Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by shuttle (Micro/Small Stakes)

At around 26:45 I think the EV for 50% scissors and 50% paper should be
-$1 since it is $2 for a loss not $1. Right??

It's -$2 for a loss with rock. You still only lose $1 for either paper or scissors.

Time Link to 00:20:51

God this blooooooows! So basic its retarded

Oops your right. Thanks. I am enjoying the series by the way, I need the basics.

I'm just catching up on my Running the Streets episodes!

Of COURSE I would like to see the math that makes Gambit work!!

There's always one, isn't there?

Thanks!

( For the example you mentioned in the vid that is. )

Of COURSE I would like to see the math that makes Gambit work!!

It's released under the GNU General Public License, so you should be able to browse the code that it uses to calculate the equilibrium points.

http://www.gambit-project.org/doc/index.html

Time Link to 00:52:29

I don't get that . For him to be break even he have to: 1win:2losses. So the best strategy for us is to shove value twice as much as air ? We don't want him to be breakeven. We want him to loose money against us. Why is this the best strategy?

aaahh! I'mt getting it ^^

Time Link to 00:35:22

Betting doesn't strictly dominate checking, only weakly dominate here, even with a nut hand.

Betting doesn't strictly dominate checking, only weakly dominate here, even with a nut hand.

We are using different definitions. The EV of betting is always higher than the EV of checking given this opponents strategy and range. which is why we are saying that this strategy dominates the other one.
(Also, in these videos we are working under the implicit assumption that the opponent is not always folding 100%.)

Hey guys,

I really like your series, it's very good to hear a more mathematical approach to poker.

Can you explain better this concept:
"If you are getting good odds the value of GTO strategies goes up."

My understanding of the issue is that its absolute value goes up, but non-GTO strategies absolute value also goes up. So although you have extra absolute value, GTO strategies don't become necessarily better than non-GTO strategies.

Thanks !

joaoavf, I think this was just a terminology issue, the absolute value will go up in all cases when our odds are better.

Hi Shuttle

If you have time to answer a couple of questions that would be great.

You give this example:
To make us unexploitable we have to make the EV of his call 0
His EV for a fold = 0
His EV for a call = 200(Pr(Win) - 100*Pr(Lose)

Substitute 0 for the Ev of him calling
His EV for a call = 200*Pr(Win) – 100*Pr(Lose) = 0
Pr(Lose)*100 = Pr(Win)*200
Pr(Lose)=Pr(Win)*2

If we estimate we have 65% equity against his range for our river value bet then in the above equation is it correct that we can multiply his Pr(Win) by .35 and his Pr(Lose) by .65 so the calc would be Pr(Lose)*100*.65 = Pr(Win)*200*.35 giving a value bet to bluff ratio of 1.35?

Also, could you explain some of the maths of whether we base those value/bluff numbers on the hands we actually value bet the river with or the hands that can value bet the river. So for example say we have played our hand to the river so that it is either a strong flush draw or a set, we actually have the nut-flush draw. Before the river we had 9 outs to the nuts so at this point we either have say KJd, KQd, ATd, AJd, AQd, or we have sets of say 22, 55, QQ, KK. There are 5 combos of flush draws and 12 combos of sets. The river is a blank. Do we bluff a percentage of the hands that can value bet this river or a percentage of the cards that fall on the river?

So, we decide if we're going to bet then we'll bet pot-size, do we bluff 9/2 = 4.5 river cards (we could have bet 9 cards for value with our actual hand) or do we bluff 12/2 = 6 combos (we could have bet 12 combos at this point for value so we'll bluff 6)? Not sure how we'd figure out the latter but just a theoretical question.

I'm particularly curious as to why one is right rather than the other. I imagine the former method is correct otherwise we'd hardly ever bluff but I'd love to know why it's right.

Thanks very much, D