---

Poker Video: Limit Hold'Em by DeathDonkey (Micro/Small Stakes)

Not too shabby from a "joke of a coach" ... A little too basic for me though. Feels good to be able to say that about a DD vid.

It is really too much basic. I hoped that What to do when will for more advenced players.

To be fair, I put the call out for some HH submissions and I got 50c/1 ones and no others.

To be fair, I put the call out for some HH submissions and I got 50c/1 ones and no others.

I wasn't complaining!!! It's good stuff fo a .5/1 player. Now that I have started getting in some hands again I will hopefully be able to ship somehing.

It is really too much basic. I hoped that What to do when will for more advenced players.

This video is not "basic". DDs analysis of these hands applies to limits higher than .5/1 and I thought his lecture was pretty spot on.

You guys need to stop bi tching.

This was a good video. I like how you talk between the lines of your actions and explain the long term expectancy of making some actions. It's a good way of teaching when you remind us what to keep in mind and what the purpose of our play is.

Link to original thread with HH's that this video covers.

To anyone who feels that this video is too basic (whether they are posting about it or not), in my mind that kind of smacks of a LACK of active learning.

First off, as DD points out, these are member submitted hands. From talking to him I can assure you he wasn't exactly flooded with submissions. If you want to see hands from stakes x/y or covering a certain concept, then your best course of action is to send him some hands. I really don't get it - DD basically offered free coaching and he can't get people to take him up on it.

Secondly, I would say that the HH threads DD is posting in advance aren't seeing that much activity. Maybe that means no one has any questions about any of the hands because we're all expert, but I'm guessing there's some other explanation - straight up laziness.

Thirdly, I would challenge the viewers - can you honestly say you were engaged in actively watching this video? For example, at ~40 minutes when DD says, 'this is a really great exercise,' how many of you paused the video and actually did the exercise, and how many of you just passively continued to play the next few minutes where DD gives the 'answer?'

--------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'm all out of bricks for now. Please realize that, while I am a bit miffed about this, I do intend for this to be constructive. So here's an idea for what you (the general you) could do. I recently discussed the concept of the value check with some of my students and there was some confusion about it. To follow up I emailed them with a suggestion that I'm going to share with all of you.

Go check out the hands for the next episode (right here), and do two things:

1) Grunch every hand (this means come up with your reply before reading anyone else's response)
2) WRITE DOWN what you would do and WHY

Each aspect is very important - writing it down so you don't accidentally cheat or get lazy, and explaining your reasons so you can evaluate whether or not your thought process is valid. Even if you don't post any of your thoughts later I guarantee this exercise will be beneficial.

If you do have questions about any hands, even better - post them. Then in future weeks when you watch the video, compare DD's 'answers' to your own - where there are discrepancies you've found an area you should study further.

how dare you criticizing a DeucesCracked video? HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!

Link to original thread with HH's that this video covers.

To anyone who feels that this video is too basic (whether they are posting about it or not), in my mind that kind of smacks of a LACK of active learning.

First off, as DD points out, these are member submitted hands. From talking to him I can assure you he wasn't exactly flooded with submissions. If you want to see hands from stakes x/y or covering a certain concept, then your best course of action is to send him some hands. I really don't get it - DD basically offered free coaching and he can't get people to take him up on it.

Secondly, I would say that the HH threads DD is posting in advance aren't seeing that much activity. Maybe that means no one has any questions about any of the hands because we're all expert, but I'm guessing there's some other explanation - straight up laziness.

Thirdly, I would challenge the viewers - can you honestly say you were engaged in actively watching this video? For example, at ~40 minutes when DD says, 'this is a really great exercise,' how many of you paused the video and actually did the exercise, and how many of you just passively continued to play the next few minutes where DD gives the 'answer?'

--------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, I'm all out of bricks for now. Please realize that, while I am a bit miffed about this, I do intend for this to be constructive. So here's an idea for what you (the general you) could do. I recently discussed the concept of the value check with some of my students and there was some confusion about it. To follow up I emailed them with a suggestion that I'm going to share with all of you.

Go check out the hands for the next episode (right here), and do two things:

1) Grunch every hand (this means come up with your reply before reading anyone else's response)
2) WRITE DOWN what you would do and WHY

Each aspect is very important - writing it down so you don't accidentally cheat or get lazy, and explaining your reasons so you can evaluate whether or not your thought process is valid. Even if you don't post any of your thoughts later I guarantee this exercise will be beneficial.

If you do have questions about any hands, even better - post them. Then in future weeks when you watch the video, compare DD's 'answers' to your own - where there are discrepancies you've found an area you should study further.

cliffs:
If you don't learn from it your a moron.
The viewers are responsible for the content. Coaches don't have to bother with playing themselves.
Now spend 1 hour preparing for the next video.

Guys lets all calm down a bit please, I think others were more offended by the first comments than I was. I'm aware I normally do higher stakes stuff and this was a 50c/1 video and I definitely try to tweak my analysis to fit the game (and most likely potential audience) a bit. Yes this series is easier for me to do requiring less hours than the one I did last season where I spent many many hours going through Mike's HEM to find hands, then had to convert them, get the stubborn replayer to accept them, organize them into themes for each episode, and then record it.

DD-- I really liked your original & I have watched the first one of this series and liked it as well.

BUT, and it's a really big "but", you are putting out vids to satisfy your customers. If it fails t hit the mark, no one really needs excuses. Could be the viewers, could be the vid, could be both. Bottom line, if you fail to satisfy the public too often, you might need to add multiple accounts, collude, write books advocating FSDR -- ooops sorry, wrong site

Seriously, I do have a single question to ask: "why do the hands need to be actual?" Why bother going through hours of hands when you could just set up some examples in Holdem Manager Replayer? Or on a story board a la Ed Miller?

PLus that way you could if you wanted to, do an Entity, and when you say "What if....." you could actually change the board as you speak about it. But that is only if you want to go off tangent.

just my .02

which

and YES, i am tweaking Rob as well. I have been watching Dojo series one, first two episodes where EVERYONE realizes Rob can go for days.

which

I mean I don't know what to say. This thread is a trainwreck. I can't believe what my post lead to. I watched the first 20min and in that part there was discussion on not bluffing A-high on the river and not opening trash in the SB. Do we all agree that is basic stuff?

I then made the decission to not watch the remaining part, because I figured the player who sent in the hands made a lot of basic errors. DD made very good analysis of he spots he was given, not blaming him in any way. When I said I thought it was too basic in my first post I had no intention what so ever to complain. My honest feeling was: "This is too basic for me and that's totally fine". That was it. Not every video has to be for me.

About sending in hands: I try to do things for the comunity, but I haven't played poker in over a month for various personal reasons (have played every day since Sunday though). So I had no fresh material to ship. I will try to come up with an interesting concept and send hands sometime in the near future.

Pyg's hands looks promising and I'm sure that will be a cool vid. If DD doesn't understand that I love to watch his stuff he is stupid, which is impossible because then I wouldn't enjoy his vidz.

Now we should all do the old DC-forum-hug and move on.

sushi, you're overestimating how much my post is about you. I'm not going to say you're not a part of it since it's clear you posted before me, but MUCH more of my post was directed towards a general trend I see and worry about - sadly I have a lot more evidence than just this thread.

I want to share a quick story - within the past 2.5 years I watched a video series on DC that I thought was very bad (keep in mind I watch some non-LHE content if you're trying to figure out which, but obviously I'm not going to reveal the series name). It was almost certainly the worst video series I've ever seen, including probably 2-3 of the 5 worst individual videos I've ever watched. My significant other (now wife) asked me why I continued to watch it if I thought the content and presentation were so poor. I told her because it challenged (nay, forced) me to watch actively. Every time I disagreed I looked at it as an opportunity to think critically about exactly why I disagreed and how I would explain my rationale. That was a formative experience for me and much of what I try to do in videos and coaching session is a direct result of that series (but of course due to anti-modeling).

By the way, none of this should be interpreted to mean I think this video is bad - I'm willing to say that I gave it 4 stars and while I don't think it was DeathDonkey's best work I felt it was decent. What I'm suggesting can be applied to any video, good or bad, it's just that the bad ones actually probably helped me come to some of these realizations more quickly.

That said, I'll back down. But let's realize that to do so I'm going to need to care a little bit less about you guys and how well you're going to play poker. (Being very serious and not at all sarcastic)

Pygmy--

Since you obviously care so much about helping us, perhaps a little gentler manner might be appreciated. I have pretty thick skin, (although as we get older it is supposed to be thinner and less supple?) and even to me your post seemed somewhat 'accusatory' as to who is to blame for not benefitting from a vid.

So, since you seem to be willing to engage in a general discussion, how about a simple answer?

Why do all hands have to be actual? Y'all fight so hard to come up with examples, and Rob clearly DOES like to give alternative examples as a way to make a fairly 'standard' spot into an interesting discussion point...

why NOT just use a situation you make up, put up the cards, and if Rob wants to do a "what if?" then the board or cards in our hand change?

This is not that hard to do. Have seen Ed Miller do an excellent job with this. So, since you are in the 'making' business, witht the same pressure to find content as the rest of the DC coaches, "why not?"

which

And if you were referring to me as sarcastic, YES, guilty as charged.

And if you were referring to me as sarcastic, YES, guilty as charged.

What I said about sarcasm was intended to convey my complete and utter sincerity about this topic. Because so many people are accustomed to encountering massive amounts of sarcasm on the internet it is often impossible to tell when a person is being genuine. I know of no other (or at least no better) way to convey this than to flat out SAY I am not being sarcastic. Your misinterpretation about that part of my post (or even WHO I am talking about) really only serves to reinforce my point.

At the same time, since you seem to voluntarily (and enthusiastically) number yourself amongst the throng of people who spew sarcasm on the internet I will decline to answer any of your questions as your intent is then clearly NOT to ask them seriously nor to expect an answer.

I will just say this - since it appears you might be confused on the subject:
DeathDonkey = Chris
Entity = Rob

DD-- I really liked your original & I have watched the first one of this series and liked it as well.

BUT, and it's a really big "but", you are putting out vids to satisfy your customers. If it fails t hit the mark, no one really needs excuses. Could be the viewers, could be the vid, could be both. Bottom line, if you fail to satisfy the public too often, you might need to add multiple accounts, collude, write books advocating FSDR -- ooops sorry, wrong site

Seriously, I do have a single question to ask: "why do the hands need to be actual?" Why bother going through hours of hands when you could just set up some examples in Holdem Manager Replayer? Or on a story board a la Ed Miller?

PLus that way you could if you wanted to, do an Entity, and when you say "What if....." you could actually change the board as you speak about it. But that is only if you want to go off tangent.

just my .02

which

There are plenty of us playing hands and so there shouldn't be a need to make them up. The question then would be whether it is beneficial. I haven't seen any Ed Miller stuff, DC being my only training site, so I can't say for sure. Gut instinct tells me that the human behavior aspect makes it better to use an actual hand - otherwise the coach is giving their opinion of how a certain player will behave, rather than giving us the evidence. There is a place for this, but I think its better used in the discussion of the hand. I like the way a certain hand can be used to highlight issues by making slight changes and reanalyzing. e.g. what would we do if the Q of hearts was a J of hearts, or what would we do here against a loose passive player etc

I'm happy to send some hands in if they are still being requested.

There are plenty of us playing hands and so there shouldn't be a need to make them up. The question then would be whether it is beneficial. ... but I think its better used in the discussion of the hand. I like the way a certain hand can be used to highlight issues by making slight changes and reanalyzing. e.g. what would we do if the Q of hearts was a J of hearts, or what would we do here against a loose passive player etc

I'm happy to send some hands in if they are still being requested.

well, i was referring to DD's comments about spending 'hours looking
...for hands'

and yes, the actual play may influence to see the hands as more 'real', i certainly like that aspect of the 'watching coaches/dc members play aspect of some vids. I just thought that in obviously 'not real time' vids, such as the "What to do when" series,or "the price is right" where the other players' names are not even revealed, why not just imput the situations you need/want to illustrate?

I like both approaches, it is not either/or for me.

which

DD-- I really liked your original & I have watched the first one of this series and liked it as well.

Seriously, I do have a single question to ask: "why do the hands need to be actual?" Why bother going through hours of hands when you could just set up some examples in Holdem Manager Replayer? Or on a story board a la Ed Miller?

PLus that way you could if you wanted to, do an Entity, and when you say "What if....."

Pygmy--

You are coming across as a jerk! Maybe it is just me, but maybe not.

If still means 'if'

When I speak to DD and refer to Entity, it is Rob, correct?

And why when you say "I am not being sarcastic" we should all listen up, yet when a member says "Seriously..." you get to shut down, and berate us/me(?) yet again?

grow up

which

Pygmy is no jerk, he's a very serious and dedicated person.

I'm sorry pyg if I have let u down in some way. Right now Im pretty confused tbh. There were two posts before urs that contained some sort of "negative" feedback. One was mine. As I tried to explain I had no intention to criticize anything. The problem for me with this vid wasn't the quality, but the poker-level of the content. But that wasn't something I was a upset about in any way (on the contrary actually).

I kind of get ur point about active learning in general (surely u agree that the content of the videos matter a little bit?). However I don't get the connection with what I posted. U said that this is more about a trend u see. That makes more sense.

My read of the situation is that u have felt for a while that people on DC don't put in enough effort from their side, but rather expect to be passively taught by DD. You had talked to DD and learnt that he didn't receive any HH's. When u saw a couple of critical posts u thought that was extremely unfair. So u posted some ideas that had been on ur mind for a while.

I admire ur dedication and it makes me devastated if I somehow have killed ur spirit and made u care less, as u say. I don't know how that happened. I don't understand what u mean by "I will back down".

I wouldn't make these long posts if I didn't thought highly of u. Also this affair makes me feel very stressed as it seems I have caused a lot of harm.

___ ____ ___
____( \ .-' `-. / )____
(____ \_____ / (O O) \ _____/ ____)
(____ D `-----( ) )-----' C ____)
(____ _____________\ .____. /_____________ ____)
(______/ `-.____.-' \______)

Sushi-- what happened to your post from early this morning? See above

To be clear Pygmy and feeling like I am causing some of sushi's pain (and for that I am really, really sorry)

My exact quote was

You are coming across as a jerk! Maybe it is just me, but maybe not

And I stand by that. I am NOT saying you ARE a jerk, just that it sounds like it in these particular posts. (to me, maybe not to most, or anyone else even)

And just to be sure, we are all of us, invested in DC as to the quality of the site. Every poster has the right to their opinion on how best to achieve that same quality, with the disclaimer that there are many paths to achieve quality

which
PS but i do like you lurking at so many threads, and willingness to post. I am always grateful when you weigh in with your considered opinions.
PPS. as for vids I REALLY liked. The one where Pygmy goes over the graph for pro poker play on an excel spreadsheet was great

There are plenty of us playing hands and so there shouldn't be a need to make them up. The question then would be whether it is beneficial. I haven't seen any Ed Miller stuff, DC being my only training site, so I can't say for sure. Gut instinct tells me that the human behavior aspect makes it better to use an actual hand - otherwise the coach is giving their opinion of how a certain player will behave, rather than giving us the evidence. There is a place for this, but I think its better used in the discussion of the hand. I like the way a certain hand can be used to highlight issues by making slight changes and reanalyzing. e.g. what would we do if the Q of hearts was a J of hearts, or what would we do here against a loose passive player etc

I'm happy to send some hands in if they are still being requested.

Sure I'd love some more HHs on a topic you find interesting / common problem. If I get too many submissions I'll just have to do another season (and grab Mike L. to help out so I don't ramble all the time alone).

well, i was referring to DD's comments about spending 'hours looking
...for hands'

and yes, the actual play may influence to see the hands as more 'real', i certainly like that aspect of the 'watching coaches/dc members play aspect of some vids. I just thought that in obviously 'not real time' vids, such as the "What to do when" series,or "the price is right" where the other players' names are not even revealed, why not just imput the situations you need/want to illustrate?

I like both approaches, it is not either/or for me.

which

The honest answer is its super tough for me to think up an "interesting" hand that's also somewhat realistic. I find the situations just tend to come up mid session and you go "wow that was a weird one" and I can't fabricate that very well. I guess the idea of creating a hand is too open ended and I get unsure which direction to go (this makes sense to me because I'm a logical person and suck at artistic stuff).

Hey sushi,

Just to be clear - you are definitely NOT letting me down in any way. Not that you have any obligation to me anyway...

My read of the situation is that u have felt for a while that people on DC don't put in enough effort from their side, but rather expect to be passively taught by DD. You had talked to DD and learnt that he didn't receive any HH's. When u saw a couple of critical posts u thought that was extremely unfair. So u posted some ideas that had been on ur mind for a while.

This is 100% correct. I understand that people are likely to make the natural assumption that my post was caused by this thread, but really that's only a small part of the picture. The truth is these things have been on my mind for a while (from reading other threads, talking with students and other DC coaches and members, etc.). I guess it just happened to come out in this thread.

Personally, I have reconciled all of this. I am fine with the way things are. I'm going to stand by my earlier post and I think I'm absolutely correct - all I really said is that the people who are dedicated and willing to work hard will get more out of poker and become better player (and suggested some ways in which they could do so). It's amazing to me that it has contributed to what has followed.

I will back down is an expression in English that just means I am going to let this issue go and be done with it, which is my intention. I will again repeat that you're taking too much responsibility for what is happening.

DD-

fair enough, I was just always curious as to why y'all were working so hard on finding hands.

tanks for the answer, seriously

which

I haven't watched this episode yet but was lead here by Boomer's blog and have read all the comments.

I'd just like to say that beginners need content too.

The fact that a DC member generated the hands in this video suggests that there are people that subscribe to DC that will benefit from what DD has to say about them. What's more, these players might not be able to justify/afford a coach yet.

Ironically, my response is almost the opposite of sushi's first post at the moment: if I hear too much complex discussion in a video series, I will stop watching it on the basis that it is too advanced for me

Anyhow, the debate here has done two things:
1) whet my appetite to watch Episodes 3 and 4 because I think they will be closer to my current skill level than other DD/Entity video series
2) depressed me a little because the "hater"-type language that spoils 2p2 seems to have found its way into this thread

Secondly, I would say that the HH threads DD is posting in advance aren't seeing that much activity. Maybe that means no one has any questions [... or ...] straight up laziness.

would like to add one more reason for posterity's sake: other things in life taking priority.

For instance, I commented on some hands and had every intention to comment on more but didn't get 'round to it.

Maybe there's a way to focus our minds better i.e. tell us the deadline for comments? If I'd known the cut off date, I might have moved things around or used my poker time differently to contribute more on this.

I haven't watched this episode yet but was lead here by Boomer's blog and have read all the comments.

I'd just like to say that beginners need content too.

The fact that a DC member generated the hands in this video suggests that there are people that subscribe to DC that will benefit from what DD has to say about them. What's more, these players might not be able to justify/afford a coach yet.

Ironically, my response is almost the opposite of sushi's first post at the moment: if I hear too much complex discussion in a video series, I will stop watching it on the basis that it is too advanced for me

Following this to its conclusion there is no such thing as a video being 'too easy' or 'too hard', because there is a wide variety of knowledge base amongst those who watch them. The most we can say is that they are too easy for us, which leads through into the discussion of how we can benefit from looking at sessions that were played at a level below (or above) where we are playing ourselves. I think there is also a case for having a feedback form that is not part of the thread below the video, as that could indicate which part of the audience enjoyed or gained the most from it.

Oh by the way, I wouldn't feel guilty about not getting involved, Oba, those of us with full time jobs can I think never be expected to keep right up to date with all the videos and threads around. Having said that, being challenged as to whether we are going about our learning in the best way is not a bad thing. In addition I think it is OK for someone to pay their subscription and make no real effort at getting better and just enjoy the videos for their own sake, if that is what they enjoy, although I am not in that camp.

Time Link to 00:31:23

24 do we c/f river if it's a queen? What about a jack?

24 do we c/f river if it's a queen? What about a jack?

Just too much chance villain is spewing with something else to fold in such a bloated pot I think, though obviously it would be a crying crying call.

Time Link to 00:43:39

If UTG is a thinking player, take into account how he plays different parts of his range preflop OOP vs. a 3-bet. If he's capping some hands, then semi-bluffing here makes some sense, because at least we can target some small- to mid-pairs. I don't really know the state of 50c/1, but it's anything like lollivepoker, people just aren't folding pairs here, so I agree the best line is usually to check behind.

BTW, Chris, thanks for checking back on these threads. I know I'm late to the game, but your responses are definitely appreciated

Time Link to 00:58:35

Did we even discuss just betting the flop for value?

Did we even discuss just betting the flop for value?

Ha I guess not, it would obviously be fine, not really my style 3 ways in a limped pot but yeah you are right to mention that is maybe the standard good way to play the hand, I guess I just didn't harp on it much at the time.