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

sweet.

Mbolt1 was actually a Stoxpoker coach, he made few videos. LA was his coach and i remember he was somewhat of "a success story - a man who made it".

Not that it matters, but thought to let u know, since none of you coaches knows him

"one of the best players in the world...leatherass". made me lol.

Mbolt1 was actually a Stoxpoker coach, he made few videos. LA was his coach and i remember he was somewhat of "a success story - a man who made it".

Not that it matters, but thought to let u know, since none of you coaches knows him

Thank you for clarification. Fwiw, I actually do think he's quite good.

great format!

more vids with two coaches taking the time to talk through hands in detail would be awesome

expert video imo! I think this shows that poker is always going to be profitable even as edges have become smaller in the past few years. 4 really winning sick players dont agreee w/ alot of basic spots. I mean 1/4 of the vid was whether to call a 3bb cbet or not. Really good vid, got alot out of it!

Yeah nice format, look forward to the responses of Noah and BW

re: 88 hand

if I call turn, pot is over 900 with 500 left to play. I contend villain plays v close to perfectly on the river. am I wrong? (aware obv that letting him hit top pair or spike an A to bluff with he will play nonperfectly). I dunno, i'm torn on both of those hands (88 and QT). TBH i've always come from the perspective you guys espouse (flatting and letting people continue) and have recently been experimenting with being more aggro on the turn.

Thanks for checking this stuff out!

oh ya and fck you guys!

Andrew

re: 88 hand

if I call turn, pot is over 900 with 500 left to play. I contend villain plays v close to perfectly on the river. am I wrong? (aware obv that letting him hit top pair or spike an A to bluff with he will play nonperfectly). I dunno, i'm torn on both of those hands (88 and QT). TBH i've always come from the perspective you guys espouse (flatting and letting people continue) and have recently been experimenting with being more aggro on the turn.

Thanks for checking this stuff out!

oh ya and fck you guys!

Andrew

I'm def of the opinion that people can 3 barrel bluff, although, not often. I also feel like there will be tons of worse hands that will valuebet.

I told aaron on aim the other day that I thought he would make a really good mom....in jest ofcourse(his baby is due anyday for those who didn't already know). His response to me was "fk u." I assume what he and you meant by that was....I really appreciate your comment(s).

I'm def of the opinion that people can 3 barrel bluff, although, not often. I also feel like there will be tons of worse hands that will valuebet.

I told aaron on aim the other day that I thought he would make a really good mom....in jest ofcourse(his baby is due anyday for those who didn't already know). His response to me was "fk u." I assume what he and you meant by that was....I really appreciate your comment(s).

i'm fist pump 3 barrel bluffing here when i get flatted on the flop and turn on this board texture (and obv that doesnt even count the value hands) and experience tells me other good regs are too. Andrew, I'm surprised to hear you don't think so.

WoT

Just wanted to say thank you both for the professional approach you both have to your videos. Its much appreciated, especially in the honesty in reviewing other coaches discussion. And I really like this format.

i'm fist pump 3 barrel bluffing here when i get flatted on the flop and turn on this board texture (and obv that doesnt even count the value hands) and experience tells me other good regs are too. Andrew, I'm surprised to hear you don't think so.

WoT

i think it happens a lot more when people have more to put in on the river. I.E. if you're bluffing 500 into 1k, you're going to get called a ton, whereas if you're bluffing 800 into 1k, its more effective.
1/2 pot 1/2 pot 1/2 pot, imo, isn't a phenomenally great way to get folds (whereas 1/2 pot 1/2 pot 2/3 pot+ is probably more effective, but i could obv be wrong here).

Also wrt to him shoving worse hands for value, he's calling all of those hands to a shove anyway.

i'd love for somoebody who does math to do something like
% river equity of guy bluffing turn, estimated % guy bluffs off on river, estimated % guy v-bets worse on riv, etc.

basically just profit we make by getting him to fold his equity on the turn vs profit we make by giving him the chance to either bluff us or suck out. either way i bet it'd be interesting.

Andrew

Re: 88

If it was a less aggressive player - say 1-2 regular.

Should we be more or less inclined to flatcall or shove the turn?

My thinking is when a less aggressive player bets the turn his range is almost always value that he will stack off with and I don't want a draw completing scarecard and/or overcard scarecard to peel.

Am I thinking about it correctly vs that type of villian?

Terrific video.

Drink more Strawberry milkshakes, imo.

can I 6star this?

i think it happens a lot more when people have more to put in on the river. I.E. if you're bluffing 500 into 1k, you're going to get called a ton, whereas if you're bluffing 800 into 1k, its more effective.
1/2 pot 1/2 pot 1/2 pot, imo, isn't a phenomenally great way to get folds (whereas 1/2 pot 1/2 pot 2/3 pot+ is probably more effective, but i could obv be wrong here).

Also wrt to him shoving worse hands for value, he's calling all of those hands to a shove anyway.

i'd love for somoebody who does math to do something like
% river equity of guy bluffing turn, estimated % guy bluffs off on river, estimated % guy v-bets worse on riv, etc.

basically just profit we make by getting him to fold his equity on the turn vs profit we make by giving him the chance to either bluff us or suck out. either way i bet it'd be interesting.

Andrew

depends on what you mean by called a ton. you can bet 500 into 1k and get called a ton and still have it be a profitable bluff. You only have to get them to fold 33% make it break even. To bet 800 into 1k you have to get them to fold 44% of the time. When the defender has a range that almost never has a hand stronger than say like JT/QT here (based on how unbalanced ppl are these days in how they play the flop/turn) and rarely have pocket pairs greater than 99 here (and sometimes not even 99 based on 4betting tendencies) and opportunities for busted draws, bluff shipping half pot here on the river is hugely profitable (as is betting 800 of course).

WoT

p.s. even when he has equity on the turn, it's going to be rare for him to have more than like 10-16% imo

Re: 88

If it was a less aggressive player - say 1-2 regular.

Should we be more or less inclined to flatcall or shove the turn?

My thinking is when a less aggressive player bets the turn his range is almost always value that he will stack off with and I don't want a draw completing scarecard and/or overcard scarecard to peel.

Am I thinking about it correctly vs that type of villian?

shoving the turn is definitely +EV and a fine play. If you are playing against a guy who isn't a good hand reader and stinks at value betting, shoving the turn is likely preferable.

WoT

depends on what you mean by called a ton. you can bet 500 into 1k and get called a ton and still have it be a profitable bluff. You only have to get them to fold 33% make it break even. To bet 800 into 1k you have to get them to fold 44% of the time. When the defender has a range that almost never has a hand stronger than say like JT/QT here (based on how unbalanced ppl are these days in how they play the turn) and they have pocket pairs no greater than 99 here (and sometimes not even 99 based on 4betting tendencies) and opportunities for busted draws, bluff shipping half pot here on the river is hugely profitable (as is betting 800 of course).

WoT

p.s. even when he has equity on the turn, it's going to be rare for him to have more than like 10-20% imo

looked at some numbers here and yes, you're right, with 88 our equity is too sick to do anything but call the turn there. That said, it becomes really interesting if the turn is, say, a J or a 9 or a 3 instead of an 8. Then, I think its shove or fold time. Don't you?


Andrew

About both the QT and 88 hand that balugawhale played, if he flatted the turn, am I correct to assume that he'll have to crying call the river if a 3straight or 3flush comes?

Also the AKs hand that NoahSD played, are there any turn cards that we would consider bet/folding? A Queen, Jack, or 3 flush?

btw just want to say that this video format is pretty cool. no dead time and 2 coaches critiquing another coach's play is very interesting. i hope we see more of this stuff in the future!

Love all your videos a lot, guys!!!
please MOAR. A+ content

About both the QT and 88 hand that balugawhale played, if he flatted the turn, am I correct to assume that he'll have to crying call the river if a 3straight or 3flush comes?

Also the AKs hand that NoahSD played, are there any turn cards that we would consider bet/folding? A Queen, Jack, or 3 flush?

btw just want to say that this video format is pretty cool. no dead time and 2 coaches critiquing another coach's play is very interesting. i hope we see more of this stuff in the future!

def never ever folding the 88 and in general not folding the QT, but I could think of a couple of scenarios with the QT where I'd be very unhappy calling. like him overbet jamming the 9s river maybe.

really important thing to remember is that the river is almost always going to be a "good" card and even when it's "bad", since our hand is so severely underrepped, it will induce bluffs and value bets with worse hands usually often enough to not have to fold

looked at some numbers here and yes, you're right, with 88 our equity is too sick to do anything but call the turn there. That said, it becomes really interesting if the turn is, say, a J or a 9 or a 3 instead of an 8. Then, I think its shove or fold time. Don't you?


Andrew

maybe....it really comes down to how much of his range can b/c the turn that is worse and how much he bluffs the river. While I tend to agree with aaron that jamming the river is likely very profitable, part of the reason that is true is because people aren't doing it very often as you allude in your video.

So if he's not bluffing the river very often and a minority of his range is b/c with 20-30% equity, then it's likely that call is better as compared to shove.

7 stars, awesome vid

can i put in 8 stars?

hmm i think this got a little weird in times. Noah make a video and two others who are nonstop agreeing comment it. After all that appologizing in advance, still, it got kinda weird to watch. Noah should be very careful with assuming this and that (villains folding 88 to a cbet on a22) and wilt is like even more sure thats a clean error. Obviously i agreed with Noahs plays and i kinda feel this video is not needed. Sure you can discuss other lines, but the "oh my gosh, i dunno.." like it was some kinda sick weak plays just make it too bizarr. Maybe it would be better to have one of you comment together with Noah - why do you say checking back is the superior play Noah..i mean, i would be making notes on u that u blah blah, rather than two people nodding afterwards this is bad/wrong, cause thats whats beeing said here in this specific case. Its not about another line afaik.
Definately would better like Noah in this and one of you two, would probably be way more interesting to the watchers also to hear hes response.

I think it is an excellent structure.

This review structure mimics coach/student discussions well, in that we (a student)make a play and conclude our line is +EV or our thinking is coherent but when a 3rd party reviews it and uses different operating assumptions, can come to a complete different conclusion.
Which is not to suggest Noah or Baluga should or could be coached by wilt et al , frankly I don't know but its a very effective teaching structure imo.

If the cavaets prefaced are repeated and the authors of other videos 'allow' or are not offended - I believe repeating this 3rd party review for other videos would be excellent.

This alongside the Parallels Series Episodes with Insyder/Baluga/Whitelime as well as the Review section of Tournament Trial all offering different views within a review structure are 3 structures I would like to see more of.

Obviously i agreed with Noahs plays and i kinda feel this video is not needed.

While making a general criticism of the vid is welcome, I would encourage you and other DC members to use this venue to discuss the specific lines or points you didn't agree with. We don't want anybody to "obv agree with Noahs plays" or anybody's plays for that matter. It will stunt your growth as a player to do so.

Maybe it would be better to have one of you comment together with Noah - why do you say checking back is the superior play Noah.

Not only did Noah answer that question in the original recording, but I paraphrased his answer before we began discussion on the hand in question. Noah or Andrew also have the ability to come in to this thread and continue the discussion if they choose. Andrew already did that.

Its not about another line afaik.

I'm 100% certain I talked about my std line in the A22 hand.

fantastic vid guys. def like to see more like this.

This is a really good structure, and it boosts my learning curve.

My opinion: Get the dialogue between the vids going, so that they are more like knots in a net then satellites floating around a center = DC will reinvent the industry again.

You think Noah didn't see this or is he keeping quiet for metagame?

Time Link to 00:03:23

Ice cream still counts as eating fwiw.

"super vid" +1
"more coach-coach analysing vids" +2

Wow very awesome format, more of this please

One thing I have to comment on is that you guys so strongly disagreed with Noas check with the A4 on 2A2

I agree with you guys that betting vs a regular is pretty standard here but my arguments for betting here is based on the villain beeing a fish (I think this was the case? If not then my I'm sorry)
So my arguments for checking flop in this spot if villain is a fish

1. We are probably not going for 3 streets anyway
2. Let him catch up, lets say he has TJ checks flop and turns a J.
3. Fish do wierd things, might bet the flop with 78h because it's the only way he thinks he can win the pot.
4. We don't have to care about beeing balanced against fish (We probably won't play them that much and they don't understand this balance thingy anyway)


As I said I think it's a bet vs a regular but if it's a fish aint this points pretty important here?

Wow very awesome format, more of this please

One thing I have to comment on is that you guys so strongly disagreed with Noas check with the A4 on 2A2

I agree with you guys that betting vs a regular is pretty standard here but my arguments for betting here is based on the villain beeing a fish (I think this was the case? If not then my I'm sorry)
So my arguments for checking flop in this spot if villain is a fish

1. We are probably not going for 3 streets anyway
2. Let him catch up, lets say he has TJ checks flop and turns a J.
3. Fish do wierd things, might bet the flop with 78h because it's the only way he thinks he can win the pot.
4. We don't have to care about beeing balanced against fish (We probably won't play them that much and they don't understand this balance thingy anyway)


As I said I think it's a bet vs a regular but if it's a fish aint this points pretty important here?

checking there vs a fish is reasonable for some of the points you made, however the idea of "not getting x streets anyway" is commonly used flawed logic and not enough of a reason on it's own merits to warrant a check (if u can only get 1 street, get that 1 street now not later). When you combine it with the other reasons you gave, it becomes more reasonable, but #2, 3, 4 are all more important than #1.

Stunning vid! Top rating!

Pros discussing pro lines, what could be better?

If I could digress for a moment about leatherass, Dusty Schmidt. That was great to see him play a hand, I never have. I was also pleasantly surprised to hear Aaron (I think it was) refer to him as one of the best players in the world.

I read his book 'treat your poker like a business' though it seemed fluffy at times and easily could have been embellished at certain points. It offered insight into one of the most profitable online poker mindsets of all time. The theory hinged on maximizing profit above all else, including adding tables if it would slightly improve his bottom line even at the cost of missing value at every table. Apparently he plays 12+ tables and up to 24 at a time (obviously he heavily relies on stats). He also stresses that he always uses a 100 buy in bankroll. I think it was Aaron's series real life nl grinder pro where he advocates a minimum of 30 and easily a 100 buy in bankroll.

It's pretty strange that he decided to write a book attacking Phil Hellmuth. At least it looks that way, judging by the title. I haven't looked into it, but he lost some of my respect for it.

Andrew, you have a book!? Where can I find it?