I do NOT recomend d2themfi as a coach!

[thomastano]

Sorry if this is wrong forum, please move thread if so!

I bought a package of 10 hours of coaching by d2themfi and regret that very much.

The reasons for that are several, but among them are:

He was very grumpy and arrogant when we spoke on skype and msn. You can say stuff and complain on stuff in a bad way and in a nice way. He did it in a bad way.

The strategy he gave me in writing (since I wanted to avoid skype) was very disapointing. Last writing he sent me he charged me 1, 5 hours for a one page letter that he recomended three stuff that would take 5 mins to explain for me. If the stuff he gave was absolutely ground breaking I would be fine but sadly it was on a beginners level and not at all what I had tried to tell him several times what I wanted.

He did not answer the emails I send to him that he had promised to answer since I was his student. One email he says he did not understand that I wanted his opinion on how to play because I wrote I was sure one certain way had to be correct. The other question was more specific tho, and he could not have missed to understand that I was asking a question.

I politely sent him an email that I wanted to cancel the coaching, gave him the reasons, told him that I was sure he was a nice guy and an awsome pokerplayer but that he did not suit my purposes. I also asked him if he was willing to give back some money of the money I already had given him for lessons that I had not yet received. I did not demand anything, I just asked him.

He then contacted me on msn and started behaving like a crazy spoiled child, saying that it was me that was the problem, he said that I would not get any money back and then started accusing me for lying just to get money back and so on. I then told him that I did not care about a couple of hundred bucks if it was such big of issue for him and that he did not have to give me a penny if he did not want to.

He finaly charged me for 6, 5 hours of coaching, I did not get any discount at all for him missing one skype session or him 2 times not sending me the writings in time.

I am sure that d2themfi is an awsome pokerplayer and an awsome poker theorist, but as a coach my opinion is that he is too childish, to bad at listening to his students kneeds, too grumpy and too nonchalant.

The reason that he charge me several hours of coaching on strategy that was on a beginners level is not because he does not know more advanced level, it is because he is bad at knowing how to coach and bad at listening to his student.

He told me that he had several happy students and I am sure he is going to make them post responses here to tell how awsome he is. I can just congratulate you guys, for you guys he may be perfect, but for me he was not.

[d2themfi]

ok, i am writing up a response to this currently.

[bigjimmylea1]

OK I am not bein a huge fanboy or anything but I am not 100% sure I agree w/ your decision to post this in a public forum like this as it seems a bit drastic and cut-throat to d2's reputation.

Do you really think this was a fair thing to do? It seems kinda drastic to me and maybe you could have got in touch w/ Leggo support or something to get another opinion on your predicament and see if they couldn't have tried to sort it out for both parties.

I know its nothing to do with me but just my thoughts.

[Dustylove]

Hey, it has to be fairly relevant to post this since it basically gives information to the public and potential buyers. Someone who takes 150 USD/hours so better provide a good product.

[desire]

Originally Posted by bigjimmylea1

OK I am not bein a huge fanboy or anything but I am not 100% sure I agree w/ your decision to post this in a public forum like this as it seems a bit drastic and cut-throat to d2's reputation.

Do you really think this was a fair thing to do? It seems kinda drastic to me and maybe you could have got in touch w/ Leggo support or something to get another opinion on your predicament and see if they couldn't have tried to sort it out for both parties.

I know its nothing to do with me but just my thoughts.

will have to wait for the other side to reply but i think this is a fair notice to anyone

[Laser Show]

Hey Thomas, I'll accept your congratulations as D2themfi was a perfect coach for me.

Your thread is a classic axe to grind post that looks nothing like a PSA for forum members and just a way for you to express your unhappiness for not evolving as a player and wanting your money back as a result.

I've had 3 coaches and the truth is I've been happy with ALL of them b/c there's something to learn from everyone's style. Coaching rates aren't cheap but I still think they're a massive bargain, but like everything in life the onus is on you to apply it and become a better player.

To specifically address the claims you're making I will say that his coaching is absolutely NOT on a beginner's level. He puts a ton of brainpower and practice behind his concepts and I think I can say with some certainty that a lot of what we worked on doesn't show up in HU forum threads and I think affords his student a nice edge against HU competition.

As far as the other claims, I don't really think there's any point in addressing them specifically as you're reporting that as your experience but I found Danny plenty mature and professional/responsible and I'm 10+ years older than him.

You really have to ask yourself what the purpose of this thread is? And yeah, you're right, I'd expect lots of people with direct experience with Danny to weigh in positively on his behalf. Most people reading this probably care more about results than personality stuff anyway, so I will just emphasize that I learned the most in theory under D2themfi than any other coach.

[vatseystav]

I think bigyjimmylea makes a very good point to just blast this in an open forum instead of bringing up
your issues to leggo hierarchy seems just a blatant way of having an axe to grind.

Everyone has different experiences, but ilke whuppatrick, I have had nothing but a positive exp. with Danny methods and never had a problem with him, hes be conscientious and most importanly helpful in improving my game and opening up my eyes to different cocepts and nuances about the game.

All you have to do is watch danny vids (and likewise the scores they have received) to show he puts up a heck of a lot of effort into what he is teaching and that does show someone that cares. Also just look at HU forum he is a frequent poster which cannot be said of a lot of pros across a lot of other training sites.

-STAV

[d2themfi]

Oh where to begin.

First of all Thomas, this disappoints me. This morning during our conversation you never mentioned you were going to post this. Plus I made what I deemed as a fairly signifcant compromise with you, you take my $, and then post this also.

Originally Posted by thomas.t

I bought a package of 10 hours of coaching by d2themfi and regret that very much.

This is true. When I started coaching Thomas my rate was 150$/hr, and I gave him a deal of buying 10hrs at 1250$, paying upfront. Pretty standard in the coaching world.


The reasons for that are several, but among them are:

He was very grumpy and arrogant when we spoke on skype and msn. You can say stuff and complain on stuff in a bad way and in a nice way. He did it in a bad way.[/quote]


I still challenge you to produce anything besides our final conversation where I was anything less than cordial.

First of all from our first lesson, skype calls with you were unbearable. the static on the line was always enormous (note I have never had this problem with any other student, so it seems weird to think this was a problem on my end). Plus many times in those first couple sessions it would be extremely hard for me to hear you because of your very accent. The static combined with your accent might have caused me to use a louder voice, but I dont see how thats an issue

Furthermore, not once did you tell me I was being grumpy or arrogant, until our final conversation this morning, and when you did, you did not actually provide me any legitamate examples of my grumpy or arrogant(or as you put it this morning "childish") behavior, even after I asked you several times

I will post our chat log below

Originally Posted by thomas.t

The strategy he gave me in writing (since I wanted to avoid skype) was very disapointing. Last writing he sent me he charged me 1, 5 hours for a one page letter where he recomended three stuff that would take 5 mins to explain for me. If the stuff he gave was absolutely ground breaking I would be fine but sadly it was on a beginners level and not at all what I had tried to tell him several times what I wanted.

First of all you keep saying this, yet from talking with you about poker I really doubt youd be able to come up with any of that stuff on your own. You seem to think that the work I did was just thrown together w/o any hard calculations at all.

To clarify maybe I should explain a bit. First of all, my approach to the game is very mathematically oriented, with a strong emphasis placed on balance and game theory. It says this in my coaching bio on leggo:

"My playing and coaching style is based very heavily on mathematics. My goal as a player is to constantly be increasing my mathematical ability to calculate EV, count combos, and exploit my opponents counter strategies when I am away from the table. My goal in coaching you would be to instill that same knowledge in you, and provide you with ways to work on your mathematical understanding of poker on your own. I think the more you increase your knowledge away from the table, the more you are able to just 'let go' so to speak while you are playing, and let the things you studied away from the table, become second nature at the table."


(mods, I hope it is ok to post this. Im doing so soley for the purpose of showing my point. If this is not kosher, due to the rules of the site, I understand)


Quite simply I have done a ton of work with programs like stox ev, as well as theorizing on my own, as well as receiving coaching from one of the more GT oriented players on 2p2, in order to come up with the things I wrote up for Thomas.

In total I wrote up 5 different files for Thomas. He has complained that I did not answer what he wanted to learn about. Well quite simply He is totally wrong. I did answer EXACTLY what he told me, even when this was stuff that I did not think we should cover

Like I said earlier much of my coaching revolves around how to construct a strategy that is well balanced and difficult to exploit. I wrote up 4 different files on what I believe to be proper 3betting, flatting, and opening ranges for 6max nl, and why. I also included how to respond to 3bets by each position, and they "whys" of why I choose to defend an exact % of hands from each position(again this can all be broken down mathematically).

Originally Posted by thomas.t

He did not answer the emails I send to him that he had promised to answer since I was his student. One email he says he did not understand that I wanted his opinion on how to play because I wrote I was sure one certain way had to be correct. The other question was more specific tho, and he could not have missed to understand that I was asking a question.

heres your email


"Hi!

Here is my example of a hand where I wonder if I should protect my checking- or semibluffing range on turn.

Let us say I open with QJcc from UG plus 1, button calls, flop is Q98 ss, I bet he calls, turn is a blank.

Should I know check call to protect my checking range or bet to protect my semibluffing range?

Thanks!"


Sent 12 minutes later


"Just wanted to mention that I am sure I should bet that turn and protect semibluffing range. The reason I wondered tho, was becauseI today saw that hand in a new video at leggo poker I believe, and the instructor chosed to protect the checking range on turn."


Like I said in our msn convo today, I looked at this email, and did not think I should or could respond. I mean you ask a question and then tell me you already know the answer. I do believe from talking with you this morning that partly this is just a language barrier problem. Your english is ok but not great, and seems to have caused a misunderstanding here.


I did miss one email of his, that simply got lost in the pile. it was this

"I am also surprised that you value A9s-A7s higher than A5s-A2s. Should not the straight draw possibility have more value than top pair value with a weak ace?"

I apologize for that.

Originally Posted by thomas.t

I finaly politely sent him an email that I wanted to cancel the coaching, gave him the reasons, told him that I was sure he was a nice guy and an awsome pokerplayer but that he did not suit my purposes. I also asked him if he was willing to give back some money of the money I already had given him for lessons I had not taken. I did not demand anything, I just asked him.

I have to be honest with you. I am VERY unsatisfied with your coaching. You take forever to finish this 10 hours, even tho I told you when we started that I wanted to do an intense course, you should have told me then if you did not have the time or the will to do that , when we speak on skype you are grumpy, you dont send me the writings on time, and you have very difficult to understand my needs and what I am looking for you as a coach.

I told you before you wrote this that I did not want to play based on math. I told you that I wanted to learn how to protect ranges and how to exploit those who dont. You answered..."well, balancing is math"

I do not like the idea of playing poker based on hud stats and pokerstove, and it IS possible to talk about protecting ranges without using percentages. I can give you som examples of how a coach can teach about balancing.

"If you often have a wide value range on this river, you should also bluff this river often"

"If this turn card is a card you would bluff often you should also bet it with your semi good hand even if it means that you can be check raised of it to protect your future bluffs"

"If your opponent uses potcontroll in position as the preflop aggressator and bet turn with a second pair type hand, you should check raise turn often"

"If your opponent leads in to you on turn, after you have checked behind on flop as the preflop aggressator you should look for what strenght of hands he is doing it with. If he does it with a value hand you can always bluff the times he does not lead into you on turn."

"You dont have to protect your double barrel range on a wet board by barreling with air, since you will barrel so often with a draw"

"If an ace falls on turn do not potcontrol, bet it even with a semi strong hand to protect for all the times you want to repp the ace"

Etc, etc.

I do not think this is working out well at all and believe you would agree? I payed for 10 lessons with a discount, I understand that I am not qualified for a discount if we finish the coaching now. I would hope for tho, that you could take normal rate for those hours I have already gotten and give me the rest of the money back?

I am sure you are a nice guy, and an awsome pokerplayer, it is just that for me, and my kneeds, you are not a good coach. I hope you understand?

Thomas




I removed a few parts as they relate to some of the coaching concepts, which I am not going to post on a public forum(And you shouldnt either)

Quite simply, you hire a math coach(Like I said it says right in my bio on leggo, and Thomas contacted me on Leggo), and then complain when I teach you about the math behind the game? I guess you did not even bother to read my coaching page or watch any of my videos, or read any of my forum posts on leggo?

Originally Posted by thomas.t

He then contacted me on msn and started behaving like a crazy spoiled child, saying that it was me that was the problem, he said that I would not get any money back and then started accusing me for lying just to get money back and so on. I then told him that I did not care about a couple of hundred bucks if it was such big of issue for him and that he did not have to give me a penny if he did not want to.

He finaly charged me for 6, 5 hours of coaching, I did not get any discount at all for him missing one skype session or him 2 times not sending me the writings in time.

I am sure that d2themfi is an awsome pokerplayer and an awsome poker theorist, but as a coach my opinion is that he is too childish, to bad at listening to his students kneeds, too grumpy and too nonchalant.

The reason that he charge me several hours of coaching on strategy that was on a beginners level is not because he does not know more advanced level, it is because he is bad at knowing how to coach and bad at listening to his student.

He told me that he had several happy students and I am sure he is going to make them post responses here to tell how awsome he is. I can just congratulate you guys, for you guys he may be perfect, but for me he was not.

Ok so here I am going to post all of our email correspondence, as well as any relevant chat logs, and Ill be done with this

Id also like to point out that in my short coaching career, I have coached 10 students, and you are the ONLY one that has any problem with me. And yes, I am going to have my other students come in here and write a review, good or bad, so you cansee that I am not lying


His first email before we started up sessions

Originally Posted by thomas.t

Hi there!

Here is my question:

As everybody know you take different lines against different opponents on the flop when being the preflop aggressator. On the same flop you check fold to some opponents, bet flop with the intention to bet a blank turn to some, take the bet, check, bet line to some opponent....etc.

What line you chose to take is based on many things, preflop ranges, how bluffy, tricky, passive, aggressive the opponent are, if he bluff raises wet boards or dry boards, if he floats, if he is a nit abc player, is he capable raising turn with a draw?, and so on.

There are so many factors to take into consideration when deciding what line to take when planning the hand on flop and further streets.

My question is:

When playing more than 3 tables and playing against many unknown opponents, how on earth do you know what line to take. Surerly looking at the stats can not be enough?

Thanks!

Thomas

So without giving too much away, I thought this was a perfect question to segway into my style/approach to the game, because balance is most useful when we dont have reads on our opponents or they are very good,

To this I wrote up a 2page response in Word(single spaced) about what balance is, why we use it, and how it differs from exploitation, which we discussed over skype



His next email

Originally Posted by thomas.t

Hi!

I am going to try this approach now, and just wanted to clarify some stuff.

Is it correct to say that when I am playing my main goal is to balance my play as much as possible? (If I dont have a perfect read and or play against a bad opponent who I am sure is not mixing up his strategy) Meaning that I should always be thinking of what my action most often is in certain situations.

For an example, if I have AA and raise from HJ, button calls. Flop comes 689 rainbow. If I find that this flop is a flop I often would check as the preflop aggressator OOP with overcard hands that is the biggest part of my HJ opening range, then I should check it now with my AA too because of balancing purposes?

You told me to not be thinking so much about my opponents ranges in situations like this and just try to play balanced, but for instance in the example I just gave you I am often checking this kind of flop because that my opponents perceived range nails that flop.

Is it correct to say that when I am trying to play as balanced as possible I often DO take my opponents perceived range into consideration?

Or am I only checking that flop with AA to balance because that flop is missing my HJ opening range so often? Meaning, my opponents perceived range has nothing to do with why I check with AA to balance?

If I am correct in my thinking now, I would like you to give me more examples on situations where we are taking a certain line becuase we are focusing more on balance than exploitaiton.

Thanks!

Thomas

As you can see it seems he was quite enthused about the concept of balancing, since he was previously unsure of what to do against those players who we do not have a read

Originally Posted by thomas.t

Hi!

I may have explained myselfe bad in the last mail. To make it short, I like your preflop strategy but I believe that since I am playing bad opponents who I got a good read on I will change just a few stuff.

So in short, I do not want to 3 bet, and 4 bet based on math. I will often have very good read on my opponents and will use this reads to exploit my opponents pre.

I just thought you should to know this before you started to write postflop strategy for me.



Thomas

Ill let you take from this email what you want.






re: me not showing up for a lesson. All I did was cancel our lesson on fairly short notice(a few hours I believe), and in return I offered you A FREE HOUR OF COACHING.


Finally heres our chat log from this morning

Originally Posted by thomas.t

I got your email 6:36 AM

First of all you are always entitled to your opinion 6:36 AM

but I really dont agree with anbything you said 6:36 AM

first of all 6:37 AM

I was never grumpy when we talked on skype 6:37 AM

number 1 I could barely hear you when we talked 6:37 AM

your static was so bad 6:37 AM

nad your accent is thick enough that it was just difficult to communicate well 6:37 AM

second of all 6:37 AM

you tell me at first you want to figure out how to play without good reads 6:38 AM

so we focus on balancing 6:38 AM

then you tell me to not focus on that 6:38 AM

but on how to exploit people 6:38 AM




yea, sorry it is not working out 6:38 AM




when exploitation is really really simple 6:38 AM

I am not sure what else you want me to twach you other than how to figure out the correct play given a set of assumptioons 6:38 AM

you want coaching from me 6:38 AM

buyt dont want to learn about math? 6:39 AM

have u even rad my coaching page 6:39 AM

or any of my posts? 6:39 AM

before I go on ill let you respond 6:39 AM




thomas
it is the same thing, i told you to teach me how to exploit others instead of playing 100 percent balanced myselfe, the reason for that was to avoid to get me an email with percentages of hudstats, tips to take actions based on hud stats 6:40 AM




do you even understnad what exploitation is? 6:40 AM

you have a set of assumptions and u solve for the highest ev play 6:40 AM

its really fuckn simple 6:40 AM

maybe thats why you dont find the write up I did interesting 6:40 AM

and honestly 6:41 AM



Me

"if he opens x percent from ug, and we call with x percent from x and so on" then you should take this action x percent of times etc. this approach does not suit me 6:41 AM

bluff x percent of times 6:41 AM




well thats fine. You told me to focus on exploitation 6:42 AM




semibluff x percent, raise x percent if he folds x percent and so on 6:42 AM




but you dont seem to understand that exploitation is really simple process 6:42 AM



did u read my email? then you could see that it is possible to speak about protecting ranges without the hud stats 6:43 AM

thomas




I mean, you are literally the only student I have had say they dont like the lessons. Every other student I have has told me they are very intrigued by my approach, and like the lessons 6:43 AM

So you want to learn about poker 6:43 AM

but not use any math 6:43 AM

or theory 6:43 AM

idk what you expect? 6:44 AM







the thing is, u understand that you play based on math, i thought tho, that you could teach someone to play without using hud stats 6:44 AM




why do you keep saying hud stats 6:44 AM



and you probably can, but you dont get what i am trying to explain 6:44 AM

thomas




when have i even mentioned a hud? 6:45 AM

i talk about math sure, but thats an inherent part of poker 6:45 AM






Because you make moves based on stats 6:45 AM




no i actually dont 6:45 AM

i make my plays based on a default game ive developed to be tough to exploit 6:45 AM

but you didnt want to learn that 6:45 AM

which is fine 6:45 AM

you wanted to learn about exploitation 6:45 AM

which is ALWAYS based on reads 6:46 AM

and thus always very simple to sove for 6:46 AM

solve* 6:46 AM

the way I see it Ive given you everything youve asked for 6:46 AM

If you are unhappy I dont think it is my fault at all, although I do feel its unfortunate you dont enjoy the coaching 6:47 AM

but I dont see how I can od any better given what youve asked 6:47 AM









i tried several times to tell you what i was looking for 6:47 AM


u just dont understand, that is not anyones fault, it is just not working 6:48 AM




LOL 6:48 AM

i dont understand? 6:48 AM

tell me what I dont understand/ 6:48 AM

im curious 6:48 AM

Im really sorry to sound arrogant but this is starting to really piss me off 6:49 AM







you need to be alittle bit more humble, more open for what others have to say 6:49 AM




wait 6:49 AM

so you ask for my coaching 6:49 AM

but think im arrogant 6:49 AM







you have sounding arrogant since first lesson 6:49 AM




isnt that sort of contradictory 6:49 AM

you pay me to caoch because you think im better than you 6:50 AM

and knw more aboit poker, and can teach it 6:50 AM




thomas



i ASKED for your coaching and discorvered that you were arrogant 6:50 AM




lol 6:50 AM

im really sorry you feel that way 6:50 AM

i have never had another student tell me this, in fact quite the opposite 6:50 AM

combined with the fact that I think you are being unreasonable, im inclined to think this problem is with you, not me 6:51 AM







yea, you are better than me in poker, but man, you really are behaving childish sometimes 6:51 AM




how? 6:51 AM

examples> 6:51 AM

? 6:51 AM







ok, i am the one who is the problem, you are the perfect coach 6:51 AM




No one is perfect 6:51 AM

I would love to hear examples oif my "childish behaviour" tho 6:52 AM



thomas is Available - Ut med Bush, in med Obama!
(6:53 AM)

are you still there? Id still like to hear what I did that has been childish or arrogant, apart form this conversation 6:59 AM



Me



ok, i am bad at english but i will try 6:59 AM




Another thing Id like to hear, is why this is the first IM hearing of all these complaints? 7:00 AM

I dont understand that either 7:00 AM







because i have been polite 7:00 AM




if you are unsatisifed why would you just sit there? 7:00 AM

tell me I am being arrogant? 7:01 AM







the reason i wanted to get coached by script instead of by skype was because of you being grumpy 7:01 AM




tbh this all sounds like complete BS to me 7:01 AM

and yet you dont tell me that? 7:01 AM

i thought it was because of the static 7:01 AM

since we couldnt converse very well 7:01 AM








you think i am making my opinion up? 7:04 AM

why would i make this up

? 7:04 AM




why not just give me examples? 7:04 AM




I thinky uo would make this up to get money back 7:04 AM

i mean that seems fairly obvious 7:04 AM

you have 5 different write ups I ahve doen for you 7:04 AM

and now are asking for money back 7:05 AM

when you knew the deal going in was you were getting a discount for locking in 10hrs 7:05 AM







a couple of hundred dollars, you are kidding me? haha, would i rather make this up than take the lessons that are lefter to get a couple of hudreds back? 7:05 AM




well only you knw that 7:06 AM

I can only speculate 7:06 AM

but it seems that way to me yes 7:06 AM







listen. dont give one fuking penny 7:06 AM




I will still finish out the sessions if you want 7:06 AM

but I dont feel obligated to refund anything 7:06 AM







you are now also calling me a liar then 7:07 AM




IF thats the way you want to preceive it fine 7:07 AM

I really would just rather you give me examples 7:07 AM

of my childish behavious 7:07 AM

behaviour* 7:07 AM







man, i am surprised, did not think you would do this 7:07 AM




? 7:08 AM

do what 7:08 AM

ask for examples? 7:08 AM







first, u did not give me an intense course altho i told that an intense course was what i was looking for, second, you dont give me the script when you tell me to, you dont even give me a warning about it since you are already too late, third, you dont give me the coaching i am asking for altho i have tried to tell you several times, third, you give me that bullshit you sent me last time and charg 7:11 AM

charge me 1, 5 hours for it 7:11 AM




1.- What does intense mean to you? I mean Im not your personal servant. Im can only do lessons only so often? 7:12 AM







that is beginner theory 7:12 AM




2.- I was a few hours late twice- is this really a big deal? 7:12 AM

3. I still dont knw how you can claim this 7:12 AM

I have given you everything you ask for 7:12 AM

its like you dont even understand what you want 7:12 AM

4th 7:13 AM







this is one of your faults as a couch, you are so bad at listening to my kneeds, i told you that i wanted to do the sessions intense 7:13 AM




it took me a long time to come up with the calculations for all the stuff i sent you 7:13 AM

what does intense mean to you 7:14 AM

i really am curious 7:14 AM







both times you have been late, last time not a few hors, i was supposed to have gotten it on tuesday 7:14 AM




And didnt I promise you 1 free hour? 7:14 AM

I apolgized 7:14 AM

and offered you 1 extra free hour of coaching 7:14 AM

how is that not MORE than fair 7:15 AM







do you really think the best way to use your hourly lesson cost is to sit and do calcylations after i told you what kind of coaching i was looking for? 7:15 AM




You wanted to learn about exploitation 7:15 AM

wtf do you think it is? 7:15 AM

poker is based on math 7:15 AM

wrap your head around that 7:15 AM

its a fact 7:16 AM

plain and simple 7:16 AM

if you dont want to knw the actual math fine 7:16 AM

but my job as a coach 7:16 AM

is to use the math to give you answers so you dont have to 7:16 AM







the calcylations that u send me in the last email, that i was paying the time for you to do, do you not understand that you could have used that 1, 5 yours on something better for me, considering my kneeds, and what i have been asking about? 7:16 AM




WTF ARE you needs? 7:16 AM

I did exactly what you asked 7:16 AM

each time 7:16 AM

you wanted to learn about exploiting players postflop 7:17 AM

I gave you a common example where many people dont take advantage of overcbetting 7:17 AM

I gave you the theory behind why and how we can exploit it 7:17 AM

and in the second example I gave you a very important lesson in realizing where your exploitation is coming form and how it affects other streets 7:17 AM







i have told you several times, and you just dont get it 7:17 AM




your absolutely right I dont get it 7:18 AM

and I think it is not my fault at all 7:18 AM







are you teaching micro stakes players or what? whe does not think the stuff you took 1, 5 hours to write down is not standard? 7:19 AM

that stuff you charged me 1, 5 hours to explain, i bet 90 percent of legato members know about 7:20 AM




I really really doubt that 7:20 AM

besides that 7:20 AM








95 more likely 7:20 AM




I gave you examples, to which you can applly to other problems 7:20 AM

If you cant see that 7:21 AM

I am really not sure what to say 7:21 AM

the fact that EVERY other student is intrigued by my approach, and has told me they enjoy the sessions, does not make it likely, to me, that what I have given you is inadequate 7:22 AM

in fact I think you are being completely unreasonable 7:22 AM

for example 7:22 AM

you sent me an email a while back 7:22 AM

where you asked about a situation postflop 7:22 AM

then right after 7:22 AM

send me an email saying you already knw the answer 7:22 AM







u just dont get it, if you think that email is a good 1, 5 hours of coaching i dont know what to say 7:23 AM




that pretty much represents this whole conversation 7:23 AM

and why you are being unreasonable 7:23 AM

so you call me cocky 7:23 AM

yet deny that what im teaching you, or trying to teach you is worthwhile 7:23 AM

or saying it is below you 7:23 AM







no, u got it wrong againg, i knew what I was thinking, what i was asking for what YOUR thoughts were offcourse 7:24 AM




Just wanted to mention that I am sure I should bet that turn and
protect semibluffing range. The reason I wondered tho, was becauseI
today saw that hand in a new video at leggo poker I believe, and the
instructor chosed to protect the checking range on turn. 7:24 AM

that is ur email 7:24 AM

how is that asking my thoughts? 7:25 AM

you said and i quote 7:25 AM

"I am SURE" 7:25 AM

what am I supposed to resond with? 7:25 AM







you decided to not even answer the mail, not even to say, yea, you are correct in your thinking 7:25 AM




how am I supposed to answer something that is not a question 7:25 AM







you could agree with me or disagree with me offcourse 7:26 AM




maybe its a language barrier? 7:26 AM

cos i dont see how or why I would do that 7:26 AM

when you email me that 7:26 AM

beyond that 7:26 AM

you said you want an intense course 7:26 AM

but you never send me any other hands 7:26 AM

or theory questions 7:27 AM

or anything 7:27 AM

I eman that is all FREE 7:27 AM







you know, just because i am think i am sure of a thing it does not mean that i am always right, that goes for you too 7:27 AM




all my other students periodically send me hand histories 7:27 AM

querstions etc 7:27 AM

you send me statements 7:27 AM

I have to think part of the problem is a language thing which is unfortunate, its neither's fault, just unfortunate that it contributed to this 7:28 AM







i did not send you any email because you did not answer 7:29 AM




We talked about it the next lesson 7:30 AM

I asked you why you sent me it 7:30 AM

when you were sure 7:30 AM

it has been a week + since then 7:30 AM

and no other emails 7:30 AM

yet you complain about it not being intense 7:30 AM

anyways, this isnt going anywhere 7:31 AM

at this point only thing to do is figure out the $ situation 7:31 AM

to me the fairest thing is for you to be out the $. But I understand there are 2 points of view here, so I am willing to compromise a bit 7:32 AM







i sent you an email and saying that i was surprised that you called pre w kj of and a10of, oop, i also send an email that i wondered why u valued a7s and a6s more than a2s to a5s hands, u did not answer that either 7:32 AM

u know, this is not abut the money for me, take every penny if you think that is correct 7:33 AM




as I see it you got 6 hours of coaching, and my rate is normally 150/hr. Since you didnt stay true to your time commitment, I think I am owed 900$ total(150x6), so I am willing to send you 350$ 7:33 AM

it will have to be on FTP tho, stars has not allowed me to do transfers untiul I send in proof of address and identification due to a new policy 7:33 AM

First of all 7:34 AM




thomas

i will not sit and beg you for giving the money back, never 7:34 AM




I do think its correct 7:34 AM

but 2nd of all 7:34 AM

I do not want a student to feel Like I cheated them either 7:34 AM

even if I didnt 7:34 AM

so thats why I will compromise 7:34 AM




thomas
i will send you an email in a couple of days telling you what nic you can send the money too, then you can send whatever you want 7:36 AM




ok if only stars will work 7:36 AM

I will have a friend transfer you it 7:36 AM




thomas
can u please tell me the 6 hours 7:36 AM




and I will take care of them 7:36 AM

yea sure 7:36 AM

June 27th, we did a 1.5 hour skype session 7:36 AM

July 7th we did a 1 hour session where wen over optimal 3bet and 3bet defensxe ranges 7:37 AM

July 10th we did a 1 hour session discussing various things including proper 3betting ranges, and flatting ranges co vs btn, also over skype 7:38 AM

July 15th was our first non skype session, I sent you a write up of my optimal 3betting and flatting ranges form each positions and the reasons why 7:39 AM

July 22nd, was today, 1.5 hours 7:39 AM

July 15th was an hour, forgot to say that 7:39 AM

so 1.5+1+1+1+1.5= 6 7:39 AM




thomas
how much for script and how much on skype? 7:40 AM




3.5 hours on skype, 2.5 hours script 7:40 AM




thomas
ok, send me an email if you can not transfer on pokerstars, then i will fix a ftp account 7:41 AM




Like i said 7:41 AM

if you want it on stars 7:41 AM

I wil have a friend transfer it 7:42 AM

and I will transfer to them 7:42 AM

I can do that now 7:42 AM




thomas
it would be best on stars 7:43 AM




ok whats ur stars nickname and location 7:43 AM




thomas
xxxxx 7:45 AM




ok my friend who SN on stars is 'xxxx" is going to send 350$ to your account 7:46 AM




thomas
ok 7:48 AM




ok he shipped it 7:48 AM

I guess this is good bye 7:48 AM




thomas
bye 7:51 AM

[d2themfi]

the bolded parts are my responses, sorry about the formatting, it was difficult to even make it look that "good"

[d2themfi]

out of good faith, here is an example of a write up I did for Thomas


Hi there!

Here is my question:

As everybody know you take different lines against different opponents on the flop when being the preflop aggressor. On the same flop you check fold to some opponents, bet flop with the intention to bet a blank turn to some, take the bet, check, bet line to some opponent....etc.
What line you chose to take is based on many things, preflop ranges, how bluffy, tricky, passive, aggressive the opponent are, if he bluff raises wet boards or dry boards, if he floats, if he is a nit abc player, is he capable raising turn with a draw?, and so on.
There are so many factors to take into consideration when deciding what line to take when planning the hand on flop and further streets.
My question is:
When playing more than 3 tables and playing against many unknown opponents, how on earth do you know what line to take. Surely looking at the stats cannot be enough?
Thanks!
Thomas



So this is a good question to begin our lessons. The reason why is it shows a clear distinction from the type of poker we will be talking about(mostly) and the type of poker that 98% of mid and small stakes players play

Essentially there are two ways to approach poker, or a specific hand or situation. The first of these ways is the approach favored by almost everyone, although usually because they lack a better alternative, or are simply ignorant that there are better methods out there. This first method is called exploitative poker. I won't harp on this to long because you are already familiar with its concepts. Essentially when we are playing exploitatively, we attempt to make inferences and reads about our opponents hand, ranges, and strategy, and then we attempt to take the maximally exploitative action against that strategy. Essentially we are attempting to maximize our expectation with our specific hand against our opponents strategy without any regard for future hands. This is essentially what people mean when they say “in a vacuum”.

Ideally we would always play exploitative poker. In that case it would imply that we are always very confident in our reads of our opponents. We would also be confident that our opponents were not going to change their strategies. Because, remember, when we play exploitatively, we are in turn opening ourselves up to what's called counter exploitation. In this case our opponents would be attempting to do to us what we are doing to them(exploiting their play)

But what happens when we are not so confident in our reads about what our opponents could hold, or what their strategy is? In those cases, if we make broad assumptions about our opponents play, and then attempt to exploit them, if we are wrong we could be in real trouble. Here's an example that might help

Say we are on the river and the pot is 100$, and there are 100$ left in the stacks. Our opponent moves in and we hold a pure bluff catcher. Well the pot is now 200$ and we need to call 100$, so we are getting 2-1, and need to be good 33% of the time. If we do not have much of a read on our opponent, but assume that he is bluffing 50% of the time in this spot(for whatever reason), then we should always call and our ev would be 50$ for every call (.5(200)-.5(100)= 50).

But what if our assumption is wrong and our opponent is only bluffing 25% of the time? Well we are calling every time still because we made the wrong assumption, but now we are losing 25$ (.25(200)-.75(100)= -25). You can see now why having very good reads when we are playing exploitatively is so important!

This begs the question, what do we do when we are playing an unknown opponent, or an opponent who we think is good enough that he will realize we are trying to exploit him, and will adjust?

This question is essentially what you asked in your email. What we need to do is come up with “default” strategies that do well vs. a wide range of counter strategies. These default strategies will serve us well vs. unknown opponents and opponents who we think are very good. They will attempt to make us unexploitable. Essentially this is what “balance” refers to. If your strategy is perfectly balanced then it is unexploitable. In practice, it is virtually impossible to perfectly balance your play. But we can come up with strategies that are very well balanced, and likely very hard to exploit for real life opponents.

A nice benefit of good balanced strategies is they often do very well exploiting common mistakes by players. So even though we might not be actively trying to exploit someone, it is possible for us to exploit them “by accident” when using our balanced strategy because they are making fundamental errors

It should be noted that when we are playing balanced, things like hand reading do not really matter. Our default balanced strategies do not depend on what our opponent holds. They are designed in order to protect us from an opponent whose strategy we do not know. Because of that it is important to make the distinction between when we are playing balanced and when we are playing exploitatively

Of course even when we are attempting to play balanced, we should still be seeking to actively hand read our opponent. The reason is not for the present hand, but for future hands. Hopefully through careful observation we can make good reads on our opponents play that will allow us to exploit him maximally. Until that happens however, we stick to our default strategy in attempts to play "defense" essentially