Why didn't you isolate the UTG limper with KTs and why didn't you isolate the CO limper with JTo? Seem like really standard raises to me, both options are clearly +EV but would like to hear some reasons why you think overlimping will be more profitable then isolating.
KTs vs. QQ hand. I'd bet the turn a lot of the time. Looks like a really good spot to go for value.
There are times where you say things like "I have a fairly good idea of what this guys range is" but don't go on to tell us what you think that range is and why. Perhaps using a hud for future videos might be beneficial to the viewers.
Why didn't you isolate the UTG limper with KTs and why didn't you isolate the CO limper with JTo? Seem like really standard raises to me, both options are clearly +EV but would like to hear some reasons why you think overlimping will be more profitable then isolating.
I tend to overlimp more at lower stakes. I'd rather keep the blinds or limper in with dominated hands, instead of just picking up the blinds. I do a lot of raising anyways, and fold equity is diminished when people limp so I tighten up to a stronger raising range (incidentally, I'll raise JTs there and probably 65s). By raising I can win a small pot fairly often, but rarely a big one with JT or KTs (JTo is weak enough to fold or isolate raise), A5s is more comparable to KTs. But by limping you win less often, but it can be a big pot. Now, competent players won't give as much action in limped pots, so raising becomes better. But against donks, I don't mind keeping them in the hand and trying to win big pots when I have a huge equity edge. Our minds tend to overvalue strategies that work often but with lower EVs (squeezing, 3-betting light etc) vs spots that don't work or come up often, but have higher overall EV. There are good arguments for both options though, so you gotta try stuff and find what works best with your image and table conditions.
KTs vs. QQ hand. I'd bet the turn a lot of the time. Looks like a really good spot to go for value.
Yeah, still thinking about that.
There are times where you say things like "I have a fairly good idea of what this guys range is" but don't go on to tell us what you think that range is and why. Perhaps using a hud for future videos might be beneficial to the viewers.
Good point. I need to remind myself to explain things in greater detail for the videos. I guess I need to strike the right balance between explaining trivial details and giving a vague analysis.
I thought the KTs overlimp was sorta weird/possibly suboptimal as well. I'm all about overlimping pps and scs when, like you said, our fold equity is lessened. But KTs is a pretty decent hand against the average 100nl donk's limping range, and there's greater value in a raise (imo).
I thought postflop on that hand was super standard. As soon as SB checked the flop I was like "QQ lol," but I don't mind your turn check at all.
I think you said the river card didn't change much, and I agree with you as far as the strength of your hand goes, but I think it's nevertheless prettty significant because it makes him way more likely to vb stuff like QQ or Jx, and also makes him more likely to call a raise with those hands.
I tend to overlimp more at lower stakes. I'd rather keep the blinds or limper in with dominated hands, instead of just picking up the blinds. I do a lot of raising anyways, and fold equity is diminished when people limp so I tighten up to a stronger raising range (incidentally, I'll raise JTs there and probably 65s). By raising I can win a small pot fairly often, but rarely a big one with JT or KTs (JTo is weak enough to fold or isolate raise), A5s is more comparable to KTs. But by limping you win less often, but it can be a big pot. Now, competent players won't give as much action in limped pots, so raising becomes better. But against donks, I don't mind keeping them in the hand and trying to win big pots when I have a huge equity edge. Our minds tend to overvalue strategies that work often but with lower EVs (squeezing, 3-betting light etc) vs spots that don't work or come up often, but have higher overall EV. There are good arguments for both options though, so you gotta try stuff and find what works best with your image and table conditions.
I guess it depends on your overall strategy. If nothing else it will help to balance out a "standard" overlimping range of small PPs and SCs.
I could definitely see a need for it at higher stakes where players will be 3betting your isolations with a much higher frequency.
It's interesting and not something I've given much thought to.
Good point. I need to remind myself to explain things in greater detail for the videos. I guess I need to strike the right balance between explaining trivial details and giving a vague analysis.
Obviously if this was a 1000nl video I wouldn't be expecting everything to be explained to me. I think the target audience for a 100nl video would benefit from it though.
Good video overall, but would like less downtime. Prehaps more tables, and extend the frames like rob does. This would give you more to talk about and time to analyze your own play as well.
I'd love to see a 200 or 400NL full ring video from you in the future.
Great video...It was nice to see an instructor not on a huge heater in a video and also you got into some interesting spots ..... i.e value betting thin and bluffing river
In answer to Isura's request for feedback - I'd like to see more small stakes 6 max videos, with perhaps a HU one thrown in the mix as well. The vids I've gotten the most benefit from in the past are ones where the presenter has prepared some specific topics he wants to talk about beforehand, that way what cards you get in the video don't matter so much as the educational content is going to be high anyway.
