Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by jsnipes28 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Best intro ever imo.

WooHoo, on the first day of xmas my truelove sent to me a bosoxx in a snipes tree...

Best intro ever imo.

+1

Tuesday is the new Sunday!

Edit: The K4o hand at 4:45 is a pretty good example of my day yesterday. Makes me feel a bit better that you make those calls as well.

Think it could of had more structure for an opening to a new series. I know this wont work for me moving up being a complete noob to heads up. Yous could of started by talking about heads up, game selection, what hands to open, how to set your hud up whats the best stats to have. Yous are well versed in HU but me and many like me are not like if you just play sessions like this for the next 8 weeks im not going to get much from it , there are loads of ghost heads up vids here and this just looks like another one thought it would be something different ( probably just me )

Think it could of had more structure for an opening to a new series. I know this wont work for me moving up being a complete noob to heads up. Yous could of started by talking about heads up, game selection, what hands to open, how to set your hud up whats the best stats to have. Yous are well versed in HU but me and many like me are not like if you just play sessions like this for the next 8 weeks im not going to get much from it , there are loads of ghost heads up vids here and this just looks like another one thought it would be something different ( probably just me )

Isn't there a whole series on that by Krantz and WiltOnTilt? http://www.deucescracked.com/videos/15-pr1nnyraiding/161-Episode_One

Yeah, I'd look at this as the follow-up to Pr1nnyraiding...

TY

16min in videon u had T8o on 982 board or something where turn was 5 and river 2 i think, and u just checked it down?Isnt it better to bet on turn/river?

16min in videon u had T8o on 982 board or something where turn was 5 and river 2 i think, and u just checked it down?Isnt it better to bet on turn/river?

yea ur absolutely right and I have no clue why we didnt bet any of the streets, esp turn/river. must have just spaced in a limped pot.

yea ur absolutely right and I have no clue why we didnt bet any of the streets, esp turn/river. must have just spaced in a limped pot.

I agree we should've bet the turn or river but don't think we get 2 streets of value out of anything worse here, but who knows the player we were playing liked to call so I could be wrong.

At 22:30, why did you guys 4 bet with a hand that plays so well postflop in position but bad to a 4 bet/calling range with Q10s? This a great hand to have when they min 3 bet in my experience.

I personally think reviewing hands would suit you guys better. Or at least play 1 table. I see alot of spots where you guys are running out of time discussing situations, possibly due to the lack of time bank.

some criticism: It would seem to me, that you cannot really "move up" through a level, without actually beating it. Now I realize you are not going to be able to show anywhere near a decent sample size, but it would seem to me that you should dominate in the session where you are demonstrating what it takes to "move up". I would argue that here, you did not really show what it takes to "move up" through 50NL, but simply played a random session with basic HU strategy. Following on that, it was unclear to me what strategy was basic HU strategy, and what strategy is 50NL specific. I would assume part of the point of the series is to detail the differences in the levels, but that was not clear here. Maybe you could outline the specific points of a given level and what it takes to "move up" through it before the video starts. I think that could be of great benefit. Basically this video played like a random 50NL duel segment, which is fine i guess, but I was hoping for much more. I would challenge you to consider how its different from duel, focus more on what strategy is specific to a level, and try to find hands that demonstrate your points.

some criticism: It would seem to me, that you cannot really "move up" through a level, without actually beating it. Now I realize you are not going to be able to show anywhere near a decent sample size, but it would seem to me that you should dominate in the session where you are demonstrating what it takes to "move up". I would argue that here, you did not really show what it takes to "move up" through 50NL, but simply played a random session with basic HU strategy. Following on that, it was unclear to me what strategy was basic HU strategy, and what strategy is 50NL specific. I would assume part of the point of the series is to detail the differences in the levels, but that was not clear here. Maybe you could outline the specific points of a given level and what it takes to "move up" through it before the video starts. I think that could be of great benefit. Basically this video played like a random 50NL duel segment, which is fine i guess, but I was hoping for much more. I would challenge you to consider how its different from duel, focus more on what strategy is specific to a level, and try to find hands that demonstrate your points.

Agree 100%, I was just about to write exact same thing.

Agree 100%

some criticism: It would seem to me, that you cannot really "move up" through a level, without actually beating it. Now I realize you are not going to be able to show anywhere near a decent sample size, but it would seem to me that you should dominate in the session where you are demonstrating what it takes to "move up". I would argue that here, you did not really show what it takes to "move up" through 50NL, but simply played a random session with basic HU strategy. Following on that, it was unclear to me what strategy was basic HU strategy, and what strategy is 50NL specific. I would assume part of the point of the series is to detail the differences in the levels, but that was not clear here. Maybe you could outline the specific points of a given level and what it takes to "move up" through it before the video starts. I think that could be of great benefit. Basically this video played like a random 50NL duel segment, which is fine i guess, but I was hoping for much more. I would challenge you to consider how its different from duel, focus more on what strategy is specific to a level, and try to find hands that demonstrate your points.

+1

I'd like to see more talk about the specific levels please, but I found the video interesting nonetheless so keep it up guys

At 22:30, why did you guys 4 bet with a hand that plays so well postflop in position but bad to a 4 bet/calling range with Q10s? This a great hand to have when they min 3 bet in my experience.

We touched on this during the video a bit but I'll elaborate on this. Many times against someone who min 3-bets a lot like this opponent was doing QT is ahead of his range. He's likely doing it with any pocket pair, suited connectors, broadway cards and some aces. Now while we're behind the top of his range we're ahead of it enough to make it profitable. Furthermore, we can control of the hand and don't have to play fit or fold poker post flop and gain some fold equity by 4 betting and then following it up with a cbet. If we had aleady 4 bet a couple of times I prefer a call pre-flop.

Now when he min 5 bets us, we know we're not doing well against his range but we couldn't fold based on the pot odds. Then once we hit top pair there just wasn't a whole lot we could do, we weren't feeling good about getting it in, but based on the circumstances it was about the only play we could make.

I personally think reviewing hands would suit you guys better. Or at least play 1 table. I see alot of spots where you guys are running out of time discussing situations, possibly due to the lack of time bank.

The time bank issue isn't much of an issue in future episodes. For some reason at 50 NL, FTP gives a lower time bank.

some criticism: It would seem to me, that you cannot really "move up" through a level, without actually beating it. Now I realize you are not going to be able to show anywhere near a decent sample size, but it would seem to me that you should dominate in the session where you are demonstrating what it takes to "move up". I would argue that here, you did not really show what it takes to "move up" through 50NL, but simply played a random session with basic HU strategy. Following on that, it was unclear to me what strategy was basic HU strategy, and what strategy is 50NL specific. I would assume part of the point of the series is to detail the differences in the levels, but that was not clear here. Maybe you could outline the specific points of a given level and what it takes to "move up" through it before the video starts. I think that could be of great benefit. Basically this video played like a random 50NL duel segment, which is fine i guess, but I was hoping for much more. I would challenge you to consider how its different from duel, focus more on what strategy is specific to a level, and try to find hands that demonstrate your points.

When we made this video, I was a little worried about how it was going to come off, we really should've made a power point before the first episode. John and I thought it would be better to play and then review what we went over before the next episode. However, this was an error on our part for the next episode there will be a PowerPoint reviewing how to beat 50 NL and what to do when adjusting to 100 NL. This was an mistake on our part not to detail it before episode one, but we will have something in the beginning for the next few episodes reviewing what we went over in the previous video and the adjustments to make as you move up in limits.

As far as beating the limit before we move up, like you said small sample size. If we played another session where we got our money in in the exact same spots I'd feel very good about our chances of winning multiple buy ins. Unfortunately we were coolered multiple times in this session and that's going to happen at any level. The important part, especially at SSHUNL is to make the right decisions and not make any big mistakes and I think for the most part we played pretty well and were just unlucky.

bosoxx, thanks for the reply. I will look forward to your powerpoint notes in the next video. In regards to your comments on beating the level, I understand your point, but I would ask you to consider what your video primarily illustrates. I might argue this video at best illustrates "variance at 50NL", and it would seem to me it should illustrate "mastering 50NL". Now, how to convey that idea best is unknown to me. The easiest method IMO would be a solid winning session, but obviously that can be construed as the same; a result of variance. I don't know the answer, maybe it is a random session, but maybe there's something better. thanks again. looking forward to the next installment.

bosoxx, thanks for the reply. I will look forward to your powerpoint notes in the next video. In regards to your comments on beating the level, I understand your point, but I would ask you to consider what your video primarily illustrates. I might argue this video at best illustrates "variance at 50NL", and it would seem to me it should illustrate "mastering 50NL". Now, how to convey that idea best is unknown to me. The easiest method IMO would be a solid winning session, but obviously that can be construed as the same; a result of variance. I don't know the answer, maybe it is a random session, but maybe there's something better. thanks again. looking forward to the next installment.

Yea I understand your feelings here about this and we are redoing one of the episodes that we didn't really like how it turned out (not necc winning/losing) but at the same time I think that it is good for people to see the variance that is associated with HUNL. It would be misleading for us to only make videos of winning sessions (and probably frustrating for those of you playing and wondering what you are doing wrong) when losing is a normal part of the game. In fact, one of the later episodes at 2/4NL was one of only three losing sessions that I had during all of October where I beat 3/6 and 5/10 for over 18ptbb on the month--however my decision making process was the same as all of my other sessions and that is what is important. I agree that we definitely need to be winning sometimes, but to only show videos where we win, or crush, would be short changing all of you.

hopefully the instructors are still around to give me some insight to this video. can you guys explain the K4o lead on the KT4m flop more at around 4:20. When should we be leading the flop and why the particular bet sizing. The whole hand was played in a very unorthodox fashion. thanks

also at 22:40, you guys 4-bet the QTs instead of flatting. I understand the reasoning to some degree, but wouldn't QTs play better versus a fairly wide 3-betting range IP? especially against this guy who has a tendency to c-bet pot in these kind of 3-bet pots. I understand if we 4-bet a hand like KQ or AJ against him for value but whats important is not so much his overall 3-betting range but his 4-bet calling range right? QTs can't be doing that good versus a 4-bet call range even against this guy?

with the 88 hand on the T44 board. i understand the reasoning for just calling the flop re-raise. but i feel that buy 3 betting here you achieve more than calling. because you 1. get him to fold out all air hands.... a lot of which actually dont have awful equity against your hand. 2. you induce a call with a drawing hand e.g. flush, straight, which increases value for the hand 3. you may well induce a spaz shove with a heart draw although it may not be the best situation to be getting it all in. i just dont see that calling gets you anywhere especially as many turn and river cards are going to be action killers and cards that make you feel less comfortable about continuing in the best fashion. do you agree? any comments?

really enjoying the videos you've posted bosoxx34. good stuff dude.