50 nl video

[bozzer]

[ QUOTE ]
cool, downloading now

[/ QUOTE ]

[Profish2285]

Man I dont know how you can play with those stats like that. I felt like I was in the matrix.

[hennnerz]

hehehee LzyScmbg eh. I reckon I have been dominating you lately, this should be interesting, I hope I pop up in this...

Damn - After a few minutes of listening to you the image never changed from the original. At first I thought you had paused it but when you start playing my image doesn't change. I think I need some codecs...? Anyone able to help?

[mocky]

Just watched it excellent vid ty.

[fozzy71]

http://www.techsmith.com/download/codecs.asp

TSCC Codec - , install, then watch in Windows Media Player.

[members_only]

Thanks for doing this tannenj, it's definitely appreciated. Your commentary was a bit flustered at the beginning, but you seemed to have got into the swing of it by the end. I'd say there were two things that struck me most about your play:

1. You almost always checked behind with medium strength hands on the flop, or when the turn made you a pair after you'd bet the flop with nothing and you might otherwise have double-barreled (e.g. 24.30 (top right) you check K7 when the turn brings a K and shortly after (bottom left) you check A8 on a four-flush board whent the turn brings an 8.) On the first of those hands, you said 'if the turn was a Q I'd definitely have fired again.' But presumably if you're double-barreling those kinds of turns as a bluff, you also have to do it when it actually hit you? Or did you just think that for one session vs probably not very competent players it didn't really matter? If the latter, and balancing your bluffs wasn't a concern, why were you reluctant to bet the turn for value anyway? Was it just so that you could get more value on the river? (Hope that all makes sense.)

2. You seemed very trusting of some of the more complex HUD stats over a very small sample size (e.g. early on you dont bluff on Q88 board because other guy has a relatively high WTSD after 30 hands.) How accurate can someone's WTSD be after a total of 30 hands? Do you really think there's anything to be gained from this?

m_o

[ICMoney]

Just loaded it up - about to watch - you have as many stats as I do.

props.

juice boxes on each table [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I think you might be underrolled.

I hate 800 BI downswings.

[Profish2285]

Question for ya. When you have ak and check it to the river and villain donk/shoves into you on the flush card, why call? So often at these limits I see people doing that with huge hands. Im not sure why you thought villain would put some money in with spades before that because people love to slowplay and do that when they feel they have to get value now.

[ICMoney]

Did really see any plays to question.

Thanks for the vid.
Would def watch another one.

[tannenj]

[ QUOTE ]

hehehee LzyScmbg eh. I reckon I have been dominating you lately, this should be interesting, I hope I pop up in this...


[/ QUOTE ]

are you alargegamepice or castigar? don't recall playing many hands with many other tags. i did play some 50 nl on friday to get a little bit of a feel for the level before the video, and then i made the video yesterday. in total, i only played about 600 50 nl hands. in any case, hu for rolls? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Your commentary was a bit flustered at the beginning, but you seemed to have got into the swing of it by the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely, and i'd like to think that if/when i were to make another video, the quality of my commentary would be improved. i wrote in my blog yesterday that this was a lot harder than i expected it to be (this was my first video, and it definitely gave me more of an appreciation for the work of taylor caby, brian townsend, etc. on cardrunners), and i stand by this. i watched the video after i made it and some of my commentary was confusing -- in the future, i'll be sure to do a better job of noting which table i'm referring to when i say stuff like, "this guy seems pretty tight," i think i could've done a much better job of using villains' handles to make what i was saying clearer, etc. fwiw, i'm the kind of person that's better at writing/typing than talking.

[ QUOTE ]

1. You almost always checked behind with medium strength hands on the flop, or when the turn made you a pair after you'd bet the flop with nothing and you might otherwise have double-barreled (e.g. 24.30 (top right) you check K7 when the turn brings a K and shortly after (bottom left) you check A8 on a four-flush board whent the turn brings an 8.) On the first of those hands, you said 'if the turn was a Q I'd definitely have fired again.' But presumably if you're double-barreling those kinds of turns as a bluff, you also have to do it when it actually hit you? Or did you just think that for one session vs probably not very competent players it didn't really matter? If the latter, and balancing your bluffs wasn't a concern, why were you reluctant to bet the turn for value anyway? Was it just so that you could get more value on the river? (Hope that all makes sense.)


[/ QUOTE ]

all good points. a few comments on this, hopefully i can clarify:

there were maybe two or three situations like this in the one-hour video. i did tend to play these spots passively this time, but this isn't always the case.

you are correct that it's bad metagame to check the turn when you hit and bet only when you miss. for this reason, i will definitely bet the turn a lot there (and obviously i'll be betting it when i have bigger hands that didn't "need" to hit the turn, ie AA, trips, boat). in fact, i think i recall saying during the K7 hand that it's perfectly fine to bet the turn and that i would definitely play that way sometimes.

with that said, it's pretty thin to bet both the turn and the river there after turning the king. very often when i only plan to get one more street of value, i will check the turn and then bet the river if the villain checks. the reasoning is twofold: 1. it gives him a chance to bluff at the pot or value bet a worse hand, and 2. a turn bet is more threatening than a river bet because it carries with it the added threat of a river shove (hopefully that makes sense). the more threatened is the villain, the less likely he is to give me that one street of value that i'm seeking. it is for this reason that i much prefer bluffing the turn in these spots than checking the turn back with air and bluffing the river (if you've ever watched jamie gold play, he's the opposite -- he loves to bluff the river despite the fact that a river bluff doesn't carry with it the threat of another bet. jamie gold is an idiot).

[ QUOTE ]

2. You seemed very trusting of some of the more complex HUD stats over a very small sample size (e.g. early on you dont bluff on Q88 board because other guy has a relatively high WTSD after 30 hands.) How accurate can someone's WTSD be after a total of 30 hands? Do you really think there's anything to be gained from this?

[/ QUOTE ]

indeed. in general, i probably gave too much weight to statistics for which i had very small samples in this video. a few times, i did say stuff like, "granted, the sample is small," but i should've been much more clear about the fact that i was taking some stats with a grain of salt and not relying on them as much as i would if i had more hands on villains. i'm used to having big samples on lots of players at my normal stakes, but that's a crappy excuse.

with that said, though, in the hand you mentioned, it was pretty obvious that the villain was very fishy. 30 hands isn't enough to get much information on a stat like wtsd, but he was 60/6/passive over the sample and pretty much every one of his stats was wacky. this is the kind of situation where 30 hands suffice (for me, at least).

[ QUOTE ]

Question for ya. When you have ak and check it to the river and villain donk/shoves into you on the flush card, why call? So often at these limits I see people doing that with huge hands. Im not sure why you thought villain would put some money in with spades before that because people love to slowplay and do that when they feel they have to get value now.

[/ QUOTE ]

this call was marginal. a few comments:

in a video like this, if i think calling and folding are similar in expectation, i'll call to make the video more interesting/informative. in fact, stuff like this isn't a bad idea (for metagame) even if you're not making a video. i think it was schneids that once said something like, "given two neutral ev plays, i'll always take the looser one." this was definitely a spot where i thought the decision didn't matter too much in terms of ev.

with that said (lol, i keep writing that), i do think calling is slightly better for ev than folding.

1. i was getting about 28:16, so i only needed to have the best hand 36% off the time to break even (someone might want to check this math).

2. given his starting stack ($20), he should probably be jamming AA, KK, and QQ preflop. i understand that this doesn't mean he'll necessarily play like that, but i discounted these hands somewhat.

3. AA and KK should realize that they're vulnerable to an extent and should want to protect prior to the river. this is not as true for QQ (because it can make a boat).

3. a big hand should want to get value from me. checking the flop and the turn and then overbetting the river is a pretty strange way to get value. in other words, his line is kind of odd for a monster.

4. can't really "slowplay" spades given that the villain doesn't have a flush until the river. another way of phrasing what i said in the video (something like "spades should put money in before the river") is, "i'd expect him to semibluff spades before getting the chance to hit on the river."