Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by terp (Micro/Small Stakes)

awesome series!

Seems good, can't wait to watch!

episode 3 will be posted in 30 minutes?

Good video. The sound fucks up from time to time, but aside from that, this is really really good!

on AQ hand i like a small river bet to try and induce a bluff shove and maybe look like we are trying to get thin value from an underpair. Anyone else like that?

The sound is somewhat of a problem, but only a very few parts are completely ununderstandable.

I like the idea behind the video, and what it showcases. But I think I missed it, so what was your recomendation on the AJ hand vs. a competent TAG?

Hey guys,

We're looking into the sound issues now.

thanks,

Chuck

this was pretty bad.

this was pretty bad.

Hey Evan,

Can you give us some more feedback about what we ca do to make the vid better? Were there quality issues or is it in the content, etc.? Constructive criticism/feedback is always better for us whenever possible as it gives us a chance to do our jobs better.

thanks,
Rob

Good video. The sound fucks up from time to time, but aside from that, this is really really good!

From what I can tell it looks like it was a Skype error -- again, one of the unfortunate consequences of trying to record dual instructor videos; while the video content almost always is better with two people than with one, the technical problems can sometimes cause hiccups like this.

Rob

this was pretty bad.

sorry you feel this way - what might we do better?

i apologize for the sound issues. my old computer really struggled to run everything and i'll look into defragging and all other options.

dave and i have most of the rest of the series sketched out, but we'd be happy to consider anyone's suggestions for direction. we also welcome challenging hands for analysis in our series so please message us with either!

All right, really loving this series and it's concept cos I feel handreading is a pretty weak part of my game coming from a donkaments background. Anyway yeah real shame about the audio quality but tis done now, hope the rest of the series is sweet, looking forward to much more discussion on this topic.

In terms of improving it, thinking maybe if you had a few more solid slides to exemplify points it would help so you don't have to conjure up extreme examples on the spot to illustrate yourselves, you could create some pretty though provoking spots. Also thinking that it would help so that you wouldn't just take turns to explain yourself and the situation one at a time, rather get into a discussion together and just give you a foundation to just start going what if he's this player type of if the turns this card or he does this etc. Finally, be nice personally to get a better grasp on some standard and non standard lines to navigate through tricky spots and situations and a discussion on why and who they're effective against, think be nice to have a template of some decent postflop plans of attack aswell as inducing thought and creativity, anyway appreciate it, godspeed.

Some sound problems...but..meeh....it's just some awesome discussion. Love the series !!!!!!

Obviously it's standard not to include results in normal hand-analysis, but I think in the context of this series including the villains' hand at the end actually is important. This is because the point of the series is how well we assign hand ranges, so the "result" of the hand is not who won or lost - rather, the "result" of the hand is whether the hand he actually had was indeed in the range we assigned to him. We need to see his cards to know whether we got this right.

So, in the AJ hand v. the fish, you should show the result so you can say "Look, our range-assignment was correct, he did indeed have TJ". Or, against the TAG, "Look, he had 88 - that makes sense in terms of his preflop range from MP".

Hope that makes sense.

Love the content of the series so far. The sound issues are a bit tilting but not horrible. Are there any plans for a live play video?

One minor complaint I have is the white backgrounds used for the slides, maybe my eyes are a little more sensitive than others(old age perhaps) but I'd prefer a darker background. Looking forward to the rest of the series.

Obviously it's standard not to include results in normal hand-analysis, but I think in the context of this series including the villains' hand at the end actually is important. This is because the point of the series is how well we assign hand ranges, so the "result" of the hand is not who won or lost - rather, the "result" of the hand is whether the hand he actually had was indeed in the range we assigned to him. We need to see his cards to know whether we got this right.

So, in the AJ hand v. the fish, you should show the result so you can say "Look, our range-assignment was correct, he did indeed have TJ". Or, against the TAG, "Look, he had 88 - that makes sense in terms of his preflop range from MP".

Hope that makes sense.

chomp, great point. i struggled at one pt to explain why certain discussion would not constitute results-oriented thinking despite being a discussion of results. the reason, simply put, is that result-oriented thinking is a bit of a misnomer. the term usually appears in criticism of pessimism concerning a call once the caller is shown a better hand. the results don't really inform our thinking since one hand won't demonstrate what someone's entire range is. BUT, as you noted, if we failed to credit that player with ever arriving at that spot with that hand, we have erred.

the reason we chose to leave out the results throughout is because we want you all to start anew with hand reading and focus on the thought process during the hand.

i will share that the hand that the player in question had did not fall outside the range i assigned

i think the slides and the way you skip through them is totaly confusing.

to much text appearing at the same time and everything looks the same.

Absolute great video !!!!!!!!!!!!

I really need to practice handreading and this was exactly what i needed, thank you guys !!

i think the slides and the way you skip through them is totaly confusing.

to much text appearing at the same time and everything looks the same.

Concerning this I'd prolly just copy the slides you want to refer later on, to the point where this actually shall happen. It's much more fluent than if you go back 3 slides to show the hand once again. This ain't much work to do and makes the presentation more viewable (also I did not have any problems with they way you presented it, just one step closer to perfection).

would people be interested in having the powerpoint file to accompany the video?

sorry you feel this way - what might we do better?

i apologize for the sound issues. my old computer really struggled to run everything and i'll look into defragging and all other options.

take a few dollars from your bankroll and purchase a new PC.

would people be interested in having the powerpoint file to accompany the video?

Terp; I wouldn't mind the file if you have it available. Thanks

i think this might be the best series on dc yet.

I'd really like to have the PowerPoint avaiable.

I'd like to see the exact range assigned to a villain considering preflop action. Then, I'd like to see which hands you eliminate with each action on each street. I think including stats like vpip/ pfr/ AF would be helpful. These things would make your thought process, which came across as a bit random at times, more concrete for me.
Maybe you think listing all of the possible hands in a villain's range is not very realistic in terms how hand reading is done in practice at the table(s). I guess I'd like my own hand reading to be more methodical, instead of just based on whatever pops into my head at the time about my opponent, so I'm looking for some method that's simple and can be easily made routine.

I didn't really liked the first 2 episodes. There are several reasons:

- Why have 2 people talk when the one person repeats what the other says, just in other words, making it even more complicated to understand? Try to stop the video after every slide and take 5 minutes to discuss what every one is trying to say. I cannot guess how difficult it is to talk of such a big topic, and I appreciate you guys trying to do it. Perhaps try to say less but in a more clear way?
- Why point out the "way" you think about hand ranges and not follow them in you analysis? You seem to jump from flop to turn to river and back and forth too much. Try to follow your own rules, say everything you want on the flop and continue till the river. For example say that you first analyse the villain, than look at flop texture etc. One option to illustrate the process would be to open Poker Stove, type in the range and narrowing it down till the river where you compare it to your range. That way everything is more "visualized" and your comments might be a bit easier to follow.
- Your examples seem a bit... weird. To me they don't really underline what you were talking about in the slide. But that perhaps just me... Another thing that you could change is that you only display the flop and show the turn only after you analysed the flop so the viewer is not aware of future actions. It makes slides better to read and easier to concentrate on your comments. Use PowerPoint to your advantage e.g. by displaying different turn actions and analyse how they change the ranges.
- Far too much text in one slide. This is the same problem with the comments, try to be more precise!
- Chose a better layout for your slides. Numerate them, make headings. That way when you chose to go back the viewer will not get lost.

As I said I think you picked a very difficult topic for your series and PowerPoint Videos are always difficult to make interesting. Despite my criticism I think you have a lot to teach us and I hop you understand my constructive criticism (excuse my English btw ).

did the sound issues get fixed? I thought vid 1 was decent and I was interested in the 2nd but the sound issues were pretty bad earlier.

fwiw I think the videos are pretty good, but from reading the comments I think some of the problems people are having is that some of the things that seem self evident to players that understand hand reading and ranges are very foreign to those that are trying to learn from this series. So there are times when you guys are explaining things and I'm not sure you're explaining them from the perspective of your most important audience. TBH if you did that I'm not sure I would get as much out of the series (or most winning MSNL+ regs) but I'm not really sure that this series is really for me anyway.

I can definitely appreciate the effort though, and I applaud the authors for coming on here and working with the members to try and fix any problems and provide an A+ product. I know these guys can play, so if all the format stuff gets worked out I have a feeling these are going to be solid vids.

I like the videos and enjoy the discussion - I always like to have two coachs but would prefer that the coachs discussed concepts and differing opinion, rather than carving up points and talking seperately. This does seem that, at times, you are shoehorning in comments from Terp or Orange for the sake of talking.

I would like to see the powerpoint available - making notes on the powerpoint while watching would be beneficial.

Currently, the series looks like a large block of text for ~1 hr; this can be difficult to watch and certainly difficult to concentrate and absorb for an hour. Ideally, I would like to see a replayer used to discuss the hands and perhaps use 2/3 examples for each concept that you discuss. For instance, concept of Construct a Pre-Flop Hand Range and use an example where you open in the CO and get flatted by the button, a hand where you raise IP and get called by a blind and then a 3 way pot or similar. I think the examples need to be used, via a replayer (and using Pokerstove like Slimbo suggested) to really illustrate the concepts and produce visual aid for the concepts that are used.

I appreciate that these videos must be difficult to produce, especially as a lot of what you guys do post flop must be solidly ingrained and a certain amount automated but by visualising the concepts, I think you would help people to understand the process of reading a hand.

In my ideal vid, you would be replaying a hand to illustrate a previous slide and as you discussed the action and the decision you were going to make, the concepts would be fading in, overlaying the replay as you discussed each one - does that make sense? So, you would have used a slide with a concept like 'Given Our Holding What Action Do We Desire?' and you have a hand being replayed and as you say something like 'Villain here has a likely range xxxx and we are looking to value bet, in order for the villain to call' - as you discuss this, the concept words overlay the screen. This would give a further visual display and prompt for people to develop the hand reading methodology and the correct mindset to make a decision.

Hope this isn't too long and overblown; I am enjoying the series and feel like it could be even better!

1. Please fix the sound problems. Very unprofessional IMO, but the content is fairly good.

2. Also please write the ranges PF, flop, turn , river, so we can easily follow the thought process.
Example:
PF: TT+, AQ+
Flop: TT+, AK
Turn: xx, xx
River: xx, xx

3. I would also like to see more powerpoint screens, because it's really hard to concentrate if the same slide is on for 7 min and you're talking about the same subject.

4. Higlight or bold the important stuff when using powerpoint.

5. I don't like it when you drift aways from the topic, because I also seem to lose focus.
Thanks for the videos and I hope you take these notes into consideration.

Hey guys, thanks all for your input. We already filmed episode three but we'll definitely be taking into consideration your criticisms for future videos. This next one has more hands in it (and less pp slides) so perhaps that will be a nice change of venue.

Even though the form is i bit rough imo, the content is really great. Some very good advice in comments how to make it even better...

meh, this could have been a 20min vid with the same information in it.

Just started watching the series, and enjoy the content so far.

Critique:
- The sound, as others have mentioned, isn't at the top of your range.
- I think the font-size on the slides is too large. It's fine for headlines, but reading the actual content is annoying.
- Don't write "Ace, queen, five, four" when enumerating what will change the board. "A, Q, 5, 4" is a lot faster to read while listening to your thoughts. This might go hand-in-hand with the font-size "issue"

Other than that, great stuff so far.

I hope you can use some of this for a later series

Just started watching the series, and enjoy the content so far.

Critique:
- The sound, as others have mentioned, isn't at the top of your range.
- I think the font-size on the slides is too large. It's fine for headlines, but reading the actual content is annoying.
- Don't write "Ace, queen, five, four" when enumerating what will change the board. "A, Q, 5, 4" is a lot faster to read while listening to your thoughts. This might go hand-in-hand with the font-size "issue"

Other than that, great stuff so far.

I hope you can use some of this for a later series

Dude just shut up who cares about the font size....

tard..

Is there a discussion on the first hand somewhere? I covered up the action and tried to assign my own ranges after they gave the reads, then slowly uncovered each street and analyzed the villain's range.

As far as I could tell, the villain's range on the flop is heavily discounted sets for the value part (because he's going to flat most of the time), and a ridiculously wide range for bluffs that we're crushing (SCs, BW, Axs, some weak pairs-turned-bluffs). This lead me to conclude that the best option was to go for a c/r on the turn because we'd let him bluff us again. One possible line he might take is check behind on the turn, but then we can be very sure he's got air because his sets would want to keep betting. Thus, on the river, the only way we extract is to induce a bluff, which he's fully capable of doing.

This assumes, of course, that the villain won't level us and realize what we're doing. Since I don't play 1/2, I don't know what level we should default to when playing regs without much history.

I felt like the instructors had good stuff to say, but maybe didn't express it well enough, or maybe they were forcing a lesson through the hand that wasn't well examplified. I didn't understand their reasoning for choosing an alternative play, it seemed like they were implicitly jumping between different levels the villain thought on and just dismissed the c/r as bad play as transparent, while call/turn donk would be just as transparent and would minimize out EV.

I think that while our line (or any line in fact) makes our hand transparent, the villain's range is also transparent (largely bluffs), and it's going to cost him a ton of EV to balance it (he'd have to raise with sets a lot as they're a tiny % of his range, as well as other stuff). So on the whole, our range here is protected by the fact that the villain has no incentive to force us into this position, so we don't need to disguise. From the villain's perspective, this seems like a horrible raise because it only works on level 1 opponents that only play their hand and maybe level 4+ guys who can self-level by thinking this is a terrible bluff spot. The 2-3 level guys, which is what small stakes regs are, will not behave as he wants.

Extending this thought further: since our hand is so "transparent" and we're effectively turning TPTK into a bluff on the turn (because his range is mega-polarized and hugely skewed), we can basically do this with whatever we want. If we get raised on this flop, just flat and check back the turn with intention of going all in with any 2. If he checks, we got 2 cards to hit a little something or backdoor something, so it's not terrible either. What I'm saying is villain's raise is insanely exploitable, much more so than our hand despite the fact that our range is so narrow while his is so wide.

What's wrong with my thought process here?

Other than that hand, the rest was well explained.

I think you guys did a great job.
The audio is a bit off as others have mentioned but it's very helpful. You guys talking over each other is really hard to understand but I chalk that up to audio issues and leave it at that. I think it might be good to have a download-able file with the hand results in them because, even though you are trying to teach us not to be results oriented, I think it would be fun to see if we are right about the hand ranges.

Great series,
Thank you for making it

thanks LC, and great idea about the downloadable file. i'll talk to orange about that but i imagine at this point we'd lack records for all these hands (though we might remember). still, a good idea for future videos of this type.