daniel9861

Great video. Learned a lot.

Volume would go down but the skill level at a given stake would also proportionally go down. That (and no rakeback) is why Bovada is so much softer than ACR at a given stake. Basically what would happen is players who can beat $100nl on Stars would be playing at a much higher limit, probably somewhere in the realm of 2 tables of $1knl. The hourly of regs won't be affected because the decrease in volume is compensated for by moving up in stakes due to higher quality games. However, for recreational players there would be a big difference. There wouldn't be as drastic of a skill level difference from the $200nl or $500nl that they usually play at a casino to $200nl Zoom or $500nl Zoom like there is now.

As someone who table selects pretty aggressively when given the opportunity, I agree with this structure and think this is a great idea.

Not sure if you've talked about this yet, but another Bovada implementation that I feel pretty strongly about is a maximum table limit. I think a table limit narrows the skill edge gap between recreational and professionals even stronger than the removal of HUDs at a given stake and will simulate the skill level of their opponents closer to live poker. I know the industry standard is 4 cash tables maximum, but an argument can be made that a maximum of 2 cash tables is even better for simulating live poker at the same stake. A two table maximum for cash games would strike a nice balance between simulating live poker at a given stake while providing the advantages of multi-tabling (more action/less downtime between folded hands) that live poker can't provide.

Is there going to be a limit on the maximum number of tables a player can be on? I think that's a more important feature than allowing/not allowing a HUD with respect to catering to amateur players. When there is a limit on the number of tables that allows amateur players to play against competition closer to their skill level while allowing them to play at stakes where the money matters to them. As for the maximum number of tables allowed, it seems like 4 is the industry standard but I think a good argument can be made for only allowing a maximum of 2 tables, which would further narrow the skill level gap between amateur players and professionals at a given stake.

Also, I do think going anonymous is the way to go for regular cash tables and sit and gos, but what about revealing player IDs for Zoom and MTTs? When anonymous is combined with Zoom like it is on Bovada, a big element of poker gets taken out of the game and you have absolutely no information at all on your opponents. On Zoom, bumhunting and seat scripts aren't possible so the advantages of having everyone play anonymously gets negated, and the same concept can be applied to MTTs as well. This also allows players to choose if they want to play in an environment with identities or play anonymously.

@ end of video you choose to give up on river w/ 97dd but that hand seems like one of the best hands to have in your river bluffing range for that particular spot. Can you elaborate on why giving up is better than bluffing and what your bluffing and value range would be there?

Against someone open raising 19% UTG I think we should 3bet bluff a decent amount so I prefer 3betting AK here while also having a widish 3bet bluffing range instead of flatting, but I don't think flatting is horrible as long as you play well postflop.

4bet gii pre. As played raise turn more. As played c/f to a big river bet but against that sizing it's a call since he can be vbing worse.

On the turn I think a bet is ok to get value from JJ and protection against AK but once he c/r his range is like AKcc, heavily discounted JJ(like 1 or 2 combos), and all combos of KK-AA so fold to the c/r is best. It would also be important to take a note that he goes for c/shove in similar spots so we should check back and pot control QQ-JJ and also check and take free cards with our draws in future hands.

Missing tons of value by not betting river against a fish.

I actually prefer c/c to c/r since he has a low cbet % and thus his cbets are more polarized to air and TP+ so all c/r does is fold out his bluffs which we want him to keep barreling with especially when good barreling cards peel off on turn and river like A or K. On the river I think we have to c/c since he can easily be valuebetting a worse K and his bluffs will fire on this river for sure.