I think x/f turn with AdAx is reasonable against a more standard sizing. However given the size of bet that we are facing you'd have to be pretty sure of villain's tendencies to fold it given how the hand actually played out. It would be a pretty big disaster to fold AsAx here if hands like QJ and QT are a part of villain's small turn c-bet range, especially since they are likely to always check river unimproved.

Woops.

Really enjoyed the video, Daniel. Ive been playing live the last couple of weeks myself,  and this really helps, with guidelines on how to effectively analyze and work on live game. perf for peeps like me who are more used to online these days. Thanks

I was thinking this exact same thing as I was making the turn bet but concluded that a turn shove would be extremely rare. 

I didn't think JT would really be part of villain's range - made no sense to me why he would want to squeeze it in that spot when he would be closing the action. Even if he somehow did end up with JT there preflop you still have to parlay that with him not c-betting the flop which again is of arguable likelihood. 

Sets - the only one that would make sense is QQ and again he would have had to not c-bet the flop in order to show up with QQ. 

Also it's just hard to think of hands that villain would want to c/r here given the small sizing. If he did actually shove though, I would lean towards folding.

Betting to define villain's range - I don't like doing this nor do I think it is correct. Think about it: you are putting in money when you are behind whether you bet or x/c. But by betting you are just narrowing his range when he is behind. If you mean to say it's easier to play the hand if we bet, this is probably true, but easier != most profitable. 

Betting/bet-folding etc. - Generally the worse villains are the more likely I am to bet. A combination of being able to valuebet them more effectively, not being put into tough spots with them bluffing or tuning hands into a bluff, them starting out with wider ranges, etc. I think bet/folding versus a lot of people live is good. 

Factors in deciding whether to bet or check - left this one for last because it's most interesting but also because the stuff above applies. Generally the worse villains are and the less I think they will give me a hard time the more likely I am to bet. I'm also more likely to bet if I do not have Ad in my hand because it is much less volatile and I can easily continue on diamond turns after I c/c flop. One thing that is I don't think anyone has brought up yet that would be a major factor is the relative position of the reg and the rec in the hand. If I'm the BB with AA in this spot, I am much more likely to bet if the reg is the MP and the rec is the BU than if their positions were reversed. In the first scenario the reg is kind of squeezed in between us and can't give me as much of a hard time with the rec behind. Once the bet gets through him, it's just a matter of getting value form the button. But reverse their positions and now it's harder to get light value form the rec with the reg behind him, and if the rec folds now the reg can give me a hard time.

Thanks!

I'll get to this when I get to answering some of the questions below, but the point of a video was more to give a combinatorical analysis and to present an objective way of analyzing a hand rather than to come up with what to do in a specific scenario. After all, once I switch POVs in the latter part of the video the villain is somewhat fictitious (or rather, I myself was the villain in this hand and I would like to think that I'm pretty balanced and would tend to make decisions against myself based on combos).

@DanielDvoress I do think this video really effectively illustrates how to use the combinatorial and pot-odds thought process, which is instrumental to padding the win-rate.

I suggest that you make it more clear in your videos if you aren't recommending a call in the specific scenario against a more generic villain than yourself. I, like Steve, have been finding that call-downs based on combinatorials and pot odds are leaking me quite a lot of money live because "live pros" - especially those that have never really played online - tend to miss many of the profitable multi-barrel bluff opportunities with missed draws (and this is true even if they are quite aggressive overall).

The point of the video wasn't really to show how to play this particular hand, and I feel that given there have been a lot of comments like the above some members missed the point. I picked a hand that I felt was pretty interesting from villain's perspective and used it as a hand to show how I would go about breaking down a hand. The actual decision wasn't meant to be a recommendation of how to play against your standard opponent when you are playing live (after all, the opponent is more or less fictional in the latter part of the video). Although, if you do want the results of the analysis of the video to be practical - I would take them as they are - after all I am the "villain" in this hand and I'd want to play close to optimal versus myself.

You have managed to confuse me as well!  For sure you are right if button only has 16 bluff combos when he makes the first bet on the flop, he's either extremely value heavy by the time he gets to the river, or he never checks back the flop or turn, and bb should just fold all his bluffcatchers on the early streets.  I'm not sure if Daniel assumes that the button has other one and done bluffs on the flop and turn, or that since we actually did face the betting part of buttons range on every street, that we just assume that all those bluffs are still in the river range.

Hey, sorry it took so long to get to this.

Two things:

1) There are some hands that are going to be give-ups that might barrel the turn and not the river. I kind of skimmed over some of these in the video - some combos of KT, KJ, etc. In practice you are also going to have some random flop stabs/turn barrels so there is always room to add some bluffs, but there is literally no room to add any more value. 

2) BU isn't really going to have all of the listed value combos with 100% weight, so this is going to account/make up for not accounting for give-ups.

I think that the reason for the confusion is that I listed a bunch of river bluffs, but then it seemed like those would be the only bluffs for the turn, and obviously like you said BU is supposed to give up with some bluffs on the river. This is correct - but my goal was to analyse the hand on the river only, and not in a "forward" manner (which would involve a preflop, flop, turn, river range) like a normally would because that would get too complex for this hand.

I don't think you are really talking about the same thing tho.  He was just saying that he's going to give button a liberal value betting range, so he's also assuming button wont chicken out with his bluffs on the river.  Memo was bringing up the point that if button has 16 bluff combos OTR, then that means in theory he should have had roughly 35 on the turn, lots more on the flop etc.  I think for the sake of time, Daniel just assumed that villain should have all the bluffs he listen in his range when we got to the river, and would be checking back and giving up with other bluffs along the way.  If thats not the case, then the bb should just fold his AA to the flop bet, because the button will be able to continue on every turn, and we will basically have just burned the money we put in on the flop.

This one is answered above, let me know if it's still unclear.

First off, I agree with everything you said about live poker and how you would go about making a decision in this hand. I also agree that that against 90%+ of opponents you would encounter live you can snap-fold AA here on the river. 

A couple of things though:

Like you correctly pointed out, the idea behind this video was more to show how to break down a hand combinatorically - to show the tools and the process, rather than to arrive at a correct conclusion, which in this spot is going to be very subjective anyway. Further, the factors that you listed that you would use to help you decide weather or not to call here (what watch he is wearing, table presence, etc.) are very important (and I would use them too in practice in a live game), using those factors are not something I can teach. It's not my area of expertise, it's too much of a soft science for me to feel comfortable teaching it, and most importantly it's not a skill that would transfer over well or even be useful to most people. So to summarize: the intended use of this video was to show members how to break down a hand, rather than to specifically answer what to do in this spot with hand X against opponent Y.

Secondly, if you are looking to just get a practical answer from this hand as the hand is, I would very strongly argue that my conclusion is correct. The villain in the second part of the video was intended to be theoretical, but in practice I was the villain in this hand. Against myself in a vacuum I think the best strategy would be to fold AdAx, and call with AA otherwise.

So all in all I don't think we disagree at all - just talking about slightly different things.

This is correct (and just answered today above), if this part is still unclear/there are questions about it please post below and I'll clarify further.

Heh, only upon rewatching the video I realized how much time I spent on part 1 of the video. I think I got carried away with it - I didn't intend to talk about how to play a boat in position but rather try to give a loose breakdown of the IP player's overall strategy/range because I knew that the second part of the video would get to that anyway.