steve0580

Very enjoyable to watch. Great narration. I've always been a fan of your content.

Good content.

The problem I have is that the tables were so small, even at full screen, that it was hard to see the amounts bet. In the future, it would be better if you removed your video inset from the top left corner, so the tables would be larger.

Additionally, it's easier to follow when you say the positions like, UTG, MP, BB, etc, rather than referring to them by seat number.

The tables were too small. I could barely see how much you were betting.

This was a great video and it took me about 3-4 hours to get through it, because I kept rewinding to take notes. The really nice thing is that most of the question that I would have had were answered within video in the conversation you were having with the player. My questions are from the end os the video with the slide.

I'm a microstakes player but I wanted to get clarity on pushing equity vs. equity preservation.

Pushing equity = playing a more aggressive and risky style? I'm assuming that the "risk" is somewhat offset by the additional fold equity that you pick up from being aggressive?

Equity preservation = a more defensive, check-call style where you're less likely to call, raise or pot the river without a very strong hand or the nuts? Wouldn't this be more of a weak tight approach vs. pushing equity, which is more of LAG?

In regard to just stabbing all the time,IP, in 3bet pots, you want to be playing more of a check or pot sizing strategy? Is this more to protect our check back range by checking back some of our strong hands too, so we're allowed to check-call with our middling hands in the future. If this is correct, what frequency would you suggest that we check our strong hands back, IP, so it allows us to call with our middling hands in the future? 15%? 20%?

What about OOP? Are we still playing a polarized strategy or are we going to be leaning more toward check, 1/3 sizing or pot / check raise?

Sorry for writing a mini novel here, I'm just trying to get every straight in my head. I'm taking this very seriously and trying my best to get better. Unfortunately, I'm not a natural talent, so I'm trying to somewhat make up for it with study.

Overall, it was a good balance in regard to play vs. solver but in regard to having a preference of either, I'd prefer seeing more play with commentary as you go. I seem to get more out of your videos when you reason and explain situations as you go.

In general, over watching a number of your videos, your default sizing strategy seems to be either 30% or 70%. Is there a reason you that you prefer a 30/70 sizing over a 33/75 or something similar?

Thank you for responding.

No, I don't have a peer group. I just read quite a bit, browse 2+2 and watch videos on here.

Staying positive with poor results for so long can be disheartening.

Which limits did you start at when you were playing PLO and how long did it take you to move up in stakes?

I've been at this a year and a half but feel that I haven't made much progress, despite putting a lot of effort in (reading, watching videos, taking notes and of course, playing). I'm getting frustrated and demoralized.

Nice video.

I like the format, except that I prefer two or three tables max. Four becomes a bit harder to follow for me. As opposed to Monker, I prefer the replayer hands and the fact that you reference Monker by memory, in comparison to population play.

Additionally, the replayer hands made me we wonder if wheel hands are something we should consider raising UTG and if not, which positions should we start raising them?

I prefer this format. If you were going to mix vision into it, I'd prefer it to be minimal, just to check a couple of spots.

In regard to the video play itself, I really enjoyed it. It was actually kind of encouraging to see that you made what you consider to be mistakes, in addition to having such great hands but not hitting or being faced with such tough decisions and having to fold a lot. It's comforting to see that it can happen to everyone.

I'm a big fan. I always enjoy your content.

I watch a lot of your content. In fact, I've watched more of your content than any other pro on the site.

This is an excellent video and one of the best I've seen. I learned so much from it, especially how the blockers work on a flop like A66. It took me around 2.5 hours to get through it, because I kept rewinding and taking notes.

To me, the format is perfect. One table with what you did in game and the detailed commentary of why, including the results. There was a perfect amount of Monker in it - just a bit to back up your thoughts and the board examples but not so much to where I glaze over. In general, unless it's a straight theory video, too much Monker gets tedious.

Anyway, please make more videos like this one.

I enjoyed the video and detailed analysis.

Is there a fee at the door for the underground cabin where they do super intense PLO research with solvers and magical devices or do you need to know the secret code words to get in?

It was an enjoyable video. I liked the way that you went through a detailed analysis of every hand.

I really enjoyed it.

It was excellent content for me, because every so often, a maniac will show up and they can be very difficult to play against, especially for someone like me, who plays microstakes and am very inexperienced dealing with this type of player.

I like the two table format a lot. It's much easier to follow and by taking more time and explaining your thoughts more in detail, I'm absorbing the information better.

Very enjoyable video.

@ 9:36 Is the UTG open of K654 double suited considered to be standard or is it a bit loose?

I’ve been under the impression that our UTG range should be mostly overpairs and very connected high cards or doubled suited middle rundowns.

Nice video. I always like your content

I'm glad that you kept it to three tables instead of four. Personally, I would have preferred two tables, although others may find that to be too few. When the action gets too fast, it gets hard for me to follow. The most helpful part is your commentary throughout the video. The Aces breakdown and example play through vision was a big plus.

Thank you for the response and detailed answer.

I'm very sincere when I say I'm learning a lot from your videos. I take a lot of notes and rewind and rewatch parts multiple times to absorb and understand the material. ou're playing far higher levels than I could ever hope to play, so this really helps in regard to hand selection and play.

In regard to the "bad kings", So, at lower limit levels, where the the rake is much higher, say, at .25 / .50 and 50/1, would "bad kings" be hand that you'd limp or raise and if you're raising, would you do so from any position?

The content was excellent and I liked the detail a lot.

Here's my questions:

@ 16:49 3-way, 3-bet pot. Even on the BTN, why would be be in this hand with a KK92, KK93 or KK95? Shouldn’t those be snap folds on the button, even against a single raise and a caller?

I’ve been under the impression that we only play KK92, KK93 or KK95 (bad kings?), if everyone else folds to us on the button and then they would be used for a steal attempt?

I really enjoyed this video and got a lot out of it, especially the low double pairs. It seems like we'd really have to be disciplined and make some strong folds, because getting it with set over set could be a real possibility.

Thank you for the response, I really appreciate it.

At 30:06 AJ22 ds

I’m still a fairly inexperienced player, playing microstakes, so I’m sorry if these are very amateurish questions.

If we’re never folding a suited Ace with a broadway kicker and a pair to the preflop 3-bet and an unpaired board with an Ace flops where we have the NFD, is it all going in, in general? If the board doesn’t pair on the turn and we don’t hit our flush, does it make a difference? Are we still getting it in then too? What if we’re virtually certain that our opponent has AAxx - for instance, a tight 3-bettor with a 2-4% 3-Bet range?

I guess, more or less, what I’m asking is that if we flop an Ace with the nut flush draw in a 3-Bet pot, are we always stacking off?

In regard to double suited, double paired hands that are almost never folding to a 3-bet, which would be folding? Maybe 2277 or 9922?

GREAT video. I really got a lot out of it, especially as a microstakes player.

This is probably a very basic question but on a 754 two-tone board, shouldn't that absolutely hammer the BBs range? Still, the BTN is going to underfold overcards?

Without a very strong draw as the BTN, maybe NFD and blockers?, it sounds like a minefield to continue.

I enjoyed the 1 table analyses and your detailed thoughts and commentary along the way. I got more out of that than I did the poker juice portion.

Thank you, I really appreciate it.

I'm still playing .25 / .50, so forgive me if this question seems a bit too basic.

At 19:54, you said that we don’t normally bet-fold flush draws in 3-bet pots.

Outside of that hand in particular, is it a basic rule in PLO that we don’t bet-fold flush draws in 3-bet pots, if it's down to heads-up on a 6-max table?

If it is a rule, does it go for ANY size flush draw or would we fold flush draws like 6 high and lower?

You shouldn't have been nervous at all, it was good! I liked the way you went through it to show how Monker related to what you were saying.

If I could make a suggestion for future content, I'd like to see something revolving around river play, like when to bluff, value bet and fold. As you did in the this video, I'd like to see what Monker says about river decisions too.

Great video! As you know, I'm a big fan of your content. It took me about two hours to get through it, because I took so many notes.