Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by FoxwoodsFiend (Mid Stakes)

This is a bit of a disappointment. I'm sure we can get discussion going on about the hands, but I don't know what extra value this video brings. (Other than perhaps seeing how his skills develop.) It also seems a bit pointless to mention any obvious mistakes he might have made, because one could just as easily comment something like "read it from Stox's book." And it's not like my comments on his possible errors are going to add some extra value to those of DeathDonkey will make, and even if they did, why should I be coaching him? ;-)

(It does show how difficult it is to make commentary during hands, but that's what we've come to appreciate with DD, Entity, JT, Oink and others.)

I'm also not impending doom or whatever. I'm just saying that, at least from the look of it, this video is kinda useless.

This is a bit of a disappointment. I'm sure we can get discussion going on about the hands, but I don't know what extra value this video brings. (Other than perhaps seeing how his skills develop.) It also seems a bit pointless to mention any obvious mistakes he might have made, because one could just as easily comment something like "read it from Stox's book." And it's not like my comments on his possible errors are going to add some extra value to those of DeathDonkey will make, and even if they did, why should I be coaching him? ;-)

(It does show how difficult it is to make commentary during hands, but that's what we've come to appreciate with DD, Entity, JT, Oink and others.)

I'm also not impending doom or whatever. I'm just saying that, at least from the look of it, this video is kinda useless.

It's probably easier for me to judge having seen the entire series (and seeing the series concept a bit more), but I think this video was a bit more of an introduction to one of the series contributors and to get, I suppose, a bit more acquainted with how he plays and thinks to see the sort of adjustments DD makes and comments about when coaching him. I do really pretty strongly feel that coming off dogmatically saying the video is "useless" is a pretty strong stance to take about any video, as it basically states that there is a right way or a wrong way to learn and also shows quite a bit of impatience.

It's quite possible that you personally don't see much that you can learn about LHE here, and I suppose that feeling is valid, but I've always learned a lot by comparing and contrasting different games, attitudes, and discussions about poker, and while I certainly wouldn't say that this sort of video is going to be a mindblower to you or anyone, I'm a bit disappointed to see such a dismissive attitude.

Of course, I take a different approach to learning about the game so I might feel a lot more strongly about this -- but I'm firmly of the belief that I improved my river game in Hold'em more than anything else by talking about late-street Stud play, and I improved my preflop play a ton by thinking about 3rd and 4th in split pot games. When I see someone make a mistake in limit I try not to think "oh, that's dumb" but moreso "why did they do that," and even moreso when I see a no limit player making a mistake, I think about the fundamental differences in late street play between the two games and mentally compare and contrast.

Like I said, it's going to be a big overstatement for me to say that this video is going to be (or is meant to be) groundbreaking. It's early in the series and it's your chance to get to know FoxwoodsFiend and the way he plays, the types of mistakes he makes, etc. But there's a lot of value that I do think you're missing and part of me feels pretty strongly based on the tone that you wrote it that you came into this thinking that you weren't going to get anything out of it -- and I have to be honest, I think if you come in with opinion, you really won't surprise yourself with what you get out.

Ok. Enough from me. I'll let DD and FWF elaborate if they want, but I just had to step in to reinforce that we are not a video site; we're an education site. One of my best teachers taught me, way back when, that I learn the most when I teach, and I realized later that I learn even more when I think about teaching. Hopefully these words don't fall on deaf ears.

Rob

It also seems a bit pointless to mention any obvious mistakes he might have made,

Sorry, I really need to post one more time. This statement really irks me: it says that you either know it all, you think everyone else knows it all, or for some other reason you just don't want to comment on the video.

One could comment with something like "read it in Stox's book." And, you know, they might be right. But it stil might be worth talking about. He bets the turn in the sample with TT on an A55x board into two opponents. Is that worth talking about?

I know we're going to be dealing with some comments that want the videos to be like they always were, but I think there's a ton of value in discussing everything almost to death (just wait till you see the next video from Josh's NL series, where we talk about 3 hands for 50 minutes -- but realize that we took over 45 minutes out of the discussion because we realized that I was asking too many "what if" questions and it was getting wayyyyyy too boring).

That's why I respond to all the posts here that I can. Even when a point is beaten to death, sometimes there's another bit of information, or another way someone phrases something, that will make something click for someone out there -- and I think that's worth a ton in and of itself. And really, you never know when that moment will happen for you. It still happens to me, and I love the feeling, and really it's why I still post as much as I do (both here and at 2p2). That brief moment of "wow" is worth all of the work you do to get to it.

Anyway I'm really ripping at this more than I want to here. I feel very very passionate about the value of everything that we're bringing to the table with these series and I have pretty obviously strong feelings about not passing too much judgment on any individual piece of material, because that's really not how we want them to be seen.

I really do understand that you guys got used to great standalone videos from me, DD, Joe, and Oink, and you're still going to be getting those, but series like this can have a lot of value if you are willing to work at it from lots of angles and not just wait for information to be thrown at you.

K. End lecture mode. I think the inner education major just came out in me and I'm pretty nitty about attitudes when it comes to learning.

Rob

I do really pretty strongly feel that coming off dogmatically saying the video is "useless" is a pretty strong stance to take about any video, as it basically states that there is a right way or a wrong way to learn and also shows quite a bit of impatience.

My comment came off a bit too strong, apologies for that, but I still stand on what I said. A video like this isn't useless per se, but it's pretty useless, in my opinion, compared to the first one. What I meant that I think that having Ariel's commentary here doesn't bring much extra value. Of course, there are spots where he made the right choice, in my opinion, but was not sure about the decision and I can try and give my reasoning for that, but I don't feel like it's that useful.

I strongy feel that I took just the approach of active and open learning with the first video. I turned off the sound and thought through the hands. I thought how I would have played and gave my reasoning. (Unfortunately I just don't have too much free time so I had to stop at around half of the video.) So I definitely don't feel like I'm all too impatient with learning. In fact, it's mostly deuces cracked that has opened my eyes to learning limit hold'em in a more active way.

Of course, I take a different approach to learning about the game so I might feel a lot more strongly about this --

This might be true, but I think that it's rather a strong assertion based on my first comment on the video. Maybe I did come off way too dismissive, and didn't give enough context for the comment, but this honestly sounds to me like a "you're doing it wrong" type of comment, which I feel I don't completely agree.

But there's a lot of value that I do think you're missing and part of me feels pretty strongly based on the tone that you wrote it that you came into this thinking that you weren't going to get anything out of it -- and I have to be honest, I think if you come in with opinion, you really won't surprise yourself with what you get out.

Well, I don't think that "I can't get anything out of it," I was mainly talking about the extra value that Ariel's commentary brings. Surely it's good to understand the way he thinks and feels about hands and surely there will be a continuity in this series. It's not that.

One of my best teachers taught me, way back when, that I learn the most when I teach, and I realized later that I learn even more when I think about teaching. Hopefully these words don't fall on deaf ears.

I certainly agree with this. I hope you didn't take that conclusion from my half-jokingly made comment about not yearning to teach Ariel specifically.

Sorry, I really need to post one more time. This statement really irks me: it says that you either know it all, you think everyone else knows it all, or for some other reason you just don't want to comment on the video.

By obvious mistakes I mean like 3-betting with K3o or cold-calling with Q9o. I think there won't be many of those in this video though, so it kinda makes my comment a bit useless in this context. But there is a class of mistakes in limit hold'em that are just obvious and that can be weeded out by reading a book or two. Say I'm commenting on a video on Finnish forum and I see the player cold-calling with A5o or something. It's not like I'm going to go through every single of these mistakes and mention them explicitly, but rather say something like these concepts are explained well in such-and-such book.

One could comment with something like "read it in Stox's book." And, you know, they might be right. But it stil might be worth talking about. He bets the turn in the sample with TT on an A55x board into two opponents. Is that worth talking about?

Like I said in the comment, I'm sure we can get discussion going on about the hands and it definitely will be useful.

I know we're going to be dealing with some comments that want the videos to be like they always were,

I hope you're not referring to my comment, because that's not what I implied. I probably said it wrong.

Anyway I'm really ripping at this more than I want to here. I feel very very passionate about the value of everything that we're bringing to the table with these series and I have pretty obviously strong feelings about not passing too much judgment on any individual piece of material, because that's really not how we want them to be seen.

That's good, but do you also feel that you are as open-minded as you can about any possible comments you get? I really feel that you're jumping into conclusions here and taking a rather arrogant stance.

I really do understand that you guys got used to great standalone videos from me, DD, Joe, and Oink, and you're still going to be getting those, but series like this can have a lot of value if you are willing to work at it from lots of angles and not just wait for information to be thrown at you.

Whenever I had the time and opportunity with the standalone videos, I certainly not wanted "to be thrown information at."

That's why I respond to all the posts here that I can. Even when a point is beaten to death, sometimes there's another bit of information, or another way someone phrases something, that will make something click for someone out there -- and I think that's worth a ton in and of itself. And really, you never know when that moment will happen for you. It still happens to me, and I love the feeling, and really it's why I still post as much as I do (both here and at 2p2). That brief moment of "wow" is worth all of the work you do to get to it.

So you're just flat-out concluding that this isn't my goal?

Because that feeling you describe it's just what I feel I've had with hand analysis in recent months. Just thinking and analyzing through seemingly simple and obvious situations and sometimes gaining surprising insights and usually at least re-inforcement and deeper understanding.

Maybe we should move this previous discussion in some other thread and not pollute other discussion with that meta-discussion? I think you're comments are worth-while, but maybe they are better served in some other forum, General discussion perhaps?

Anyhow, here's some comments on first few minutes (that I was intending to make regardless of the above discussion :-). I'm going to spew them out piecemeal.

At 02:00, (unknowns at this point), hijack opens and button cold-calls and you defend with A9o on the big blind. I think this is correct, but it gets progressively worse with unsuited aces in this spot. Something like A7o and A6o are not perhaps playable, whereas with suited aces you can go as low as A2s. In the same hand, flop comes 8 K 3 . You check and the player in the hijack checks. This is actually something that should be noted, because it's a huge mistake for him not to c-bet against two player on this spot. It's extremely dry board and the chance to get both of you fold is decent.

It's actually quite difficult to put the player in hijack on a hand here. He certainly should c-bet with any pocket pair and any ace. Maybe something like T9s, JTs, QJs, but if he's opening with those on the hijack, I think he should be capable of c-betting this flop.

That said, your bet on the turn is certainly the right play. There's decent chance that you have the best hand, but, at the same time, a hand that you shouldn't be calling any bets 3-way on the turn.

At 02:26, you have ATs on the SB and relatively LAGgy player opens on the cutoff. You're a bit uncertain about 3-betting here, but I think it's an easy 3-bet. Players are opening with a very wide range on the steal positions when it's folded around to them and ATs is probably a decent favorite over such range. You can go even few spots lower with suited aces on this spot.

At 02:36, you complete with JTo and comment about not raising in this spot. I think I would just complete also against unknowns, but if the BB were even a bit tight defender, I think there's value in isolating a loose limper and perhaps getting dead money from the BB. JTo is starting to be on the low end for isolation raising, though, as it has no showdown value to speak of.

Hi Jarno,

I always look forward to your feedback and comments, I feel like you really put in a lot of effort and it doesn't go unnoticed (also I just uploaded the old coaching vid I did of you so other people will see that effort as well). I'll just give you my thoughts on the idea for the series and not try to solve anything cuz its for the viewers to judge more than me or anyone else to "tell you" what the series should do.

I wanted it to be how I would actually take a student and try to change him or fix what's broke. The first part of that is for me to see them play, and give them feedback, which occurred in episode 1. The next step for me (though I do this in EP 1 by listening to his audio first) is to see how he thinks about the game and see what needs to be changed at a theoretical level. That's this. EP 3 is a session of him playing and me speaking to him in real time with analysis, questions, and perhaps a bit of moral support Future episodes will use one of these 3 formats.

I'll be the first to say this might not be ideal for a video series, but I felt it was a creative format that was an accurate reflection of what I'd do to take a student and hone his mid stakes limit game. I will learn lessons from feedback such as yours for future seasons, no doubt about it. I appreciate Rob's support but already told him I think he took your slightly negative feedback a bit too harshly and I need the criticism as its how I'll get better at figuring out what series ideas work best for students and interested video-watchers.

Oh and if you prefer the sort of traditional limit video style, I just put up Oink's 3rd video (this one at 2/4). Enjoy.

-DeathDonkey

In the A T where you 3-bet from the SB and the cutoff calls your 3-bet, the flop comes K 4 T . You bet and the villain calls. Turn is Q and you bet again. The most probable hands for the villain here after the flop action are hands with lone , maybe pocket pairs, maybe QJ or AJ, AQ, tilted towards those that have a .

The villain isn't folding any here, but I think the line here with turn/river is to bet the turn and check/call the river, because if he misses the flush, he's probably not going to call you down with Ace high or 55-99 here. But the Queen on the turn is a bad card in that even if he's just drawing to a weak flush, he most likely filled up to a better hand than yours and he has the position and he can valuebet/fold more accurately than you. So I think the river bet is a mistake, it's either check/call or check/fold. Again, this might be a
spot where people cry-call-down with ace high too, but I think it's a bit far-fetched.

You comment about not liking to not bet in these spots, but I think there's plenty of value to checking in these games that. Shorthanded midstakes is going to have a lot of bluff-happy players, especially in heads-up pots, and "donk-checking" is going to induce a lot of bluffs in these spots. Don't know about $100/$200 live, but I guess in general, live games are bound to have more loose/passive play than online midstakes.

So you're just flat-out concluding that this isn't my goal?

Because that feeling you describe it's just what I feel I've had with hand analysis in recent months. Just thinking and analyzing through seemingly simple and obvious situations and sometimes gaining surprising insights and usually at least re-inforcement and deeper understanding.

I wasn't trying to say you had or didn't have any goal. But you called the video "kinda useless," said that you didn't see what extra value the video could bring, and said discussion of a lot of the obvious mistakes was kind of pointless. To me it sounded like you saw no value in the video and before the thread got derailed by that, I had to jump in -- because I earnestly feel like there's a TON of value to this video specifically, let alone the extra things that may come about from it.

While I'm open to lots of different forms of criticism, the tone and the word choice you used in that was such that I felt like I really needed to come to defense because, to be honest, it wasn't constructive. Again, I've got a bit of the curse of knowledge here; I've seen pretty much of all of these and I've gotten to know FoxwoodsFiend and already know DD pretty well, so I've got a lot of perspective and it's not fair for me to judge by that -- which is why I tried to hold back. On the other hand, I wanted to stimulate some discussion and get some fiery responses (and I've gotten just that from you, which rocks) because this video -- and really all of our content, but especially some of the stuff that isn't as advanced -- isn't going to be worthwhile unless people get motivated enough to start to pick it apart and fire questions, responses, etc.

That's good, but do you also feel that you are as open-minded as you can about any possible comments you get? I really feel that you're jumping into conclusions here and taking a rather arrogant stance.

When a comment is constructive (like your last few have been), I try to be as open-minded as possible. When a comment is just critical, it doesn't have as much value to me and I probably come across as arrogant and closed-minded to an extent when responding to it. That fueled a lot of the nature of my post, no doubt. If the question is "am I open minded" to making these series better, I hope the answer is always a resounding yes; but if the question is am I going to be open minded to criticism that seems without intent, well, I'm not so sure.

It really could be word choice -- the three words I've highlighted were a pretty big deal to me (pointless, useless, and without value) and you could have been stating all of that pretty tongue-in-cheek. But as you can see, I take the idea of educating ourselves in a wide variety of ways very seriously, and I think there's a lot that people can learn by taking different angles than what we're used to. Breaking out of the mold, so to speak. I've got a whole bunch of ideas for standalone videos that are going to do this in ways that may make you hate me in the future, but I'll try to preface them at least so I know when my idea is failing rather than just not being communicated in advance.

Rob

I wanted it to be how I would actually take a student and try to change him or fix what's broke. The first part of that is for me to see them play, and give them feedback, which occurred in episode 1. The next step for me (though I do this in EP 1 by listening to his audio first) is to see how he thinks about the game and see what needs to be changed at a theoretical level. That's this. EP 3 is a session of him playing and me speaking to him in real time with analysis, questions, and perhaps a bit of moral support Future episodes will use one of these 3 formats.

Well, yeah, it does make sense if you put it this way. It's perhaps because I was expecting something a bit different with this video and it's not like you gave some background context for this second episode. I think it could make sense to write out this approach a bit more. Maybe it's implicit there all along, but I guess at least I got it a bit wrong.

I will learn lessons from feedback such as yours for future seasons, no doubt about it. I appreciate Rob's support but already told him I think he took your slightly negative feedback a bit too harshly and I need the criticism as its how I'll get better at figuring out what series ideas work best for students and interested video-watchers.

Well, no harm done here and I certainly will admit that my first comment was too harsh. I feel that Entity's comments were good, but became it defensive as I feel that I'm not totally guilty of things he critisized. I'm looking to improve my learning techniques, but I guess it just got to my ego a bit too much. :-) But I'll take this the positive way, and I'll try and use this as an exercise for myself and try to actually be a "teacher." As I said, I also feel that it's a valuable approach, but something that I've avoided with poker as I always just feel like a complete newbie.

So the one hand that I do want to discuss...

I'm doing this from memory, so I apologize if it's off, but I remember the board texture and the hand. Just not 100% sure about preflop action.

1 bad limper and FWF completes wth K6o and a LAGGY BB (capped KQo earlier, I think 3-bet a J24 flop and caught runner runner to beat FWF's flopped set).

The flop is 642 with two diamonds and he checks. First question: check "because someone tends to bet out and try to steal these flops." I'm not sure if this is as true in a limped LHE pot as it might be in NLHE. Maybe it's more true though. I'm still thinking this part over.

BB bets. Limper now raises. The pot is 6SB and it's 2SB for FWF to call, or he can 3-bet and offer 4.5:1 to BB. Call? 3-bet?

The hand isn't really all that interesting once we pass by that point. But I liked it up until there and thought the hand might have some interesting questions/commentary on it.

Rob

But I'll take this the positive way, and I'll try and use this as an exercise for myself and try to actually be a "teacher."

For what it's worth, based on your posts I always thought you would make a great microlimit coach. Your analysis is always very good and well-reasoned, so I was a bit surprised to see the first post and wanted to really stem that line of conversation quickly as I (pretty obviously) feel like this video has a lot to offer beyond (IMO) pretty hilarious commentary:

"limped UTG"

(comes back 2 minutes later)

"limped UTG...IN LIMIT"

Rob

For what it's worth, based on your posts I always thought you would make a great microlimit coach. Your analysis is always very good and well-reasoned, so I was a bit surprised to see the first post and wanted to really stem that line of conversation quickly

Yeah. This is one of those moments where I look back at the quick comment that I made I already regret saying anything along those lines. But I think it was not entirely useless as your comments were relevant and maybe someone had a similar first reaction but doesn't blurt it out to the forums and would have stayed unsatisfied all by him/herself.

At 03:30, FWF opens with A8o on the cutoff and gets 3-bet by an unknown on the button. Blinds fold, FWF calls and the flop comes 9 5 T . I'm so tempted to peel this flop. There's reverse implied odds of course and only a back-door straight draw, but it's something like 8,5:1 on the call and the pure equity against a range like {77+,A8s+,KJs+,ATo+,KQo} is still decent, though much of it comes from K high hands, which are unfortunately probably going to fire another bullet on pretty much any turn (because he will be thinking that you're going to peel lightly on this kind of flop) and you're forced to fold. Maybe fold on the flop is the right play here.

At around 04:50 you defend with 89o on the big blind against SB steal-raise and the flop comes 9 4 T . He bets and you raise and he calls. Turn is 5 and the villain bets out. Two things: the board
here is incredibly draw-heavy and it's a blind battle. So, I actually expect the SB to bet out often with marginal to strong made hand. He might fear that you might check behind with your 78o or flush draw (or even ace high) and wants to make sure that he protects his vulnerable made hand. So I'd put him on 9x/Tx pocket pair type of hand. I think it's pretty unlikely that you'd have a hand that would fold to this turn donk so it makes it a bit more unlikely that he is just flat out bluffing or semi-bluffing.

Also, just raising to show he can't do it in this spot, what you mentioned wanting to do, is bad mainly because you don't know what he has. That's even more reason to just call-down, because then you get to see what he has. It is important to get a feel on what the villains showdown with especially in blind battles (and HUHU matches). If you raise just for the heck of it and he 3-bets, it's going to be tough one to call-down anymore.

The river is actually a tough one, because it completes all the draws and he's still betting. Even if he was semi-bluffing, he's either got there or at least to a bigger pair and I'm thinking that you can fold this river. He's an unknown, but maybe this isn't the spot to call-down. It was going to be somewhat thin call-down anyhow but with the J on the river, I think it's a fold.

At around 07:20 you open with T T on UTG and cutoff cold-calls and BB defends. Flop comes A 5 5 . You bet, correctly and they both call. CO's range here is pretty much Axs and pocket pairs. BB doesn't have to be that great a player to realize here that his smaller pocket pairs aren't good anymore. So his range is similar, but maybe a bit stronger, more like Ax type of hands. It's probably not a strong Ace, like AK/AQ because of him not raising the flop and neither of them probably has JJ-KK because of the preflop action.

Turn is the 9 , BB checks and you bet again. You really just hope that CO has 66 and BB has 77-88 here, which is a long-shot. Nobody's folding an ace on this board and even 99 filled up to a boat. I think check-fold is the right play. Of course, folding to raise is the right play.

At 08:00, hijack (seemingly passive player) opens for a raise and you debate whether to defend with 65o here. I think folding is the right play. I would defend it against aggressive (or "normal") steal raise from CO/BTN/SB, but this player seems somewhat passive and it is from hijack so I think fold is OK here.

10:40 you have 3 6 on the BB. UTG limps, button raises and you defend. I don't hate it, but I think it's close. You have a poor relative position a really marginal hand in limit hold'em. UTG calls the raise also. Flop comes J Q 6 . You check, UTG checks and the button bets. He's going to bet 100% of the time here, but it's not a great board for you. There are hands like Axs, ATs, AKs and Kxs that you're ahead, but you're not a favorite against his range.

That said, I think you need to raise this flop. (Either that or just fold.) UTG might have a marginal draw and button might have air, but you need to get them fold whatever hands they happen to have, quickly. There are not a lot of safe cards in the deck and you'd probably have to check-fold most of the time if you call.

Turn is 7 and you check and the villain bets again. I think this requires a bit deeper thinking as it is probable that the villain is putting you on a weak draw perhaps feeling that you might have semi-bluff raised your strong draws and definitely would have raised any Jack any Queen, probably most decent pocket pairs on the flop. (Though 99/TT you might have 3-bet preflop.)

So this makes me think that he might bet here with big part of his range, semi-valubetting strong ace high hands, but it's still a long-shot to call-down this. (With three flush cards on the turn, he's not likely to check behind with Ace high to induce bluffs, I guess.) The river comes a fourth and I think there's a theorem about four flush boards and being OOP, but I'm not sure if it's applicable to this situation. I just think that he's going to call your donk with any pair. [This last paragraph is really hand-wavy and sloppy as I'm having hard time analyzing the turn action.]

I'm just spewing comments here out of the hope that they have some use.. :-)


11:30 you 3-bet from the SB with AJo a hijack opener who you know from NL games and therefore those stats are basically unreliable.

Flop comes 9 4 Q . You bet and the villain calls. Turn is A . I think this might a good spot to check/raise out of the lead. It's very likely that you have the best hand, AQ and AK pretty much ruled out and even A9o would probably have raised the flop. Most likely he made a light flop peel and checking on the turn might induce a desperation bluff feeling that you give up once the Ace hits. Also, he's just going to fold a big part of his range to turn bet once the Ace hits. You might also get loose call-downs with weaker aces on this spot.

14:25, it's hard to make of the stats, but I think the player who opens on the button is a loose/passive with pretty low PFR. I think 3-betting with 44 here is a mistake. Against normal steal-raise it's OK, but it's something of a borderline case there too.

BB then caps and button and you call. (The fact that button called the cap isn't too significant as this villain will probably do it with every hand he's opening with.)

Flop comes J 4 5 . FWF checks, BB bets and button folds. FWF raises, BB 3-bets. Here, I don't actually hate just calling and check-raising the turn as it seems likely that BB has a real hand with this dry a board and he will most probably fire on the turn. But I guess you can't fault 4-betting right way, especially when you're out of position. Turn is T , you bet and he calls.

It's tough to put him on a hand here, because I think it's hard to think of a hand that would cap preflop, but not raise this turn. Maybe AJs? Maybe he just has QQ-AA and is going silly with it, but it would make no sense. Which brings us to the river, which is 9 . You valuebet correctly and the villain raises. Suddenly the A J makes sense. That said, I don't think you can fold this. It's a huge pot, an unknown player with a smallish stack and a set. But of course you can't 3-bet it either.

Somewhere around 17:00, UTG player limps and you have A2o on the BB. Flop comes J34r. I'd be tempted to bet out both on the flop and the turn and folding to a raise. I don't think you can profitably call a bet at any point against this player so the other option would be to just check-fold the flop. The downside of betting out is that he might get stubborn with pocket pairs on a board like this, because it's rather unlikely that you have hit the jack.

17:40 or so, player limps on UTG, you correctly raise with 66 on the button, BB defends. Flop comes 9 Q 3 . BB checks, UTG donks. I would just fold this. It's too likely to have hit the limper (or the BB defender) and while he might be semi-bluffing with a draw, he's in pretty good shape with something like JT with one there. Or if he's donking with a flush draw, it's also going to have many live pair outs and you can't profitably call-down with 66, especially having a player behind you.

18:20, UTG limper (a lot of UTG limpers in this game!), TAG CO raises, you have 9 3 on BB. I would muck this. No connectedness and poor relative position and no high card value to speak of.

19:30 or so, A 2 on the button and loose/passive player defends on BB. Flop comes 6 T A . BB checks, you bet and the villain raises. You chose to 3-bet, but I wouldn't. I don't think a lot of worse hands will call your flop 3-bet, other than perhaps club draws semi-bluffing.

Players in these make more moves on Ace high boards against stealers, but this is a passive player and I would put him on a reasonably strong hand. Maybe I would just call-down or even possibly fold at some point if he keeps firing. Maybe calling down is safer against relative unknown. But a lot of players will give up their desperation bluff after you call two times.

I actually enjoyed this video. Watching it I felt like FoxwoodsFiend could make his learning experience at LHE at lot more fun by table selecting better though. The right table seemed fine but the left one seemed too tough to beat without being a very strong player, especially with the seat FoxwoodsFiend was sitting in.

I'm just spewing comments here out of the hope that they have some use.. :-)


11:30 you 3-bet from the SB with AJo a hijack opener who you know from NL games and therefore those stats are basically unreliable.

Flop comes 9 4 Q . You bet and the villain calls. Turn is A . I think this might a good spot to check/raise out of the lead. It's very likely that you have the best hand, AQ and AK pretty much ruled out and even A9o would probably have raised the flop. Most likely he made a light flop peel and checking on the turn might induce a desperation bluff feeling that you give up once the Ace hits. Also, he's just going to fold a big part of his range to turn bet once the Ace hits. You might also get loose call-downs with weaker aces on this spot.

I think there are too many weak draws that he can have here that only pay you off when they hit, but won't do much if you check. You can also pretty frequently get bad raises from Ax that peeled. Basically I don't think there are many hands that would fold to a bet here that would bet.

Rob

Its different...interesting ...thought provoking....but I am not sure I get the idea either. I do, to some degree, agree with jajvirta's first post.
And, I understand entity's reply...and all the other stuff.
I have no idea how this series goes/ends. (I am assuming by comments that its already in the can)
But this video, might be more useful with a question of.."can you spot the mistakes, and how would you fix them?"
kinda what jajvirta is doing above.
However, there are a lot of mistakes here. I think CONCEPTS (limit)...are more important than specifics in FoxwoodsFiend's case.
doing this in REAL TIME....not in the can...might be more fun to. As we could HELP...with our discussion here.
I am interested at what DD's lesson is after seeing this video. if thats the point...I LIKE IT...

I did enjoy this video, but for my own personal reason.
FoxwoodsFiend...it was nice to hear you say that limit wasn't all that easy, and that you needed to think.
I learned from you, FoxwoodsFiend. I learned how a (good) no limit player thinks....even if it was playing limit.
I understand limit more than NL, but I am starting to play NL.
I am just as lost playing NL as you are playing limit. (except you hand read/board read/ player read...much better ofcourse...and that is clear in this video).
DD's quest in my oppinion....is to slow you down even more. Your aggression factor from no limit is too high for limit.( there is no.... BLOW THEM OUT OF THE POT WITH A BIG BET....here)
but again....this teaches me about NL.....I NEED TO BE WAY MORE AGGRESSIVE IN NL....(and as I am fighting weaktight in limit....it may be hopeless...lol)

one last note....I would drop you down at least two more levels to 3/6. and force you to win $600 before moving you up. .....I have started my NL play at .01/.02....I playing .02/.05 at the moment.
Also, its hard to watch someone START..three levels above where I have worked so hard to get to.(so I am kinda glad you having trouble...lol)

a last ,last note......This site is going to be very crowded soon.....there is so much content on here lately....I can't keep up.....but its fun trying. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, (and dont stop trying stuff, no matter how silly someone might think it is...lol).......this one works for me....
GGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOO FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFoxwoodsFiend!!!!!!!!!!!!

At 03:30, FWF opens with A8o on the cutoff and gets 3-bet by an unknown on the button. Blinds fold, FWF calls and the flop comes 9 5 T . I'm so tempted to peel this flop. There's reverse implied odds of course and only a back-door straight draw, but it's something like 8,5:1 on the call and the pure equity against a range like {77+,A8s+,KJs+,ATo+,KQo} is still decent, though much of it comes from K high hands, which are unfortunately probably going to fire another bullet on pretty much any turn (because he will be thinking that you're going to peel lightly on this kind of flop) and you're forced to fold. Maybe fold on the flop is the right play here.

Hey Jaj,

I think peeling a flop like this is the kind of play I wanted to avoid because I wasn't too comfortable with figuring out people's ranges at the time. I didn't know if people fire every time on the turn so I should call flop and turn (assuming it bricks) given my price I'm getting vs the button's range. Without a clear sense of how action goes on the turn in spots like this I kind of wanted to play it safe and not play in such a way that involved putting in chips without thinking. My general approach was if I'm not sure where I stand and the pot's not huge, I'm going to err on the side of not feeling spewy as opposed to leaking money in possibly marginally +EV but high variance spots tht would complicate my ability to assess my game.

At around 04:50 you defend with 89o on the big blind against SB steal-raise and the flop comes 9 4 T . He bets and you raise and he calls. Turn is 5 and the villain bets out. Two things: the board
here is incredibly draw-heavy and it's a blind battle. So, I actually expect the SB to bet out often with marginal to strong made hand. He might fear that you might check behind with your 78o or flush draw (or even ace high) and wants to make sure that he protects his vulnerable made hand. So I'd put him on 9x/Tx pocket pair type of hand. I think it's pretty unlikely that you'd have a hand that would fold to this turn donk so it makes it a bit more unlikely that he is just flat out bluffing or semi-bluffing.

Also, just raising to show he can't do it in this spot, what you mentioned wanting to do, is bad mainly because you don't know what he has. That's even more reason to just call-down, because then you get to see what he has. It is important to get a feel on what the villains showdown with especially in blind battles (and HUHU matches). If you raise just for the heck of it and he 3-bets, it's going to be tough one to call-down anymore.

This is all very fair and I was definitely flinging chips too casually early on in my limit "career."

The river is actually a tough one, because it completes all the draws and he's still betting. Even if he was semi-bluffing, he's either got there or at least to a bigger pair and I'm thinking that you can fold this river. He's an unknown, but maybe this isn't the spot to call-down. It was going to be somewhat thin call-down anyhow but with the J on the river, I think it's a fold.

Yep, I think so too. It's just so damn hard to fold a pair when you're getting started because you convince yourself you're getting a good enough price without having the requisite experience to realize that you're not really good that often at all.

Definitely appreciate the commentary...no offense taken from your first post. This was the very infancy of my limit experience and I think you'll manage to glean a lot from my future discussions with DeathDonkey and that my solo videos will give you alot of hands to think about.

At around 07:20 you open with T T on UTG and cutoff cold-calls and BB defends. Flop comes A 5 5 . You bet, correctly and they both call. CO's range here is pretty much Axs and pocket pairs. BB doesn't have to be that great a player to realize here that his smaller pocket pairs aren't good anymore. So his range is similar, but maybe a bit stronger, more like Ax type of hands. It's probably not a strong Ace, like AK/AQ because of him not raising the flop and neither of them probably has JJ-KK because of the preflop action.

Turn is the 9 , BB checks and you bet again. You really just hope that CO has 66 and BB has 77-88 here, which is a long-shot. Nobody's folding an ace on this board and even 99 filled up to a boat. I think check-fold is the right play. Of course, folding to raise is the right play.

Like I said, indiscriminate betting and super thin bets hoping that everthing was aligned just perfectly because I didn't want to fold is a pretty consistent problem of mine in these early videos.

10:40 you have 3 6 on the BB. UTG limps, button raises and you defend. I don't hate it, but I think it's close. You have a poor relative position a really marginal hand in limit hold'em. UTG calls the raise also. Flop comes J Q 6 . You check, UTG checks and the button bets. He's going to bet 100% of the time here, but it's not a great board for you. There are hands like Axs, ATs, AKs and Kxs that you're ahead, but you're not a favorite against his range.

That said, I think you need to raise this flop. (Either that or just fold.) UTG might have a marginal draw and button might have air, but you need to get them fold whatever hands they happen to have, quickly. There are not a lot of safe cards in the deck and you'd probably have to check-fold most of the time if you call.

Turn is 7 and you check and the villain bets again. I think this requires a bit deeper thinking as it is probable that the villain is putting you on a weak draw perhaps feeling that you might have semi-bluff raised your strong draws and definitely would have raised any Jack any Queen, probably most decent pocket pairs on the flop. (Though 99/TT you might have 3-bet preflop.)

So this makes me think that he might bet here with big part of his range, semi-valubetting strong ace high hands, but it's still a long-shot to call-down this. (With three flush cards on the turn, he's not likely to check behind with Ace high to induce bluffs, I guess.) The river comes a fourth and I think there's a theorem about four flush boards and being OOP, but I'm not sure if it's applicable to this situation. I just think that he's going to call your donk with any pair. [This last paragraph is really hand-wavy and sloppy as I'm having hard time analyzing the turn action.]

If these analyses are supposed to be some sort of advertising to become a guest coach or something, it's working on me (not that I have any say in the matter). You're pretty much dead-on with all of this and it's very helpful to have you assist in analyzing these hands. Thanks a lot for your contribution.

Its different...interesting ...thought provoking....but I am not sure I get the idea either. I do, to some degree, agree with jajvirta's first post.
And, I understand entity's reply...and all the other stuff.
I have no idea how this series goes/ends. (I am assuming by comments that its already in the can)
But this video, might be more useful with a question of.."can you spot the mistakes, and how would you fix them?"
kinda what jajvirta is doing above.
However, there are a lot of mistakes here. I think CONCEPTS (limit)...are more important than specifics in FoxwoodsFiend's case.
doing this in REAL TIME....not in the can...might be more fun to. As we could HELP...with our discussion here.
I am interested at what DD's lesson is after seeing this video. if thats the point...I LIKE IT...

I did enjoy this video, but for my own personal reason.
FoxwoodsFiend...it was nice to hear you say that limit wasn't all that easy, and that you needed to think.
I learned from you, FoxwoodsFiend. I learned how a (good) no limit player thinks....even if it was playing limit.
I understand limit more than NL, but I am starting to play NL.
I am just as lost playing NL as you are playing limit. (except you hand read/board read/ player read...much better ofcourse...and that is clear in this video).
DD's quest in my oppinion....is to slow you down even more. Your aggression factor from no limit is too high for limit.( there is no.... BLOW THEM OUT OF THE POT WITH A BIG BET....here)
but again....this teaches me about NL.....I NEED TO BE WAY MORE AGGRESSIVE IN NL....(and as I am fighting weaktight in limit....it may be hopeless...lol)

one last note....I would drop you down at least two more levels to 3/6. and force you to win $600 before moving you up. .....I have started my NL play at .01/.02....I playing .02/.05 at the moment.
Also, its hard to watch someone START..three levels above where I have worked so hard to get to.(so I am kinda glad you having trouble...lol)

a last ,last note......This site is going to be very crowded soon.....there is so much content on here lately....I can't keep up.....but its fun trying. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, (and dont stop trying stuff, no matter how silly someone might think it is...lol).......this one works for me....
GGGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOO FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFoxwoodsFiend!!!!!!!!!!!!

i think we finally found stephennuts' deucescracked account! (inside HSNL joke possibly, but dude your punctuation is crazy)

i agree starting at 3/6 would led to a stronger foundation and background, but I really don't know how seriously i could take 3/6 truth be told. i try to play my best every time i play poker, but in the truly marginal spots where i'm figuring out whether to call a river raise or not it would be too easy to be subconsiously motivated by the fact that I can't take $6 seriously anymore.

i also agree i was too aggressive, but i've been working on that and you'll definitely see improvement in the later videos

stephennuts has a deucescracked account! i think it's stephenferaca though, or just stephennuts, but the punctuation is there!

11:30 you 3-bet from the SB with AJo a hijack opener who you know from NL games and therefore those stats are basically unreliable.

Flop comes 9 4 Q . You bet and the villain calls. Turn is A . I think this might a good spot to check/raise out of the lead. It's very likely that you have the best hand, AQ and AK pretty much ruled out and even A9o would probably have raised the flop. Most likely he made a light flop peel and checking on the turn might induce a desperation bluff feeling that you give up once the Ace hits. Also, he's just going to fold a big part of his range to turn bet once the Ace hits. You might also get loose call-downs with weaker aces on this spot.

I think there are too many weak draws that he can have here that only pay you off when they hit, but won't do much if you check. You can also pretty frequently get bad raises from Ax that peeled. Basically I don't think there are many hands that would fold to a bet here that would bet.

Yeah, you're probably right. It just felt that he's going to fold majority of his hands and that he's going to play passively even he has an Ace, but bet when checked to. Don't know.

In any case, betting is definitely not the wrong play and probably the best.

You speculate about the hand where you opened with A2o and got check-raised on a Ace high board and get donked on the turn when another Ace hit. While I don't have any experience in midstakes, other than seeing videos of those games, I think the villain's play with broadway gutshot is basically just spewing. I mean, it's fine to take a shot at a Ace high board against a steal from time to time, but when you 3-bet and he donks, I think it's just a bit too much. Therefore I don't think you need to protect your hand or charge gutshots on the turn, because it's basically just bluff at that point and want him to continue bluffing. So here a passive line works well in my opinion.

20:00, a player opens on the CO and you have K8o on the BB. It's not a great hand, but I would still defend with it against a steal. CO/BTN ranges are so wide that K8o is pretty decent equity-wise and it's also K high, which might win you some pots with just that. The player who opened was the player you know from NL so I can't be sure of his CO opening range, but I would still defend.

21:30 (or so), a player limps UTG (no, not again!) and you raise with J 8 on the button. More experienced players are probably going to say that this is OK, and I guess it might be, but I'm not willing to do it. It's not a huge difference to, say, JTs, that I would feel more comfortable iso-raising, but I guess this is one of those border-line situations. But, you do have the position and a hand that plays well multi-way too if the blinds come along.

Flop comes 8 3 5 . SB checks, UTG limper bets out and you correctly raise. Like you said, you're most probably ahead here and you need to charge draws here and drop live 6 outers hopefully. SB cold-calls two and UTG calls. Turn is 7 and they both check. I think your play of bet/folding here is the right one, though I think for some portion of the time, you'd have to be willing to make call-downs on these spots too. But SB's hand just does look like a made flush so much and there's a player behind him to act that might as well have a made flush, therefore SB is less likely to raise here as a semi-bluff. The effectiveness of semi-bluffs go way down in limit hold'em if you have two opponents as opposed to just one.

If these analyses are supposed to be some sort of advertising to become a guest coach or something, it's working on me (not that I have any say in the matter). You're pretty much dead-on with all of this and it's very helpful to have you assist in analyzing these hands. Thanks a lot for your contribution.

These analyses are mostly just a learning experience for me and if they help you at all, it's all bonus.

Definitely appreciate the commentary...no offense taken from your first post. This was the very infancy of my limit experience and I think you'll manage to glean a lot from my future discussions with DeathDonkey and that my solo videos will give you alot of hands to think about.

Yeah. It was mostly just a reaction for not getting the weekly DeathDonkey commentary. I certainly think it's worth-while to hear your commentary in order to understand the (possible) mistakes you're making and in this regard the approach makes sense.

Hi,

Before I say anything I just want to underline that I love this site. I've watched pretty much every video and read dozens of posts, and my understanding of the game has improved greatly as a result. I don't post very much (I contribute a lot to other poker sites and have limited time due to family commitments and trying to learn NL) but Deathdonkey's limit videos and forum contributions in particular have been hugely beneficial to me personally, and I've learned tons from Entity, Joe and the guest pros. The amount of time the pros here put into responding to forum posts and ensuring high quality videos is far greater IMO than similar sites to which I also subscribe.

I'm as excited as everyone else about the new format, and I'm definitely interested in and open to new teaching approaches. I love the look of the new site and the quality of the NL vids seems to be just as high as the limit vids we've all come to enjoy.

However Entity, I was very disappointed to read your responses to Javjvirta's OP in this thread. You clearly feel very strongly about the quality and educational philosphy of the site, and I'm sure that this in part is what makes this site so outstanding. But in my view your replies were condescending, patronising and insulting. I think this is unacceptable coming from an admin, and particularly so when the poster in question is a long-standing member and very active contributor to the forum.

This thread is for members to give their view of, or ask questions about, a particular video. There's even a rating system which underlines the 'assessment' aspect of the thread. If you don't want members to give an honest opinion, don't provide a thread to do so. The OP is entitled to his opinion, and FWIW I thought his opening post was polite, considered and respectful. He was just being straightforward and honest. He didn't "derail" the thread at all. In fact if you hadn't have "stepped in" IMO unecessarily, I'm sure a number of other members would have given their considered views, both for and against. If anyone derailed this thread, you did.

He didn't like the video, he didn't feel he got any additional value from it, as opposed to watching the "usual" format. You have a different view clearly, that's fine. But you have to accept that members will sometimes have a different view to your own. To suggest that he's effectively 'just not trying hard enough' and wants 'information to be thrown' at him is just insulting. FWIW I agree with everything he said. I didn't like the format at all, and other than it offering hands that can be discussed I much prefer to watch a video from one of the limit pros, or at least a commentary similar to the first video in this series.

I don't see what extra value is to be gained from watching a NL pro struggle with limit concepts, as opposed to the value I can get from watching (say) DD play or commenting on others' play. Both formats produce a wealth of hands to discuss, but in the case of watching DD I get a high quality commentary and see the results of correct play 99.9% of the time.

Most experienced limit players will be able to spot errors made in this vid, and I don't see how asking myself "why" a NL player might make a particular error by virtue of them being a NL player adds to the value I get from watching. And this is in the context that I play both limit and NL and I have a decent understanding of the often profound differences in strategy as a result of the different betting structures.

Sure, I know why a NL player might three bet small suited connectors or cold call with QJo on the button (for example), but what extra value does that add? Even if I was just learning limit and knew nothing about NL (not an unreasonable assumption for many of the members, given the origins of DC), what value would I glean from this video? Without an understanding of the differences between NL and limit I don't see what additional value is to be gained? So who exactly is this video geared towards?

I also disagree with you when you say that Jav's OP wasn't constructive. You might not have liked his wording, but IMO that shouldn't be your concern as an admin unless he was deliberately offensive to a particular individual. He didn't like the video and gave a brief explanation of why, and from a business perspective you should take that on board and accept it, regardless of whether or not you agree. If you disagree strongly then by all means explain why, but do so in a respectful way. Jav is quite capable of being able to assess whether he can get value from this video by himself. He doesn't need your help with that.

Members should be able to air an opinion (within reason obviously), and I fear your replies might disuade other less forthright members from giving an honest opinion in future. Jav's OP obviously touched a nerve with you, but IMO you should really be thanking him. He was honest about his opinion and it's well known that a business survives or dies on it's ability to listen to and communicate with it's customers.

I would hope that despite your own personal educational and teaching philosophy, if the general feeling of your customers is that this (or later) format sucks, you would take this on board and cease to produce similar videos. To say that you won't keep an open mind about comments that you deem not to be "constructive", seems to me to be both arrogant and also foolish from a business perspective. Not everyone is here to take part in deep discussion about the finer points of educational philosphy. Some (most?) members just like to watch videos of professionals playing poker. To you, DC is an education site. But to many of the members it may well just be a video site. From a business perspective I would have thought it wise to take on board and value your customer's views, even if they differ from your own. The two ideas needn't be mutually exclusive.

In short it may be a good idea to recall Joe Tall's oft quoted words: "This is your site. We just work here". Although obviously slightly 'tongue in cheek', I think this is an excellent philosophy to have for an instructional site like this, and I sincerely hope this continues to be the case.

(By the way FoxwoodFiend, please don't take any of this as a personal criticism of you or your play. I don't intend that at all, and I'm confident the series as a whole will be valuable. It's great that you're now part of the DC community and hopefully at some point you can make a NL vid, because my NL sucks balls )

I know this sounds weird but I agree with everyone, as you all have the right to say what you wish. And the worst thing out of this would be jajvirta, nomdeguerre, and even my partner, Rob, to stop posting like this or saying things like this. This is what makes this site different from the rest as it's clear to me, after reading this, you all have one thing in common:

You all care.

The day that you stop caring, is the day we have fcked this place up. Now, mind you, this stuff gets convoluted and misinterpreted in such a one-dimensional format. If this were a phone call it would be 1/3 the length and way behind us.

One thing I did was not watch the series episodes and tried to avoid the site development discussions as I wanted to get perspective from the users angle. I can hear your comments as this video stands alone. I see what you are saying here. However, what I do know though is to be patient as the series develops. That's what I am looking forward to. Maybe there will be more lessons to be learned, but either way, FWF and DD put a ton of time, effort and thought into this series, and they are both fantastic players, so I'm sticking around just on those merits.

I hope you all can agree with me to get the thread back on track and leave the rest behind for now.

(By the way FoxwoodFiend, please don't take any of this as a personal criticism of you or your play. I don't intend that at all, and I'm confident the series as a whole will be valuable. It's great that you're now part of the DC community and hopefully at some point you can make a NL vid, because my NL sucks balls )

Oh, just wait...from what I've heard, I cant' wait! Even though I can take sneak peaks, I'm not going to!

jajvirta has every right to say what he thinks, as does everyone else around here.
perhaps jajvirta was a little quick to judge the value. But we were not given all the information, only one vid at a time. he commented on this video only, not the series as a whole, or any person.

Entity, knowing how much work goes into all this. took offense, when none was meant.
and I think thats key...no offense was meant. Everyone here, is doing the best they can, even when it may not seem that way.
Entity, ...I applaud the vigor in which you defended your friends and your site...and all the hard work.
when the fight breaks out...I want you covering my back.

nomdeguerre..I hope you can find time to post more..I like the way you think.

note: myself and mr stephennuts took the same english writing class...

and Mr Tall....It may be the beginning of the end...cause I read what you wrote..
AND I AGREE! ......*wink*

Hey guys,

I do think I may have come across too harshly but this probably isn't the first time you've seen it (if it is, you just haven't seen me post that much) and it certainly won't be the last. I'm usually worse than this when I talk to DD and Joe about hands/issues we debate, and just because I write the responses I do doesn't mean I think badly of jaj as a poster -- in fact it means that I think a ton of him.

When I write someone off, I don't respond, I ignore them, I chalk it up to whatever and just walk away. But that's not how I feel about you guys, or this place, and since that's the case you guys are occasionally going to see this side of me: I can be arrogant, headstrong, and I will debate just about anything, sometimes for the sake of debating it and sometimes because I feel very strongly about it (this is the latter). While I don't want you guys to get the wrong opinion of me, I'm not always going to be nice -- or alter how I write -- because you are customers or because I'm an admin, and while it's pretty obvious that I have to use a bit more decorum than I may have in that post, I'd hope that you wouldn't ask me to change how I write things based on the fact that you are customers. To an extent, that changes the dynamic between us and I feel like we have the most to gain when you can tell me off, but if you do, you have to be ready for me to tell you off and tell you why I think you're wrong -- and I'm HAPPIEST when you send another shot back my way and counter what I've just said, until we reach a useful compromise of opinions. That's where we learn the most, as long as there isn't too much attrition along the way.

As I've stated in plenty of ways earlier in the thread, I was very upset by jaj calling the videos pointless and 'kind of useless,' without actually justifying it, in the first post of a thread. I do want everyone to post your opinions. But I'm very serious about teaching, and if you just post that you hated something, I can't promise that I won't take you to task for it in the future. The second that I stop responding to posts like that is the second that I've started caring less.

In the end, you guys are here to become better poker players, and I'm here to help you on that path. If that means that you only want to watch DD tell you why he's doing what he's doing, well, I'm going to try to convince you that you're only getting about 20% of what you could be getting...and unfortunately, I may not always be the nicest guy when I'm doing it. In this case, I think I was a bit too impolite, but I do have to say that if I drop the arrogance, or ever try to be too wishy-washy with letting you guys just think whatever you want, then I'm not really being myself; while this might be good for business because it comes across professionally, it's not good for the business I'm in -- which is making you guys as good of poker players as I can.

All of this being said, I have to say in all honesty that I'm happier with this thread being a 35-post storm of all of us arguing, bickering, and everything else than I would be with just having left the first post, or said "Sorry you feel that way, we'll see what we can do in future episodes." I think that says a ton for our approach and for what we value the most here at DC, and what you can export more in the future. And finally, hopefully if you guys don't like something in the future you'll be a little more willing to say exactly why that is.

Rob

I just want to comment shortly.

1. I also think the discussion has been worth-while. I think Rob's comments have been on point, but I just felt that I didn't quite deserve it. Maybe I did, but I don't feel like it. :-)

2. I don't want to turn this into a "customer is always right, stop arguing with me" type of argumentation, because I don't believe in that, but I think this sort of feedback has its merit too.

3. I think this format has its merits. This wasn't a reaction to the idea of such series, but to this video in particular. Or not even this video per se, but compared to the previous one.

4. I still stand on my first impression: this particular video doesn't have the extra value I wanted. (Doesn't mean it's useless or pointless alltogether, just that I think I would have appreciated DD's, or anyone else experienced beating midstakes limit games for that matter, commentary more.)

5. I will admit that it was my mistake not to state the exact reasons for my disappointment more explicitly and lot of the confusion came from that. (Not that anyone wouldn't have right to be disappointed for whatever reasons they want. Just that I wasn't clear in my first post. I still don't feel it was that offensive, but things look always a bit different from a different point of view. :-)

6. No hard feelings from my part.

hug it out guys!

I want to show more love for this video. Personally I learn a lot from watching better players explain why they make certain plays in certain situations, but I probably learn even more by realizing by myself WHY other players are making the wrong plays in certain situations. I am somewhat dissapointed that noone has addressed the table/seat selection issue though as I feel this is one of the most important and at the same time overlooked concepts in LHE. Have you written me off Entity?

I am somewhat dissapointed that noone has addressed the table/seat selection issue though as I feel this is one of the most important and at the same time overlooked concepts in LHE.

Until our gurus create fresh table/seat selection masterpiece, have a look here.

Nothing there is new to me. I was specifically talking about getting FoxwoodsFiend to table select better and make it an integral part of his LHE learning experience as I think it's a very important part of the game.

Nothing there is new to me. I was specifically talking about getting FoxwoodsFiend to table select better and make it an integral part of his LHE learning experience as I think it's a very important part of the game.

Sorry, got it wrong.

FoxwoodsFiend: Until our LHE gurus create fresh table/seat selection masterpiece featuring you, have a look here.

:-P

LOL, no need to apologize to me, sorry if I sounded hostile in any way.

I want to show more love for this video. Personally I learn a lot from watching better players explain why they make certain plays in certain situations, but I probably learn even more by realizing by myself WHY other players are making the wrong plays in certain situations. I am somewhat dissapointed that noone has addressed the table/seat selection issue though as I feel this is one of the most important and at the same time overlooked concepts in LHE. Have you written me off Entity?

Haven't written anyone off but it's playoff weekend here (boo Seahawks just got creamed) so I won't be posting much substance until Monday.

Rob

GO PACKS GO!!!

Hi guys,

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply, I've just got back from a weekend away. I've read everyone's replies, thank you.

Joe, you're absolutely right that there would be no discussions of this nature if those involved didn't care so much about DC. The fact that the members seem as motivated as the admin to maintain the quality of th site is fantastic, and I honestly think it sets DC apart from similar instructional sites.

Rob, I do understand that your strong views are based upon a desire to ensure that DC is the best site of its kind. Like you, I'm also of the opinion that people should feel free to air their views, and that vigorous debate is often very beneficial and far preferable to saying nothing, provided it's carried out in a respectful manner.

Achieving your philosophical goals whilst simultaneously keeping your customers happy is a delicate balance, and I feel that honest and sometimes lively feedback is the best way of achieving this balance. But to do so it's important that all of the participants are willing to compromise at times, and your responses to Jav left me feeling that you felt you couldn't or wouldn't do that. We're all here for different reasons, and given that it's a subscription site I feel some weight should always be given to the member's views, even if this sometimes clashes with the views of the admin. For obvious reasons this is beneficial to all parties.

As I said before I'm very happy to be a member here and I have the utmost respect for everyone involved. I'm looking forward to the next instalment of the series.

Cheers

When is the new episode coming out, by the way?

I meant to go through the whole video commenting like I did, but I kinda lost my steam and left it at that. There's just too much to do and too little time, but I do think that I got some value out of "coaching".