6-Max Concepts Series Finale (Part 7: Extended Analysis)
Posted by Sean Lefort
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 8 Comments...
I like the first 4 parts of the series but i think it would be better if you answer the questions in the comments and not wasting new videos reading your answers
Thanks for the comment, It'll likely be the only time it happens. I was getting bombarded with comments as well as e-mails/pms/skypes/etc with questions/comments so I figured it made sense to gather it all and utilize a video or two as an effective way to expand my thoughts on each topic. It was a major series and for the most part, future videos will mostly be focused on discrete concepts in isolation and the comments section will suffice any necessary follow-up.
wat is a R?
Hey Tom. Please go back and watch some of my earlier videos that address the principle topics regarding game theory in it's application to Hold'em. I believe R was introduced in a video just prior to this 6-max series. The video (Part 4 I believe) on BB defense strategy uses the term a lot and should help with explanations.
Essentially, R = the % of your actual equity that you realize. Ie. if you have 40% equity with XY against range {Z} when the board is run out with no betting streets, you won't necessarily receive all 40% once you start introducing betting options for both players after the flop/turn/river. You may receive more than 40%, you may receive less. So I went ahead and coined the term "R", where the equity you receive will = R*40%. If you're OOP with unfavorable stacks without initiative and with a hand that doesn't have smooth equity distribution over different board textures, you'll likely receive significantly << 40%. In this case, R may = 60% and thus your equity = 40% * .60 = 24%. So if you're getting 2:1 on a call, it becomes a fold.. just an arbitrary example to give you an idea.
I disagree about the last part of the series not being as good as the first. The comment sections of the videos are sometimes even more interesting then the videos themselves and to hear Sean answer them is more valuable then just reading an answer.
All in all this series was the best poker instruction series I've ever watched. Hope to see more like this soon.
Hey R0b5ter, thanks for the kind comments and also for the great questions/material in the extended analysis.
You state that our ranges are robust-dynamic enough for us to not feel compelled flatting a few premiums such as AA or KK in order to balance our range in BB as we close the action. However, would you say the same thing if we were 3bet in the BTN where we most likely also have a considerable flatting range?
*Because, a lot of players advocate flatting a few premiums to protect the rest of our range and as not to be so capped whenever we face a 3bet. (IP and OOP)
-Afterall, we still close the action. We've got an even stronger/more robust range than we have in the BB in a SRP.
So what is your take on this?Would you flat a few premiums in BTN facing a 3bet for the sake of balance/protecting the rest of our range but not in the BB playing a SRP?
+1 with R0b5ter
Definetely keep on answering the questions that precisely through other videos parts, as the questions have huge value interest, thus having precise answers.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.