The $197,386 Pay Jump - Can He REALLY Make This Call? 

No worries big Dougie, you get them crypto fish!

I never knew your poker training site was Coin Central and your second RU-vid channel is called Upswing Poker.

Just curious, did you reverse the links in your description on purpose to troll us, or was that an accident? The one described as Upswing Poker points to CoinCentral, and vice versa.

I love hairy balls

Idk man, your poker hands videos are the best on youtube by far, and even better than most videos that cost money, and in crypto, we have some people that really know their stuff. I know that you know that, and focusing on entartaiment, but it seems as a pretty crappy tradeoff to me. Ofc, this is not about me, and you know what are your own goals. I didn't really watched poker entertainment all that much, also, so maybe I am not all that relevant. I think you have pretty methodical approach to business though...you know your shit in that regards (this is not 100% compliment, because huge part of that is media/political skill and talent, which I am not a fan of...I don't really trust everything you say, to be precise). Sorry for spelling/grammatical errors, english is not my first language, and I rarely even write comments.

Rofl

its a joke boss

JakeIsAwake right back at cha

Stop both being called Jake, it's confusing.

But there is just 1 jake

a fluid flow of internal monologue and simultaneous visualisation of hand ranges in the form of a heat maps

It is Luke Schwartz's poker win/loss graph

i felt the same. The all in looks so much like a block.

I would have like to see a 5-6 million bet because it does apply same amount of pressure and if he gets called he still has around 30BB

He's just balancing his career range. Smart play imo, very GTO

I didn't really get that. Given that you call called already, and the river bricked, why would it matter that your hand could've or couldn't have improved? The only thing which comes to my mind would be the blockers, your hands which could've improved block more of your opponent's bluffs, that's why you can fold them. But that wasn't what Doug said there...

Cowtymsmiesznego Appreciate the reply. Are you sure this isn't what he said? I just listen to his river explanation again and I'm pretty sure that's exactly what he is saying. Afterward, he goes on to say that I don't like using hands that can't improve as often as hands to call too and let go on the river. That's the part where I'm a little iffy. Is he recommending the 95 as a call because there's greater value in your opponents bluff...or does he not really care to call with either 95 or 64 and it just happens he prefers 95 in this instance due to reducing opponent's river bluff value. But neither are favored calls...I can't tell with the language used which he means. Or perhaps my limited poker understanding is in the way.

I'm sure he didn't mention blockers during his river discussion. My idea was that if you have a hand like 64, you're blocking your opponent from having 6x (also a gutshot) which he might want to triple barrel with. What doug said (I think) was the following: for your call call folds you should rather pick hands which CAN improve on the river than the hands which cannot (implying that 95 is a better call call call). The reason being, hands that COULD'VE improved on the river are going to be calls more often anyway, because they are going to improve anyway. Let's try some numbers I guess. For simplicity, let's assume we can only have 95 and 64. 95 improves 0% of the time and 64 improves 20% of the time. Let's also assume your opponent always triple barrels. Strategy 1: call call call with 95, call call fold with 64 unless we improve (then obv call) If we have 95, we call 100% of the time, if we have 64, we end up calling 20% of the time. This means that regardless of which of those we have, we are calling at least sometimes. I guess that could be some protection against live reads (the opponent can't 100% bluff us even if he reads that we have 64). I know however, that Doug doesn't care about that. If we think of our entire range, we're simply calling the river shove 60% of the time. Strategy 2: call call fold with 95, call call call with 64. In this strategy, we always call with 64, even if we don't improve, so the result is we call 50% of the time. The question is, why is it better to call more often? I feel like that's what it comes down to, if we break Doug's reasoning down and disregard blockers (which Doug didn't mention). It seems to me that he essentially said something like "It's good to have a balanced strategy for every hand you have", which is kinda similar to typical Doug's "I like both options". But Idk why that would be the case.

Cowtymsmiesznego Admittedly,, I didn't get too far into your examples. But, that's because you said exactly what I said. I think we are agreeing we're just using different words.

In the examples, I was just trying to make sense of what Doug said. And I concluded that he didn't explain his reasoning well enough, which was indeed your claim. More or less, I was just sharing my thoughts about the hand and on what he said.

Overpairs QQ+ are going to four-bet and 88-TT are likely to 4-bet as well, it depends on how both players have been playing throughout the rest of the hands. That's the trouble with a single hand breakdown, it misses a lot of the information the players have been getting from previous experience.

Because he wouldn't value bet an over pair genius. Smh

Dreamagain11 he wouldn't be value betting this hands you jyst mentioned tho. He was basically saying he had the nuts or nothing.

joe sarnak he'd say, um yeah jnandez left and well life goes on.

Doug?? Is that you? Posting under an alias? Oh well, Hey thanks for getting back to me so fast!

There was a video in the upswing Facebook group.

CyberWize wow your dumb if you've ever thought you were paying $9 for something that was $9.99. I can't believe you were dumb enough to just say that. Lmao.

Mate, look into the psychology of it - I'm not saying that that's what I THINK, I'm saying that that's what people's subconscious perspective of it is. If you look into marketing or psychology, that is EXACTLY why stores have always done that. I can't believe you were stupid enough to post a condescending comment without realising any of that.

LUCAS NUHRICH on the surface it looks like a bad call that turned out to be right

Watched this FT live and Weinman was making a few loose calls. Still a sick call to make but prob not a good idea to try and bluff the most stationy player at the table lol

Daniels range is pretty capped at one bad pair or A high when he three bets and check calls flop So if he is the type of player that insists on having a calling range his options for calling hands OTR all suck. He cant only call with strong ish hands because its so rare that he gets here with them. Any river call is going to be a pretty bad hand in this situation.

Peter, so does that mean that he has to call with all of his shitty paired hands?

John Griller no, unless he thinks Tyler is massively over bluffing.

codeMurp :3 Kane and Jamie r both GOATs, but yea coldstone's commentary can be kind of dumb sometimes.

+skrufy11 thanks man, Appreciated