Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by fslexcduck (Mid Stakes)

super simple theme seems to reduce video size. good!

woot. excited for this one!

lol @ the replayer bug haha man that's awkward. fkd up the video, but still a top notch vid.

Dave sounds thrilled to be being coached by Vanessa Selbst

Vanessa, great series, I do have one suggestion though. If you've scene Joe tall's series, "what would joe tall do?" he made a quiz of all the hands in the video. I learned a ton from the quiz. I feel its a great learning tool for me to go though the quiz, decide what I would do in the particular situation and then compare my though process to your though process. If you could implement the same type of quiz that joe tall did that would be awesome!

Just something simple such as,

Hand 1:
bb: 458.38
sb: 181.55
Hero: 410.75

PF, Hero delt: Kd8d

Hero minraises to 4
sb fold
BB reraise to 13

Hero:
a) 3bet to 30
b) call 9
c) fold

Hero calls 9
flop: 9dAdJs
Pot:27

BB bets 27,
a) Call 27
b) raise to 65
c) shove all in
d) fold

Button Calls 27
Board: 9dAdJs5d
Pot: 81

BB bets 81
a) Call 81
b) minraise to 162
c) shove all in

I think alot of people could learn from a quiz too.

Thanks again for the great series you've made,
Poon

Vanessa wow i get better every episode you do.

Not a huge fan of you not finding a way to get around the replayer problems. You could have just doctored hands. It's kinda just a nuisance more than anything, and shouldn't take you that long to fix the bug.

Even with the bugs I thought this was one of your better videos. Maybe just because I can directly apply a lot of the stuff you went over.

On the last hand, he doesn't have nearly as many combo draws as he has Qx hands or overpairs. Q844hh - JT/T9/76/65 4 combos. AQ/KQ are 8 combos. KK/AA are 12 combos but as you pointed out those hands don't matter as if u check he bets and if u bet he calls. Pretty interesting points all the same - if he bets everything (busted draws and KQ for value) then check is clearly better, if he doesnt valuebet thinly (kq/qj/maybe AQ) then betting is clearly best, as he doesn't have enough bluffing hands unless you assume he peels any flush draw on the turn as well. It's definitely as much about the assumptions as the combinatorics...

balancing lines for the range that gets to that river is kinda interesting. Do you think checking or betting could negatively or postively effect ways other hands may play? like if u want to bluff with a busted draw or check down with an AQ-type hand yourself? Seems like you aren't in that spot often enough for balance to matter as much.

The Villain in the last hand whilst being pretty aggressive pre flop (26/22) was passive post flop (1.9 overall, 0.9 on the river) so I think he will infrequently bluff the river with any missed draws.

It is also far from impossible that given the way the hand played out he decides to check behind the river with AA & KK. If I bet small on the river & he does have AA or KK most of the time he will call rather than raise.

Nice hand analysis, but airing the vid with that buggy replayer doesn't look right.

At 24 min we open raise UTG with AQo. Flop is 89T. You both state that this flop hits your perceived range really hard. I don't understand the thinking here. Unless I'm just totally too nitty 78,9T and JQ are not in my normal UTG opening range. I think with UTG open and call of 3bet our range looks like and is exactly what we have. AK AQ JJ QQ.

I can easily have the pairs 88-TT here plus QJs & T9s. Most of the time I would be 4 betting AK & QQ here. This was a 5 handed table.

I hate the 444-fold, you just say "he plays KXs this way all the time plaaplaa" but what kings he can really have, usually KT, KJ or KQs and when there is J and T at the table we lose only to KhQh. Also its almost impossible him to have AhQh im sure that nl200 player 3bet AQ like 9 times in 10 and AhJh is impossible because J. So we lose just to KhQh and i think he can definelty be valuebetting KJ or 222 there and even turning some made hands to bluff.

Virtually no one is 3betting AQ 9/10 times UTG+1 v UTG

a