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

Time Link to 00:05:25

really? every 5k hands? I thought less is more right http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/4-General-Discussion/topics/31606-The-importance-of-not-che#posts-238470

Time Link to 00:17:45

these example hands are not your usual style right?

I guess these are just the STAND OUT hands of the sample, but you look very spewy so far.

Is it really necessary to mix your game up so much at midstakes?

Time Link to 00:17:29

^^^ link to timeline

Time Link to 00:19:32

"Butt-off or cutton". Epic slip of the tongue
I love the series so far. Hope it's going to continue being this good.

"Butt-off or cutton". Epic slip of the tongue
I love the series so far. Hope it's going to continue being this good.

Darn someone beat me to it.

Time Link to 00:53:28

great questions asked in thie vid

really? every 5k hands? I thought less is more right http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/4-General-Discussion/topics/31606-The-importance-of-not-che#posts-238470

I check out hands after every session while everything is fresh, and the monetary result doesn't really matter to me, just want to improve my decisions.

these example hands are not your usual style right?

I guess these are just the STAND OUT hands of the sample, but you look very spewy so far.

Is it really necessary to mix your game up so much at midstakes?

I don't have a specific style, and I don't think these hands are the product of style anyway, rather situations. Obviously these spots don't come up all the time and I don't go out of my way to find them, but if something comes up and I see a creative line that's backed by sound idea (even if it's not 100% like some of these hands) I'm going to go ahead with it.

If you don't experiment, and get out of your comfort zone of standard so to speak, you aren't going to learn as much, as fast. You can't be afraid to make mistakes. Mistakes are the building blocks that will make us all better at poker. Next time we review hands (if that happens again in an episode) I may have cleared up a lot of the thought process flaws in these hands, but I'll probably have a slew of new hands I've made mistakes in. Either way I'll be better player for it when I make and learn from those mistakes.

I know these hands make me look spewy I was telling Jay that when we were recording haha. Bottom line is that these were the most interesting hands we had to talk about, this handful. There was plenty of uninteresting standard stuff, and some spots where I pwned people as well that just weren't worth talking about really.

I noticed the butt-off or cutton when I watched this earlier but I def didn't notice when we were recording lol. It's got to be the coffee talking

Time Link to 00:22:13

A quick look @ PTR suggests that MCC isn't quite as horrible as 'Uhhh, i have a 9, I bet'. In fact, he appears to be the best player at the table with a bb/100 about 3-4x everyone else over a pretty significant sample.

Fender - it doesn't look like you have a good sample on him. Do you make a habit of checking PTR or similar when you sit at a table with unknowns?

Time Link to 00:51:52

Hate to do it again, but PTR shows that Iowa is pretty passive. Don't think he is c/r like pocket 77s here like ever.

A quick look @ PTR suggests that MCC isn't quite as horrible as 'Uhhh, i have a 9, I bet'. In fact, he appears to be the best player at the table with a bb/100 about 3-4x everyone else over a pretty significant sample.

Fender - it doesn't look like you have a good sample on him. Do you make a habit of checking PTR or similar when you sit at a table with unknowns?

No because PTR isn't all that accurate the vast majority of the time, and the things that are currently going on at the table far outweigh what that crackpot site has to say. It can give a general idea, but so can observation and the information you have readily available. Stuff like stack size, number of tables etc. etc.

I don't have any history w/him but I know he posts in the regs thread on 2p2 and is probably a good player. I really doubt he has anything other than a 9 on this river for a lot of reasons, I never said I thought he was just "UH 9, BET". He clearly puts me on some sort of pocket pair (or perhaps a missed draw) after I check the river, and is value betting, and honestly his bet isn't even that thin given my perceived range. If he had a T himself or JJ+ he would bet the turn w/no history imo (maybe not but probably so) and he would basically never be pure bluffing this river, so that leaves 9x nearly 100% of the time. maybe it's 99 lol but still, you get the point.

My play in this hand on the river is pretty terrible for a few reasons, but even if I didn't get into any sort of leveling and try to bluff him, we can see that I probably don't have many offsuit Tx hands in my peeling range preflop, so that really cuts down my value hands, and like Krantz said, not too many 5x hands either, and draws missed.

Sometimes you get caught up in the moment though. I just like to make sure that I learn from these mistakes, and now, I want us all to learn from my mistakes You don't have to walk down the path I did, but you can still gain the knowledge hehe.

Hate to do it again, but PTR shows that Iowa is pretty passive. Don't think he is c/r like pocket 77s here like ever.

yeah I said he wasn't ever checkraising 7's he was just check/calling with pairs mostly I would suggest not paying so much attention to PTR the fact that Iowa checkraised and stacked off w/AT here, rather than bluffcatch, should tell you that he's not that passive.

I don't have a specific style, and I don't think these hands are the product of style anyway, rather situations. Obviously these spots don't come up all the time and I don't go out of my way to find them, but if something comes up and I see a creative line that's backed by sound idea (even if it's not 100% like some of these hands) I'm going to go ahead with it.

If you don't experiment, and get out of your comfort zone of standard so to speak, you aren't going to learn as much, as fast. You can't be afraid to make mistakes. Mistakes are the building blocks that will make us all better at poker. Next time we review hands (if that happens again in an episode) I may have cleared up a lot of the thought process flaws in these hands, but I'll probably have a slew of new hands I've made mistakes in. Either way I'll be better player for it when I make and learn from those mistakes.

I know these hands make me look spewy I was telling Jay that when we were recording haha. Bottom line is that these were the most interesting hands we had to talk about, this handful. There was plenty of uninteresting standard stuff, and some spots where I pwned people as well that just weren't worth talking about really.

I noticed the butt-off or cutton when I watched this earlier but I def didn't notice when we were recording lol. It's got to be the coffee talking

thanks for answering the post, great response! cheers

Only been watching 27min so far but you've just been slaughtering every hand so far in this vid Fender. I liked your plays much more in the other vids. Hope I change my mind.

No because PTR isn't all that accurate the vast majority of the time, and the things that are currently going on at the table far outweigh what that crackpot site has to say

Lol @ rather having no info than knowning his general tendencies over 200k hands this year.

Obviously it is good for little other than a general idea, but Id rather have that than nothing every time. What makes it a 'crackpot site', btw?

Lol @ rather having no info than knowning his general tendencies over 200k hands this year.

Obviously it is good for little other than a general idea, but Id rather have that than nothing every time. What makes it a 'crackpot site', btw?

What's to LOL @ friend? Pretty sure all I did was answer your question, "Do you make it a habit when at a table of unknowns, to check them out on PTR". I do not.

Also, so what if PTR has 200k hands on him? People get better (and worse) all the time, and everyone's game is in a constant state of flux, not to mention people change emotionally as well. So I don't necessarily think it's that relevant. I can get just as good of an idea and build reads based on what I see from him currently. I can obtain fresh good information now. I'm not saying you shouldn't grab yourself some popcorn, load up every table you're thinking about sitting at and write an anthology of how your opponents played yesterday, last week, or during a snowstorm on a rocketship 7.5 months ago. That's all fine and dandy I'll steady my course without it.

I say it's a crackpot site because its primary function is flawed and inconsistent. It's just not my style.

Didnt mean to set you off dude.

It takes me about 2 min to check all the unknowns at my table. I note winrate and sample size, and if they are generally tight or loose and passive or aggressive.

No anthologies, no deep reads. I like it and it works for me, and I don't see the point in ignoring info that is instantly available. It is simply a stop gap until I have real reads on people.

Didnt mean to set you off dude.

It takes me about 2 min to check all the unknowns at my table. I note winrate and sample size, and if they are generally tight or loose and passive or aggressive.

No anthologies, no deep reads. I like it and it works for me, and I don't see the point in ignoring info that is instantly available. It is simply a stop gap until I have real reads on people.

I'm not set off I'm always this colorful hehe. I guess I could counter the 2 min to check winrate/sample type stuff w/how many tables they are on and their stack size. Same principal though not exactly the same, and HUD will let you know pretty quickly whether or not they are aggressive or passive, tight or loose.

Not to mention that PTR is against FTP TOS and they could potentially take your roll (not sure this has ever really happened but I stray away from risk like that even if it's minimal). To each his own Apologies if I came off as heated though, I'm just passionate.

What is the video-- Jay's worst-- that he refers to? Just curious. I suppose I should skip that one.

"Butt-off or cutton". Epic slip of the tongue
I love the series so far. Hope it's going to continue being this good.

http://www.spiritofnature.co.uk/acatalog/n5180.jpg

What is the video-- Jay's worst-- that he refers to? Just curious. I suppose I should skip that one.

It's one in the Lightsabers series, you'll be able to tell by the comments :-)

regarding the T9o hand in the beginning: you say you have about 27 to 30% equity against a reasonable calling range. can you please specify his calling range?

regarding the T9o hand in the beginning: you say you have about 27 to 30% equity against a reasonable calling range. can you please specify his calling range?

Board: 8c 9d 5d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 26.412% 26.19% 00.22% 6741 57.50 { Th9c }
Hand 1: 73.588% 73.36% 00.22% 18884 57.50 { AcAd, KcKd, 99-88, 55, AdQd, AdJd, AdTd, A9s, Ad8d, KdQd, KdJd, KdTd, QdJd, QdTd, JdTd, 98s, 8d7d, 7c6c, 7d6d }

I did this quickly (so I may have made an error), and kind of worst case scenario. You can play with pokerstove and add/remove pieces and portions and like Krantz said in the vid, check out ranges of ranges and see how it changes In this version I sprinkled in a combo each of AA and KK, which he may not have, and he may never have A9s, he may never have 67s. So keep in mind this is just one way to plug it.