---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Very good episode, once more. I now realise this is a subject I never fully understood, now I am starting to understand it and it's a very big switch in looking at poker and getting better at poker

It does make me realise how much somebody can be a lucky *peep*, or an unlucky *peep*

Thank you

can we get this in ipod format??

Time Link to 00:18:55

This slide should be:

variance = (.80)*[(100 - 50)^2] + (.20)*[(-150 - 50)^2]
variance = (.80)*[2500] + (.20)*[40000]
variance = 2000 + 8000 = 10000

S.D. = sqrt(10000) = 100

Right?

This slide should be:

variance = (.80)*[(100 - 50)^2] + (.20)*[(-150 - 50)^2]
variance = (.80)*[2500] + (.20)*[40000]
variance = 2000 + 8000 = 10000

S.D. = sqrt(10000) = 100

Right?

Yeah, you got it. My apologies.

This is a small enough mistake that it doesn't affect any of the points made after, and in fact only make the case for the $150 bluff having less variance stronger.

I'm just wondering about this entire thing you are talking about with bigger bets being higher EV and a higher SD.

This is all based on elastic calling ranges am i right?

Cause i can think of ALOT of situations where villain would fold like the exact same % of hands to a 60% potbet and a 80% potbet. Its my theory that alot of players actually have very inelastic calling ranges in almost every spot, especially on the flop considering cbet sizes.

In this scenario the better play is still to bet less cause that works out to be higher EV and still have the same SD?

I mean i've always kinda frowned upon these math video's where they assume a river bluff folds out 80% a smaller bet folds out 60% etc and they work out which has the highest EV.

I'm just wondering about this entire thing you are talking about with bigger bets being higher EV and a higher SD.


This is all based on elastic calling ranges am i right?


Cause i can think of ALOT of situations where villain would fold like the exact same % of hands to a 60% potbet and a 80% potbet. Its my theory that alot of players actually have very inelastic calling ranges in almost every spot, especially on the flop considering cbet sizes.

In this scenario the better play is still to bet less cause that works out to be higher EV and still have the same SD?

In the example I gave it is true that we should bet bigger. I believe that with 100bb stacks this is very often true. I certainly am not making any claim that bigger bets are always better. It might have came off that way because I am trying to dispel the myth that "betting more is riskier". I think that is a misunderstanding of most players. Of course, there is more too it than big bet = best, but the math often supports the big bets. There are competing variables (for example, lower SPRs demands smaller bets).

I agree that there are plenty of spots where we should just use a smaller bet size because the villain's calling range won't change much by bet size. In fact, there are plenty of spots where I implement this strategy as well. Specifically, this often occurs when we have a ton of FE(say 80% plus, in that case the villain is only calling with the top of his range regardless).

However, in a lot of spots it doesn't take much more FE to make a bigger bet higher EV than a smaller one. That's what I am getting at in this example as well as trying to dispel a myth. I do think you will often get a little bit extra FE such that the bigger bet will be better. Also, with 100bb stacks a bigger bet sets up a stack decision on the river. This will often carry with it additional FE on later streets in significantly bigger pots; which certainly is a highly +EV situation.

I have looked at mine and a few friends databases and I have found this to be true. A bigger bet doesn't carry significantly more FE, but it often carries slightly more FE such that a bigger bet is higher EV. In the example I gave we barely picked up any FE, but it was still better to bet bigger. If we feel that we can pick up a few extra folds it is probably worth it to bet larger assuming we have no other constraints (like a low SPR that will rob us of a street of profitable barreling). It's hard to imagine that a player won't fold a few extra hands to a significantly larger bet. It's also often better to bet larger if we are betting the top of our range.

I mean i've always kinda frowned upon these math video's where they assume a river bluff folds out 80% a smaller bet folds out 60% etc and they work out which has the highest EV.

Why? There certainly are times when the bet size won't affect your FE, but there certainly are times that they will. This is absolutely true. So, that being true, there is merit to figuring out which bet size will be the highest EV. I think frowning on it and (presumably) not studying it is definitely missing out on some EV.

I feel like such a sleuth.

Great series, as a PLO player, I nearly missed it, being tagged as NLH content.
In PLO the math gets really scary, when you are dealing with 150 bb/100 Std Dev and above.

Just one of the better videos i had ever seen. Thanks a lot!!

Time Link to 00:36:54

Of course I love your examples, but I find that you should especially here tell that this is only theoretical...
The thing is that I do not rly assume that you are rly making on such dry Boards like in the example a 83%-PS-Cbet - it is probably worse for your whole range than making a smaller cbet here.
I also think that btw. callingranges vs. at least Flopcbets are often pretty inelastic regards to the size (unless you overjam^^).

I just would have wished here that you would have told your viewers that this is maybe more theoretical and what you prefer for which reasons practical (which betsize).

I mean,
anywhere has to be a border regards to a soild overall gameplan?
I mean, if not then overjamming (194$ into a 12 $-Pot) is probably with FEQ of (just let`s guess) 99%+ in the vacuum the most +ev Cbetsize... - I think, you know what I mean^^

But anyways,
I also like the 2nd part - btw.,
how much parts will this series have?

Of course I love your examples, but I find that you should especially here tell that this is only theoretical...
The thing is that I do not rly assume that you are rly making on such dry Boards like in the example a 83%-PS-Cbet - it is probably worse for your whole range than making a smaller cbet here.
I also think that btw. callingranges vs. at least Flopcbets are often pretty inelastic regards to the size (unless you overjam^^).

I just would have wished here that you would have told your viewers that this is maybe more theoretical and what you prefer for which reasons practical (which betsize).

I mean,
anywhere has to be a border regards to a soild overall gameplan?
I mean, if not then overjamming (194$ into a 12 $-Pot) is probably with FEQ of (just let`s guess) 99%+ in the vacuum the most +ev Cbetsize... - I think, you know what I mean^^

But anyways,
I also like the 2nd part - btw.,
how much parts will this series have?

I will often use large bet sizes on dry boards with a balanced range, so I don't think it is necessarily only a point in theory land. There are portions of my range that I will bet large on this flop, especially if I am going to go bet-bet-shove with 100bb stacks.

FWIW, I also think there could be some practical uses for over-betting (like 2x'ing) the flop with a balanced range. This takes a lot more work to figure out how opponents will react to it. It's something I intend to experiment with in the future.

In regards to future videos, I have been putting together some information on stat analysis. I think I may have one or two episodes to put in here, but it's still a work in progress. It's more something I thought of after the fact and was unplanned.

I will often use large bet sizes on dry boards with a balanced range, so I don't think it is necessarily only a point in theory land. There are portions of my range that I will bet large on this flop, especially if I am going to go bet-bet-shove with 100bb stacks.

FWIW, I also think there could be some practical uses for over-betting (like 2x'ing) the flop with a balanced range. This takes a lot more work to figure out how opponents will react to it. It's something I intend to experiment with in the future.

In regards to future videos, I have been putting together some information on stat analysis. I think I may have one or two episodes to put in here, but it's still a work in progress. It's more something I thought of after the fact and was unplanned.

Thannks for the interesting answer

Time Link to 00:39:12

this is referring to bigger bets when bluffing, but what about when value betting? what does the math say about what's higher EV: smaller value bets or bigger value bets?

this is referring to bigger bets when bluffing, but what about when value betting? what does the math say about what's higher EV: smaller value bets or bigger value bets?

If you have the top of your range and you expect to be 70% versus his calling range would you rather him call a $5 bet or a $10? Also, when he calls the pot is bigger, which allows us to make bigger bets on later streets.