Home → Poker Forums → Videos → Full Ring Binder : Episode Eight
Full Ring Binder : Episode Eight
16 posts, 9 voices
RapidEvolution’s Full Ring Binder covers everything from the Fundamental Theorem of Poker to pot odds and postflop play.
Subscribe to this Series
RapidEvolution and his student talk about hand histories, how to post them, how to get the most out of your personal reviews as well.
Posted about 1 month ago
tags: rapidevolution full ring binder powerpoint ipod friendly poker theory hh review hand replayer
Micro/Small Stakes,
108 min long
Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.
I know this video is a lot longer than the other ones, but I felt that there was material left to cover on posting hands, getting the most out of sweats, and doing HH reviews. The hands themselves were very interesting (thank you QuadDeuces!) and it was the first time I had looked at them. (I spend a lot of time preparing these videos, but when it comes to sweats/HH reviews, I feel that recording my first look gives the videos a more organic feel). I hope you guys enjoy!! 
do you think this series would be good for 6max games aswell? Which episodes carry over into 6max?
Wow! I really enjoyed this video. RE, you are really good at HH reviews!
Without pokerstove I never would have guessed the 89 flopped strt was either a flip or a dog. When I played the hand I figured AK would have been more likely to 3B pre but when Villain called the shove I thought I'd be shown AK. Later, in PokerStove I was shocked to see how badly the flopped straight was doing against his range (including his actual hand).
Time Link to 00:49:20
Just a small correction re. the discussion on AF at this spot
-Aggression FACTOR is actually calculated by (# of bets + # of raises) / # of calls. In other words, neither folding NOR checking effect the stat. Since it's a ratio, betting and raising increase it, while calling decreases it.
-Aggression frequency, on the other hand, is the comparison of aggressive actions made (bets/raises) to passive actions (calls/checks), represented as a percentage of the aggressive actions overall. Folding does not directly influence either of the stats, though RE is correct that players who make better folds rather than loose calls will indeed have HIGHER aggression factors.
As an example, if on the first hand at a table, you bet the flop, bet the turn, then check/fold the river, your aggression frequency is 66% (2 aggro: 1 passive). Your AF would not take the check into account, and thus would be infinite (as you can't divide by 0).
However, if you bet the flop, bet the turn, and check/CALL the river, your aggression frequency changes to 2 (2bets/1 call) while your agg frequency becomes 50% (2 aggressive actions over 4 total actions).
Here's the source for this:
http://faq.holdemmanager.com/questions/95/Stat+Definitions#answer
It's important to note that bets and raises are treated as equal to one another by both stats, so a relatively "aggressive" opponent could be someone who raises a lot AND/OR bets a lot.
If you don't mention it later in the vid, it's also important for people to recognize that the Aggr. factor stat turns out to be a function of VPIP, in that a tighter player will typically have a higher agg factor than a looser player simply because he is tight. As a result, when you have a loose player and a tight player who have the same A. factor, the LOOSER player is actually playing MORE AGGRESSIVELY. You can't simply compare players aggression factors to each other to determine who is more aggressive-you must factor in their relative VPIP's.
Aggression FREQUENCY changes independently of VPIP, however, so a loose and tight player with identical aggression frequencies are making the identical PERCENTAGE of aggressive actions overall.
do you think this series would be good for 6max games aswell? Which episodes carry over into 6max?
I definitely think that this series has a lot to offer players in all types of poker. While I've used full-ring NLHE as the platform, each episode has information that works across the board. A few of these are
- The Fundamental Theorem of Poker
- The Advantages we can have over our opponent (Position, Skill, Cards) (Position gets a bit funkier when we look at games like Stud where position changes)
- Observing opponents, ascertaining the most likely type of mistake they will make and then inducing it.
I could go on, but the point is that much of the fundamental content can be used in other games. The main differences, IMO, will have to do with preflop and postflop ranges, and the overall aggression in the games.
Just a small correction re. the discussion on AF at this spot
-Aggression FACTOR is actually calculated by (# of bets + # of raises) / # of calls. In other words, neither folding NOR checking effect the stat. Since it's a ratio, betting and raising increase it, while calling decreases it.
-Aggression frequency, on the other hand, is the comparison of aggressive actions made (bets/raises) to passive actions (calls/checks), represented as a percentage of the aggressive actions overall. Folding does not directly influence either of the stats, though RE is correct that players who make better folds rather than loose calls will indeed have HIGHER aggression factors.
As an example, if on the first hand at a table, you bet the flop, bet the turn, then check/fold the river, your aggression frequency is 66% (2 aggro: 1 passive). Your AF would not take the check into account, and thus would be infinite (as you can't divide by 0).
However, if you bet the flop, bet the turn, and check/CALL the river, your aggression frequency changes to 2 (2bets/1 call) while your agg frequency becomes 50% (2 aggressive actions over 4 total actions).
Here's the source for this:
http://faq.holdemmanager.com/questions/95/Stat+Definitions#answer
It's important to note that bets and raises are treated as equal to one another by both stats, so a relatively "aggressive" opponent could be someone who raises a lot AND/OR bets a lot.
If you don't mention it later in the vid, it's also important for people to recognize that the Aggr. factor stat turns out to be a function of VPIP, in that a tighter player will typically have a higher agg factor than a looser player simply because he is tight. As a result, when you have a loose player and a tight player who have the same A. factor, the LOOSER player is actually playing MORE AGGRESSIVELY. You can't simply compare players aggression factors to each other to determine who is more aggressive-you must factor in their relative VPIP's.
Aggression FREQUENCY changes independently of VPIP, however, so a loose and tight player with identical aggression frequencies are making the identical PERCENTAGE of aggressive actions overall.
Excellent contribution as always, zenben. (especially the example) With regards to the relationship between AF and VPIP, I've been under the assumption that the relationship existed mainly as a function of range strength. For example, a player who is running 22/18 will find themselves in more marginal positions (either because of decreased FE postflop vs observant opponents or because of an increased likelihood of having a hand like middle pair decent kicker) and thus be in more spots where taking a passive line will be more appropriate. On the other hand, someone who is running 11/9 will have a stronger range in general, and will be aiming to build more big pots. Furthermore, an opponent is likely to have a much stronger range for playing aggressively vs the tighter player and as such, the tighter player might be more apt to fold vs aggression.
Furthermore, an opponent is likely to have a much stronger range for playing aggressively vs the tighter player and as such, the tighter player might be more apt to fold vs aggression.
This I had not thought of, but it makes perfect sense. I agree the reason an aggression factor of. say 1.0 is considered relatively low for a TAG and high for a LAG is because the LAG would have to play a very high percentage of his hands aggressively (betting/raising) to counter all the times he is calling with a weaker range (due to his higher VPIP) as a call lowers the AF (thus 1.0=the same number of bets/raises as calls).
However, it is possible to imagine a player type that plays in a way where AF would be less reliant on VPIP-namely something like loose preflop and fit/fold postflop who raises or ch/R's vs a cbet with any piece rather than ch/C or flat call.
For instance, a player with 40 VPIP who folds to flop cbets something like 75%, only cbets 33% and flop ch/R 15% (leaving only 10% calls) would have a much higher AF then a typical LP with 40 VPIP.
Also, DONK BETTING a wide range (especially non-polarized), then folding to raises can seriously influence the AF regardless of VPIP! I have seen some crazy (bad) LAGs who donk bet their botm/middle pair hands, and pocket pairs and then fold to raises (basically betting to "see where they are at") and their AF becomes HUGE because they are betting when most loose players ch/C.
If anyone who is new to HEM is totally confused by AF, the thing to take away from this is you can still have a tight-aggressive player and a tight-passive player (as well as loose-aggressive and loose-passive) but these terms really are RELATIVE to one and other. An AGGRESSIVE player isn't someone who has an AF of x+ or something. This is what I found confusing when I first starting using HEM (and a big reason why I now use aggression frequency).
Time Link to 01:32:58
Would you ever consider calling flop to see a blank turn and then shoving? If there are 21 "outs" to a safe turn (all the non-spade small cards 2 through 8) then we have around 42% to see a safe card and then we get it in with 55% equity against 99+,AJs+,AK, plus fold equity if he whiffs. It's also very close because we call $7.50 on the flop into a pot of $18, that's 41.6% pot odds. So calling here is less variance and we have a clearly +EV decision to shove a safe turn or fold if a gross card comes.
Would you ever consider calling flop to see a blank turn and then shoving? If there are 21 "outs" to a safe turn (all the non-spade small cards 2 through 8) then we have around 42% to see a safe card and then we get it in with 55% equity against 99+,AJs+,AK, plus fold equity if he whiffs. It's also very close because we call $7.50 on the flop into a pot of $18, that's 41.6% pot odds. So calling here is less variance and we have a clearly +EV decision to shove a safe turn or fold if a gross card comes.
I would disagree that we have a clearly +EV situation by shoving a blank turn, because we'd need to overbet shove and because our equity against a range of TT-QQ/AK (even on a blank turn) is only 28.5%. Add in AsJs and it goes up to 30%. It isn't until we start adding unlikely preflop scenarios (like the villain flats preflop with KK+) that we get into a break-even to slightly +EV shove spot. I'd also add that I wouldn't consider an 8 as a blank card from our villain's perspective. I think than an 8 would cause sets to seriously slow down and possibly even fold, depending on our bet-sizing. In fact, I think that betting an 8 would be extremely thin against this opponent and if we were to make a normal-sized bet (given that a shove would be an overbet) on an 8 and get shipped on, it'd only be a thin call.
Text results appended to pokerstove.txt
14,784 games 0.005 secs 2,956,800 games/sec
Board: Qs Ts Jd 8h
Dead:
equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 30.841% 24.48% 06.36% 3619 940.50 { 98s, 98o }
Hand 1: 69.159% 62.80% 06.36% 9284 940.50 { QQ-99, AKs, AKo }
Time Link to 00:23:51
What's a good number to have for WSD? Just want to know where I stand in my play.
Time Link to 00:32:17
Wouldn't it be better to have SC instead of runners? Also as far as over limping isn't a 2 way pot kind of a thin spot to be limp in? When calling the raise preflop after limping are you looking at the pot odds or just the players? If you are looking at the pot odds what odds are we looking for?
Time Link to 00:06:37
lol
I think this was me at a NL10 table a while ago.Cinemaqueen right 
At least still enjoy the series 
Home → Poker Forums → Videos → Full Ring Binder : Episode Eight
Reply to Topic
Reply w/Quote