BrianPoindexter

allman85 I think it's a bit of a red-herring to use this Ivey example as illustrative of the importance of behavior. Lex certainly looked weak on that hand. (To me, the most concrete behavior is the extent he avoided eye contact, in addition to soft voice, hunched posture, and not knowing his remaining stack size).

IMO,the more important lesson from the Ivey hand is to assign far more weight to the dynamics at the table and why players pick the spots they do for certain moves. In this case, Lex even comments after the hand that he thought Ivey was just mad at Barry G. And Ivey admits he WAS trying to get back at Barry G. Ivey is elite at anticipating that this is a great spot for Lex to make a move - the key is that he knows his OWN image at that moment in time, and how another player like Lex would pick up on that. To understand that dynamic, you don't even need to see physical behaviors of any kind - you could even make a read like that online.

The point is not to divinely soul-read your opponents from physical behavior so much as weighing a multitude of factors, including metagame, and to link those factors together into a compelling story. In this Ivey hand, the behavior matched the metagame/dynamics perfectly, which is why he could be confident enough to push in 52o.

@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).