This is pretty much a video about poker philosophy. The principles still apply but poker has evolved a whole lot during the last 10 years. I don't think that Phil Gordon can keep up with the agression of high stakes online players
That is why this video is so invaluable, because it doesn't delve deeply into actual strategies which you quite rightly state have changed hugely in recent years, but deals more with philosophical questions and getting the correct mindset and psychology to approach the game and it's challenges effectively in any era.
Very true, trying to play a bad player is hard. They have no clue how to bet and can't be forced off a hand. They are not watching how everyone else is playing.
playing a bad player its easy , extremly easy...you said it yourself...you dont bluff youre valuebetting with your big hands and you play tight since youre going to get alot of value with your made hands... you should always look to play with bad players...i doesnt makeany sense to play vs good players... i think youre a begginer yourself who thinks poker its what you see on tv "high stakes poker" crazy bluffs and shit like that ...hands that are showcased on every youtube poker video....in reality you belive it or not you make most of your money with Aces and your made hands.... i heard so many very bad players who think that they are good saying " i cant play on that site coz they dont understand poker and they call me with middle pair when im bluffing , that dosnt make any sense" btw where do you play, maybe we can play some hands together since you understand betting patterns and you CAN be forced out of hands?!
tiago mota I see what you mean but don’t tell me you don’t understand the comment a little? I must see what he means right? Beginners sometimes do such crazy shit that sometimes can act out quite unlucky for yourself. But of course, all the other moments they are there for you to win their chips.
slicer1028 So glad to see people reply with an insult right off the bat. He could have lost it all... It still doesn't change the fact that his career earnings are 3.4$ mil.... ......So being the "genius" you seem to be lets look at it this way---> if you played 10 big buy in ($25000) tournaments per year (of which there are not many... maybe one per event (and you are not playing 10 events a year)) that's $250000 a year (for 10 years) is still $2500000 ... so even by exaggerating like this still makes him up about $1000000.......
slicer1028 I am delighted to be conversing with such a well mannered gentleman. You're completely missing the point... .......and what you said has no relevance to the statement you made about him being a "fish" and the fact that a career winnings stat is still a career winnings stat.... Even if taxes were 99% it doesn't put him in the negative.....
+slicer1028 You have to pay taxes on the profits. The entrance fees would be a business expense and would offset the earnings. In the example above, $3.4m earnings less $2.5m "business expenses." The rest is taxable income.
Sad to say that in my opinion, this seminar is a lot of waffle without actually saying much of anything. Sure, image matters and can be abused, but your 74o won't stand up too well against QQ+ so you need to know when to fold. And for that you need to know how often your opponents bluff. Tight is usually right, but any two cards played well can win (I recently won a pot from the SB, calling a 3x raise, then a squeeze from the big blind with 75s and flopping quads. Took it to the felt and stacked all but one caller). Much more important than a tight range is being able to extract maximum value from your opponents; so charge them the wrong price to chase their draws, and go for that thin value river bet when you think you have the range advantage over them... As for prescriptive lines, Phil is right that there is never one right way to play (even with GTO, since GTO assumes a perfect opponent, but is not exploitative). But there are ranges which are reasonable starting points for various positions that can be used as a default, and various hand reviews that consider strategies for certain hand types, against various flop textures, SPRs, and villains which can be used to build a broader understanding of what makes a good play. "I'm in the BB, facing a steal from the button and I've called. Now I've flopped middle set, what do I do??" You either win the hand or lose it. This kind of thinking misses so much vital information! Who is your villain and what do you know about his tenancies? What's the effective stack size? How large is the pot? What exact cards do you have and what cards are on the flop? Does this flop favour your opponent's range or your range? Do you expect him to cbet this board very often? Do you see any merit in donking into him? What's your plan for the turn? What about the river? Do you even want to get to the river, or win the pot on an earlier street? Do you want to play a big pot or keep the pot size small?..... Phil hasn't really touched on any of this, but only on the idea that players can only learn through personal (costly) experience, and I really disagree with that. The invention of writing, and recording allows us to learn so much more from other people's experiences. All in all, so much left unsaid by an entertaining, but not brilliant player.
Spoken like a true formulaic player. Lol. You completely missed the point of the 43 min video ... if you even watched it ... rather than just spouting your own poker theories to sound smarter than Jim Gordon. Laughing at you.
That is why this video is so invaluable, because it doesn't delve deeply into actual strategies which have changed hugely in recent years, but deals more with philosophical questions and getting the correct mindset and psychology to approach the game and it's challenges effectively in any era.
I agree completely, but also am curious what year this is from. This is a really great lesson for the non-math side of poker, especially for a small buy-in tournament... Also something that you heard a lot 10-15 years ago. In today's poker world, he'd likely take a completely different approach, like most pros do - Calculating equity, pot-odds, etc. - which contradicts the idea of not having a formulaic approach. Definitely worth looking at the widely-used, more recent strategy if you're a beginner and not familiar with the math side. That being said, I would personally always prioritize the more intuitive side like he suggests at the beginning.
@@cookie-nzl8940 There are several options for starting to understand. I recommend Johnathan Little for the free side of learning and he deals with more of the math side of teaching. He has a subscription-based online program... As well, there's Daniel Negreanu's "Masterclass" and Doug Polk's "Upswing Poker Lab". All great for beginning, but once you get the hang of the math, it's easy to plug into a free program like "Equilab" (MUST HAVE IMO)... For me, the difficult part comes with estimating an ordinary opponent's range.
Phil Gordon was good before people learned to play. Now he is someone who rarely if ever plays poker, and isnt competitive or relevant in the modern game.
This sounds like a puffed up, nonsensical jack wagon. "The only question you should ask is what question to ask?" Wtf? That's like saying that you don't need to know words, you just need to speak.
