also brought in The Talent Code, which I found an interesting read.

Looking forward to the rest of the series.

I agree. I also read Talent Code recently. Great book!

I like the length, 30-35 minutes is perfect for a video like that imo

Cool. I will try to keep the length like that

And in general:

Thanks for all your comments. They are very appreciated. I glad to hear you like the series

Hi Saibot, I definitely have enjoyed your series so far, I think you touch on a lot of key things that get overlooked by most players and coaches. Anyway, this kind of triple barrel spot with 7 high tends to be a lot more profitable OOP against aggressive opponents because on this river, you are allowing your opponent to take down the pot with busted flush draw type hands, which is basically the only hands in his range he could be turning into a bluff on this board(other boards could be even worse for you in position). While in position, I much prefer to just take down the pot on the turn with a huge bet over giving him the opportunity to bluff me off of any river as I can't call with 67 high.

I agree with your thougt-process. In this instance though I was pretty sure he would CR either on the flop or on the turn if he had a flushdraw. I.E. I think he's range was weigted very heavily towards 2x. Which I was pretty confident he would just CC on both flop/turn, and not choose to turn it into a bluff on the river.
But had the dynamic / my reads been a bit different I also prefer a bigger bet on the turn

you argue that you didn't lead the river because there's nothing that you could extract value of. that said I suppose that if you have Qx on Jx or stronger hands you will bet there for sure so you could extract from 2pair type hands . Kx and some Tx maybe. how would and which hands will you choose to balance that ck/r bluff range ?

I would not bet with Jx for value on the river. As that would only be J high
In this spot I would also go for a CR with Qx.

Thanks for the book tip. This should be good.

Just wanted to say this series has been great so far!

Time Link to 00:21:28

in the HM-replayer u have a box that says "show stats up to date of hand" uncheck that one?

@RiverBoat
Thanks :-)

@ssimon
Good idea Will do that next time

More hand history that illustrate advanced concept please. I really like your line of thinking. Thank you

Time Link to 00:14:00

Do you have any recommendations for players looking to improve on this aspect of their study, but don't have access to tools like HEM or PT3. For example, I play a lot of draw games that don't have good tracking software available to them and it makes filtering hands through a database near impossible. Because of this, I've always used the standard you mentioned of just marking interesting hands as they have come up and reviewing them later.

@Slide
Hmmm - Cannot think of anything right now. I have always just used HEM in the way described.

Time Link to 00:15:54

how about keeping a diary?
I use one note and basically review all hands in a session, and note down those where I made a mistake or learned/considered a new concept.

Then things that repeat themselves I put into another tab 'things to do' and have specific sessions that focus on them. My routine got owned again by helping my GF with her studies and I stopped doing it but is that something you do and would recommend doing?

Because identifying leaks is one thing, you need to also put the correct play into your autopilot I always find a leak and not do that much about it

amazing series so far !
Will definitly take more notes while watching the poker vidz ! Great concepts, great lentgh for the videos.
Thanks mate

@doc
Def. a good idea with the diary. And yep, def. something that I would recommend you start doing again.

@Kim
Thanks

Do you have any recommendations for players looking to improve on this aspect of their study, but don't have access to tools like HEM or PT3. For example, I play a lot of draw games that don't have good tracking software available to them and it makes filtering hands through a database near impossible. Because of this, I've always used the standard you mentioned of just marking interesting hands as they have come up and reviewing them later.

You could use a screen recording software like camstudio (free) or camtasia (not free) to record your sessions and then review the sessions on high speed and just pause at spots which you want to analyze.

I believe you want to increase your learning curve.....the way I see it:

Y-axis - learning
X-axis - time

Slope = learning/time

Example:

Scenario 1: We learned 2 concepts (learning) in 1 hour (time): Learning curve slope = 2
Scenario 2: We learned 4 concepts (learning) in 1 hour (time): Learning curve slope = 4

The increase in learning curve means we are learning more given a time period. We want this!

Hands are very interesting. Thans.

Time Link to 00:19:10

What about donking the River?
Because imo that way we are gaining more fold equity, because we can rep a Q here also and if we ch/r we are only getting a bet by a K but if we donk, we might get him to fold Kx also but also make him fold 99/Tx/JJ.
Or the other way around: Imo we wouldnt want to ch/r a Q here, because we only get "value" from unlikely AJ, Qx and stubborn Kx.
Or do you think that we might actually have less FE, because our range for donking includes more air, whereas we would probably check/r less pure bluffs in villain's eyes?


And here's a general question about a concept that I can't wrap my head around:
You say, you would ch/r this here to rep a Q, but how would you play a Q then?
Donk it, because you would only get one bet by a K that folds (if not your ch/r would be bad) but get probably more value from mediumstrength hands? But if all of those hands fold to a donk, why not donk here as a bluff?

And more generally: If we play Qx and bluffs the same, aren't we sacrificing EV, because with Qx we want to get called and therefore not play it like Qx and with 8x we don't want to get called, so we play it like Qx?