Cash Game Poker Coach ListingsThis forum consists of threads by poker coaches who have paid for the privilege of beginning a thread with their details. All users are welcome to participate in these threads.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
Sup guys,
I'll most likely be launching my educational product, Smashing Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Written Insights on Modern Internet Poker, later this week. Here's its cover page to whet your appetite:
I've poured hundreds of hours over the last couple of months into making this thing as good as it can be. As mentioned, I'll be providing discounts to the first several buyers, so if you're interested in "trialing" something unique, please monitor this thread.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
Thanks for the question, sir.
It'll be $500 for the full package, but I understand that many people don't want to drop that much money on an educational poker product (without getting a strong taste of its quality, at least), so I'll also be offering two smaller packages (one for $300, one for $75) and providing everyone with the option to "complete" his purchase if desired by paying the remainder of the cost ($200 for those who own the $300 option, $425 for those who own the $75 option [those who own the $75 option and want to "upgrade" to the $300 option will also be able to pay $225 to do so]).
Finally, I'll be selling the full package at a 25% discount ($375) to the first five individuals who have 100+ posts and promise to review it in this thread or the "Books and Publications" forum within a few weeks of receiving it (you don't have 100+ posts, but if you decide that you want to take advantage of this upon launch, PM me and we can discuss).
I'm not going to bull**** you: the product's not cheap, but it shouldn't be cheap. It took a ton of time to produce and contains a depth and quality of information the likes of which have never been seen before in something like this. As you can see, I'm not going to insult your intelligence by selling it for $499.99 or $495. I'm also not going to obnoxiously post bold or colored text to attempt to grab you by the **** and nag you to focus on certain portions of what I write. Finally, I'm not going to bump this thread twice a day upon releasing the product à la X, Y, and Z (people can do whatever they want; I'd rather live my life). I'm confident that after a handful of people buy it, they'll be enthusiastic enough about it to spread the word for me.
Much more information (and a parodic "infomercial" ) is forthcoming. If you're interested, please stay tuned for the full ad.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
What does this cover? I'm not even sure if this is a book? A video? A combination of both? I'm potentially interested in being one of the first five with a review.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
It doesn't cover one specific facet of poker like this or this. It's meant to provide the buyer with a comprehensive understanding of what goes on in my head as I play (or observe) hands of no-limit hold 'em. It's meant to answer to the question, "Why is my (the buyer's) win rate 0-3 bb/100 and your (my) win rate ~6 bb/100?"
Despite what the monkey US government might think, the answer obviously isn't "luck." Despite what the dumbass bro with sunglasses and a stupid watch might think, the answer isn't "feel" or "intuition." Despite what the clueless noob might hope, the answer isn't "a system." The reasons my win rate was as high as it was are 1. I take into consideration significantly more factors than the average regular and 2. I think significantly more clearly about the game than the average regular.
I believe I do a good job of transferring this information to students during coaching sessions (the reviews in this thread corroborate that), but 1. unlike most people, I happen to communicate much more effectively in a written format than an oral one and 2. my product is a much better "value" than my coaching, in general; I believe the product is equivalent to (will improve your win rate as much as) at least 20 hours of my coaching. To be fair, you'll sacrifice the advantage of personalization by buying my (or anyone's) educational product instead of my (or anyone's) coaching, but I'm mitigating that to some extent by providing a brief coaching session to everyone who buys the full package.
The reason I keep using the word "product" and being vague about the format is that it's neither an e-book nor a video series. It has elements of both. It's three cherry-picked, heavily polished writeups on student videos (see the OP) along with a heavily polished version of the strategy material I send to each student prior to the beginning of coaching sessions and a bunch of extras. It consists of the three videos (one ~1.5-hour video, two ~45-minute videos) along with folders containing locked PDFs and other goodies.
Again, everything should become 110% clear when I post the ad ... of course, if there are any questions at that point, I'll be more than happy to field them.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
It doesn't cover one specific facet of poker like this or this. It's meant to provide the buyer with a comprehensive understanding of what goes on in my head as I play (or observe) hands of no-limit hold 'em. It's meant to answer to the question, "Why is my (the buyer's) win rate 0-3 bb/100 and your (my) win rate ~6 bb/100?"
Despite what the monkey US government might think, the answer obviously isn't "luck." Despite what the dumbass bro with sunglasses and a stupid watch might think, the answer isn't "feel" or "intuition." Despite what the clueless noob might hope, the answer isn't "a system." The reasons my win rate was as high as it was are 1. I take into consideration significantly more factors than the average regular and 2. I think significantly more clearly about the game than the average regular.
I believe I do a good job of transferring this information to students during coaching sessions (the reviews in this thread corroborate that), but 1. unlike most people, I happen to communicate much more effectively in a written format than an oral one and 2. my product is a much better "value" than my coaching, in general; I believe the product is equivalent to (will improve your win rate as much as) at least 20 hours of my coaching. To be fair, you'll sacrifice the advantage of personalization by buying my (or anyone's) educational product instead of my (or anyone's) coaching, but I'm mitigating that to some extent by providing a brief coaching session to everyone who buys the full package.
The reason I keep using the word "product" and being vague about the format is that it's neither an e-book nor a video series. It has elements of both. It's three cherry-picked, heavily polished writeups on student videos (see the OP) along with a heavily polished version of the strategy material I send to each student prior to the beginning of coaching sessions and a bunch of extras. It consists of the three videos (one ~1.5-hour video, two ~45-minute videos) along with folders containing locked PDFs and other goodies.
Again, everything should become 110% clear when I post the ad ... of course, if there are any questions at that point, I'll be more than happy to field them.
Thanks for the interest,
Jon
Hi Jon,
I like your attitude towards selling and the game. I like to talk to you via Skype or whatever to discuss my options and the most prefered and best option for met to pick. Please PM me or contact me via skype to sort things out .
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
Quote:
Originally Posted by tannenj
I'll most likely be launching my educational product, Smashing Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Written Insights on Modern Internet Poker, later this week.
I decided I wanted to polish a couple of components a bit more before launch. My apologies; didn't intend to mislead anyone. Won't be long, I promise.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
I have been playing online poker (mainly NL100 and NL200) for about three years now. In 2011, I asked Jon to review my game in form of session recordings. He has reviewed four consecutive sessions, and what can I say? I really enjoyed all of them! I especially appreciate the quality of Jon’s work, and I can recommend it without any constraints. Considering the time and effort he puts in (his analysis is VERY thorough and detailed), I personally think it’s absolutely worth the price. As with any similar coaching product, the learning effect you get out of it closely correlates with the effort you put in yourself. For example, I think that, when you record your session, it is crucial that you articulate as much of your thought process as possible (it sounds so simple and obvious, but it’s really not). Also, mention spots that give you trouble and explain the reasons for that. The more you provide Jon with how you think about poker, the more he’s able to explain where his thought process differs, and why. My experience was, that after 2-3 session, I recognized certain areas which repeatedly came up in Jon’s commentary. At that point, I noticed some flaws I previously was not aware of. For example, after re-watching the third video and listening to my own commentary, I just realized that I was constantly questioned my preflop play with hands such as KJo, ATo etc. out of position. For that reason, I would recommend taking at least 2-3 sessions to have your general game reviewed, and then maybe focus more on special areas and certain aspects. If I wasn’t taking a break from online poker at the moment due to personal time constraints, I most probably would ask Jon for additional session reviews. Besides that, I would DEFINITELY get his new product. I just cannot imagine it not being worth the price. Hope this helps you to get an impression of what to expect. Feel free to PM me if you have any questions.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
I play cash games 3-5, 5-10, games are 300-500 bb deep, games are 3 to 5 sometimes 6 handed. I don't play online never have and never will don't know how to read poker tracker. Would any of your courses help improve my game. Do you have any experience in these types of games (doesn't have to be live)? What info would you need from me for 1-1 coaching? Thank you for your time.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
whatsyourplay?,
Much appreciated. Hope everything's been going well on your end.
Ventura,
Thanks for the question.
To be honest with you, you'd probably get better value by going with a different coach (this guy comes to mind). Much of the value in my coaching comes from my ability to use (and, therefore, teach the use of) tracking software.
With that being said, I'm very confident in my ability to coach any NLHE cash game format (because I'm very confident in my NLHE fundamentals), have coached live players in the past, and have played with 300+-bb effective stacks in the past (the vast majority of my play has taken place with 100-200-bb effective stacks, though; I consider myself a 100-200-bb NLHE cash game specialist). The issue that exists with live players with regard to coaching is that it can be tricky to discuss hands that were played by the student because 1. live hands don't get transcribed anywhere (obviously) and 2. it's difficult to recall every last detail of multiple hands that were played in a live arena (it's relatively useless to discuss NLHE hands of which you don't recall every little detail -- NLHE is a complicated game and one's win rate hinges mostly on his ability to compile and react to small details). I have a nifty way of discussing live hands with students through Skype that's helpful as far as keeping track of the details of each hand (I'll show you if you book a session), but it's imperative for the student to be able to provide this information prior to the beginning of our discussion of each hand.
No matter whom you choose, I strongly recommend making it your business to show up equipped with 1. the detailed action of 5-10 interesting hands you've played recently and/or 2. a list of concepts and/or situations you think you'd benefit from discussing prior to your first session. Don't jump into it "cold," you'll end up wasting your money.
I don't offer any "courses." I'll be launching an educational product very soon (it consists of very thorough written analysis on videos that were sent to me by students along with a bunch of other written material) from which I believe just about everyone would benefit by purchasing, though (see below).
All,
I'm working on Smashing Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk right now ... decided to take a quick break to field my man's question. The truth is that 1. I would've had it on the market more than a month ago if I weren't one of the most anal/prideful humans on the planet and 2. I have very little ability to estimate the length of time it'll take me to accomplish things. I think that's the case for lots of poker players. I'm going to launch it very soon, though, as mentioned, and I have a feeling that the effort I've put into it will be appreciated.
GL,
Jon
Edit: Actually, Ventura, forget everything written above. Hire me, I'll teach you how to do this.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
Tannenj's post way back in the day about playing junk IP after stealing the button, was a pretty eye opening post for me at the time. It was one of those post's I would go back and read whenever I felt tilted. That was years ago and it appears he continued to find success in the poker games since then. Seems like a solid coach, I wish him luck on his new project. It will probably be very good.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
This review is long overdue and 100% unsolicited.
I've had about four or five coaching session with Jon over the last couple months. I've been a winning uNL player for the past couple years, mostly in full ring, and Jon coached me while I was transitioning to six max and beginning to take my game more seriously. I would HIGHLY recommend Jon as a coach, especially considering his rate. There's really no justifiable reason to pay someone else $500/hr for coaching when this option is available.
Our first session was a live sweat, the others were hand history reviews handpicked by moi. We covered 3betting, 4betting, playing 3bet pots, continuation betting, and a variety of other topics. FWIW I've watched a ton of videos/read posts/books/looked over my hands but learned a lot from these sessions. Jon is articulate and detailed in his responses and evaluation of your play. It's apparent he enjoys discussing poker, and I felt like he honestly cared about my progression as a player.
The best part about having Jon as a coach is the amount of effort he puts into your relationship. This guy worked around my schedule with no problem, gave me a TON of extra time/value over multiple sessions, sent me material to look over, provided homework, responded to my threads on 2p2, responded to hand histories over email, etc. etc.
My experience with Jon was great, definitely the best poker coaching I've hired without question. Before my first session I was struggling six tabling 10nl six max. Two months (or so) later I'm nine tabling a 25nl/50nl split and hope to take shots at SSNL in not too long. I believe that speaks for itself.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
markdirt,
Much appreciated. Don't hesitate to hit me up with a hand history when you feel like it.
Jeremy,
Thanks, dude. It's crazy that it's been more than five years since I wrote that. Poker was my life back then, and that was the case for a few of my friends as well, though they weren't quite as extreme about it. Obviously poker is still a big part of my life, but things aren't the same now ... partly because things change, and partly because of the scumbag US gov't. Legislation one time?
There are a few portions of the post that cause me to cringe a little when I read them now, but I like to think it was a good effort given the info. that was out there at the time and the fact that I'd only been playing NLHE for a little over a year. The seventh reply in the thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David1234
jesus christ what a long post, thank you for the time you put into this, i will read it when i take my ADD medication
I used to chat with this guy on AIM a bunch; he developed into a profitable 5/10 player. Super nice guy, but if he thinks the post was long, he'd better stay away from Smashing Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk.
On that note, SFHiYCD will officially launch within the next few hours (please stay tuned to this thread for my ad). My apologies to those of you who've requested written video analyses in the last month or so. I'm now accepting student videos again ... I'll contact you guys individually within the next couple of days to see if you're still interested. My apologies for delaying the release of SFHiYCD, as well. I hope those of you who buy it will think the wait was worth it.
re: Smash Fewer Holes in Your Computer Desk: Coaching, Educational Product From SSNL/MSNL Crusher
Please click the gear icon (to the right of the CC icon) to bump the video's resolution to 720p or 1080p prior to viewing it (it's necessary to click "Play" to spawn the gear icon):
Sup bros (and broettes?),
I'm not going to post strings of checkboxes, attempt to convince you that I have a "system" that'll turn you into the next Phil Ivey, or whore myself out in the comments sections of popular players' TableRatings pages in hopes of making an extra few thousand bucks. I'd rather sleep well at night (or in the morning and early afternoon ... I'm a poker player, after all). This stuff is difficult. There are no shortcuts to a strong hourly earn rate.
What I am going to do is announce the release of my new educational product, a collection of material that I sincerely believe is equivalent to 20+ hours of my private coaching, a $2,100+ value according to the market (I began coaching at $60/hour ~six months ago and have twice been forced to raise my rate due to a plethora of requests). I also sincerely believe that it's a collection that'll eventually become known as something of a bible of no-limit hold 'em HUD use.
As you know if you've read the original post in this thread, I encourage students and potential students to record live videos of themselves playing and orally commenting on no-limit hold 'em in real time so that I can provide them with written minute-by-minute analyses of their decision-making processes. 100% of these written analyses have been met with distinct satisfaction.
Recently, I decided to cherry-pick three of them, unite them with the videos with which they're associated, supplement them with the set of strategy articles I provide to each student prior to the beginning of our coaching relationship, polish each component, throw in some extras, and sell the package to interested parties (but only after obtaining permission from the creators of the chosen videos and having a professional video editor anonymize each video for me). The idea is for customers to print a video's accompanying written analysis (or open it on a second monitor if possible) prior to clicking "Play" and consult the analysis intermittently via clicking "Pause" as events unfold.
What's included:
1. ~50 pages of my written analysis on a ~90-minute student video covering four tables of $50 NL.
2. ~25 pages of my written analysis on a ~48-minute student video covering three tables of $50 NL and one table of $100 NL.
3. ~18 pages of my written analysis on a ~45-minute student video covering four tables of €200 NL.
Altogether, the three written analyses clock in at ~93 pages and 65,301 words (not ~57,000, as my “infomercial” suggests; it was produced several weeks ago, I've since added content). According to this post by Mason Malmuth, that's the length of a ~266-page Two Plus Two Publishing book (Harrington on Hold 'em, Volume 1 has 381 non-introductory/index pages; The Theory of Poker has 316).
4. A set of 10 strategy articles that I could likely use as the backbone of an e-book if I wanted to go that route. Instead, I'm including them here because they're referenced frequently in the written analyses and I want those who buy the product to glean as much from it as did the students for whom the written analyses were originally produced:
-"Balance vs. Exploitation"
-"Preflop Primer"
-"Ranges of Hands to Play From the Blinds Against Late-Position Raises"
-"Playing Small Pocket Pairs Against Habitual 3bettors"
-"W$WSF %, W$SD %, and WTSD % Primer"
-"Number Ranges for Peripheral Stats"
-"Continuation Betting vs. Checking on the Flop"
-"Conditions That Should Make You More Likely to 3-barrel Bluff"
-"Determining Whether You Have Enough Fold Equity to Go All In"
-"Suggested HUD Layout"
Altogether, the strategy articles clock in at 6,897 words.
5. A file containing my personal PokerTracker 3 setup (it'll modify both your HUD and in-program tabs [in some cases via the addition of custom stats, two of which I created myself]) for those of you who happen to use PokerTracker 3. Installing my setup is as easy as opening PokerTracker 3, clicking "File" and "Restore," and selecting the included file.
6. 30 minutes of Skype discussion with me about any of the scenarios that come up in the videos, any of the content in the strategy articles, politics or MMA, or any combination of the aforementioned subjects. Or we can spend the time BSing and sharing in-client chatting tactics designed to put opponents on tilt. It's up to you.
7. Supplementary goodies.
8. Easter eggs (seriously).
There are individuals who can boast superior deep-stacked no-limit hold 'em results to mine and individuals who are better at writing than I am, but I sincerely believe that there are few individuals who can put those abilities together and write about deep-stacked no-limit hold 'em poker as well as I can. Compounding that is the unlikelihood that any such individual is willing to sacrifice the personal time it takes to put together a product of this scope.
This product doesn't derive its bulk from pretentious DOG IS HEAD/traheho-style material, it derives it from numbers-heavy-kick-you-in-the-face-and-drench-you-with-logic material. Instead of attempting to convince you that I have a talent for breaking down no-limit hold 'em in a written format, though, I'm going to invite you to focus on 1. the (unsolicited) reviews that have been posted in this thread (not to mention the ones that will arrive following the submission of this post) and 2. several samples I've pulled from the product:
Quote:
35:31 (T1): The hero's open to $2 with 86o against bandit12 risks $1.75 to win $0.75 and must be met with a fold 71+% of the time in order to be immediately profitable (3:33 [page 4]). While I don't expect the villain to fold often enough for the open to generate an immediate profit, I like the play because I expect the hero to be able to compensate for the EV he loses preflop via taking advantage of a significant skill discrepancy postflop.
The A62 flop is a clear continuation betting spot (Strategy / Continuation Betting vs. Checking on the Flop) because 1. the hero is out of position, 2. the hero's pair is vulnerable, and 3. the villain seems to be splashy enough that betting would work well for value.
Once the flop goes “bet, call” and [the hero] adds a flush draw on the 3c turn, his equity against the villain's range is clearly too robust for him to check-fold; thus, process of elimination dictates that his decision should be between 1. betting again (for value) and 2. check-calling a bet (check-raising would be silly because 1. it would be way too thin for value, 2. it would be extremely unlikely to fold out a superior hand [superior 6x hands would be likely to fold to a check-raise if they were to bet when checked to, but such hands are combinatorically unlikely due to the hero's 6d blocker], and 3. it would expose [the hero] to a 3-bet against which he wouldn't be able to profitably continue).
In evaluating the hero's two reasonable options, it's important to ignore the strongest portion of the villain's range (top pair, two pair, sets, straights, and flushes) because it's impossible to change the outcome against these hands (they're never going to fold to a bet and will generally bet themselves if checked to, which means -- assuming the hero doesn't make a mistake -- money is going to go in the pot on the turn when the villain has one of them regardless of the hero's decision). The way to approach this scenario is via focusing on the manipulable portion of the villain's range (26:46 [page 15]): the hands against which 86 has an equity advantage.
With that in mind, the decision is a close one. I wouldn't expect bandit12 to fold to a turn continuation bet when he has any piece of the board of which 86 is ahead: 65, 64, 3x, 2x, XcY, 5x, or 4x. The only hands he'd be likely to fold to a turn continuation bet are non-club/5/4 undercards with which he decided to float the hero's flop bet (unlikely holdings even for a player who seems to play as loosely as bandit12).
The advantages of checking are that it 1. performs better than betting against these hands (KhTh, 8h7h, etc.) because while it's unreasonable to expect the villain to double-float with them, it's likely that he'll bluff with them if checked to and 2. avoids the possibility of seeing a raise against which it would be –EV to remain in the pot.
The advantage of betting is that it eliminates the possibility that the turn will check through, which -- as strange as this might seem -- makes the possibility of extracting three streets of value from the villain relatively likely and thereby increases the hero's EV. Regardless of whether the turn goes “bet, call,” “check, bet, call,” or “check, check,” it's very likely that betting or check-calling a bet on every river card except the six non-club 5s and 4s (check-calling on non-club/5/4 rivers, betting for value on club rivers) would be +EV because 1. if the river were a club, the 8c would provide the hero with a relatively strong hand (this is a blinds battle against a villain who seems very splashy, after all), 2. if the river were a brick, there would be enough missed draws in the villain's range for attempting to bluff-catch to be optimal, and 3. I generally wouldn't expect the villain to value bet top pair on the river. Given that, there's merit to inflating the size of the pot on the turn, because if putting money in the pot on the river would be profitable if the pot were $7.60, then -- assuming the increased pot size wouldn't significantly alter the villain's river decision-making process, which I think is a reasonable assumption -- putting money in the pot on the river would be even more profitable when the pot is larger (if the hero continuation bets $4.50 on the turn and gets called, the pot will be $16.60 on the river).
I estimate that the EV associated with betting the turn in order to increase the favorability of the river scenario trumps the EV to be had by checking the turn in order to 1. extract value from the villain's no-pair, no-draw hands and 2. eliminate the chance of being raised. Of course, this is far from an exact science: the quantity of variables inherent to this decision make it a cloudy one (it's very likely that betting and check-calling are similarly +EV; the important thing to realize about this scenario is that both options are superior to check-folding).
The turn goes “check, bet, call” and the river card pairs the 3. The river card slams 53 and 43 but isn't threatening in light of the villain's aggregate range. As explained, I recommend check-calling at this point. The villain's decision to quickly take the free showdown with Ad9c is unsurprising (my suspicion that his river betting range is polarized in this sort of scenario is crucial to my estimate that check-calling a river bet would've been +EV), is worthy of a “confirmation” note, and would cause me to be even more likely to attempt to bluff-catch him on future rivers.
Quote:
36:19 (T2): An interesting hand here with AKs. Insofar as the opener is a thinking player, a 3-bet from the hero would look very strong to him because the hero would be attacking his hijack open (Strategy / Preflop Primer). The villain is 30/10 thus far over a 10-hand sample, but such a sample is more or less meaningless, even as far as improving one's idea of a player's true VP$IP %/preflop raise %* (the exception is when a player is playing 100/100, 90/0, etc.).
*VP$IP % and preflop raise % converge more quickly than any other stat because their convergence occurs with every hand that gets dealt.
I'd love to have an additional read here, even if it were something as simple as the number of tables the villain was playing (I'd be more likely to provide a recommendation to 3-bet for value [with a plan to shove over a 4-bet, of course] if the villain were playing one or two tables because that would indicate that he's relatively likely to be the sort of player who doesn't understand how strong the hero's 3-betting range “should” be in this scenario and would therefore be more likely to give action with inferior hands than he “should” be). If the villain were playing four or more tables, I'd recommend just calling his open with a plan to put some sort of move on him (a float, usually) on boards with which the hero's hand failed to connect. In the actual scenario, I estimate that there's little difference in EV between 3-betting the open and calling it.
To be clear, there are factors worth consideration when making this sort of preflop decision other than the perceived strength of your 3-betting range. If 1. you have a read that the opener plays poorly postflop, 2. there are habitual squeezers behind, and/or 3. there are fish behind, you should be more likely to just call in this sort of scenario. If you have a read that the opener has a tendency to 1. 4-bet bluff preflop and/or 2. make light calls of preflop 3-bets, you should be more likely to 3-bet.
The hero elects to 3-bet and sees a Qd8h3d flop that provides him with a nut flush draw, a backdoor Broadway straight draw, and two overcards, a huge drawing hand. If the villain checks, there's merit to checking behind because 1. the hero's hand has enough of an equity advantage over an unpaired hand that inducing a fold from an unpaired hand would be an unfavorable result, 2. the hero should be comfortable calling a turn bet on a brick (and probably a river bet on another brick) if he checks behind the flop, 3. the fact that the hero doesn't have a pair means that there are relatively few inferior hands from which he should expect to get action if he bets (inferior flush draws -- hands from which the hero should be elated to get action -- would give action, but they're unlikely because there are likely to be few XdYd hands in the villain's range in light of A. the preflop action and B. the fact that the hero holds both the Ad and the Kd) and that a bet wouldn't work great for value, and 4. the fact that people tend not to fold pairs in 3-bet pots (for good reason) means that there are relatively few superior hands from which the hero should expect to induce folds (22 and 44-77 would probably fold, but they, like XdYd, must be discounted due to the preflop action) and that a bet wouldn't work great as a bluff.
There's also merit to continuation betting, however, because 1. the hero will be able to comfortably make a profitable 3-bet over a check-raise if the villain check-raises, which significantly increases the value associated with continuation betting and 2. the pot is inflated due to the preflop action, which means that in a sense, dragging it with a continuation bet would be a favorable result (the hero would earn a 10.5-bb profit if he were to drag the current pot; the average winning player's win rate with AKs is 2-3 bb/hand).
As an aside, insofar as the hero expects Chucknash23 to be 1. a strong player and 2. a player with whom he'll play again in the future, it's important for him to realize that checking behind would be likely to cause Chucknash23 to think the hero's continuation-betting range is polarized (and, therefore, air-heavy [it's significantly more combinatorically feasible to be holding air or a very weak draw than a nutish hand {12:03 <page 10>}]) and (correctly) begin to attack the hero's continuation bets. This wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because the hero would of course be able to pre-emptively adjust or re-adjust (Strategy / Balance vs. Exploitation), but insofar as the hero makes a habit of checking behind flops in this sort of scenario against strong players without acknowledging the implications of doing so, it's likely that he's setting himself up to get clowned by such players in the future.
Obviously, in the actual hand, both betting and checking behind the flop are significantly +EV if the villain checks to the hero due to the strength of the hero's hand and the fact that he has position. I recommend checking behind, as I think it's more +EV. If the villain checks and the hero decides that he must continuation bet, his sizing should be no larger than half the size of the pot. There's generally little reason to continuation bet more than half the size of the pot in position after 3-betting preflop, and this is especially key in this hand because a large bet would theoretically make the villain less likely to check-raise with a weak hand, an extremely profitable development that the hero should want to make as likely as possible.
Once the villain donk bets, [the hero] is faced with a decision that's similar to the hypothetical one above: calling the donk bet is analogous to checking behind the flop and raising it is analogous to continuation betting. The differences are that 1. there will be more money in the pot if [the hero] calls the donk bet than if the flop were to have checked through and 2. the range with which the villain donk bets the flop is different from the range with which he'd check it (whether the first range is stronger or weaker than the second one is debatable [this is the sort of issue that illustrates that no-limit hold 'em is far from being a “solved” game]). I submit that the first range is weaker than the second one; with that in mind, I recommend just calling the donk bet with a plan to 1. call a turn bet on any card and 2. check behind the turn if it bricks off and the villain checks.
Raising the donk bet, the hero's decision, certainly isn't unreasonable. Insofar as he expects himself to make mistakes later in the hand and therefore wants to make the hand “easier to play,” raising is arguably the “optimal” way to proceed here from a short-term perspective, though it's important to avoid this sort of thinking, in general (instead, one should focus on on improving his turn and river decision-making to a point where he has no qualms about choosing the most +EV play when encountered with a flop decision).
While [the hero]'s decision to raise is reasonable, his decision to raise to $15.76 is a mistake. The smaller this raise, the more +EV it is (min-raising is the optimal sizing). The bigger the raise, the less fold equity the villain will be likely to think is associated with a 3-bet (extreme example: if the hero raises the villain's donk bet all in, the villain will know that there's no fold equity associated with a 3-bet). It's –EV to gift information to an opponent in the absence of a compelling reason to do so; the more information an opponent has at his disposal, the fewer mistakes he'll make. You should make it your business as a poker player to 1. make mistakes as infrequently as possible and 2. induce mistakes from your opponents as frequently as possible.
The hero's raise to $15.76 makes it relatively difficult for the villain to make a play such as spaz-3-betting with AhJd. Such a play would be unlikely to see regardless of the hero's raise sizing, of course, but if it happens once every 1,000 times this sort of scenario surfaces in the future due to the hero's nuanced understanding of raise sizing, that's money in his pocket (“poker is one long session”). To be fair, the line of thinking that leads me to the conclusion that min-raising is the optimal raise sizing in this scenario would be clearer if the hero held QQ instead of AdKd because while inducing a fold from a hand like 4h3h would be a ~neutral result in the actual hand, it would be a disastrous result in a nearly-identical hypothetical hand in which the hero held QQ.
All things considered, I estimate that calling this flop donk bet > min-raising it >>>> raising it big >>>[insert several million more “greater than” signs]>>> folding to it. If the hero had min-raised and the villain had just called, I'd recommend checking through a brick turn if given the opportunity and calling a bet on a brick river with the expectation of snapping off a bluff made by a “strange” hand (the villain's line would be too absurd for folding to his hypothetical river bet not to be a mistake). [The hero]'s hand would improve on the turn or river more often than not after min-raising, but as you can see, even his worst-case scenario would've been playable.raising, but as you can see, even his worst-case scenario would've been playable.
Quote:
28:43 (T2): AQ is of course a 3-bet in this preflop scenario, and [the hero] is correct that his sizing doesn't matter because both the opener and the big blind are short enough that it will be obvious to them that any 3-bet is committing. If one or both of these villains were sitting with ~€50, [the hero]'s sizing would be relevant because he'd be able to 3-bet to ~€11 (~22% of effective stacks) and thereby provide the illusion of fold equity, which would theoretically cause him to get increased action from inferior hands (Theory: Playing Against Winning Shortstackers).
While it's impossible to change the outcome of a hand like this one against the nutish portion of these players' ranges (all the money is going to go in the pot regardless of whether you 1. 3-bet to 20% of effective stacks or 2. 3-bet shove), it's important to focus on the manipulable portion of your opponents' ranges. Consider that marginal starting hands such as A8 that might 4-bet shove over a 3-bet to 20% of effective stacks 10% of the time would call a 3-bet all in ~0% of the time.
With that being noted, it's worth pointing out that there will usually be bigger stacks present in hands that you play against shortstacked raisers; bigger stacks bring to the table their own issues and it can be tricky to come up with plays that perform well against both stack sizes. For example, consider a scenario in which a player with €45 behind min-opens to €4 on the button and you contemplate making it €10 to go with AA from the small blind. A fullstacked player in the big blind would call such a 3-bet with a wider range of starting hands than he would a €16 3-bet, which is quite a noteworthy factor given that he has position on you.
There's a direct relationship between 1. the size difference between a shortstacker's stack and the effective sizes of non-shortstackers' stacks and 2. the inherent edge the shortstacker has on the non-shortstackers. Winning shortstackers derive the bulk of their edges from the fact that fullstacked players must play at least two stack sizes (theirs and shortstackers') while shortstackers must play only one (theirs). This, of course, is the reason that IMSAKIDD will always be known as a massive tool regardless of the number of times he says, “Choo choo” shortstacking is generally frowned upon within and considered “cheesy” by the online poker community.
You should consider buying this product if:
1. You learn better by reading words than hearing them spoken.
2. You've bought an e-book or five and are interested in improving your game by studying something fresh.
3. You're a "numbers player" and want to bolster your understanding of poker math and/or learn how to use your HUD optimally.
4. You want to pick the brain of a successful player about the scenarios that tend to arise in the world of contemporary Internet poker but haven't gotten around to doing so because you'd rather not clown around with video-making software or have to coordinate timing with someone who lives halfway around the planet.
5. You tend to enjoy learning from individuals who are willing to attempt to insert humor into the educational process.
You should avoid this product if:
1. You don't care about poker.
2. You can't read.
3. You're uncomfortable with the idea of me surrounding myself with hookers and blow.
Price: $500
Click the image above to purchase the product. I'll email you download links within 24 hours of your purchase time.
I've decided to sell the product at 25% off -- $375 -- to the first five individuals who have 100+ posts and email me at the Gmail address in my "infomercial" to request a copy. The catch: you must agree to post a substantive review of the product in this thread or the "Books and Publications" forum within a few weeks of receiving it (I have little ability to enforce this ... please don't be an ******* about it). Additionally, it's likely that I'll give you some sort of discount if 1. you're a popular and/or talented writer who promises to post a review of the product on 2+2 or in some other high-traffic location or 2. you're a student or former student of mine who's purchased at least three coaching sessions.
If you'd like a signed hard copy of the written material to in addition to the electronic version, please purchase the electronic version of the product and respond to my email with your address and I'll be happy to accommodate you. I'll charge you $33 (the cost of producing a partial-color hard copy at Kinko's) plus the cost of shipping, however.
If 1. $500 is a bit much for you and/or 2. you'd like to get a stronger taste of the product prior to making the commitment to purchase the whole thing, I'm also offering a couple of smaller deals:
1. $300 will get you a "mini-product" consisting of the 10 strategy articles and ~50 pages (34,361 words) of my written analysis on the ~90-minute student video.
2. $75 will get you the 10 strategy articles.
If you purchase one of these and then decide you want the entire product, you can ship me the remainder of the cost ($200 if you own the mini-product, $425 if you own the strategy articles) and I'll have the whole thing to you within 24 hours (if you purchase the strategy articles and then decide you want the mini-product, you can ship me $225 and I'll have the mini-product to you within 24 hours).
Finally, a quick note about piracy (please ignore the spoilered content unless you're considering purchasing and pirating the product ):
Spoiler:
I don't know why people share educational poker products (it's generally counterproductive), but it seems to happen to every worthwhile e-book on the market. The files in my product are password-locked. Every copy I sell will contain 1. unique passwords, 2. unique metadata, and 3. unique watermarks. I'll be Googling the product every so often and it's likely that if you upload it to the Internet, I'll know that it was you who did it. Then, it's likely that I'll 1. sue you and/or 2. expend a good deal of energy trying to hurt you. Pirate the product at your own risk. /e-thug
Spoiler:
Note to "Anonymous": You guys are exempt. You can have a copy for free.