ralphcig789

Alright give me a bit of time

Chris Pimmer was my guy

Maybe you can be going forward 😉

Can I throw out some potential video topics for Sam Forde?

A random runitonce instructor guest hosts the show every week/makes the video when it's their turn.

The audience sends in poker related questions. The player/instructor answers them.

Eg take Seth Davies. I don't know the guy, he doesn't play the poker format I am currently interested in but I am aware he's a high stakes mtt player.

I'd love the opportunity to ask him any question and see the answer in a video format. And the question could be about his diet/preparation for a tournament series/super basic poker concept that he can't believe anybody doesn't understand in this day and age/whatever.

It comes back to my earlier point: we all learn in different ways!

I have a hypothesis I want to share: towards the end of sauce's video career with runitonce he was criminally wasted.
I'm following on this line of thought from the previous 2 posts:
That guy had so much experience in the game. He had so much knowledge and yet time after time he made zoom 500nl live play vids.

[Head explode gif]

Look. Ben's gone. Possibly to never return and make videos for the site again.
All I'm saying is if he did or if the site hired some1 of a similar stature in the community: maybe try to direct them into the type of vid that will be timeless eg Phil Galfond's Philosophy series, Haseeb Qureshi's Dogisheadsup series etc etc.
(Alternative line of argument: direct legendary poker player/instructor (if they are working with the site willing to make vids) to make vids on subjects/in a style that people who don't play 500nl zoom/who don't enjoy 500nl zoom vids can appreciate and get the maximum out of!)

This is an old post of mine edited:

Could we get a resident poker theory coach? We could get some theoretical presentations across 1 of the many aspects of poker (to give 1 suggestion: the topic of bankroll management). We see some graphs, get presented with some numbers, maybe ASK SOME RUNITONCE INSTRUCTORS FOR INPUT, ask runitonce instructors with experience (with numbers!!!) for advice/nuggets of wisdom, get a conversation going in the comments thread etc etc. Obviously you've got the standard poker maths. And it's all important and essential to know for a reason but my suggestion is slightly larger than equating poker theory to poker maths.

To follow up on the point of the last post: I want accurate material/info but fun!!!

Also: I'd like to see more poker concept videos. (AKA poker theory videos.)

I've got a couple of thoughts/ideas:
I get poker has got more technical over the years so the (top) players/instructors had to follow suit. Having said that I don't enjoy looking @ solver outputs. I don't enjoy that type of content. I find it a turn off.
Why can't an elite instructor talk about poker in a more simpler way? (If that makes sense!) Why can't they make videos that are simpler/that strip away a lot of the complexity of studying?
If you're a rec player with an interest in spending time studying poker there's more than 1 rio instructor who you'd give no action to @ the table and pay no interest in on the site.
It may not be any1 on the roster currently but I'd like you guys to consider we all learn in different ways, we all like different things so there might be some poker theorists or instructors with a different presentation style than the community have got used to where if they were on rio, if they were involved in the community they may be much more popular than you'd think!

I have scrolled down the page and got the answer I needed for b)
The q for a) is: how many sessions has Phil already done? Is he still doing them?
Are these the annual elite hangouts or different?

Bumping this.

Mikey did reach out originally but I want to restart the conversation :)

Who is dealing with these enquiries presently?

Good
You've touched upon the issues I was getting at
1. rake.
There's no point playing a game if you can't beat the rake ie you want to make $ but bleed $ for every hand you play.
2. committing time to (learning) a game.
The concept of opportunity cost is in play. I get that it's a nice idea to be proficient at something in case you can use that skill @ a later date or somewhere else in your life but if it's not a good use of your time eg you're not making money $ from it/you can't make $ it then committing many 100's of hours more to try to get better @ it may not be a good decision!

I guess the related question to emty would be: what has your volume recently been @ the table? I guess over the last 3 months. And then over the last 18 months.
(I am not hinting @ anything or implying anything other than from what I have seen on stars is the tournament scene seems to be really thriving and cash game poker online is really really struggling.)

FAO jay
If you haven't looked already I'd really suggest downloading stars then looking @ how many players are in the zoom pool in peak hours currently.
And I'd also recommend looking how many games are running @ a higher buyin level than 0.5 and 1/2.

i have a/some questions:

1. what is your chosen/preferred poker variant/game structure?

Yeah.
If I am honest the app is sub-standard.
(What happened to the original 1?)
4 things tilt me: i) it can only be used in landscape (afaik.)
ii) it doesn’t have a 15 second forward or back option like most players
iii) the time scroll feature is completely unfit for purpose eg you are trying to get to minute 35 of the video and you’re lucky to get within 15 mins sometimes
iv) when downloading vids you have to have the app open. (I don’t remember seeing that anywhere else and it’s not a positive feature.)
And that’s just off the top of my head :)

<3

Hi Shaun.
New video thread new question :) (I promise last 1 when I get clear.)
You know ev calculations (I can post a couple of links and time stamps for runitonce videos) how crucial are they for being a winner?
The follow up q is more subjective: how big/deep do you think is the optimal size of the ev calculation? Eg I am sure you can do multi-street calculations. But do you think putting them (multi street 1’s) together, calculating the answer then
doing the same for a number of different lines to work out what is the most +ev play is possible/a good use of time/the best way of doing the maths?

Thank you for the answer Shaun. Thank you for the help.
I may ask another random question in your next videos comments as well :)

I appreciate that it’s easier to get familiar with opponents @ regular tables.
What i’m trying to get at: is your (6max) strategy/thought process @ a zoom table EXACTLY the same as a regular table? Eg is your CO opening range the same as this in both formats.
I am thinking they are unique 6max formats inspite of them being structured the same (-number of seats -blind amounts etc) but like I said I have always found zoom confusing.
Is there a straightforward way to think about how to approach zoom? (To an extent I understand reg tables because of the static/fixed positions/line up of the players involved.)

Thanks Shaun.
There isn’t a follow up q on this 1 but: when you sit down @ a zoom table vs a regular table, is there any difference in your thought process? Eg @ a reg table the BB is v tight so on the button I will open looser against them vs when @ a zoom table i always play the same strategy (from the button) whoever is in the BB.

My issue is: the fluctuating nature of where the players are seated in a zoom pool/session (compared to the regular table fixed seating line up) has always confused me/stopped me from wanting to learn/play in this format. Do you have any idea where I am going wrong?

Hi Shaun
i asked a couple of related q's to your maximizing ev video in the comments, can i do the same here?
(they are a couple of general poker q's i havent totally understood and am not sure where else to get a good response.)

There may not be.

What happened to your Black Friday sale on your books?

I didn’t explain it well.
What i’m Trying to get at is:
For NLHE, you can either use 0, 1 or 2 of your holecards @ showdown in relation to making the best hand. Whereas in PLO you HAVE to use 2(/you can only use 2).
Is there any maths or thought process or something that relates to this specific structure within PLO?

hey cory, a couple of q's this week :)
i) if 4 card plo has 270k holecard combo's, how many does 5 card have?
ii) i cant explain this q v well but it's something im trying to get my head around.
i appreciate there's 270k starting combo's in plo, of which there are 6 (or is it 12?) permutations of different 2 card combinations that have to be used @ showdown.
what is (is there any?) the related maths? (im trying to work out a good way of thinking about the structure of this variant which involves the necessity of only being able to use 1 2 card combo @ the river.)
sorry couldn't be clearer but am hoping you can give me some useful info.

Great video Chris

I think you may have to make the opposite video now:

Releasing the potential! or Getting out the way on the up tick!

hellllloooooooooo

:) :)

Thanks Ivan. Makes sense.
What's your competency in plo mtt's? (What's your confidence level like?)

Thanks Cory by the way.
So along this line of thinking (and I know mtt's aren't your specialty):
in a mtt, the exact same logic applies?
What you have bought in for (in $) translates to BB's in your stack perfectly?
(I appreciate there are different dynamics @ certain stages in mtt's. So specifically for this case, we'll use the early levels of an mtt.)

Thanks Shaun
I think where I was going wrong was I was thinking about this hand as an individual hand > a strategy.
So losing a bit of ev here doesn't have any consequences if you are just considering 1 trial. However if you're looking at the situation over a more longer term, there is a cost to giving up ev.

Hi Shaun
(I'm liking the video description.)
I havent watched the video yet but I have recently had a thought and was wondering if you could easily answer it. (It is related to the video topic.)
Why is max +ev the aim? (Rather than just +ev.)
I'm sure the answer is v obvious. But from my perspective, I'm thinking +ev in any circumstances is good whether it's a small amount or large.
Where is the principle derived from?
Thanks