Guys, what can u say about that video? is it good? ) just dunno, watch it or not.

First off in general really cool vid for donk betting just because of this particular villain.

8:15ish of vid the JT call on riv...what bluffs are in his range really? I don’t know if I make this fold here but I feel like it is almost always if not always 2x. Given the board texture and the poor poker intelligence of villain I think this is just a really face up 2x vbet. I feel like I call here a lot knowing that he has a 2 and kicking myself for not being good enough to fold given that I perceive him to have a 2 so much.

16:30ish I don’t understand not leading the flop here with 97 on J93. Shouldn’t we be leading out entire value range here no matter what because he doesn’t cbet? You say he’s played straight foward vs our leading range so doesn’t that make it even better? Are you worried about him raising the flop, if so why? Wouldn’t we just see what his size is? If it is something ridic big we can just fold and feel good about it. Also we don’t let his stupid weak draw hands (diamonds, 87-T8, etc) realize equity on the turn if we donk bet. Would love your explanation on this one.

21:48ish I REALLY don’t understand your check here on the flop. You flatted 65s oop and then don’t lead 652 board vs this guy who we know is going to check back a ton...why? Do you feel like he will fold too much when you bet here? So just hope he has something strong enough to cbet and c/r? I kind of get that but I still feel like leading is better because of the wetness of the board (esp diamond draws which we don’t have a blocker to) and just simply to protect our equity on a board like this vs hands like 87, 97, A3, A4 etc. You say that if we check here he can potentially pick up equity on later streets and give us value. I feel like that happens less often than him either just having air that he can’t continue with or having hands that will actually beat us when they realize equity on the turn (the range i put him on above). 

24:45ish Again I don’t understand why you don’t lead this flop. AJT with J2, especially if we are just going to be check/folding if he does cbet (which I think is right which is why I would lead). We know he is capable of cbet bluffing (he cbet/folded the 652 board) and even more so now I think with you leading flops so much. If he has even half a brain he should perceive your range to be weaker when you check flops to him.

25:30ish Lol again I don’t understand not leading here. You said earlier (and i agree) that Axx boards are bad to lead when we don’t have an A. That means they should be good to lead and hopefully go for 3 streets when we have the A, no? Especially on this board texture. It is slightly wet and we have a 6 which is a semi-blocker to his potential straight draw hands.

Last thing is just a general thing. You talk some about balancing your range in terms of leading and checking value on the flop. I would ask first off why vs this villain would you do that? I would just keep leading until he started to adjust to it in some way and then possibly change my range some then. Like if he started to cbet every time I checked or something I would start checking some value for example. And my 2nd part to this question is can you be more specific about why and how you would balance your value range in this way vs this particular villain.

Last hand of the game you did the H2Olga move! Bet just under a quarter of eff stx to induce a jam and call. Love it.

That’s it, sorry for the book. <3

8:15 - I feel like you're thinking about the river as an isolated incident. As if we look at river and make a decision. You and I both know that a poker hand is a story (as lame as that saying is), and his story makes very little sense. Raises flop huge with 2x really? What % of the time do you think he does that given what we know about him so far? If we were going to have a guess right then and there as to what he has and I gave you 2 hands; T9 and 2x, which would you choose as most likely? Then he checks turn, ok so we can take the upper part of his range out probs? 2x and T9 though would both still make sense, would u agree? OTR I think it just makes no sense. His val range is 2x but imo given his line he can have complete spazzouts and T9o (a bluffhand that makes sense). There is 12 combos of T9, we are getting 3.2-1 so even if we just consider his range as 2x and T9 there needs to be more than 50 combos of 2x (or any hand that beast us). Doubt that there is tbh, and that's not even considering other random spazzouts.

16:30 -  As I say in the video, I think we play better against his equity hands ott. It's not like he is going to fold T8 on the flop or anything, plus if we lead here he just folds all his pure misses and continues things that do well against us. When we are called here we're playing against a really strong range oop and we inflated the pot. If we eval his flop actions (which will be check a lot), then we can play better OTT against the same wide range he had on the flop. His equity hands will mostly have far less equity (and sometimes other hands pickup small amounts of equity to warrant a call that wqould have folded flop) and I am never really expecting to get 3 streets of val with this hand anyways, would prefer to somewhat pot control (ugh i hate saying that) and play the t/r on my own terms most of the time. I do not care at all about a flop raise, it would be an ez fold, didn't even cross my mind tbh.

21:48 - bet/3bet is feesable here (if I thought he would raise his draws etc), but I think he will just flat his draws if I lead so they realize equity anyways? If I c/r then I leverage and put him in a get in or fold spot OTF at a good time to do it (when we have top2). You are assuming that we see the turn with the same flop actions when he has legit draws AND the hands that may pickup some equity ott, and I feel that is wrong. Vs his checkback range we want him to pickup small pieces of equity so we can get some value (hands that would/probs have folded otf). But his legit draws etc IMO he cbets and we can get it in. Not saying that I always elect to c/r here, but at the time w/dynamics etc I felt it was best.

24:45 - Feel this is pretty nitpicky =P I acknowledge at the time it's a bit nitty. But if we lead here what worse hands does he continue (not many imo)? I think we actually define his range by checking almost just as well. I also you're emphasizing the "we know he cbet bluffs", when we have seen him cb/fold one time where he def could have had smth and decided to fold vs my c/r range in that spot.

25:30 - Pure randomization. Maybe go and listen to my explanation again in vid. Don't think I say Axx are bad to lead unless we have an A, I just said that they're bad in general bc people spazz more often on them than any other type of board (OR i mis-spoke which is possible). Vs this guy though, they're fine bc he plays fit/fold so they're close to the best boards to lead vs him. However, when we have a hand on Axx we know he will be folding a huge % and we don't want that, so we randomize and mix in some checks as well.

Last thing is just a general thing. You talk some about balancing your range in terms of leading and checking value on the flop. I would ask first off why vs this villain would you do that? I would just keep leading until he started to adjust to it in some way and then possibly change my range some then. Like if he started to cbet every time I checked or something I would start checking some value for example. And my 2nd part to this question is can you be more specific about why and how you would balance your value range in this way vs this particular villain.

As I said to you on AIm it is to have different dimensions. I intended and intend to play him more often and it is very easy for him to adjust to 100% leading. It is not as easy for him to adjust to my randomized ranges whereby I am leading, checking and leading turn, check-raising, and check-calling. Much harder for him to work out what I am doing and make the correct adjustments.

Happy to continue discussing anything you disagree/wanna know more about just lemme know! <3 Thanks for questions!

Ok sweet, really good stuff I love all your explanations. I was wrong you didn't say that Axx was bad to stab without an A I just figured that's what you were implying. I see what you mean though and I really like your analysis on this hand. The only thing I think (and I told you this on aim) is that I think you're giving this guy too much credit. Like I don't think you necessarily have to "throw a big pile of shit" at him as you say making it impossible for him to adjust. I think he's bad enough that you can just beat him over the head with your edge a little more until he adjusts. I think that may just be a slight difference in style between us though. Great vid, 5 stars! :)