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

cool

hey, it is missing WMV-download option.

Try refreshing your browser, it is there.
-Rusty

Will this series include HU at NL 400 or higher?

Can anyone who plays MSNL confirm it's worth watching or there is something special that isn't in KRANTZ/WILT series?

Will this series include HU at NL 400 or higher?

Can anyone who plays MSNL confirm it's worth watching or there is something special that isn't in KRANTZ/WILT series?

I just have a picture of Krantz above my computer and I always win...so take from that what you will

: )

Insyder19 there isn't really alot the others haven't covered. this ism ore of a beginners headsup guide imo so far atleast.
Still a nice series.

Will this series include HU at NL 400 or higher?

Can anyone who plays MSNL confirm it's worth watching or there is something special that isn't in KRANTZ/WILT series?

Hey insyder, throughout the course of the series we'll be going from 50NL to 1000NL so while the beginning episodes may not help too much, be sure to check back in around episode 4.

BTW link the scotty nguyen stuff

Great Stuff

Just wondering- why did Jsnipes single out AK as the hand to 4bt 100% of the time?

I liked what I saw in the first episode which I thought gave some good insight for someone looking to start out in HU play. Keep up the good work!

Thanks a lot, am looking forward to see it.

Great Stuff

Just wondering- why did Jsnipes single out AK as the hand to 4bt 100% of the time?

If someone is 3betting >10% of the time AK has such good equity against that range, especially at 100bb, that you want to be 4betting for value (not to mention the fact that people never give any credit to the first, or any, 4 bets) and trying to get it in. 4 Betting AK will never be a mistake against a reasonably aggressive opponent but if you flat AK it will be much easier to make a mistake when you miss (which will be more than half the time). You can make plenty of arguments with other hands like 99, AQ, KK etc for flatting a 3b or or deciding to 4b, but with 100bb stacks the clear decision with AK is to 4bet.

Sorry if that isn't very eloquent--I'm a bit hungover at the moment.

Hey guys, one of you mentioned that not defending hands like K6s oop in higher stakes and better oppon. is exploitable. Why is this?

Hey guys, one of you mentioned that not defending hands like K6s oop in higher stakes and better oppon. is exploitable. Why is this?

if ur only defending like 18% of hands they can just punish you and raise literally 100% of buttons. and generally speaking, calling is going to be more effective than 3betting a lot more as an adjustment to someone who is raising 100% of buttons (ofc you will be 3betting more than if he was opening 60% of buttons but you also need to add more hands to your calling range). The other reason, which may seem obvious is that K6s actually is just a pretty decent hand equity wise vs someone who is raising 100% of their hands.

hey why the hell didn't you put this video out last week? You could've saved me several buy-ins. Very solid video

Im new to heads up and I know playing 6max or fullring with shortstackers sucks. do you guys have bb minimums for opponents heads up?

hey why the hell didn't you put this video out last week? You could've saved me several buy-ins. Very solid video

Sorry about that, I mentioned in the first thread that we made a mistake. We figured that since 50/100 are very similar we could discuss it in live play format and then review the next week as well as elaborating how to beat the limits.

Again, sorry. GL and run well

Im new to heads up and I know playing 6max or fullring with shortstackers sucks. do you guys have bb minimums for opponents heads up?

I personally don't play anyone with less than 50BB, but it's a matter of preference.

u got pwnt!

Can't hear what the other guy is saying.

Can't hear what the other guy is saying.

Not sure what the problem is, anyone else having a problem with this?

bosoxx why do you 3bet by pressing the pot button and then change the number... u can just change the number right away

bosoxx why do you 3bet by pressing the pot button and then change the number... u can just change the number right away

lol, I've never even noticed I did that.

So I was a bit critical of the 1st vid, and I I'm getting to this one a week late. Just finished watching for the 2nd time. On the plus side I thought the first 30 minutes were worthwhile, although a tad jumbled. This happens to be the level that I play and hope to "move-up" through.

On the critical side, I didn't really understand the purpose of the hour of play that followed the powerpoint. Did anyone feel it really demonstrated the skills needed to move up through 100NL? Honestly I would have quit the guy after 20 hands, but I'm just not sure what I was supposed to get out of it? Maybe someone who did get something out of it could point some things out for me? I'll admit I can be dense. I am stuck at 100NL after-all. It just seems to me that a random session (i assume) at 100NL does not constitute a video about moving up through 100NL.

I won't likely watch the remainder of the series (stuck at 100NL), so you won't have to deal with anymore critique.

So I was a bit critical of the 1st vid, and I I'm getting to this one a week late. Just finished watching for the 2nd time. On the plus side I thought the first 30 minutes were worthwhile, although a tad jumbled. This happens to be the level that I play and hope to "move-up" through.

On the critical side, I didn't really understand the purpose of the hour of play that followed the powerpoint. Did anyone feel it really demonstrated the skills needed to move up through 100NL? Honestly I would have quit the guy after 20 hands, but I'm just not sure what I was supposed to get out of it? Maybe someone who did get something out of it could point some things out for me? I'll admit I can be dense. I am stuck at 100NL after-all. It just seems to me that a random session (i assume) at 100NL does not constitute a video about moving up through 100NL.

I won't likely watch the remainder of the series (stuck at 100NL), so you won't have to deal with anymore critique.

Hey don't worry about the criticism, it's part of making a series and we know it comes with the territory. As far as our opponent selection we figured that Pr1nnyraiding showed how to be each players including the donks so we were looking for competent regulars and were trying to explain our thought process on how we would go about attacking them.

Again, I apologize that the first two videos weren't much help. Have you watched Pr1nnyraiding yet, if not I would definitely check that series out.

Good luck,
Mike

Yes, huge fan of Pr1nnyraiding.

I liked this video. I have one particular criticism and one note. The criticism is that the player you end up playing isn't exactly a typical NL100 opponent, or at least someone who fits into the theory discussion you had.

The note is that I would be more cautious to be assuming someone's range being polarized in certain spot just because the board is such that the value-betting range is rather narrow. It also assumes that the opponent bluffs in those spots and does so disregarding the board texture. Even the weaker players recognize some boards as bad to bluff.

In fact, if you do end up calling with a real marginal hand and the opponent does not bluff with the line he's taken, you are exploiting to the wrong direction, ie. your strategy is one that calls too often and ends up the one being exploited. (And typically the legitimate value-betting region is so much stronger than the bluff-catchers you're calling with it means that there's no overlap between these two, which makes the problem worse.)

Now, we can argue about the assumptions and never really agree. All I'm saying is that I'm not a big fan of basing the decision merely on the fact that the board is such that the opponent has a narrow value-betting range. (Though sometimes the value-betting range is so ridiculously narrow that loose bluff-catching becomes a good play by default.) So my thinking is that I need some evidence of the opponent being bluffy. Maybe that's a good default assumption and I'm missing a lot of good calls because of this, I don't know.

I just think that it's useful to state explicitly the other assumptions that would make the opponent's range truly polarized.

Maybe I'm in some different universe, but the vast majority of the players who have sat down to play me are habitual 3-bettors. Also, very few of them call 4-bets with the crap they 3-bet with. Of the few hundred NL50 HU opponents I've played, only a few players have been calling 4-bets when they shouldn't have had.

It might be the time of the day I'm playing, but no way most opponents are loose/passive calling stations or complete spewtards against whom you can't bluff (or particularly 4-bet bluff).

Mostly I face whole bunch of little dogishead/krantz/jsnipes/bosox wannabes, who obviously don't play as well as those, but certainly aren't just donating their stacks with completely obvious mistakes. I know the counter-argument is that I should game select better. I do try to game select, but say if I quit everyone who's raising their buttons, I would be quitting vast majority of the time. To get a feel for the other mistakes, it will take at least 50 or 100 hands or more. You just don't get into those 3-bet/call, 4-bet situations that often.

Sorry for the pointless rant.

I liked this video. I have one particular criticism and one note. The criticism is that the player you end up playing isn't exactly a typical NL100 opponent, or at least someone who fits into the theory discussion you had.

The note is that I would be more cautious to be assuming someone's range being polarized in certain spot just because the board is such that the value-betting range is rather narrow. It also assumes that the opponent bluffs in those spots and does so disregarding the board texture. Even the weaker players recognize some boards as bad to bluff.

In fact, if you do end up calling with a real marginal hand and the opponent does not bluff with the line he's taken, you are exploiting to the wrong direction, ie. your strategy is one that calls too often and ends up the one being exploited. (And typically the legitimate value-betting region is so much stronger than the bluff-catchers you're calling with it means that there's no overlap between these two, which makes the problem worse.)

Now, we can argue about the assumptions and never really agree. All I'm saying is that I'm not a big fan of basing the decision merely on the fact that the board is such that the opponent has a narrow value-betting range. (Though sometimes the value-betting range is so ridiculously narrow that loose bluff-catching becomes a good play by default.) So my thinking is that I need some evidence of the opponent being bluffy. Maybe that's a good default assumption and I'm missing a lot of good calls because of this, I don't know.

I just think that it's useful to state explicitly the other assumptions that would make the opponent's range truly polarized.

Actually, you're right about this and it's a very well thought out response. Unfortunately with a video we try to make reads as fast as possible and generalizations based on the lmits we're playing. So the reads aren't always going to be spot on.

Maybe I'm in some different universe, but the vast majority of the players who have sat down to play me are habitual 3-bettors. Also, very few of them call 4-bets with the crap they 3-bet with. Of the few hundred NL50 HU opponents I've played, only a few players have been calling 4-bets when they shouldn't have had.

It might be the time of the day I'm playing, but no way most opponents are loose/passive calling stations or complete spewtards against whom you can't bluff (or particularly 4-bet bluff).

Mostly I face whole bunch of little dogishead/krantz/jsnipes/bosox wannabes, who obviously don't play as well as those, but certainly aren't just donating their stacks with completely obvious mistakes. I know the counter-argument is that I should game select better. I do try to game select, but say if I quit everyone who's raising their buttons, I would be quitting vast majority of the time. To get a feel for the other mistakes, it will take at least 50 or 100 hands or more. You just don't get into those 3-bet/call, 4-bet situations that often.

Sorry for the pointless rant.

In my limited experience at 50 NL when I've made videos it seems as though this was the common trend when I played (People calling 4-bets. With HU becoming more popular and training sites devoting more time to HU it's possible the games are evolving to the point where 50NL players are playing a solid enough PF game where they're not calling 4-bets light anymore. However it's obviously opponent specific and may depend on the hours you play.

If people aren't calling 4-bets light and not adjusting, by all means increase your 4-bet frequency if they continue to fold.