Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by DeathDonkey (High Stakes)

Hello!

Time Link to 00:30:44

Nice video.

I found it interesting that you considered it standard to call the SB cap after opening in the CO with Q9o, because you thought that folding would be exploitable.

Generally, would you tend to call most caps from reasonable players after opening preflop for this reason, as opposed to folding the weaker hands in your opening range?

Hello!

OH HAI

Time Link to 00:08:54

Is there really that big of a difference between 9s and JJ on this board that u would bet-fold 99 and bet-call down with JJ? I mean, arent we hoping to either see an Ace or some kind/any kind of draw and against that either hand is basically the same?

Preface before action starts:

I still have that original video on my External HD. w000t for no DRM

It was 03/29/07 btw, and DD blew a lot into the microphone (obv before baller mic days) and there was no such thing as a DC Full Tilt Skin or Mod.

Can't wait to watch this one...although I am wondering how many "Please", "Awww Come On" and "I'll cry if you don't"'s were uttered to get KPR on vid again but it's great.

Is there any notable difference between range and distribution that I should be aware of?

Is there any notable difference between range and distribution that I should be aware of?

My guess would be, that a range is one-dimensional whereas a distribution is a two-dimensional function. That means a distribution is a weighting within a range. I guess you could picture it as a probability distribution. I hope I'm not totally wrong here.

Is there really that big of a difference between 9s and JJ on this board that u would bet-fold 99 and bet-call down with JJ? I mean, arent we hoping to either see an Ace or some kind/any kind of draw and against that either hand is basically the same?

No, not really, I was trying to say that since 99 is a little lower in my range, I was trying to find the cutoff point between crying call down and shrug fold. KPR convinced me both should be calldowns I think a couple min later in the vid

Nice video.

I found it interesting that you considered it standard to call the SB cap after opening in the CO with Q9o, because you thought that folding would be exploitable.

Generally, would you tend to call most caps from reasonable players after opening preflop for this reason, as opposed to folding the weaker hands in your opening range?

Yes, for sure. In these size games if you start folding pre there, its gotta be right to cap a very wide range of semi-playable hands, and people doing that to you would be a disaster I think. Plus we have an ok hand and position.

Skype notification sounds are making me insane.

Time Link to 00:03:32

Castellimich is a friend of mine and I don't think that he'd hate you if you said anything mean about his game. He's super competitive, but takes criticism pretty well imo.

Also super excited to see what happens and love these types of videos.

Also 2 million hands of LHE in 4 years is pretty sick.

Time Link to 00:17:07

And the KK has more equity against his bluffs even though you're removing some combos of potential bluffs.

Say you have KK with the K, then he'll have less combos of bluffs because some of his bluffs involve the K but KK without the heart lets him have the combinations of KX that are bluffs here if he has those in his distribution (player dependent I guess?).

Time Link to 00:21:57

I agree with using your mental CPU space as efficiently as possible, but if you're not getting as specific as possible with opponents that ARE doing that then they're going to exploit you and the super small imbalances in your play by estimating the ranges better. The player O Fortuna PLS specifically comes to mind and I think he does this really well. But this is all based on some observatory guesswork from railing higher games since I've never actually played a hand against the guy (yet anyways )

Time Link to 00:22:25

I think I qualify as one of those guys (the decent tag that plays well against fish) and I struggle with finding a completely balanced game against regulars. Could you talk a little bit more about how to build a strong balanced game and what you're trying to accomplish with it? If there are some good videos or forum threads on this topic a link would be awesome if you don't mind.

I think I messed up the time stamp but it's between 00:22:00 and 00:23:00ish

dir Sir, you mentioned some kind of chart.

could you explain a little what you created there for yourself and how you did it, based on what?

would be +++

Time Link to 00:48:52

That's awesome

I agree with using your mental CPU space as efficiently as possible, but if you're not getting as specific as possible with opponents that ARE doing that then they're going to exploit you and the super small imbalances in your play by estimating the ranges better. The player O Fortuna PLS specifically comes to mind and I think he does this really well. But this is all based on some observatory guesswork from railing higher games since I've never actually played a hand against the guy (yet anyways )

I don't quite get what you mean, but I think basically KPR is advocating a balanced strategy (GTO) vs an exploitive one. If you play GTO nobody can exploit you. Opponents that also play GTO will break even vs you, all others will lose. Two proponents of this approach are IHateJuice and Heisenb3rg. It would surprise me if O Fortuna PLS wouldn't be in this camp too (at least vs tough guys without obv leaks).

Great video with lots of good discussion. Thanks guys.

I don't quite get what you mean, but I think basically KPR is advocating a balanced strategy (GTO) vs an exploitive one. If you play GTO nobody can exploit you. Opponents that also play GTO will break even vs you, all others will lose. Two proponents of this approach are IHateJuice and Heisenb3rg. It would surprise me if O Fortuna PLS wouldn't be in this camp too (at least vs tough guys without obv leaks).

I guess what I'm saying is that you can take this to the next level and identify the combos too. And if someone's doing that, and you're making a mistake somewhere in your strategy (and don't know about it), then you're going to be making the same mistakes over and over again and get exploited by the players that are reading your ranges more accurately. Which is obviously really really bad for you. So you should strive to understand your range from a combinatorical perspective in addition to all the great balanced GTO theory is all I'm saying there.

As for the mental CPU thing. That's just how your brain works and it only has so much processing power. I was just trying to sugar coat the laziness comment because that's something that I've been guilty of and can certainly see where he's coming from and didn't want to crucify him or anything for being more of a laid back guy about things. Nothing wrong with that. And something that I've been more intensely trying to identify and work on getting out of my own game and day to day life. Basically I didn't want to be super negative or rude (because I think that that's just kind of bad to a really bad way to act in general and wanted to phrase it in a positive, constructive manner). Sorry if it didn't come off that way or wasn't clear. I want to learn and get better and the last thing I want to do is alienate anyone. Especially the guys that are making this video and guys like you that post in these threads. I feel like there's so much to learn from everyone.

Skype notification sounds are making me insane.

Yeah sorry about this

First time I ever realized audio hijack pro for mac will pick up ALL skype sounds, not just the phone call. I guess in previous videos nobody was bugging me while I was recording. I'll make sure to get those notifications turned off in future.

Nice video.

I found it interesting that you considered it standard to call the SB cap after opening in the CO with Q9o, because you thought that folding would be exploitable.

Generally, would you tend to call most caps from reasonable players after opening preflop for this reason, as opposed to folding the weaker hands in your opening range?

Well besides being exploitable, hands just rarely do bad enough vs standard 3-bet/cap ranges in late position that calling for pure equity is bad. I mean sometimes you flop a straight, trips, or 2 pair - and their range is way way way more defined than your's is so that hopefully makes up for ROI (I'd argue that the capper has worse ROI OOP than you do IP with most hands, since that's the proverbial argument for folding more even when equity is close to break even hot/cold).

Is there really that big of a difference between 9s and JJ on this board that u would bet-fold 99 and bet-call down with JJ? I mean, arent we hoping to either see an Ace or some kind/any kind of draw and against that either hand is basically the same?

Yeah, and I mentioned this. The problem is more so frequency and trying to be unexploitable. Bluff-catching isn't usually the most fun part about poker, and even when you put your opponent on top pair + draws (such that ALL your bluff catchers are of equal strength), in order to be balanced you will want to fold some of your worst hands on each street (otherwise he can exploit by shutting down with all of his bluffs by the river or somethign). Against people who bluff too much the maximally exploitive adjustment is probably to call ALL your bluff catchers, but thing you're in that infinitum loop of leveling. You see then why I'd recommend making incremental adjustments based on reads rather than drastic ones.

I guess what I'm saying is that you can take this to the next level and identify the combos too. And if someone's doing that, and you're making a mistake somewhere in your strategy and don't know about it and someone else identifies it and exploits it, then that's really bad for you. So you should strive to understand your range from a combinatorical perspective because that's what the best players are doing (or have an intuitive understanding of at least). It's why they're the best players.

Perhaps we are talking past one another, but if you made a mistake in your strategy, it's not balanced anymore. Game Theory Optimal implies perfect balance. If you are playing a perfectly balanced game, you could print out your strategy and give it to your opponent and he would still not be able to beat you.

Btw, it's very possible that DD's actually 3-betting distribution from the BB vs a button is narrow enough that a board like AQ8 is so bone crushing that his opponent cannot really profit by bluffing just to get air and under pairs to fold. Again, though I'm not certain, this may be one of those spots where his opponent cannot do well by using non-standard draws, and DD can't make the standard ones indifferent to bluff-raising and barreling by calling with underpairs. Like I said poker is hard (particularly when the distributions are very asymmetrical).

I think I qualify as one of those guys (the decent tag that plays well against fish) and I struggle with finding a completely balanced game against regulars. Could you talk a little bit more about how to build a strong balanced game and what you're trying to accomplish with it? If there are some good videos or forum threads on this topic a link would be awesome if you don't mind.

I wish I had a better blueprint to give, but I think you just start out by thinking about pot size correlation with majority of your hands and then make sure there's not any ways you can improve your results with info hiding (by playing more hands the same or whatever). If you're constantly thinking about all of your distribution instead of a single hand you're playing you'll be be doing much better than majority of poker players.

I've always enjoyed sorta daring people to exploit things about my game, because I find that even the greatest poker minds seem to fuck things up really bad assuming I haven't accounted for something (and maybe they are right but the spots im most vunerable are kinda hard to get to safely anyway).

Perhaps we are talking past one another, but if you made a mistake in your strategy, it's not balanced anymore. Game Theory Optimal implies perfect balance. If you are playing a perfectly balanced game, you could print out your strategy and give it to your opponent and he would still not be able to beat you.

Yeah, I think you're right. Sorry. I have that problem a lot of the time when I get really excited about an idea or group of ideas.

I just have a hard time wrapping my head around the idea of GTO (I get it conceptually that it's unexploitable but I don't really get why it's unexploitable) because I don't have a very good understanding of it in practice. Especially in 6max (heads up I think I get it so maybe just leaky thinking?). Also I'm always looking to understand why for myself rather than take someone's word for it. Because if I don't really know and/or I'm not applying it correctly, then it won't really help me when I'm at the tables and I'll make costly mistakes.

I wish I had a better blueprint to give, but I think you just start out by thinking about pot size correlation with majority of your hands and then make sure there's not any ways you can improve your results with info hiding (by playing more hands the same or whatever). If you're constantly thinking about all of your distribution instead of a single hand you're playing you'll be be doing much better than majority of poker players.

I've always enjoyed sorta daring people to exploit things about my game, because I find that even the greatest poker minds seem to fuck things up really bad assuming I haven't accounted for something (and maybe they are right but the spots im most vunerable are kinda hard to get to safely anyway).

Cool. That's very encouraging and inspirational at the same time. The mark of a great coach.

I think that the pot size correlation is just more foreign to me in 6max because I play so much heads up and the pots are so much bigger in 6max. I've just gotta work harder away from the tables and study more so I can nip that in the bud.

The entire range thinking comes more naturally to me because I do that all the time in heads up. So that's comforting.

Nice response, Kyle. Much appreciated.

Also that daring them to exploit you makes me think of this.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQULIUXZst8

Yeah, and I mentioned this. The problem is more so frequency and trying to be unexploitable. Bluff-catching isn't usually the most fun part about poker, and even when you put your opponent on top pair + draws (such that ALL your bluff catchers are of equal strength), in order to be balanced you will want to fold some of your worst hands on each street (otherwise he can exploit by shutting down with all of his bluffs by the river or somethign). Against people who bluff too much the maximally exploitive adjustment is probably to call ALL your bluff catchers, but thing you're in that infinitum loop of leveling. You see then why I'd recommend making incremental adjustments based on reads rather than drastic ones.

Yeah, i get that, and i know you talked about it later on in the video after i had already posted my comment. I think we can all agree that it would take some special kind of opponent to be raising Qx here, and in todays climate most people first of all dont have AA/QQ/AQ all that often since its btn vs bb and he would most likely be capping those close to 100% pf, and should he not have done that he most likely will slowplay to the turn with them, somewhat narrowing his range down to weaker Ax hands and draws? I agree that just because we called the flop we dont have to call down ui even if a heart doesnt come, if the turn is any king or 10 and he fires two more shells, we can probably fold alot of the time.

really loved this video and the discussion about playing your range and not so much your hand. I just feel like you could really mess this up without proper thought.

Is there any way you suggest going about this the right way. Could you explain how you practiced doing this without going overboard?

Time Link to 00:48:17

Yes, he expects you to "pound" like most if not every turn with your capping distribution, but what if the turn cards is more "dangerous" like a T,8 or even a King? I guess he could be losing a lot of money there.
Plus what would you do with your particular holding if he c/r the flop and the turn bricks(no draws hitting) would you raise there? I mean you probably have to raise there... so he could 3bet there and you just can't fold immediately or maybe never. So just by that, he wins more with the flop c/r line in any case.

Time Link to 00:47:40

this

Yes, he expects you to "pound" like most if not every turn with your capping distribution, but what if the turn cards is more "dangerous" like a T,8 or even a King? I guess he could be losing a lot of money there.
Plus what would you do with your particular holding if he c/r the flop and the turn bricks(no draws hitting) would you raise there? I mean you probably have to raise there... so he could 3bet there and you just can't fold immediately or maybe never. So just by that, he wins more with the flop c/r line in any case.

Right, I tend to agree with you, but I think in the bigger games its a little less of an issue since people wuss out on 'dangerous' turn cards less than some smaller stakes guys might. And he has to be more aware of protecting his weak peels vs tough players so delaying til turn makes some sense to me. I think its one of those plays that can be good or bad more depending on his motivations / how he plays other hands in similar spots, and that's not easy for us to know.