Poker Video: Omaha/Omaha 8 by danzasmack (Micro/Small Stakes)

Still watching this but it looks great so far. During that first hand, the whole time, I was like, crap, is this me? Yep.

Edit: heh I think you meant to edit around 28:00...

Sh*t that's embarassing - we're on it =/

Was it that bad?

Edit made new versions posted.
-Rusty

Was it that bad?

It's always a little difficult to watch someone pull apart a hand you played, even if you think you played it somewhat badly.

There is one hand, though, that I played in a way that is very non-standard for me, on purpose. I didn't send yeahthatsme notes with all the hands, I sent him a dump of some bad ones the other day with no comments. In a vacuum I agree with most of your comments and it's something I'm working on. I spew like a money in pots where I have the nut low and not much else.

So the hand where I flop nut low draw + nut flush draw, yeah usually I am getting as much in there as possible. And anyone who's played with me at all knows that. I've played a ton of hands with villain, who is reasonably solid, and it's tough to make money from him. If I get it all in here on the flop I am probably not that far ahead. There's a chance he might fold to a big raise, and I could pick up what's there, but I wanted more. So, if I just call his flop bet, he is going to assume I have a nut low draw, or a flush draw/medium made hand, and not believe I have what I actually have. If I get there I will get a lot of money in. It's quite possible that I can scoop this hand if I can convince him I have only a one way hand. I suppose I should probably have gotten it in on the turn, though, since I can't fold the river. I have gotten regs to go monkey-nuts with a play like this - they are willing to get it all in with like 2nd nut low and trips, or nut low and a non-nut flush, etc. There's definitely some risk involved and I think generally the better play is to raise the flop.

jic, Chuck was referring to the sirens being unedited.

In regards to the hand you broke down, when those unique situations occur, VERY player specific, the line is understandable. In one of the earlier vids, a similar hand was discussed. Generally speaking however, some people will take this line unnecessarily, which is why we wanted clarify why people generally shouldn't.

And thank you for the hh's btw, they really were great for discussion.

And thank you for the hh's btw, they really were great for discussion.

My goal is to mostly have hand histories that are either not great for discussion (because they're correct/standard) or that are great for discussion because of my mind melting brilliance.

BTW I started a session off yesterday, RIGHT AFTER watching the video, by misplaying a nut low hand. Fortunately, I managed to get it all in on the turn once I made the mistake of betting.

damn this series is still going?

I'm bout to start catching up

damn this series is still going?

I'm bout to start catching up

I'm sure you'll find some stuff you'll disagree with, but try to approach with a smaller stakes mindset

hi,
great job :a lot of hard work...

i took time this wend to review the series..i need it..lolol

what is very interesting :1.simulation shown on the screen (a lot of surprises) 2.not showing the end result of a hand (focus on the right play)3.discussions with 'what if' ?(major leak exposed for the average player in small stakes: 1.i focus on my cards and 2.i do not have a plan for the hand )

next series...episodes on:
hu play ?
...very shorthanded(3-4 players)?
...play the blinds in pl and nl.?
...what do you need preflop in nl and pl ?.. to call a raise or the all in ?
the tilt factor? i have 4 cards...anything is possible !
give us a sneak preview ...please!!!
hope the fback is helpful

Time Link to 00:57:27

[Discussing turn play, A238 on J48 - 6]

You're going to have a hard time convincing me that fear of a CR here isn't results-oriented thinking. Without a specific read that SB is check/raise happy, why should we be expecting him to CR? Like Chuck I expect that most of his CR range is exactly 57, and hands that are 3/4 us seem like a small part of most people's defending range from the SB unless he's defending pretty tight. (A257, A2-set, A2-two pair are pretty rare -- and is he usually CRing A2J8 rather than leading with it, let alone A2J*? I don't know, it's an honest question. IME players at small stakes are reluctant to CR and build a huge pot without a near-nut high.)

If you look at betting the turn as a cost/benefit analysis, I think it looks better. What good can come from betting? As a bluff at the high half, we might fold out A8, 99, TT, Jx, QQ, KK that no longer want to call down for half. (If they go ahead and call anyway, then our bet is good for value because we have outs to beat one pair.) If he has a naked four or six, probably with some lesser low draw then our bet helps to protect our high equity against a live draw at two pair. We get a lot of 3/4 value (plus scooping value if the river counterfeits) from A24*, A26*, any other A2**. If people are folding naked A2 here, then I'm really out of touch with PL50 cash games.

Checking back the turn because we might get CRed 10% of the time seems weak-tight and inconsistent with the aggressive approach taught elsewhere in the series. Now, if we think our opponent is aggressive enough to CR something like A2J* for value, then the case for checking back looks stronger. But even then considering not just the cost but the benefit, I think the case for betting is strong.

Betting smaller as Chuck (?) suggested might be a good way to go, although it decreases the high-bluff value of our bet.

Thanks for the great series! I learned a lot from it. I play some PLO8. I need to watch it again. I recommend Dan Deppen's book also, I need to check out his videos on CR. You should make a part 2! Good luck, Yojimgari