gerard duguet-grasser

if it s right "in general" it is theorik not practik ... no ?

many ... unconsciously ... understand ... and desert the country

you remind me someone walking on your red carpet ........................ oh yes ..Louis XIV ... le roi soleil

where you going like that ? 

Tyler agaiin i might abuse and i sony want to but i have plenty of questions, most of the time ........... if i do abuse in any way just tell me and i wont do it in the future ........ now i have one question : you say that CREV answer plenty of questions can you name the most important and usefull ? ... again ... and again merci

Tyler i really thank you for answering all my questions, i hope i dont take to much place on your thread ? ... about the hard work i hope it is always debatable ... i was one of the best backgammon player and i never work that hard, as well as checker ... i think there is ways to "resume" the work once you understand, i really was one of the best in term of moving the pieces, i think if i play speed backgammon with five seconds to make your move and normal game i wont play much better playing slow ... o have a long and not so easy to follow story about the difference between "calcul" ( analyzing tree" and "vision" it happen to me recently playing checkers online ... if ever you are interested i tell it ........... but to summarized ibelieve in vision against calcul, Capablanca a cuban chess world champion use to answer the eternal question "how many moves you see in advance" ? Capablanca answer "one ... but the right one"

merci ... the 54o enter in my range today, i suppose i can think more about it and build my own range, it might be the time and for the 8c you are of course right ... i think it is a little confusing situation ( for me ) cause i was thinking that the card is good for you as you represent also a lot of flush draw and straight draw etc infact this card is pretty bad for me and pretty good for the opponent ... thank you

thanks a lot Daniel ... by the way learning how to do it by hand interest me highly ... ? ... i dont even know the process taken by crev so it is difficult for me to envision it, i suppose it is a kind of tree analysis ? i use to play checkers ( 100 squares ) and we use the tree all day long ( but i remember that i was not doing it as much as most, i always trust my vision, my sense of the position, cause the tree is always restraint limited but i dont know how it work at poker so .................... if you know the answer to the JX of Tyler it is cause you have many references ... i know how to "map" a territory ... how to find position/situation that make it easy to understand plenty of similars one etc etc ....... . anyway thanks again  

thank you Daniel ... but this is to vague to convince me ... specially if "one day after years of work i will have to make my decision on exploitative ..." ....i m not intimidated, i am not lazy, i am skeptical, i dont think for example that Matt use CREV and i think is playing "pseudo GTO" to say the least ... you say "Is it me or is everyone in this thread being really antagonistic?" well not me ... nor Tyler either ... ???

about CREV ( i watch as closely as i can your first analysis ( J4 ) and i try to "think" but of course as i dont know the program and not much the game so far my thoughts doesn t go far as well but ... the program look not very practical ? it look like it is more a tool to understand your play ( define more accurately your understanding of how your hand play through the streets, help you to understand why you play the way you already play and help you to make some change here and there ) than a tool to make you understand how to play, in short it is a better tool for very good player, the program give your numbers to back your thinking/feel/etc ... to understand at the table if your hand/range got a solid equity to play to the river using CREV can take years and you need to be using it rightly that it is not given for granted ................. to play accordingly to gto by numbers seems/is impossible ( at least today ) we need to develop a feel for the situations and the variables with here and there some reference numbers to give a structure to your understanding, some short cuts that might help to develop a "vision" of how our range play to the river, a feel for how solid is our equity through the streets .... i mean more or less ............... SO ... how - from almost scratch - can we work to achieve a "practical" vision/understanding of how our hand/range work through the streets ? with or without CREV ? is it possible to accelarate the process ? 

hello ... at 00:37 you said "this could be a flat or a raise" ... i dont think i would have play this hand before ? there is a way to improve my understanding of my ranges pre hu ? ... at 1:40 you said  "the 8c is probably one of the the worst card for my range" ? i would say "it's one of the worst card for your hand not for the range " ? 

it is what i understand in fact ... i just have to wait for "real poker gto"   video's by forhayley then ... in the mistime i'll will still listen as much as i can Tyler advice 

not sure to understand ... can you elaborate ? ... i am french maybe there is something in language that make the sentence difficult for me ... thank you

hello ... thank you for the video ... you mention snowie do you use it ? ........ i come from backgammon where snowie more or less kill the game.

my overall idea is that it is a uch more strong reraise on the flop than it is on the turn ..... wide margin

 i just say that on the flop you have a strong hand/range to re raise right now ... i think this flop is much stronger for you that it is for your opponent, also you  have some outs to back your bluff right now .. you can probably cash on a heart, over cards that pair and etc and i think that it is a much more ev+ situations at least much more interesting and "alive" that the one you discuss so heavily ont he river where you dont have really in your hand the beginning of a discussion........... it is so clear to me 

first hand .... it seems to me that it is a much better check raise on the flop than on the turn ... you have a perfect bluff on the flop woth the gut shot and the flush draw that you can use as well as the overcards ... on the flop it id complicated, no space, it is kind of either or situation and rerally you dont represent much now ??? ... just to say that it doesn t seems you are looking at the right things here

i agree ... then why should we eliminate one here ... on the flop ? are we still in "deep play" ?

hi ... maybe you should ask yourself why do you raise pre ? many times you gona find yourself in that situation ... and when there more actions pre you not gonna be in such a great spot ?

i think the GTO approach taken recently by many hide somewhat the "cap" concept to those many at the level Janne approach ... of course the GTO answer to the cap concept work perfectly but obviously and paradoxically not optimally ... cause i believe poker is still far from be solve

"not capping your range" sound like a dream ... if fact it look like this concept is central to the game, it is directly tied with the fact that we dont hit much at poker ( both game in fact holdem and omaha ) and the strategy of aggression is a winning one, and it should be a constant factor present in our mind ... and as you say if we deprive ourselves of one option ( out of the three we have calling folding raising ) we are in trouble, huge trouble ... the strategies today are constantly improving, constant amelioration happen, it is the realm of experts, we look for a 0.X % edge and fight and spend days for 0,1 % or whatever but the deep and strong basics, basis, are still a field where the all things happen, where the big deal is ........ this video deal about that i think

hello ... i have a hard time believing that no one seems interested by your video ???? almost no comment and almost as much complaint ??? anyway ... recently i became obsses with that concept "being capped" ... i have the impression that a lot resolve around it, at low and middle stakes at least, it is at the core of the game, we dont hit much in general and aggression is a winning strategy, and when you show a weakness agressive players enter immediately, and you have a hard time trying to compensate with a checking range that contain check/raise a lot ... you need to add some counter agression of the second level, the costly one, then with both ( checking with a lot of check raise in your range - the old good slow play - and some bluff very thin on the turn or river ) we have a strong check that can be respected and use as a basis for an easy aggression ... i believe we can go further by playing a little stronger opening range, add some thin value bet instead of checking ...... in short there is things to do but i believe a lot of the game at a practical level seems to turn around that concept for me ... and here i am talking about "holdem" where the concept is even more crucial .................................. i play both games, are you ? ... thank you for the video ... thank you very much.

daniel ... i was answering to the guy who ask how to build the bluffs range ....... and i dont follow the particular hand ............ i was just saying that the bluffs range "in general" in build with the ratio of value hands ... if you have the right amount of value hands you should bet ... if you have two value for one bluff the money in the center is yours ... if and only if you bet

bluffs should have some sort of equity ... and the ratio value/bluffs dictate the action ... you need to know the right ratio on the flop turn and river and it is not really so difficult out of the game a little more complicate while playing but not really ... well 

i was just thinking out loud that mixing exploitative and gto is difficult and maybe playing our own range might solve the problem ... i think the pure theory would say that all the actions you can take can be based on the board and your cards ( range ) only which might be not "optimal" but difficult to counter instead of facing those kind of problems ... here as long as you check contain what you need to check.in theory you check ............... or not ?

hi ... this video interest me highly cause recently i spend a lot of time thinking about the problems tied with the check on the flop, the evident constraint inherent .... but i come up with different direction to look for to deal with it ........... i am concentrate at understanding how my "own range" gonna play the following streets,i mean concentrate to really understand my "own range" (which in general i think it is much much underestimate and in fact i think  you demonstration illustrate the limit of the opponent range reading ) etc ........ but to me the problem of checking the flop and the constraints inherent seems metaphical ... lets suppose you are playing hu on the btn, the opponent check and you think about checking and let s suppose you have all the time in the world ... you might take it.  

even inside a seemingly similar action there is difference ... like in our example ""flush hit OTR and villlain move mall in quickly.." we can see two clear different sort of sped, instant click action and a little pause and the action ... it is usually a different meaning ... and in my opinion the meaning might change from one player to another, the intricatie of the situation play a huge role on the timing taken by players ... the time they understand, the time fake, the time to choose, etc etc etc thousands little details that we should learn to "SEE" ... there is some recurrence happily the weak/average players a lot of times have patterns, a lot of time those patterns also work in reverse etcetc ............. it is poker ... the old way ......... still pretty much accurate online . . exploitative and got goes hand in hand ......... well maybe.

hello ... thank you for the video ...you say "flush hit OTR and villlain move mall in quickly it mean that is got a good hand ........ ??? ............. for my rxperience it is the opposite, when they bet very quickly they bluff ;;; but to really try to understand the timing tells you need to follow the entire hand ........... but in aby i dont think we can follow your advice .... in short exploitative cant be a decision factor without the entire context 

why should we ???

why should we ???