big fan of the idea, and this video is good

im at work so i can not press the play button, i was wondering is the video as it sounds just like them playing or do they do commentary while playing?

oh snap so it begins

I like the way you talk, it's sexy in a weird kinda way. I would really like you to say the word "tournament" in one of your vids.

You talk a lot about this min raising and 2.5x raising in position. Makes sense and am going to try doing this some instead of just having my orgasmic pot button sensations. I see in your vid sometimes you min, sometimes 2.5x, and sometimes you still do pot. Is this just complete random?

I didn't notice any change due to stack size of blinds.

Nice video.

You should give allSnap a try tough

Nice video. You really explain your thinking well. And listening to you play 10/20 after your movin' on up series really draws the contrast nicely between donkstakes and middle-upper stakes.

He does sound like Owen.

Anyway, I love this site. You guys keep coming up with great ideas for videos. Easily the most innovative on the net.

Great video,

thx FWF for this one!

I really like videos with live commentary (which doesn't mean I don't like conceptual videos like the unconventional wisdom series) as they give an "on the spot" thought proccess insight into the coaches mind. However with the action flowing quite fast sometimes and some technical issues (which are completely excusable) sometimes the coach elaborates on a thought, but then something at the table happens which he has to comment on NOW and after that forgets to go back to the topic he was talking about. This sometimes is a bit unfortunate as I love listening to general concepts as much as to live hand commentary.

To counter this problem my suggestion would be to watch the video after recording it and in the above mentioned spots freeze the frame in camtasia and do a voice narration over it to finish the detailed explanation of the thought proccess.

As I'm not a native speaker it's sometimes hard for me to explain somewhat complex issues like this one, but I hope you guys get my point.

Thx for this great site,

Sugar Nut

Great vid as has become the norm for this site . . . Thank you!

There was one hand around the 46 min mark where atomic chips check bluff jams the river (couldn't see his cards b/c PT stats were in the way) and right around this time you started commenting on how the table was playing str8 forward and no one getting out of line (I guess you missed it). I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting on the hand/dynamics and fenwicks snap call with like top and bottom pair. Seems like he is often beat there and if you were fenwick do you play it the same way?

Thanks . . .

CE

Great video,

thx FWF for this one!

I really like videos with live commentary (which doesn't mean I don't like conceptual videos like the unconventional wisdom series) as they give an "on the spot" thought proccess insight into the coaches mind. However with the action flowing quite fast sometimes and some technical issues (which are completely excusable) sometimes the coach elaborates on a thought, but then something at the table happens which he has to comment on NOW and after that forgets to go back to the topic he was talking about. This sometimes is a bit unfortunate as I love listening to general concepts as much as to live hand commentary.

To counter this problem my suggestion would be to watch the video after recording it and in the above mentioned spots freeze the frame in camtasia and do a voice narration over it to finish the detailed explanation of the thought proccess.

As I'm not a native speaker it's sometimes hard for me to explain somewhat complex issues like this one, but I hope you guys get my point.

Thx for this great site,

Sugar Nut

Hey Sugar,

I think it's a mixed bag. The more removed I am from the action, the harder it is for me to say exactly what was on my mind. Obviously I can still analyze hands, but I think that I lose something in translation. I don't know why exactly, but I just have a hard time getting into the video and paying attention when I look back at it (this is something I've tried before) and I think my focus slips. I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't think it's something I can make work.

Great vid as has become the norm for this site . . . Thank you!

There was one hand around the 46 min mark where atomic chips check bluff jams the river (couldn't see his cards b/c PT stats were in the way) and right around this time you started commenting on how the table was playing str8 forward and no one getting out of line (I guess you missed it). I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting on the hand/dynamics and fenwicks snap call with like top and bottom pair. Seems like he is often beat there and if you were fenwick do you play it the same way?

Thanks . . .

CE

Hey Canis,

I completely missed the hand. If you can point me to the timestamp of the hand I'll gladly talk about it.

46 minute mark . . .

Thanks . . .

Ha, I always thought your handle was Foxwoods FRIEND, which seemed a little too... I dunno... Dr. Phil?

Hey, FWF

Still interested in your thoughts on that hand at the 46 minute mark if you have the time.

Thanks

When you called the small 3bet oop with 76s, you flopped a gutter and bdfd, is that not enough to make a move at it?

Hey, FWF

Still interested in your thoughts on that hand at the 46 minute mark if you have the time.

Thanks

finally got around to this. i think that atomicchips' line screams bluff because most people who bet and bet just bet again with anything as good as what he's representing with the check/raise (especially considering that fenwick's passive enough that you shouldn't expect him to be valuebetting Ax and if you have a monster your best chance of making money is just to bet again). however, i think fenwick's call is probably pretty bad because fenwick's probably just thinking "i have two pair" and not realizing that he has a complete bluff catcher and should probably call with QJ if he's calling A4 there. i think the great price that fenwick's getting plus the fact that fenwick's river bet looks way stronger than a bet from m or some aggro opponent would be means this should never be a bluff. i don't know if atomicchips was giving fenwick too much credit or just desperation bluffing but it's one of those spots where the bluff and call are both bad (bluff bad because of the opponent, call bad because if the caller was thinking at all about his image it would be a fold)

ok, cool. Yeah, I couldn't really put together their line of thinking and the whole hand just seemed botched from both ends so I'm glad I'm not missing something trivially easy as to why 1 or the other made a superior play . . .

thanks

Hey FWF,

very interesting video, I have been thinking about two comments you made.

1. raise sizing in lp vs. ep - I've watched a stoxpoker video some time ago, where the instructor (forgot who it was, leatherass maybe) opened smaller UTG than in EP, iirc because his hand range was stronger so that he would like to get called and because he liked to play smaller pots in position. That made sense to me. Now you argue that you'd like to have deeper stacks when you're ip, which makes sense to me, too. On the other hand I've read so often that it is better to play bigger pots ip, because your opponents will be able to make more expensive mistakes oop then. As you have probably guessed by now I'm an utterly confused low limit donk.

2. (not) c-betting aces - I've tried to c-bet aces less frequently in one session, I got bet out of so many pots, I have reverted back to c-betting more often. I have been struggling with this concept for a while. On the one hand it is unlikely you will get a better hand to fold or a worse hand to call. And even if a worse hand calls you might be in trouble on the next street. But isn't it sometimes important to protect your equity in the pot by betting out, even if you don't expect to get called by a worse hand? Just because it is so unlikely that you'll be able to check your a-high down even if you have the best hand on the flop? You can also often see two cards for this one bet if your ip.

With regards to 1, I don't have a super strong range UTG. It's still stronger than my CO range but it's not so tight that I want to do my best to encourage action. And I don't mind playing smaller pots in position because it gives me more room for play with deeper stacks relative to the pot and it's not like the average hand is one in which I'm trying to play for stacks: it's normally one in which I don't have much and am trying to steal as cheap as possible


With regards to 2, I think you just have to find a happy balance. I think that many players c-bet ace high too often, but if you know not doing so exposes you to getting played back against that villain, bet more. If you're getting check/raised a lot or not folding out bottom pair ever, bet less. There's no right answer and there are good arguments on both sides definitely