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

You make a lot of value judgements about many plays based on the results (holecards) of the opponent. I think that, given this is a video you have time to prepare, you could definitely add a lot of value by talking more about ranges and frequencies. I think you may be unaware that you are doing this, so I felt I should point it out. An example would be describing a complete thought process when folding a second-best hand, rather than looking at his actual holecards and saying "I make a good laydown here" or "I make a big laydown and get owned". You could do some work for the viewer by explaining that villain needs to be bluffing X% in relation to pot odds and that, given his range has X combos of value hands he would need to be calling the flop with <these kinds of hands> to have enough air (assuming he bluffs his air x% of the time here).

You are good at describing the hands you believe could be in your range, and use this to justify a lot of your actions. However, this does not mean that villain will put those hands in your range. You could try to point to previous hands (especially showdown hands) that might incline villain to adjust your range in specific spots. I think sometimes you jump to the next level before you have clearly described the basic situation. It might help to only describe the second-guessing and levelling aspects after you have clearly explained the straightforward aspects of the hand.

You rarely explain what hands villain would exclude from your range given that you didn't do something. You do often justify a lot of your plays as being "for decpeption", without explaining why you think that the deception will cause your opponent to make a mistake. The value of these plays is often very unclear to me. Sometimes you do make a vague reference to meta-game, but it seems you often fail to showdown the hand and so presumbly lose the "value" of the deception. However, a positive example would be when you discuss the (incorrect?) call by your opponent with Q9 on the A hi flop at the end very well. Perhaps applying the same objective analysis to your own play more frequently would make things clearer.

You make a lot of value judgements ...

That whole post is meant for last week, not this week

You make a lot of value judgements about many plays based on the results (holecards) of the opponent. I think that, given this is a video you have time to prepare, you could definitely add a lot of value by talking more about ranges and frequencies. I think you may be unaware that you are doing this, so I felt I should point it out. An example would be describing a complete thought process when folding a second-best hand, rather than looking at his actual holecards and saying "I make a good laydown here" or "I make a big laydown and get owned". You could do some work for the viewer by explaining that villain needs to be bluffing X% in relation to pot odds and that, given his range has X combos of value hands he would need to be calling the flop with <these kinds of hands> to have enough air (assuming he bluffs his air x% of the time here).

You are good at describing the hands you believe could be in your range, and use this to justify a lot of your actions. However, this does not mean that villain will put those hands in your range. You could try to point to previous hands (especially showdown hands) that might incline villain to adjust your range in specific spots. I think sometimes you jump to the next level before you have clearly described the basic situation. It might help to only describe the second-guessing and levelling aspects after you have clearly explained the straightforward aspects of the hand.

You rarely explain what hands villain would exclude from your range given that you didn't do something. You do often justify a lot of your plays as being "for decpeption", without explaining why you think that the deception will cause your opponent to make a mistake. The value of these plays is often very unclear to me. Sometimes you do make a vague reference to meta-game, but it seems you often fail to showdown the hand and so presumbly lose the "value" of the deception. However, a positive example would be when you discuss the (incorrect?) call by your opponent with Q9 on the A hi flop at the end very well. Perhaps applying the same objective analysis to your own play more frequently would make things clearer.

Even though you meant this to apply to last week, this is a fair criticism that I even pointed out myself in either episode 4 or 5. Sometimes I forget that my audience hasn't a)seen all my previous videos or b) isn't already a fundamentally sound HU player and as a result I delve right into the advanced stuff. This obviously optimal for the better HU players who watch my videos, but a disservice to others. There is certainly a fine line w/ this stuff, but I will continue to make more of an effort w/ what you are referring to.

As it is, my videos already always go over the hour mark, so it's a tough task. If you by chance get the time, please check out some of my earlier videos where I spell out the situation A to Z more often. Additionally, please feel free to post any questions in the comments whenever you would like additional clarification.

hey Gman,

Thank-you very much for the videos, which I have always found extremely helpful.

The one thing I feel is that in this series the "rules" get in the way, and make the whole thing a rather artificial exercise.

To be honest, I think that I would get more out of it just seeing you playing some ordinary guy and adapting to his game.

Alternatively it would interesting to see you playing other DC coaches "for real" and without these rules, however I appreciate that winning players might not be entirely comfortable for you to tell us your reads on them!

All the best,

TemFriendPat

hey Gman,

Thank-you very much for the videos, which I have always found extremely helpful.

The one thing I feel is that in this series the "rules" get in the way, and make the whole thing a rather artificial exercise.

To be honest, I think that I would get more out of it just seeing you playing some ordinary guy and adapting to his game.

Alternatively it would interesting to see you playing other DC coaches "for real" and without these rules, however I appreciate that winning players might not be entirely comfortable for you to tell us your reads on them!

All the best,

TemFriendPat

Hey Pat,

You def. have a valid point. If it's any consolation, the rules in episode 7 and 8 are very minimal and for the most part get to see me play Emil and Vanessa under normal conditions.

i guess there is also a similar line then, if the rules are "very minimal", then why have rules?

Gman,

I think everyone on this site knows WiltonTilt is a solid player. While the constant "when you have 2 really good players" broken record wasn't played again this week, it still surfaced occasionally. There is no need to pat yourself on the back or Wilts. Please just stick to discussing hands and assume everyone knows you are obviously a solid player. I quit watching this one after the "Wilt is definitely talented enough to 4 bet 2 hands at the same time" comment.