NL25 Video From MSNLer

[sputum]

[ QUOTE ]
I fundamentally disagree with almost everything in this video, and I don't mean because the plays are "non-standard" or "maniacal", I mean that this video is full of badly chosen, over-expensive and inefficient spots if our objective is to cultivate an image and manipulate table dynamics.

I don't mean to be offensive but seeing everyone bow down before this video just because the guy is playing 60/40 is un-nerving.

[/ QUOTE ]
I find the idea of liking a MSNLer going to the effort of giving us a free video like this pretty cool.
OTOH I find the idea of assuming that people like the video 'because he's playing 60/40' hilarious.
But each to their own [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[IshiP2U]

The objective of the video was not to encourage people to play maniac and it wasn't to encourage people to value bet light (the highlight of the video may just as well have been me folding a Q high flush to a nit on a three flush board). The idea of the video was to sit down ready to think about whether the table you are at is profitable, and if it isn't profitable how to make it a profitable table. In this specific situation, it was isolating the weak player to my right as much as possible. I don't think anybody is bowing down before this video, I think they are just refreshed to see somebody actively processing information (that doesn't come from a HUD) when they are at the table, be the decisions they make with that information right or wrong. That's the message of the video.

[IshiP2U]

Sweir,

You make a few vague statements I'm not sure about. "The table will adapt"....by table do you mean everybody or certain players at the table? In either case, though many times it usually does, the adapting that you were talking about never really happened with this table, so I don't know what you mean about using my image "correctly". I don't recall getting involved in any big pots out of position with marginal holdings or anything like that. I really have no idea what you're talking about here with regards to this specific video. It seems like you're just kind of quoting the oft said "play loose and crazy...then tighten up and get paid off" type of phrase without regard to applying it here or not. I'm certainly happy to hear if I'm wrong though.

Adam

[Sweir]

[ QUOTE ]
Sweir,

You make a few vague statements I'm not sure about. "The table will adapt"....by table do you mean everybody or certain players at the table? In either case, though many times it usually does, the adapting that you were talking about never really happened with this table, so I don't know what you mean about using my image "correctly". I don't recall getting involved in any big pots out of position with marginal holdings or anything like that. I really have no idea what you're talking about here with regards to this specific video. It seems like you're just kind of quoting the oft said "play loose and crazy...then tighten up and get paid off" type of phrase without regard to applying it here or not. I'm certainly happy to hear if I'm wrong though.

Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah your probably correct, im kinda just rambling a bit here. I was just thinking that maybe you could have talked about this a bit more in the video. Like, If they start adapting to my play then I will do x. I will know when they start adapting when they do y, or z...etc. I think that without something along those lines people will start to think that you can play like this all the time. Maybe you can but imo it is pretty important to know when to change gears and how to when playing like this.

[Gelford]

Sweir, I think I understand what you mean.

You are into the dynamic adaption approach (like in abas latest CR video or lots of GP vids).

You give of an image of being maniac, then you tighten up and play deceptively tight and etc ... back and forth.


This is a highstakes approach against thinking opponents, but is impossible in uNL, opponents aren't that observant.


So basically this is slightly simpler, all that they register is that you like to gamble or that you do not like to gamble, so what is happening here, is that IShip gambles with the ultra shorts, which is ... well .. HOLLA! (and fairly cheap)

With the larger stacks, he basically just splashes around, and find that the person on his right will call down with any piece of the flop, so he valuebets him insanely .... against the nits he is much more conservative, whatever he might claim while talking.

The approach is simply to raise a lot pf (=3-4bb) and seem like a gambling man, then you adjust to the different players. Some you GAMBOOOL with ... others you just give a cbet, and not even that sometimes.


Unless you actually succed in annoying the nits, but that is difficult at uNL, as they just sit there playing 36488 tables with their pf starting hands chart in their hands. But if you succeed in annoying the nits, then it gets interesting.



SHIP, correct me if I missunderstand you [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[IshiP2U]

Sweir,

Yes! I wholeheartedly agree with you that it's extremely important to be able to change gears! That was what I was saying in the beginning is that I don't look to play any certain style all the time, but I think it's important for the table to have some energy, and I also think it's important to build an information base on people and an individual relationship with them at the table. I've tried to make it very clear that I don't advocate this style and I don't advocate not playing it either. I really think you may have been taking this as a how-to video (or since you seem to hate it as a how-not-to video), but that wasn't the point at all. People in uNL make a lot of videos, I decided I would put one up since mine would probably be different and it's always nice to have a fresh perspective either way. Again, I think "if they start adapting to my play then I will do x" is way too general. It depends on how they are adapting; some players get even nittier, other players get substantially looser and more aggressive, and other get substantially less aggressive. I tried to make the commentary as relevant as possible to the situations at the table, but I can see how talking about some of the things you suggested would be helpful. That's why I thought everything would go better as a series.

[Gelford]

Lots of videos have been made on ABC poker, this one is very popular rumour has it (and is rehosted a couple of times during the thread). A good introduction to nitting it up profitably.

[Dilznoofus]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of videos have been made on ABC poker, this one is very popular rumour has it (and is rehosted a couple of times during the thread). A good introduction to nitting it up profitably.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't care what anyone says, raising 17 percent of your dealt hands, firing 2 barrels with ace high, 4-betting TT and 5-bet shoving AKo preflop is not nitty. I hope you're saying that in jest Gelford, otherwise you've set the bar very high for non-nittiness. Very nice video BTW.

[Gelford]

lol ... thx man.

No, by nittyness, I just mean playing with a vpip of 18 and below, once in a hand, I believe you have to be able splash around [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


But back on track, I have hijacked this tread with my own vid, an ego thing, but this is about Iship's vid (sorry mate)

[ama0330]

Having read ship's replies I understand better the purpose of his video. I was never disagreeing with the concept of "stirring up the table", its something which I have tried out many times with great success and though I feel it is definitely +EV, its high variance which is why I dont do it habitually.

My problem was (and still is) with the specific plays incorporated in the video which I believe to be ineffective and expensive, by that I mean that you can achieve the same goal with different and better plays. I particularly have huge problems with the AQ hand where hero calls down on two streets, and as evidenced in the commentary I think hero is unable to justify it himself.

There are a lot of other plays which I disagree with in the video, but that doesn't mean that I disagree with the concept as a whole. I think that when it is correctly implemented it is most definitely profitable. My concern with this video is that people would get over-excited and carbon copy what I deem to be very incorrect plays without understanding for themselves why they may be less than optimal.