Hahaha, that's great. Happy to be the bully :)

Thanks for the feedback’

1) Any computer model has a healthy portion of random offsuit bluffs blind vs blind. The bluffs are really marginal hands including things like 97o. I’m not really splashing but just playing something gto ish.

2) I play a lot of poker and would prefer if I wasn’t identifiable on Ignition, so when I shoot a live play video I use a sizing that is uncommon and not one I normally choose. I think it doesn’t really matter for quality but doesn’t let viewers max exploit my strategy..

3) The he always has it was more of a jab at the reg because he’s a big nit who seems to survive by sun running in 3-bet pots. The only way to beat the player type is to bluff aggressively in small pots and make big folds in big pots. I think the mental game is okay though it’s a boring strategy to play against.

4) I’m happy to shoot 6-max but I think short handed play adds value to the site too. There are plenty of short handed spots in 6-max so it’s really a video focused on blind play and buttons.

Maybe some post audio being short handed, where you can explain some of these off suite 3 bets with these hands I don't usually see. Just something like "Rolled a 95 here, so going to 3bet 97o at least 5% of the time." Seem a bit paranoid of viewers trying to exploit you. I think a 2.5x open sizing or min raising is very hard to identify someone in the pool compared to something like 11.47 or 12.43 type size where you seem to be the only one in the pool using the slider preflop, that is what I was referring to. If viewers wanted to implement what you were doing in this video it would be near impossible. I'm sure I would lose at least 3-4 stacks based on what I saw.

There is a hand 25:20 SB opens 3x you defend in BB. On solver I am not sure why but it loves 3 betting [Q6s, J6s, T6s] at a pretty decent frequency 40-60%. Face a 1/3 bet, raise 4x, then barrel 75%. Was curious how frequently you are barreling this off and if it becomes a triple at 100% if clubs miss? Also why is 6Xs betting more than a hand like Q7s or K7s? I did double check wizard and it is barreling 98% with all 6dXd combos, then you have to fold vs XR because you block all the bluffs villain would XRAI with. Looks like you played the hand near perfect, probably use smaller turn sizing by a little bit, but I feel your pain on this site when villains have perfect timing against your bluffing region.

RunItTw1ce

I watched the video. I didn't see a ton of spew from my side. Do you have some examples?

On the player pool exploitation, it only takes a couple of players who know exactly how you think to start to hurt winrate. I'll never forget a video producer years ago, who I played with daily who shared not only his thoughts, but also his notes on me in a video. Notes like -- "Overbluffs 3-straights" or "Overfolds to C/R" give a lot of insight into how the notetaker can be exploited.

I usually try to post-video audio because I get frustrated in game sometimes and I think you saw that with the Q6dd hand. The more troubling part of the solver solution isn't that Q6dd is a better bet than Q7dd (of course it is because it has more equity and better blockers), but that he solver models my range as having a nice distribution of value hands and bluffs. I think it's reasonably easy on this board to instead model your opponent as being too draw heavy causing lighter jams (rather than smaller callable raises). The Q6dd region is really really hurt by the jam here. If I check it back, I'm +$35 ($25 dollars equity + $10 dollars roughly in implied odds). Every time he jams I'm -$80 for a 23 big blind swing. It's going to take 400-500 hands of +4-5bb poker to get the money back. So yes, I'm disappointed in the video.

You can make the argument that he could counter exploit that check-back with Qd6d here by never slim-value jamming, but it's an anonymous pool and quite frankly this type of board is just so draw heavy, one player checking back here isn't going to likely change his strategy much. I generally try to move hands away from being able to hugely penalized by a counter-exploitative strategy. In fact solver does to, if you node-lock this for a slightly overjam (maybe 5% more), I think you'll see a checkback with Q6dd here at pure frequencies.

I watched the video. I didn't see a ton of spew from my side. Do you have some examples?

2:45 87o 3bet pot SB vs BB (HU) float T94cc-fold turn 3d
compared to 3:25 Jd9h raise btn, cbet Ah8d7d. get XMR. Then face half pot turn and call with gutter again. Thought turn here would just be a fold vs half pot. Not sure if you plan on bluffing diamonds since you had Jd9x if diamond comes and you miss? Not sure if floating because you think J or 9 might be live? Or it's as simple as you have more implied odds given small pot (higher SPR) and not based on the ratio of pot odds you are getting. Where you face half pot turn both times, but one fold OE but say it's close with that particular combo, then J9 say you are confused.

26:15 defend BB T7o vs btn 2.5 (3 handed), then XR on 844r vs probe. I can see this XR being a low frequency XR. Usually the off suite region that I try and defend with matches the BTN RFi region, so A4o+, K8o+, T8o+ 76o+. The T7o defend preflop just seems a little too sticky and seems like you end up over bluffing post flop because of such a wide BB defense region. I know you said in other videos you defend BB really wide. Just hard to execute a strategy with wide range and then also XR at appropriate frequency against a 40-50% BTN range.

Everything else you said makes total sense in your response. Looking back at some of the hands again, I may have been a bit critical, where I don't play 2-3 handed very often, so wide ranges are not really my cup of tea. There have been a few times where I watched your video right before a session and I just end up punting really hard trying to defend wide or XR in weird spots and opponents are "sun running" as you said.

On the 87o hand, I think that the I have to call preflop and I have to call flop -- headups ranges are wider and the sizing preflop was small -- on the turn it's really marginal because my fold equity when checked to is going to be really minimal on blanks -- because so many draws missed and my straight draws are only 3 to the nuts with 5 that make some money but not more than the original pot. I think with a spade, I'd generally call because my equity goes up when the 6s and Js hit and my fold equity goes up on spade rivers if checked to. I could be convinced to call turn. I think it's very very close.

The Jd9x, I think the turn call was marginal, but the sizings are so small that even if he's always nutted, I'd actually make money with the float because I'd make 100bbs when I hit my straight which happens about 7% of the time and another 30-40bbs on the Td. If he's not nutted and has some random hand, I have roughly 20% equity against his range.

The T7o hand was literally because the guy liked to split his ranges between 1/2 pot with stronger hands and 1/3rd pot with weaker hands and then fold to c/r. If I can get 66% fold equity on this type of board, then the c-r line here is worth +3bbs over GTO. Basically if he folds 35% like most players do, then this c-r will lose money. He wasn't that person though.

Thanks RoleTide!

I think you're screen name is fitting. I've shot 130+ dispassionate videos for RIO. When I play I get frustrated like everyone else and I don't mind sharing that occasionally. There's plenty of calm content that I've made and you can find it.

Honestly, though I think being a little emotional when you play helps keep you safe. If you don't care whether you win or lose bets, you never figure out when people are bluffing and when they are value-betting.

Thanks Zache!

I just shot my next video which does a more in-depth commentary with both holecards exposed. I suspect you'll enjoy it!

Unprofessional is a silly description of Tyler here and anyone in general. Your basically conforming to the new poker age idea that we all must be robotic like a solver when we play. This is foolhardiness as we are carbon based lifeforms evolved from harry creatures long ago.

We must be clear and rational when playing, but I'm strongly against not expressing the emotions that still lye beneath the forced suppression.

Tyler wasn't even that emotional in this video or is he ever in his video's. Showing a occasional human feeling is real and connecting for other players. I support it 100% and we should never criticize any coaches that show them.

"This is foolhardiness as we are carbon based lifeforms evolved from harry creatures long ago."

You mean, when the harry creature met the sally creature?