melanie weisner poker strategy vid

[julian]

i’m interested in peoples opinions on this free vid from poker strategy that pleno posted in the ‘which training site?’ thread, specifically old school (camel etc) vs young guns opinions.

for the record i enjoyed the vid, melanie is clearly a very talented player with a really nice line in banter & i’d be keen to see more from her but i struggle to believe that any player can go into pretty specific value ranges vs bluff ranges analysis, on the spot, mid hand, without a pen & paper which leads me to the conclusion that, in game, it’s so much more a ‘live read’ situation than a math one.

personally, i weigh up the risk/reward of checking/betting the river vs  the specific opponent & vs the opponent melanie  described i’m not gonna get greedy, it seems a clear check/call.

had i bet the river there & got shoved on my analysis would have been, ‘thew you donkey, the less people that hear about this the better’.

in summary i just felt the spot was really over-analysed

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/26352/

[Dry em]

I watched it too - completely agree with you, I guess good analysis if you're in to that sort of thing but borderline pointless to me

[kinboshi]

maths

[LOJ]

deep!  well over thought it IMO.  Maybe thats why she is the pro....

[Dewi_cool]

I agree, call all day long (but i'm a fish)

[Pugwashed]

I don't find the video particularly interesting in terms of breaking down the maths behind the hand and breaking down ranges (I think its pretty clear what both of their value ranges are and what his most likely hands to be bluffing with are) as she seems to conclude that if he is capable of bluffing then he is doing it often enough to make it a call so it essentially comes down to a decision about what level he is thinking on and that seems pretty difficult to quantify.

Coming from more of an online background I find some of the stuff about speech play and live reads more interesting in terms of making me more aware of what I do as well as what others do and what it might mean (although admittedly the specific dynamic of being a hot female poker celebrity playing against a fanboy isn't particularly relevant to me.) The problem I have with people analysing speech play and live reads is that I've heard so much different and conflicting stuff that I'm that not too comfortable letting it influence decisions and I'm always slightly skeptical when people tell me about general live tells (although I do pick things up occasionally and am aware of a couple of things I used to do.)

[pleno1]

fwiw, it was her first video and we spoke about what to do. This hand was quite famous on 2p2 and I wanted to attract some of those guys whilst still discussing the hand as I thought it was interesting.

It did go into detail but I wanted her to try and speak as much about live play as thats what the series would be about + to help live players to make decisions on the river and what to think about rather than just "lol bet/call got dat top pair"

Generally we advise theory videos to be 20 minutes maximum so that they are not "over-done" and so that people can take things in.

Would also say that in general if we b/call every time we have top pair in a tournament on the river we are going to be doing chunks.

Anyway, cliffs are it was her first video, it was actually well received and I agree with the input in the thread <3

How about this one Julian? Bet you love it

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/22794/

[Patonius2000]

Videos like this are not a time efficient way to learn poker. I may be wrong though, because I only watched about 5 minutes when I realised it wasn't an efficient use of my time 

On the positive side, she is obviously articulate/smart.

[pleno1]

Videos like this are not a time efficient way to learn poker. I may be wrong though, because I only watched about 5 minutes when I realised it wasn't an efficient use of my time.

On the positive side, she is obviously articulate/smart.

this and her other video are absolutely not attractive for you or other mid stakes ro full time players, they are for a totally different market.

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/28456   Todays video for example would be more down your street which is "diamond" and for experts rather than "basic" and for "everybody"

[Patonius2000]

Videos like this are not a time efficient way to learn poker. I may be wrong though, because I only watched about 5 minutes when I realised it wasn't an efficient use of my time.

On the positive side, she is obviously articulate/smart.

this and her other video are absolutely not attractive for you or other mid stakes ro full time players, they are for a totally different market.

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/28456   Todays video for example would be more down your street which is "diamond" and for experts rather than "basic" and for "everybody"

Cool I'l check it out, pretty sick you guys offer all this for free.

[julian]

fwiw, it was her first video and we spoke about what to do. This hand was quite famous on 2p2 and I wanted to attract some of those guys whilst still discussing the hand as I thought it was interesting.

It did go into detail but I wanted her to try and speak as much about live play as thats what the series would be about + to help live players to make decisions on the river and what to think about rather than just "lol bet/call got dat top pair"

Generally we advise theory videos to be 20 minutes maximum so that they are not "over-done" and so that people can take things in.

Would also say that in general if we b/call every time we have top pair in a tournament on the river we are going to be doing chunks.

Anyway, cliffs are it was her first video, it was actually well received and I agree with the input in the thread <3

How about this one Julian? Bet you love it

http://www.pokerstrategy.com/video/22794/

cool, lookin forward to checkin it out,
& likewise, pretty sick you guys offer all this for free

[rfgqqabc]

Really liked the model of analysis, would have much preferred a debate on the correct river size here. Thought the spot wasn't interesting enough for the length of video.

Tyty tho