Rival_Dealer

Love the software, despite of some minor issues listed in Phil's post above.

I also strongly believe that RIO should start heavily promoting the site for recreational players only when the client will be issue-free and "option-wise complete", otherwise it may appear not appealing enough for recs, because one of the main things they appreciate is VARIETY (choice of games, choice of visuals etc).

Finally. Your second child will be born on Wednesday.
I promise to come by to wish him happy birthday.

Hello Phil.

All pros / semi-pros are gonna play at RIO Poker regardless of it being 4 or 6 tables cap, BUT ONLY IF RECS ARE GONNA BE THERE. No recs = No regs = Failure.

So you just should do whatever is best for the recs first. Make their first impression a good one. Make them stay. And all the rest will work out by itself.

Which option is the best for the recs? Well, obviously the one that doesn't involve them being smoked by the pros in a matter of few hours every time they make a deposit. So give losing players a chance to be a break-even players, and break-even players to be a slightly winning players. Success is what makes people continue playing. It will keep the ecosystem alive and well in a long run.

That's why inspite of the fact that I've got 4-tabling ZOOM background, I voted for the 4 table option.

But the issue with "waiting in the line to play at a certain table counted as an opened table" should definitely be adressed asap, and most important BEFORE the launch.

Also big props for the cards and tables designs. Based AF.

You're writing the history Mr. Galfond. My endless respect to you for everything you do.

Hello Leszek. Thank you for another great video.

At 49:20, don't you think that your decision to bluff the river was made too hastily vs a solid thinking reg (which our opponent obviously is, considering his stats)?

1. There are 2 FDs that have bricked on the river and no additional SD got there as well.
2. We block a good chunk of our opponent's folding range with our nut FD.
3. Our opponent has plenty of 2pair/set combos in his range on the river which he would likely be intended to use as a bluff catchers CONSIDERING the board runout.

I get that you got some sets/J9 combos in you range and you pretty much would've chosen the same line with them, but considering all the points I've stated above and the level of our opponent, wouldn't a river check/fold be a more solid option?

At 36:08, is it likely enough that our opponent will go for a second barrel in order for a check/raise line to be justifyable? The following points come to mind:

1. We block decent amount of 65 combos and flushes with our hand.
2. His WWSF is 40 and AF is 1,9, which is definitely on a lower side and makes him less likely to go for a second barrel with air.
3. He will most likely check back all his middle-strengh holdings on the turn.

Wouldn't it be more profitable to charge all of his possible sets/straights/lower flushes on the turn and not to give all his 2pair/set combos an opportunity to boat up for free?

Thank you so much for all your content by the way. It's all pretty awesome in an educational sense. My mind is completely engulfed with it at the moment. That's why I ask so many questions =)

Hello Leszek. I was kinda surprised by your fold on the BTN @ 07:24 on table #1 with KQJ6r. Is that because the SB seems like a reg and has fairly agressive stats?

Well, this video is a very accurate description of something that i was "feeling" and had an abstract thoughts about for many years, but could never logically present to myself in such a constructive way. Thanks a lot for this video Leszek. It is a very important one.

Eagerly waiting for english version of your book. Seems like it's going to be very useful.