New PokerSavvy Pro Jaglawson breaks down what it takes to win in todays Small Stakes NL games online. Having crushed his way through $100 NL and $200 NL - Jaglawson is giving you his secrets to beating today's TAG infested games. Adjusting to SSNL is about opening up your mind and your game. Join Jaglawson, your Jedi leader, and improve.
Video Description
Jaglawson begins overview for beating stakes up to $200 NL online. Part 1 looks at exploiting Multi-Tabling regulars, Shania, and Unusual Bluffs.
Viewing Tip: To watch full screen, mouse over the video and click
the
icon on the right hand side of the menu bar.
If the full screen option does not work, you may need to
update your version of Adobe Flash Player.
Offline
Plus Team
this is a really really good first video.
GJ mike.
Plus Team
will be fixed tomorrow
Plus Team
2 sections are missing, check back tomorrow for the rest
Basic User
Great vid!
Who do u define a nit? under 15 vpip?
Plus Team
Who do u define a nit? under 15 vpip?
thanks, but 20 more mins of content will be added tomorrow that got lost in publication, so be sure to check back for the rest.
I define it less by vpip (if I had to do it from vpip, 22 or 23), and more by stats like raise 1st % on the button, 3bet % on the button and in bb vs. sb opens, and postflop tendencies. When someone has low stats in those spots, they are generally missing a lot of easy steal situations on the whole, which makes them nits in my book.
Basic User
Very good vid, look forward to more.
I was wondering what you would do with pocket Bulbasaurs on the same dry K-high boards.
Basic User
I was wondering what you would do with pocket Bulbasaurs on the same dry K-high boards.
Hahaha awesome. Great vid Jag loking forward to the rest.
Basic User
Great first vid! I can tell you have a tremendous passion for learning poker through all of your content. Blessing and burden... isn't it? lol
Plus Team
I was wondering what you would do with pocket Bulbasaurs on the same dry K-high boards.
snapfold, Bulbasaur is a little b*tch. I c/r any hand with a Squirtle or Charmander, because they are obviously the stone cold nuts.
Basic User
I realllllly love how you go deep into explanations...the overbet bluff concept...I have thought about using it so many times but could never balls up and do it, except one time (it worked). But, because you basically back it up with evidence it makes me want to use it with faith now.
Question- the K52 r board where you bluff raise the pokemon cards-
If hero has a set there there would be no reason to c/r this early on the hand. Something logical in my head tells me 'don't do things when I can't rep anything realistic' Should I be changing this thought process against bad regs??
It's just that I have had this play done to me by aggro regs on A high boards plenty of times...I open J3s on CO get flatted OTB. Flop is A28 they raise my cbet...I call they check turn I bet river they fold.
I guess what I am asking is-Are you suggesting that its profitable to bluff in spots that make no sense vs. bad regs, but not versus better regs?? I have been practicing not bluffing the KK2 or A94 because I know it reps nothing, but I guess I should against the 12 tabling people?
Can't wait for the rest!
Plus Team
I was wondering what you would do with pocket Bulbasaurs on the same dry K-high boards.
snapfold, Bulbasaur is a little b*tch. I c/r any hand with a Squirtle or Charmander, because they are obviously the stone cold nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDXfCkkZZ7g
Basic User
I DID IT!!!!
THE OVER BET BLUFF IP!!! WOO HOO!!!
4 players
Hand conversion powered by PokerSavvy Plus.
1 fold, Hero raises to $1.25, Saugrim raises to $4, 1 fold, Hero calls $2.75
Saugrim bets $5, Hero calls $5
Saugrim checks, Hero checks
Saugrim checks, Hero bets $27, Saugrim folds
Saugrim lost -$9
Basic User
So... Shania is... Yoda? mwahaha
Basic User
Has this video been updated yet?
Plus Team
Not yet, we're going to attach it as the intro for part 2 - as the content can stand alone on its own.
Basic User
At the beginning of the video you said as a scientist you didnt like making unfounded claims. You then went on to GUESS as to why the fish play the same at the small stake levels lol. You may be right but I still think its just a guess and your claim is unfounded.
Your point is still clear that the fish play the same in those levels.
I liked the video a lot BTW and you explained things very clearly.
Plus Team
This is very valid, and it's something that bugged me before publishing the video. I decided to leave it though, and I'll give you my logic for leaving it as-is if you are interested.
I can't poll the fish in every game and give you a statistically significant finding, so I went ahead and included the best hypothesis w/ the support that I have that is an aggregate of my discussions with many poker players. Sometimes you need to be willing to make a functional conclusion in science when it's impossible to unequivocally prove the true result, and I it's not bad science as long as you both state the limitations of your claim and prove your claim is the best option given the available information. This is very applicable to poker as not all useful information can be easily proven, so I'll do my best to more carefully enumerate the limitations of my claims in the future.
I'm glad you liked the video, and I appreciate the feedback. I will be more careful with my words in the future.
Basic User
Wheres part 2 already?
This is absolutely brilliant for me right now, I am going to rewatch. It will help me get out of these weak-tight tendencies I have.
Plus Team
Part 2 will likely be this weekend, classes are killing me right now but I'll try to find the time to finish it up.
Basic User
Super jag, ty.
Basic User
hey Jaglawson, absolutely rate this video, great work mate, just wondering though, where is this so called part 2?
Cheers