Four Tabling Live Session on Ignition
Posted by Brad Wilson
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 9 Comments...
I had always just assumed that you could not use a HUD on Ignition/Bovada....is that not the case? Apparently it is allowed (?)
Can you give any thoughts on playing in the zoom games vs. the regular cash tables? Thanks
The HUD works only for the session at each individual table since its all anonymous. So as soon as you or they leave the table the data is gone. Its useful mainly for tracking basic stats like VPIP/PFR so you can quickly identify player types when multitabling (tight, loose, fish, etc). Zoom is only offered up to $1/$2 on Ignition so he has no choice for his stakes but to play regular tables.
Hey man ... some others have answered the question about the HUD, so I'll address the zoom question.
My personal preference is to stick with the 6 max cash tables that I have always played. I love playing the meta-game with my opponents and using things like game-flow and perception in my decision making process.
With that said, some of my students absolutely love playing zoom, as they can obviously play tons more volume and they believe the competition is pretty weak (on Ignition).
To me it's just about whatever you enjoy more.
Of course HUDs are allowed. The best one to use with BetOnline and Ignition is DriveHUD.
Hi at 31 mins top right QQ, I would have bet the flop. Would I have been wrong to do so and why is a check better?
Also in the same hand, you said if you had AK you would have checked the turn but again I would have bet. I think I get confused as to when a check is in order.
Hey Leeroy ... as with all things in poker, it really just depends.
In this situation I wanted to make my checking range more balanced. If you are always betting JJ-AA, are you betting your whiffs (AK/AQ/KQ)? If you are checking our AK/AQ/KQ then do have any hands that will call after they check?
This is a pretty important concept to think about, as if you do not have hands that will call after you check in a situation like this then villain's obvious exploitable strategy is to just always bet vs. your checks and he prints money.
Great video!
What hand did he have on the 8 T 9 A 4, when you had QQ? 30 min in to the video :)
Hey man, sorry ... I made this about a month ago and now I've forgotten what he had! Re-watching it didn't jog my memory but it's still an odd hand.
Thanks Brad for your videos, very refreshing stuff!
@ 10:00 you talk about betting 22 on 963s5s is straight out bad. However i think with few assumptions it isn't maybe as bad as it first seems.
First is what you mentioned, denying villains overcards equity (~ 13%). Is villain is opening and cbeting wide (you said like 100%) he will have a lot of blank overcard hand combos at the turn. Even more if we assume that villain is doublebarreling some of his value hands and higher equity bluff on the turn (so not checking 100% on that turn), there is even higher distribution of overcard hands.
Second thing is preventing villain on bluffing us on the river. Lets say we xb turn and river is T-A and villain bets we probably fold, if we assume villain is playing quite correctly (i mean we dont overcall on the river). When villain can be these rivers with value and bluffs, we lose vs both his bluffs and value hands, which would have folded the river if we would have bet.
So with assumptions that villain opens wide, cbets wide and checks quite weak range ott, betting could be a viable option. Exploitable i would size down, if i would bet.
And im not strictly saying that betting > checking, im trying to say that it could be closer than it first seems.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.