3 thoughts on “Playing a Draw Multiway! [TOUGH SPOT]”

1. I think the size was good because you really dont want to get raise as a bluff. With your number of chips left you dont give any fold equity to do that. If worst hands call 8 they probably call 14

2. Thanks JL

3. JL I just watched and listened to this hand. Can I make some suggestions that might be helpful to novices like me. I think at around 7:13 you discuss what the Button should be doing regarding your 14K bet. You, in your usual style, run through the analysis without reiterating or explaining the underlying rules or logic of your thought processes. The following quote at 7:13 illustrates my point (I will add in my guess as to what your uderlying "rule" or logic is in parentheses) "in this scenario, given it's really hard for my opponent to have a Queen (why? bc of "card removal" i.e., you have a Queen?) he prolly has worse than a Queen (why? because of his wider "initial" or pre flop button range?) and bc there is player yet to act in the big blind, (why is that significant?) although probably, maybe, the BB is obviously folding (Why? bc of the previous check to start the River action?) if the BB is obviously folding it's as if there is no one behind the button (Ok even I get that one) but if there is someone behind the button, he really shouldn't be calling here, all that often, for 14k. (how often is "all that often"? and why? why shouldn't he be calling?) especially if the player in the BB is good and will check a 7 some portion of the time so ( Why if the BB is good? What makes him good? and why will a "good" BB check a 7? bc he is checking to induce the other players to bet and/or bluff the river?) Now, Jonathan I am not questioning how great a player you are or how highly intelligent you are but your rapid fire verbal dump delivery or "teaching" style requires the know nothing novice (me) to actually slow down and replay over and over again your vid to just try and figure out what you are doing and even then it's not clear. To be fair Doug Polk and other poker instructors do the same thing, i.e., a blizzard of intricate details, unexplained caveats and exceptions without any explanation of the underlying principals that are guiding the instructor's analysis.
   Can I make a few suggestions? First you should engage in more repitition of your basic rules underlying your hand analysis. Two, you should engage the student in a "Socratic Method" analysis. (Your wife went to law school and will know what I am speaking about.) So, occasionally, when you make a statement about a particular move by an opponent you might stop for a moment and ask the viewer "why is our opponent going to do this?" and then state the rule. When your wife and I took the bar exam we were trained in "Issue Spotting" and a break down or analysis of the "Issue" and then our conclusion. So, first we had to spot the issue in the fact pattern and then apply our training and knowledge to arrive at a conclusion. The analysis went like this: ISSUE, LAW,(RULE) ANALYSIS, CONCLUSION or the acronym "IRAC". Poker problems are extemely complex and remind me of bar exam questions. So three, perhaps you could apply a similar structure to your explanation of your analysis. As a former teacher and now attorney, I can see where you are a brilliant person but your lack of skills in actual instruction is also very evident. To put it bluntly you need to improve your teaching skills. You need more explanation and repitition of the basic underlying principals that are guiding your analysis and your play. Perhaps a good analogy is after a guitar teacher plays a very fast run of notes for a student the teacher needs to go back and very slowly play individual sections so the student can "catch up" to what the teacher is showing them. Jon I am not trying to offend you and I enjoy your course immensely so please don't take this advice the wrong way. Thank you.

Comments are closed.