Hey its the poker after dark guy.
look forward to watching this.

Very good questions Jarno: On one hand, there were a few things I did that were for the purposes of "making a video" that I certainly could have not done. I'll be honest, I have a layout of the different raw "opponent types" I hope to play against in my series, but when I actually get to the tables I have to hope to find those guys. I wanted so much for him to be an "early maniac" and he definitely sort of was, but he wasn't exactly the perfect prototype for it either. My open limping strategy against him was probably slightly less beneficial than it would be against a better example of an early maniac, but I got what I got, and I tried to make it work. This is where actually playing / recording live play you take the good with the bad. I've certainly played better examples of early maniacs but I would have to do it all through the replayer. Next week I think I am going to use the replayer because I recently played a true maniac at 8/16 and its just an excellent display of true maniac situations, one I doubt I could stumble upon again with Camtasia ready to go.

I think this video is pretty cool in that you guys have to this point only seen me play against passive fish, to some extent, and this guy was certainly not that. But (and I'll try to say this tactfully) he was wayyyy overaggressive, more so than is optimal, and despite it being a high variance situation, I felt I had a clear edge, even if I was respectful in my audio commentary. What you saw in the 50 min recording part of the match was him running pretty hot, and me poking around at the best way to counter his interesting and somewhat difficult to deal with style. But for me, mentally, he was nowhere near as challenging as some of the HU specialists I've played at all limits, his hyper aggression was just too much of a leak, and unfortunately it took me another hour after the video was recorded to really start plugging away on him, where I then saw he was quite tilty (which almost everyone is) and I booked a solid win. I would have played him for approximately forever

-DeathDonkey

could u do one where u play a tournament? like just a HUsng 1 table only one opponent type thing. or at least go over what type of adjustments u might make for the sng situations of being shortstacked or bigstacked during one. that would help me cause i play a lot of those. had another question can't remember it though. another great video, was good to see u lose kinda gives some confidence to me seeing that even pros have bad beats and lose sometimes and then to see late than u ended up making a lot off of him was good. awesome vid, 5 stars.

By the way, I think that this series gives you all you need to play well in HU SnGs. Just apply all of the same concepts. I think that SnGs and cash games are very similar for limit. Where in NL it is very different as you rarely will see a turn or river as the blinds rise in a SnG. In limit, even when the limits rise, you are almost always playing a hand to showdown so the concepts still pretty much remain the same.

One small thing but obvious thing you can do differently is to be willing to show down really light at the start when the limits are low. The information you gain about the villains play is cheap at this stage. Using this when the limits go up, you will see a nice ROI on the losses from the first couple hands when you win back you losses from 2-3 hands on one hand alone.

DD I could not have imagined a better "getting started in HU" series. I've always wanted feedback on your particular HU perspective, particlulary because you have one of the most interesting styles of HU limit play out of all the DC staff. Very good work.

I was wondering if you would consider a spinoff series for later down the road? Possibly where you take a HU noob and sweat him a little bit, sort of in the same vein that Krantz and whitelime took in their last series with danzasmack.

How good are you DD? This guy you played was very good, I think.
This was 100/200 class, dont ya think/?
I also respect that you post loses. Now that I learned how to watch videos, I have 3 pages of notes.
I will try to summarize.
I wrote these real time, before seeing further action.

18:35...If I was backing you, I would give you the $10 to make this river call.
1) some percent we are good.
2) we fold..villain keeps firing thinking we are easy, even calling and losing slows him down.
3) most important...we develope our read more, and early this is important(I learned that from you ...lol)

21:26.. I love this hand!!..Raise for confusion.
31:34..My read of his turn raise is..he is reading your hand as weak and is re-stealing.
I would 3 bet.
32:16..His cards either went dead, or he has changed plan and is now passive.
33:07..Your flop raise must be a high limit bluff which you must explain to me.
33:43..Dont 3 bet the turn, use the same line you used on the bluff he saw, he will remember that and not believe you here or on the river when you raise again. tough beat.
35:11..nice bet on turn
36:25...You c/r semi-bluff a GS. then bet/3bet continue the bluff on the turn.
He will raise his entire range bluffing the king? so you 3 bet.
He caps the turn. check check...he show a 7!!!
This hand is an illustration of the game of "chicken" that goes on in high stakes.
I understand your side of it, but was he trying to get you to fold a 8!!??
or was he 4betting for value, thinking you were on a draw?

At this point in the match, I am thinking Villain may see you as the maniac here.
A late maniac.
41:09...he may have changed lines for aces in this spot, you both changed lines several times.
41:40...I agree with over estimated FE.
....here I am thinking..hasnt villain shown us a way to counter someone who is constantly rasing from the btn?(3 bet them constantly)
43:16...he Misread your hand, and thought you had OC's. When we know, that he knows this(damn I finally got to use 2nd level thinking for real..damn I am good..lol).how do we exploit it?
keep raising?? or c/r the turn??
.....I am thinking at this point in the match...He thinks he has FE vs you. We need to find a place to SD ace or king high.
43:59...more high level changing gears...you both flop a pair...check check!!
44:55...well played, after a tough beat, you dont tilt, man your good.
46:09...you have both gone passive.
50:16..I am yelling at the screen..."cap it , cap it"..he doesn't trust you at all.
villain thinks he has FE on you, and he thinks you make too many moves.
52:11..please call..chance to show him A or K high.
53:10..is this donk any good by villain? I have been donking more myself...it sometimes freezes the PFR'r...but it only works vs a player I can trust...so I dont get his donk here.
580..I'm guessing he is catching. He went passive a few hands ago.
1:01...we still need to call the river more I think. too much call/call/fold

I am glad you came back and won, And I am sorry to hear that he whined about it.
Cause I thought he played well, and was a true test for you, and hell,
I already know your damn good!!

Hi Mickey, Just so you know it would help me a little bit if you noted what my hand was and maybe the flop if its relevant for comments you'd like feedback on - I might recall the hand off memory and its alot easier for me to respond without having to pull up the video and watch at those time markers to remember. Anyway, no, I hope he doesn't see this because I don't want to start any drama, but he was not that good, and neither of us are 100/200 good if we are talking about online. I've never played 100/200 HU online and I know the regulars who sit at those limits on Full Tilt, I don't think I have an edge on any of them and some probably would have an edge on me. I am honest with myself, I think my best quality at poker is my ability to teach it and my all around poker theory which allows me to play many different games proficiently, and some more than proficiently, but while I think I am an experienced heads up player, I am not as much of a HU specialist as many of the HU pros who sit at huge games all day long alone, waiting for a match. Perhaps I am wrong and I could beat some of them, but it doesn't really interest me to play in a spot with such a low edge anyway, there is no chance I am significantly better than any of them (though there is little chance any of them are statistically significantly better than me either imo).

I hope this post doesn't come back to bite me, as I certainly think I'm one of the most qualified to do this series of anyone I've ever seen make a poker video, but I also would feel slimy letting you claim I am better than I am. I'm very comfortable with my relative poker skill, and more prideful in my teaching skill.

Mickey, I'll address your comments directly tomorrow, as I'm almost off to bed and I need to look through the video at the timestamps you mention, but thanks in advance for taking the time to make so many comments and questions.

Hypnotic, yeah all I really know about Ali is seeing him at Commerce one time hanging out with his friend who was playing 100/200 (fish imo) when I was in the game. I'd assume he is a competent player who probably thinks he is better than he is, but then, everyone pretty much does
I will say, again for the sake of honesty and not just to cause drama, when you get to the mid limits, say 15/30 or so online, a player like him would be a pretty bonafied fish.

In the last few episodes of this series I will play some strong players, and maybe we will see the difference. I'll definitely play a couple different winning pros, and see if I can wrangle up someone I'd certainly admit to being my equal or superior, though in my opinion if I play someone better than me there is almost no point in doing the video, because my commentary about strategic adjustments and stuff suffer from the glaring and obvious problem that if he is better than me, I cannot advise a way to beat him, and I highly doubt anyone wants to watch a series where the author talks about "how to lose less when you are the fish" LOL

-DeathDonkey

oh boy...
Thanks for all your thoughts DD.
I have no way of knowing for sure, I dont have the expertise.
But one of two things are going on here.
Either something in the way you play "post-theory" is missing or not sufficient.
Or you are being modest, and under representing your strength.(which is ok)

"the glaring and obvious problem that if he is better than me"....See I dont think this is possible. especially the "glaring" part.
my theory..lol..once two players have learned the theory etc, it becomes a guessing game of reads and adjustments and counter-adjustments. level 1,2,3,4,5, headache time..
For example...I posted a reply in high stakes here, from pokerbob. I am sure all you high stakes guys blew off my answer. Because you all know I play low and "dont know the theory".
but i saw a flaw in pokerbob's play, well not in his play in his read. but he doesnt see it, cause it doesnt fit with theory or what he perceives to be going on at the time.
he had AT on a AKJTX board...and called twice and folded river being sure he was beat.
I suggest his opponent could have 33, he should call.

ridiculous...I dont think so. And once I learn the theory, I will show pokerbob pocket 33, right after he folds his two pair. BECAUSE I KNOW HE WILL FOLD THERE. (and I even know what your thinking now DD, mickey you just dont see it deep enough)...ok maybe..lol


and if this guy is a 15/30 fish. I can just quit now.
I wish you had taped the rest of the match, I would love to see it.

also...I cant help myself here DD. I would like to know what you think your weaknesses are.
Is this game that vast?

Hey Mickey, here are my comments on your notes, thanks again for taking the time:

33:07 flop raise: I just thought he was taking a stab with undercards given he didn't raise preflop and pure bluffed it. Just hand reading based on his preflop play.
33:43 turn 3 bet decision - this hand is somewhat different in that I'm OOP now, so he might check behind river which would suck.
36:25 the big pot with 45 where I get owned: No he wasn't trying to get me to fold an 8, it was for value vs. a draw, he played the hand very well. Basically when I 3 bet the turn my range is polarized to draws and monsters, so he doesn't really have to worry about 8x, I think he played the hand great, better now than I said even in the video.
43:16 well it depends, if I felt he had a pair, I'd raise for value since he would put me on overcards and call down, but on that board I was either beat or he was bluffing, so I can let him try to push me off overcards when I really am gladly calling down with my pair to get max value.
52:11 I think you are looking more at my overall hand strength than the situation. He was check/calling on the flop with made hands and the turn card is also a bad one given the flop texture, so I think I still like my fold in the very small pot.
53:10 donk bets are rarely good because they often don't maximize value, you can balance a donk betting strategy to be difficult to deal with, and do it for value, as a bluff, etc etc but in general its tough to do and I don't really recommend it.

-DeathDonkey

Hey Mickey, here are my comments on your notes, thanks again for taking the time:

33:07 flop raise: I just thought he was taking a stab with undercards given he didn't raise preflop and pure bluffed it. Just hand reading based on his preflop play.
33:43 turn 3 bet decision - this hand is somewhat different in that I'm OOP now, so he might check behind river which would suck.
36:25 the big pot with 45 where I get owned: No he wasn't trying to get me to fold an 8, it was for value vs. a draw, he played the hand very well. Basically when I 3 bet the turn my range is polarized to draws and monsters, so he doesn't really have to worry about 8x, I think he played the hand great, better now than I said even in the video.
43:16 well it depends, if I felt he had a pair, I'd raise for value since he would put me on overcards and call down, but on that board I was either beat or he was bluffing, so I can let him try to push me off overcards when I really am gladly calling down with my pair to get max value.
52:11 I think you are looking more at my overall hand strength than the situation. He was check/calling on the flop with made hands and the turn card is also a bad one given the flop texture, so I think I still like my fold in the very small pot.
53:10 donk bets are rarely good because they often don't maximize value, you can balance a donk betting strategy to be difficult to deal with, and do it for value, as a bluff, etc etc but in general its tough to do and I don't really recommend it.

-DeathDonkey

DD..thanks for the replys,
I have two more follow up questions on this,

1)52:11...and this part of the match in general. starting at 43:16 in my notes.

You didn't comment on my read of, villain thought he had FE on you.

I did not want to show down this hand to win.
Although I do think you win this hand some of the time with K high.
To me, metagame considerations plus the value of our hand is worth a call here.

Is my read just flat wrong? or bad? am I worrying about something that doesnt matter?

2) I feel his 3 betting you constantly to stop you from raising every btn was effective.
Although he may have choosen select spots instead of every time.
I also thought going to a flat call all buttons on our part is overdoing the counter-strategy.
I think in HU we need to fight for every inch, you did start raising PF again late in whats on the video. I am guessing in the part of the match we did not see, you also started raising again PF.
I have a feeling you disagree. But I am asking to learn. why or explain?

my theory..lol..once two players have learned the theory etc, it becomes a guessing game of reads and adjustments and counter-adjustments. level 1,2,3,4,5, headache time..

There's only so much you can gain from this sort of leveling game. You have to remember that cards come to play too and no amount of leveling helps you if the villain has a hand that has a straight-forward way to play. Also, if you tend to play in this game theory optimal way (which isn't necessarily easy but let's forget that now), there's no way your opponent can have advantage EV-wise. No amount of hand-reading or thinking in levels will help there.

But say for example that you open with T9o on the button in HU game and your opponent calls. Flop comes A73r. The villain checks and you bet and the villain check/raises. You realize that your opponent can very well have air or just some weak draw as the flop isn't too likely to have hit your opening range and the board is contestable. Now, you can re-bluff this board in this sort of leveling sense and just 3-bet bluff and expect to win the pot some portion of the time. If the opponent is bluffing these boards relatively often, that is. But the fact is that your opponent can have an Ace and you're putting one big bet into the pot drawing practically dead.

This might be a bit simplified example, but my point is that while there's certainly more leveling going on the higher you go it's also the case that it's not that profitable to try to out-level your opponent all the time. The relative value of being able to out-level your opponent EV-wise isn't that big (these out-leveling moves have a cost too) so the game isn't just about out-thinking opponents.

(The above hand was not an example of deep leveling as it happens in the lowest levels and with all sorts of players, but just to illustrate the idea.)

and if this guy is a 15/30 fish. I can just quit now. I wish you had taped the rest of the match, I would love to see it.

You must understand that aggression also comes with a cost. If it's over-done and in a way that is exploitable, it's a costly style against a competent opponent. But the thing is that in HUHU, it's really hard to identify and exploit specific leaks in over-aggressive players, because if, say, they make biggest mistakes in big streets then you will need some hands to exploit those mistakes and even if this sort of an over-aggressive player say over-plays on big streets, it's still the case that he can have a hand too and if you counter-exploit his aggression by making thin value-raises on big streets, you're paying a big price when he actually does have a hand. (Which is of course rare occasion but happens too.

jajvirta..

It appears that you and I may be conversing a lot in the future, so its a good idea we learn how one another thinks.
I enjoy analyzing things, but you seem to love it. which is good for me...lol
optimal play in poker...I think I answered this in the rock, paper ,scissors thread.

I have learned here at DC, that there is ONE TRUE (or better) line, choice of action in each INDIVIDUAL HAND or action.
But the factors that make that decision ARE AS CLEAR AS MUD a lot of the time.
Perhaps I just dont fully understand your points, this is a good possibility.

but I think the constants in poker and in most poker decisions are not PERFECTLY CLEAR.
as to make almost any decision a matter of opinnion." IT DEPENDS"...
the art of poker is in the "DEPENDS" part...he who conquers that, will win.
so in my mind, IN ONE GIVEN HAND A CHICKEN CAN BEAT THE BEST POKER PLAYER IN THE WORLD,..
does that mean he played optimal strategy for that hand...no he got lucky..
or ..if we give the chicken a royal flush and he cant find the fold place to peck....

so its a bad game for a optimal strategy....and I am sure I dont fully understand...but thats ok..lol

learn the tools...then its a head game.
course its very hard to just get past the tools part...
computers can handle the tools...but not the head game part..

bottom line...I think I just flat disagree...I think HU is ALL ABOUT LEVELING.
especially if the opponents are fairly evenly matched ....meaning they have the tools to play poker.


as for the 15/30 fish....
you will have to convince me he played bad. I am only a 1/2 player, and I dont understand many poker concepts, so perhaps this match was just way over my head.
but....you saying that he was just running good while playing too agg vs DD early on, and that DD caught up luck wise and thusly beat him because of superior poker skills and adjustments. well, I did not see that, perhaps it was in the part we did not see. thats why I would love to see the rest of the match.
Dont get me wrong here....I think DD is a great player, even if he doesnt think so.

so telling me that this guy is a fish, well....this fish is a long way up the road from me...and that makes me SUPERFISH.....thats my point.


jaj....I know I think in a simpler way than you, I hope that doesn't hinder us.
you may be a genius, we know for sure I am not.

Hi Bellatrix,

Well, the limping strategy I employed I can boil down to saying I had little to no fold equity, and not strong enough hands to be thrilled about putting in 3 bets preflop. That's a bit too short to really say limping is the best strategy but I go into detail during the intro portion of the video and a bit while playing him. What you have to understand is if he is raising me with a really wide range from the BB, then my weak hands are not "crushed" by his range at all, nor am I "giving him too much value". I'm not that far behind with any two cards against his range, its just a question of reverse implied odds with my weakest hands and the fact that he will get me to fold the best hand a bit too often for me to want to play everything, but that's pretty much the crux of the problem I have to solve vs such a player.

You are really thinking about heads up preflop play incorrectly if you are trying to "be more selective" than your opponent, that isn't the reason why bad players are bad at heads up. If you come from a full ring or 6 max background you have it ingrained in your head that good players win the preflop battle, and in heads up play that is hardly the case.

-DeathDonkey

I really enjoy these Videos, DD does a fantastic job explaing the concepts behind HU LHE.

I was a bit surprised at Ali's play, i've sat with him a good deal at 8/16 and 10/20 HORSE and he didn't play very laggy there, more like solid, if a bit weak-tight.