I'm really pleased with this video. I think I played about as well as I'm capable of at this point in time. I did want to address one hand a little further.

~65 minutes in I have Q9s UTG in a four handed game.

PF: Hero raises, BTN calls, SB calls, BB calls

Flop: (8 SB) ATx rainbow with one of my suit (4 players)
SB checks, BB check, Hero bets, BTN folds, SB check raises, BB folds, Hero...

I'm getting 11:1 closing the action with BD flush and straight draws. Our read on the villain basically amounts to, 'he has an ace here 100% of the time.'

By coincidence (not really since I don't believe in coincidences - only probability) I was reading a 2+2 thread linked from Rob's blog earlier in the day:

Dumb backdoors question.

I called, but based on the math in that thread I'm wondering if I should have just folded.

My question is what type of HUD display is being used throughout your video? I currently don't play with HUD but given the fact that i found it really easy to look at those stats i'm now interested in that HUD.

It's the HUD that is built into Hold'em Manager. :)

Rob

Hi bassline, thanks for the kind words. I definitely want to give a lot of credit to Rob for the improvements in my game. As for the serenity, I know we keep pimping it basically every episode, but Tommy Angelo's book is excellent and extremely valuable in this area. I also try to spend some time doing yoga or meditating. It helps.

Honstely, I didn't feel too sorely tested (emotionally) by anything in this video. I mean, I have 88 and get my opponents to put in, what? 6 BB post flop with the field drawing to 4 outs collectively? It's hard to want much more than that.

Yeah, I think the Q9s cbet may be questionable 4 ways. But keep in mind that two people have already checked. So I think I'm still fine to fire here. SB and BB will often fold here when they missed. And the player behind me is very weak and one whom I think I have a very strong read on, so I'm okay with playing against him.

If I cbet and get it HU:

Versus loose BTN I'm probably committed to firing a lot of turns as he has shown he will peel loose AND raise with decent hands (so the flop non-raise makes his range weaker in my mind).

I'm less certain about what to do against either of the blinds. I think it would depend on exactly what came off on the turn and possibly any timing-related information I could pick up.

If I cbet and it is 3 ways (versus any two opponents) on the turn I'd probably check without improving and hope for a free card.

And of course if raised I peel (though maybe I shouldn't have) and re-evalutate the turn. I'd definitely peel BTN as he could raise me with a T.

Do you agree we should be aware of what are image is, but that we should not make a play based on what it might be because of our present action?
It seems to me, having the opponent confused on how we are playing is a plus.

Absolutely we should be aware of our image. I want to be aware of as much that's going on at the table as possible and my image is important not only in and of itself but also because it affects things like table flow, the dynamics of play for me versus each individual opponent, etc.

I'm not sure if I totally get what you're saying about it, but for me image is by no means the determining factor for my decisions - it's just one more piece of information. If an opponent hesitates and then acts, that potential timing tell is a piece of information (may just be latency, multi-tabling, etc.). Their action itself is a piece of information. Our history, their image, my cards, the board, etc...all of these are pieces of information and my decision attempts to incorporate them all.

And absolutely, if our opponent doesn't know what we're doing and essentially has to 'guess' at the right decision, I think we're doing well.

1) Do you always only play one table? Or do you just play one table for the videos?

I usually play only one table. At least that's what I think, but my memory could be off. So I'm actually working on a project right now to see exactly how often I am one tabling and how often I am multi tabling. I then want to compare the results and see if either appears to be more profitable for me. But no matter what that analysis shows I know I play better and learn more from one tabling (and since those things are my priority, more so than making money, I usually restrict myself to one table).

My approach to notes is essentially to first just write down action. As time goes on I try to include reasons for that action. Eventually I modify the notes to give me more of a general player profile.

For example, let's say I see a player raise pre flop and end up showing down a weak hand. I note it, but I don't know why they did it. From further observation I hope to add a note about whether they have weak opening standards, are opening with the Gap Concept, are aggressive about isolating weak limpers, are attacking the blinds because the player's behind them are tight and the blinds are weak, etc. As more time passes I may classify them as a maniac, a TAG, a LAG, a smart thinking, possibly dangerous LAG-TAG, etc.

The same sort of process would apply to pretty much any other situation. Hope that makes sense. If not I can try and come up with a few more examples.

I usually play only one table. At least that's what I think, but my memory could be off. So I'm actually working on a project right now to see exactly how often I am one tabling and how often I am multi tabling.

I think its pretty amazing that you moved up from .5/1 - 2/4 as fast as you did only one tabling.

Great job!

I hope to do the same. I seem to be rather stuck in a rut at .5/1 and 1/2