---

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

Awsome video guys.
I've been impatiently looking forward to this new episode.
A lot of very interesting hands, and superb discussion between you two.
Definitely a must-see video for all us microlimit grinders.

I think the guy to your right was slightly tilted after that JTs hand - unfortunately you didn't get enough decent hands with which you could give him more special treatment and abuse your position more often against him.
Not sure, but is it possible that this is exactly the sort of player who tends to get extremely spewy and out of line when you play back at him one time too often?
His chat berating is somewhat giving away the fact that he is at least not the most experienced online hold 'em player. Not saying he is a bad player, but this seems the perfect guy to have position on; loose and aggressive with a high tilt-factor.
Maybe it was just a big hollywood from a guy who knows who you are, and tries to get some sort of reaction out of you.
I was glad to see you opening up your range against him later in the session again.

All in all a very interesting video you guys made with a lot of potential for good discussion.
Kudos to both of you, and thank you very much for this valuable lesson.

PS: I'm having one problem with the MP4 version after about 60 minutes of play time the audio track is gone. Also, the rest of the audio track is slightly out of sync with the video track. But this is hard to notice, and not really a problem thanks to VLC's audio shifting capabilities.
The WMV version I downloaded has no such issues.

Yeah, it looks like the MP4 is messed up here -- I'll get a new copy up ASAP.

Rob

New copy uploaded.

Great video guys.
Entity, a couple of times in the video you mentioned that it was not really a good table and that if it had not been for the fact of making the video it would have been better to find a new one. Now as the stakes start to get higher, good tables are going to be more difficult to find, so what I am wondering is how poor does a table have to be before it is not worth playing.

At the lower stakes, the rake is quite a big factor, therefore if we are at a table with five other opponents with taggish type stats even though we think we might be better than those other five players, because of the rake it is not worth playing at that table is that correct?

If we are at another table with four other taggish type players, and one player with stats of say 45/10 but this player is sitting directly opposite from us, would that be a table worth playing at?

Pygmyhero,
You probably already know this but I thought I would mention it anyway. When you are taking notes on other players you right click on their name and then right click on the Notes menu. I find it quicker and easier to just double click using the left hand mouse button and this takes you straight to the notes window.

Great series. Like the longer than average videos. Is it possible to have about 5 minutes of classroom at the end of a session? Or maybe in the middle. I think that would mix it up.

I think a short classroom video discussing various preflop hand ranges vs. different opponents could be helpful.

Great video guys.
Entity, a couple of times in the video you mentioned that it was not really a good table and that if it had not been for the fact of making the video it would have been better to find a new one. Now as the stakes start to get higher, good tables are going to be more difficult to find, so what I am wondering is how poor does a table have to be before it is not worth playing.

At the lower stakes, the rake is quite a big factor, therefore if we are at a table with five other opponents with taggish type stats even though we think we might be better than those other five players, because of the rake it is not worth playing at that table is that correct?

If we are at another table with four other taggish type players, and one player with stats of say 45/10 but this player is sitting directly opposite from us, would that be a table worth playing at?

Pygmyhero,
You probably already know this but I thought I would mention it anyway. When you are taking notes on other players you right click on their name and then right click on the Notes menu. I find it quicker and easier to just double click using the left hand mouse button and this takes you straight to the notes window.

thanks xross.

Overall this is the sort of table I'd be happy to play at 5/10 or higher. Most of the players were capable of being run over, and the LAG, while he wasn't horrible, would definitely donate some funds. It's not a great table, but I wouldn't leave it at 5/10 and certainly not at 10/20 or higher. At $2/4, though, I think this sort of a table is a pass -- no one would give you fits, but you just don't have a ton of huge money spots. It's partly rake considerations, but mostly that if you play $2/4 or $3/6, it's pretty likely that you can throw a dart and hit a table that will be better than this most of the time.

The sort of table you describe probably wouldn't be worth playing, but it depends on the quality of the TAGs. Many otherwise good players aren't great at the art of restealing and crawl into a shell when you beat up on them, so those sort of games can be ok -- but generally I'd recommend avoiding them.

Rob

Hey forker, thanks for your comments - glad to hear you enjoyed the video.

I wanted to talk a little bit more about the guy who was sitting to my right - freeslider. I think there's a bit of a tendency to look at a guy who's playing 45/20 (or whatever he was earlier in the session) and just say, 'bad player.' Now, it turns out the guy was more like 36/23 for the whole session, which is probably closer to what his actual stats would converge to.

But I agree with Rob's assessment that he was probably the second best player at the table. Yes, he was definitely a bit loose, but for the most part only PF. And he displayed several signs that he was decent/good: he made a a number of solid thinking plays, he bet his hands competently post flop, and he got into pots and exploited weaker players.

To be honest, besides his PF looseness I think his biggest error was simply in misunderstanding the plays I was making. And I do think he adjusted his opinion of me by the end of the session, as I pointed out in the video.

Pygmyhero,
You probably already know this but I thought I would mention it anyway. When you are taking notes on other players you right click on their name and then right click on the Notes menu. I find it quicker and easier to just double click using the left hand mouse button and this takes you straight to the notes window.

Thanks xrosswind. I actually recall that now that you've said it, but obviously I'm relatively unaware of it overall. I appreciate you pointing it out though as you're right - it's definitely easier and faster to use. So I'm trying to switch over that that now.

I know you were asking Rob, but I think the table was good enough to stay at, but bad enough that I would have been smart to peruse the lobby. If I found something better I would have moved on. Otherwise I don't think I would have quit until I felt tired or didn't want to play anymore.

And since I forgot earlier, here are the two hands I said I'd post:

Poker Stars $3/$6 Limit Hold'em - 6 players
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: Hero is BB with T J
3 folds, BTN raises, SB 3-bets, Hero caps!, BTN calls, SB calls

Flop: (12 SB) 5 K T (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, BTN folds, SB calls

Turn: (7 BB) 3 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, SB calls

River: (9 BB) K (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, SB calls


Poker Stars $3/$6 Limit Hold'em - 5 players
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

Pre Flop: Hero is CO with Q T
1 fold, Hero raises, 1 fold, SB 3-bets, 1 fold, Hero calls

Flop: (7 SB) Q 6 T (2 players)
SB bets, Hero raises, SB 3-bets, Hero caps!, SB calls

Turn: (7.5 BB) 3 (2 players)
SB bets, Hero raises, SB 3-bets, Hero calls

River: (13.5 BB) 9 (2 players)
SB bets, Hero calls

Time Link to 00:02:37

Joey23 and 'many eights' lol