5 stars "bro".. ;)

c/raising depends on 12(?) different frequencies? which ones?

I may have been slightly exaggerating, but in the words of my biggest poker dweeb friend, "Everything is correlated, you fools. It's just that your Ns aren't big enough."

i missed the intro :'(

make a video about the new hud .... 

Keep make good power point video ... 

Just nice, that your still havin the motivation to make such super good teaching vids. Great job poker bro !

just another great vid

maybe you could record video also with practical hands in game? you could find a few hands, and talk about how deep we can think about hands, and how much factors ppl missing. video was great, but it will be best if you could make vid with some hands also.

This is yet another fantastic video that is well-worth rewatching since the theory is easy to agree with but just as easy to forget in-game. The math behind hitting the flop based on opening range surprised me. 

great video, maybe for the next video you can review a game (yours or someone's else), and actualyl point out these mistakes that you talk about, and how they should be thinking and applying these theories

I'm the poker dweeb in this video :/ (I went on temporary tilt after realising this, so please to be refunding my EV IMO. Though, I had a sinking suspicion from early on).

In my defence, my insistence on a high mark up for that prop bet was not so much based on the idea that people would clammer at any +EV opportunity, but if people insisted on anything significantly more in their favour I wasn't risk averse enough to justify giving up that much EV, and would reluctantly play with my own money. Additionally, while I was aware of the empirical evidence re: the ultimatum game, I figured that professional poker players would be much more likely to act "rationally" in such situations, especially if I explained the theory (and even if many didn't, I only needed enough for the stake). Incidentally, I believe some of the people I argued with may have fit your definition of "poker bro".

As for poker dweebery in general, I think there is substantial value in pure theory by helping you develop an intuition for poker. If you knew how to perfectly exploit everybody, then sure, go ahead and do that. But in situations where the proper exploitative response is unclear or difficult to compute on the spot, a strong theoretical foundation is highly useful. For example, knowing the Nash shoving charts is useful even if you never play anyone who it is optimal against. You can use the numbers as a starting point to be adjusted with other factor, additionally, you can make better rematching decisions by being able to easily determine how much your opponent has been deviating from optimal play. Even if a theoretical exercise does not directly propose any usable results, the *process* can sometimes provide insights. Now, this is not to say that you can't direct a suboptimal proportion of poker study time to pure theory, which I admit I have done in the past (and still do?)

On another note - who among well-known players best emplify the "poker dweeb" and "poker bro" archetypes? I'd say Bill Chen (co-author of Mathematics of Poker, the ultimate poker dweeb book) and Phil Hellmuth ("I can dodge bullets, baby") respectively.

Nichlemn,

I definitely exaggerated the example to make a point (it's "based on a true story"). I think you know this, but I definitely wasn't calling you out as a whole player or anything like that. It was just one specific example where we both made the wrong choice (imo) by leaning too much toward to simple theories rather than how those theories work in practice when things get a little more complicated. I forget what I said in this video after that, but I apologize if it was at all hurtful - I think I was a little careless in exaggerating to make my point. I knew that nobody else would know the story so it didn't matter how I described it to them, but I forgot you might actually watch this video too and say "hey, wait a minute, that's me! But that's not me!". Sincere apologies for any mischaracterizations in the name of storytelling.

I think in this video I also put myself squarely on the dweeb side of the line, so you're in good company. I'll defend the value of theory to the death against the poker bro (who has a much shorter lifespan in poker, anyway, so it's an easy fight).