So funny. These guys obviously did not watch Krantz's HU episode on ABC strategy starting hands. I hope the next players have watched that episode and series. What are these guys on??? Vanessa, hang in there...

Just watch about 15 minutes of it.

First off I have to say terryfan definitely has symptons I used to have and I think the biggest part of his game he needs to improve is the mental side of it.

Looks like your ego is getting in the way (though you probably do not realise it) and you are trying to make to many fancy plays/be tricky so that you can win every pot (especailly the 3bet pot - used to have the same problem). The problem with this attitude is that instead of your opponent actually fearing you have a hand/giving you the pots is that you will end up spewing a huge amount of money trying to recover pots you do not deserve to have and pots you will never recieve no matter what line you take.

I think is a prime example where where if you spend a little time on trying to imrpove your mental side of poker(finding out how you think/where those leaks are + where/when you play well) you can then improve to become a huge winner.

yeah I mean these players were definitely less experienced than in future episodes (the play gets pretty good by 2/4 and 3/6 and then of course the 10/20 match between the two DC coaches!), but i think there's something to be gained by watching and hearing me talk about their leaks and why they are leaks... just my two cents on that.

Both guys in the video both expose really weak fundamentals and lack of understanding about a bunch of concepts, and end up misapplying a bunch of stuff which is pretty frustrating viewing tbh

Meh, watched for ten minutes before stopping it. The action felt forced and it seemed like they were playing for the cameras. Good commentary from Vanessa in the short duration I did watch, though.

+1 :(

Yeah, I only watched like 15 minutes or so. It was like watching my brother's kids goofing around or something. I can picture Vanessa seeing the video and thinking it's like serious stuff and then going WTF???....
I know absolutely nothing of HU, only had 1 day of playing 50NL with Krantz's basic strategy hand chart (and I lost a few buy-ins) but still I was able to recognize this was a joke. Really.
But I had a laugh.

stop educating the fish.

When I first read the season 3 lineup I was very interested in this series. I liked the concept behind it and was actually really disappointed that I wouldn't be able to take part (as a SH LHE player I'd be way out of my league). More than anything, I just wanted a DC hoodie, but that's neither here nor there...

Anyway, I decided to watch the series even though I don't play NL. My feeling was that there would be a sufficient amount of general poker knowledge to make it worth my time, especially with regards to some of the psychology behind HU situations (which I end up in often enough).

That said, I was very disappointed with this first offering and am worried that this series may be The Headsupament all over again. I'm a huge believer in a lot of what DC does so rather than just lamely say, 'this sucks,' I want to take some time to offer a more thorough critique.

First of all, in the interest of full disclosure I want to say I only watched the first 17 minutes of this episode. It's possible the video was superb after that, but I lost interest. I did, however, watch all of The Headsupament episodes, which is important as I intend to make some comparisons between the two series.

I think The Headsupament failed because, even though it featured talented players, they were not playing seriously. This severely diminished the educational value of the series. It is always difficult to learn from someone playing badly, whether they are an excellent player doing it intentionally (e.g. The Headsumpament), or average players making common mistakes (e.g. Hoodie Wars).

Important interjection: I don't mean to be rude to the player's who played in this video or to say that they're bad players. I simply mean to convey that the quality of play was not up to the level of instructional content.

This lack of educational value was fine with me for The Headsupament where it was clear that the series was designed for entertainment rather than education (i.e. taking the spot of The Home Game from season 1). However, for Hoodie Wars, a series which is purportedly for educational purposes, this is not acceptable.

One simple solution to this would be to bring in DC EP's and coaches and challenge them to play seriously. But I also think it would be possible to feature DC members with a few modifications.

For example, have both players review the the session on a 3-way conference call with Vanessa. That way, rather than having 15+ minutes of Vanessa saying some variation of, 'this is a bad play - I don't know what they're thinking here,' she can ask the player to explain their thought process.

My guess is there are a lot of common situations where it is easy to make mistakes, and the player's commentary would reveal this. Vanessa could then explain why that particular thought process is incorrect, or how other pieces of information need to be taken into account. This would probably be very valuable for the average player who is likely prone to the same thought processes and mistakes.

Vanessa, your commentary was not up to par during what I watched of this episode. I've seen a few of your videos, and they're usually quite excellent. In particular I'm remembering your incredible review with Krantz of his play versus Eric Liu (again it should be noted that the presence of the player and the reviewer yielded superior discussion). I don't know if this video was done at the last minute, but it's evident you're very tired during this episode, and I think this was reflected in the quality of your commentary.

If possible, I would also suggest that you review the video once before shooting the final product. I realize this may not be possible due to time constraints, but I think this sort of extra preparation will result in a better finished product. At the least in this case it would have called some technical problems to your attention (which I will not harp on as it's evident you're well aware of them and I assume they will be fixed in the next episode). In general I just feel this will allow you to make more insightful remarks (whether or not the final video is recorded with the players).

I hope I have conveyed my thoughts in the manner I intended, which is strictly constructive, and that they will be received in the same spirit. I wish to be candid but apologize if I come off as being rude. The bottom line is that this video was just not up to the very high quality standard which I know and admire DC for having.

Vanessa, you said early on that you didn't like checkmyriver's raise on 655, do u mind discussing this a bit further because in my mind, a call is bad because sooo much of the deck is scary and a raise is fine because we are really only beat by trips since he is probably 3-betting his better overpairs pre. Therefore, even if we are flipping against his draws (which isn't always the case since he will occasionally shove open enders or weaker flush draws), we still extract value from some hands he might be simply bet/calling such as A5s, 77, 88, which perceive a raise on that board as bluffy and in that same line of thinking that we don't have much for raising this board, he might 3-bet bluff us or shove his weaker draws. I just think we are rarely beat and even if we were flipping at best (which we arent), I would prefer to do that than call and hope one of the million scare cards doesn't fall off.

hey, do you have a timestamp for that hand?

Hey Pygmy and everyone else,

We appreciate the responses, and all I really have to say here is that this episode was definitely the weakest of the bunch. I've seen several of the videos at this point and there is (as can be expected) a wide range of discussion based on the play of the players involved -- unfortunately the discussion in #1 ended up being centered a lot on preflop and on not trying to win every single pot (floating too much on the flop, 3-betting too wide of a range preflop). In addition, there were a lot of technical difficulties that we resolved with the video skipping during playback (you can hear the frustration of this in Vanessa's voice for sure). As much as we work to perfect everything, I'll be the first to admit that occasionally there's nothing we can do unless we decide to scrap a video entirely -- and personally I felt especially given the fact that this match continues in Episode 2 (with a much different level of analysis and a different focus on content), it was worth starting the season off with, despite all of its difficulties.

For all of you who were unhappy with this episode (and I certainly understand) I definitely recommend checking back on Episode 2. A large part of the reasoning behind this series was to get examples of how HU play may be seen at various limits; I'm not sure if terryfan and CheckMyRiver play this way 100% of the time or if there was a bit of a case of knowing they were performing changing the way they played, but this definitely isn't the case as much in future episodes (including the second part of their match). There's a lot to be said for finding (or attempting to find) various mistakes which you may not get to see if you just watch Vanessa play.

Basically my way of saying I know the first episode wasn't the best, and there are a lot of reasons for that, but it gets better and IMO, it gets better fast. Episode one talked basically a ton about overaggression and 3-betting too light and calling too light, but #2 really relies a lot on that previous history for some of the analysis which, IMO. So hang in there. This is NOT the Headsupament and not you'll see some much better moments in Episode two. For you sci-fi geeks out there, just pretend it's like Firefly -- the first episode blows but by episode three you'll be wondering why you ever thought anything bad about it.

,
Rob

At 27: with AJ on QJ9ss67s do you like a value bet on the river ? I feel like he'sgonna have hands like JT/9T a lot, not sure if he calls though.

No, I think especially in a 3bet pot, a value bet would be incredibly thin in this situation. I believe the flush got there on the river and since he is obviously capable of checking a flush (or a set), I think checking behind has to be the optimal play here. An offsuit deuce, and I definitely value bet.

At 34:20 I check the turn with 88 on a 346J board, would it be better to bet and get value from his pair + straight draw hands ?

I don't remember the exact hands - but in general, if someone isn't check/raise bluffing too often on the turn, it is definitely best to bet 88 on these boards to get value from weaker hands. If the J was the turn, I definitely bet, as I expect to have the best hand and would maybe continue even if I did get check/raised.

At 41:30 terry leads on the 456dd board with air. He actually had been donking a few times (the first hand of the match with his FD on the 566ss, and 3-4 other times with air), and I bluffraised him there. It's probably not a good play though because he's only folding pure air and it might not be 60% of his range, though as you noted he hadn't been leading with strong hands.

When someone leads into you on a very coordinated board, the thing is you usually don't know if they are leading with a big hand, a big draw, or air. And 2 of those 3 will probably 3-bet you. My default, unless I have a VERY good read and reason to raise, is to give up in these situations when I have absolutely nothing. Unless my opponent is leading way too often, you aren't giving up too much by folding here... and it is probably one of the worst spots for you to continue on.

Rob, Vanessa, thanks for your responses.

Since my initial post my guilt complex plus anal-retentive nature have compelled me to go back and finish watching the episode. I will stand by my earlier comments as I still feel the format could be improved by including the players and that the first 15 minutes were generally lacking from a content standpoint. However, I did not know the entire series was already completed, so perhaps my comments are moot.

That said, I will say that undoubtedly the commentary is better in the second half of the video, so I am glad that I watched the rest. Maybe it just took some time for the flow of the match to become apparent or for some interesting spots to come up.

It was never my intent to give up entirely on this series as I planned on watching episode 2 even when I thought I wouldn't watch the rest of episode 1. So I will look forward to future episodes and will view them with an open mind.

Rob, Vanessa, thanks for your responses.

Since my initial post my guilt complex plus anal-retentive nature have compelled me to go back and finish watching the episode. I will stand by my earlier comments as I still feel the format could be improved by including the players and that the first 15 minutes were generally lacking from a content standpoint. However, I did not know the entire series was already completed, so perhaps my comments are moot.

That said, I will say that undoubtedly the commentary is better in the second half of the video, so I am glad that I watched the rest. Maybe it just took some time for the flow of the match to become apparent or for some interesting spots to come up.

It was never my intent to give up entirely on this series as I planned on watching episode 2 even when I thought I wouldn't watch the rest of episode 1. So I will look forward to future episodes and will view them with an open mind.

One thing I will note about your comments is that the idea of including the members in the analysis can be good, but depending on the members and their ability/desire to do on the fly remarks about a match as you're rewatching it, it can also go very horribly wrong. In addition it's a bit of an organizational nightmare to ensure quality control standards across 10-15 people for audio quality, etc., as I'm sure you can note as the difference between our first 2-3 episodes where you had your "typical" gear and the latter 5 with DC gear.

Just a small note but it's important to consider -- I love involving more people in discussion and we did consider it as a direction for this one before shying away from it, as you're dealing with ~10 schedules and just as many technical problems. In the end we decided this idea had the most potential for informational value and the least potential for distractions, and while the firs episode definitely had its fair share of issues you'll see that most of those get worked out pretty quickly. Hang in there, I'm sure you'll get a lot out of the series. I know I have.

Rob

Personally, I liked the concept and even the execution (minus the obv technical difficulties, which I believe based on previous vids were ironed outs as much as possible). Certainly, the play was a bit erratic and kinda crazy at times, but this being both the first video and the lowest stakes for this series I think it shouldn't be the main thing to focus on. Also, people are probably focusing on it too much because they can see the hole cards (zomg! float with t8o! wtfmate!? You let him hit a pair!!?) whereas if you were simply watching without the hole cards, or just sweating through the eyes of one of the players you wouldn't have really thought about it as much.

Also pet peeve, maybe I'm alone in this but it annoys me when people comment about how bad a video is before they finish it, or give it a poor rating because the audio is off or soft. The purpose of the comments and ratings (imo) is about content. Entity fixes everything asap so let the rating reflect the actual content. Making a comment about the quality of the session's content, based on the first 15 min is kinda like reviewing a movie (obv) based on the first half hour or something.

When I played at these stakes you will encounter all kinds of opponents ( insert pr1nnyraiding plug here ) and some of them just do stuff for seemingly no reason at all. Vanessa's commentary on how to adjust to some of the crazy things that were happening may seem common for higher level poker players and even blatantly obvious in the replayer with hole cards, but I didn't know how to adjust to some of those things when I was playing 1/2 and I think that it is probably going to be pretty helpful for these players and others like them to have that reinforced.

I think that the only problems so far with this series are that both players weren't there having a 3 way convo like Pygmy mentioned. The Krantz Vs Eric Liu vid was so ridiculously informative and eye opening for how high stakes players think about poker with the conversation between Jay and Vanessa. Finishing each other's thoughts in some spots, while talking about a different way to play a hand in others, taking into account different meta aspects, etc... Vanessa your commentary in that video was jaw dropping. I think that this series would benefit from that same type of discussion. Also, as a player reviewing your own hands that you played with someone else is really helpful.

Also, I heard that you didn't even ask the winner's hoodie size? lol scammaments?


One other note: about the headsupament... Sorry that not enough people enjoyed it, mostly as Pygmy stated because it wasn't super serious, but I thoroughly loved it. The banter + "i play for realz now!" by RBK was awesome there was a good degree of soul reading and luckboxing much in the way that a semi serious match between friends sort of devolves into sometimes. Fortunately Dj + RBK are back with more poker humor in Mad Potters... Reminds me of the "Is it Patrik Antonius on a secret screenname? most players don't think about these things"



tl;dr version

Better than most are making it out to be, chat with players, more poker humor.

Hi all,

I'm terryfan from the vid. I'm extremely sorry for the QUALITY of the play, I didn't mean to disappoint any of you in the first place. T8o float in a 3bet pot, 3bet oop w/ 67o. wtf was that?! you must be thinking about that while watching this not-worth-the-time vid. However, when I first applied to participate this HU match, I already stated that I'm not a HU player, my main game is 6m and mtt, I don't have any cash HU play experience prior to this vid. I actually watched 2 of krantz HU video the night before the match to get some idea, apparently, it didn't help at all. Another reason for me to apply for this match was that so I can review how HORRIBLE my HU game is and work on that later on. If I were that good, why would I have signed up for membership and still be playing nl200-nl400 in the first place? Now I've seen how bad I am and will definitely spend tons of time practicing HU, so if you see me on HU table, plz feel free to sit down w/ me and take my $$$$$$$. (I didn't know nl200 HU is that juicy until I saw myself playing. now I'm going to improve my game for sure)

On a side note, I also believe that you think some plays are bad is because that "you can see both hole cards" which would totally change the way you perceive the play. But have you ever thought about putting yourself in our shoes? Like imagine if you can only see one of our cards? or ever thought about the game flow as in why I or him start to do some stupid, crazy things? The original match was 90 mins long. I switched gears here and there during that 90 mins. I was quite nitty in the beginning to be very honest w/ you. I started to play out of the line was because I noticed that my opponent was a bit passive and didn't go out of line too often. I did pay attention to how my opponent plays and TRIED (but probably failed in your eyes) to adjust. The 56o 5bet shove oop probably seems idiotic and spewy in your eyes, but to be honest with you here, when I decided to 3bet that 56o, I knew the 4bet bluff was coming before I even saw it, because I've been 3betting him and abusing my position on him relentlessly, hence, the 5bet shove was my plan and I also knew he would fold a lot there.

As for those who stopped watching the vid in 15 mins, I really have no respect for you guys, plz don't comment if you didn't even finish the video. That's just not acceptable. I agree w/ the fact that there were a lot of technical issues, my opponent's internet not steady, blah blah blah, but plz at least give Vanessa some credit for putting in times and effort making this video watchable to the public.

peace.

DOGisHead vs me at 10/20 later on I hope should be pretty interesting! I think the format is pretty good however and I hope that everyone is patient with the series.

DOGisHead vs me at 10/20 later on I hope should be pretty interesting! I think the format is pretty good however and I hope that everyone is patient with the series.

Our video will definitely be cool once it gets up, you'll get to see how I was bluffing you every other hand with 4 high. :)

Hey Casper,

Unfortunately the series is already made (and we do have the second half of this match coming up), but rest assured, the content does steadily improve throughout the season.

As far as adjustments, I thought I touched on that a bunch during the video, but if not - when playing a player who never folds... 3bet more hands for value and don't 3bet hands like 45s or 67o or whatever. 3bet hands that can make top pair decent kicker or better, since pair over pair is the best way to get value from an opponent such as this one. Don't continuation bet nearly as much (obviously don't stop doing it or else it will be obvious, but skew your frequencies considerably) and play around with your bet sizing, especially if your opponent isn't being observant enough to realize.

I hope the Producers of DC are still reading this thread. I don't post much but I really want to comment on this.

I want you all to know the concept for this series is great. Having expert commentary explaining why certain plays/moves are bad is just as educational has having expert commentary explaining why certain plays/moves are good. Regardless of how good or bad the actual play is, the expert commentary is what helps those of us who are still learning the basics and the fundamentals of this very situational game.

Watching people who play no better than I do is worth gold. When watching experts play I don't see the plays that I would normally make being made. As a result I am left thinking that I did not make the best possible play, but I don't know that my normal play sucks as bad as is does. Watching people make my normal plays/moves and then hearing expert commentary explaining that not only is this not the best play, but that this play really, really *SUCKS* is very helpful.

I would like for DC to produce a *FULL SERIES* of us bad players playing. Then have expert commentary explaining how and why our thought process is screwed up and explaining what we should be considering in the situation.

I think a series like this would produce a lot of *aha* moments for those of us who lack fundamental knowledge of the game. It would be for weak players only, no good players would be allowed to watch it :-)

P.S. Vanessa you are great. I will be glad when I get my money right so I can afford your coaching.


Paul
Expert_Wanna_B
Transforming from a Donkey to a Bionic Shark

yea I like this. plz keep recording us bad players playing so we could have those "aha" moments and realize some fundamental mistakes. For those who don't like watching bad players play, I don't know what to say, but i'm sure everyone has been through the same route before becoming a good player. So please stop complaining about the quality of the play. It's nl200, the lowest lvl of the series anyhow.

Vanessa you briefly talked about calling to much. That many students you've taught called a lot. What folding advice would you give to stations? For example I like to verbalise out loud why I'm calling. Helps limit impulsive tilty calls.

btw Vanessa, you still haven't asked me for the size of the hoodie, is it a scammament? lol or I don't deserve this hoodie because of the quality of my game :( fwiw, I wear XL. please ship the hoodie :)

btw Vanessa, you still haven't asked me for the size of the hoodie, is it a scammament? lol or I don't deserve this hoodie because of the quality of my game :( fwiw, I wear XL. please ship the hoodie :)

I'll answer for her -- we're going to put in the order for the hoodies once we get everyone's sizes (we've ordered some already and are just waiting on the shipment, but will probably place another order relatively soon).

No scammaments here -- I'm looking forward to getting my own just in time for the cold-as-hell Rio poker room during WSOP. :P

I thought it's a good vid, i love the concept, and i'm sure it'll get better. The editing bit needs a bit of work definately.

Yeah it really wasn't the editing as much as it was complete computer malfunction in the recording process (frames slowing down to like 3FPS). As awkward as the vid was, the spots that we edited out were even more disorienting. Don't worry though, the next one is pretty sick and had no need for editing like that. ;)

Rob

O.K. You can disregard my post. King for a Day is exactly what I was referring to.


Paul
Expert_Wanna_B
Transforming from a Donkey to a Bionic Shark

I think on a board of Q885 you can check/call the turn and reevaluate on the river. Your opponent will give up a ton but even if not, that's a read you have to make. On that board though, there isn't much value to betting the turn since trips and top pair are ahead... unless your opponent will call down super super light, but that hasn't been established as the dynamic at all.

It is very unfortunate that this is the first video I have watched on DeucesCracked, and it was unbearable to watch due to technical issues. On the other hand, the commentary was very good.

The bright side of the first vid you watched having technical issues is that the next couple hundred will see perfect by comparison. :)

Welcome to DeucesCracked IMO.

Just started with this series. I must admit, a lot of the comments about the first half of this episode weren't unfounded, but it's still worth watching. And judging from the rest of the videos, the series as a whole is probably excellent. Any newer members wondering if this is worth their time or not: it is. Start at Episode 2 if you're the impatient type, I guess.