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

## Tolerance: Episode Two

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

### Tolerance: Episode Two by threads13

Threads13 talks about recognizing variance and its effects with regard to specific hand examples.

Variance is huge in poker and it can drastically slow down the learning process. This series is split into two parts: 1) Identify variance and explaining the fundamental mathematics of variance. 2) Shifting the focus to learning (instead of results) and maximizing our learning.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 51 minutes long
• Posted over 3 years ago

## Comments for Tolerance: Episode Two

or track by Email or RSS

#### Ass Get to Jigglin

4276 posts
Joined 10/2010

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.

id rather him call a \$10 bet, but doesnt our bet size influence his calling range? in other words, what is generally higher EV in most situations: betting bigger and getting called by fewer hands or betting smaller and getting called by a wider range of hands?

2150 posts
Joined 03/2008

id rather him call a \$10 bet, but doesnt our bet size influence his calling range? in other words, what is generally higher EV in most situations: betting bigger and getting called by fewer hands or betting smaller and getting called by a wider range of hands?

It does, but probably not enough when we have a strong value betting hand. I'll poke in a few numbers to give you a look at what is happening mathematically. The numbers to be concerned with are our FE and our PE (pot equity). It's very simple if we have the nuts. If we bet half as much, we need him to call twice as much for it to be equally profitable. When we don't have a 100% lock, we have to consider our pot equity when called. Here's some estimates at what will happen in a typical scenario.

So, let's say he calls 50% of the time and we have 80% pot equity if we bet half pot. Let's say he calls 40% of with 75% equity when we pot it. For the sake of just comparing the flop bet sizes in a vacuum, I'll assume that we are going AI with this bet. Later play effects our EV, but it's my contention that the bigger bet makes our later play higher EV as well. Still, we'll look at just the flop play (as I did for bluffs in the video). This is by no means accurate, but will give you an idea of how it's going to play out.

Assumming 10bb in the pot:

small bet EV = (.50)(10) + (.50)[(.8)(5) + (.2)(-5)]
= 5 + (.50)*(.4 - .1)
= 5 + (.50)*(.3)
= 5 + .15
= 5.15

big bet EV = (.60)(10) + (.40)[(.7)(10) + (.3)(-10)]
= 6 + (.40)*(.7 - .3)
= 6 + .16
= 6.16

That's an extra BB of profit immediately. That is about 20% of an EV increase comparatively speaking. That's huge. The pot also will be bigger for us in the future, which means our later +EV bets will be more +EV as well. We can value bet bigger, which helps us, and we win bigger pots when we two/three-barrel. The time you wouldn't want to do this is if you FE doesn't go up enough, and your PE goes down a lot. In other words, if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, you should probably bet smaller. That's quite unlikely though.

#### Ass Get to Jigglin

4276 posts
Joined 10/2010

The time you wouldn't want to do this is if you FE doesn't go up enough, and your PE goes down a lot. In other words, if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, you should probably bet smaller. That's quite unlikely though.

awesome. thank you for great explanation. the only thing im still a bit confused about is the above quote. if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, then doesnt your FE go up a lot (given that he's folding everything but the nuts)? in other words, i understand that if he will only call a pot sized bet with the nuts, then a smaller bet is best because it will get calls from hands other than the nuts, but how does FE play a part in choosing our bet size in this example?

#### Ass Get to Jigglin

4276 posts
Joined 10/2010

or how would more fold equity (you said, "you wouldn't want to do this if your FE doesn't go up enough") affect our bet size when we have top pair and are value betting?

2150 posts
Joined 03/2008

awesome. thank you for great explanation. the only thing im still a bit confused about is the above quote. if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, then doesnt your FE go up a lot (given that he's folding everything but the nuts)? in other words, i understand that if he will only call a pot sized bet with the nuts, then a smaller bet is best because it will get calls from hands other than the nuts, but how does FE play a part in choosing our bet size in this example?

Sure, FE is always a part. I think it's best to step back and take a look at the big picture. You don't want to take a hand that is strong and bet so big such that he only calls with better hands. Sure, your FE goes up enough, but now your PE goes down so much that a smaller bet would have been better. It's certainly still going to be +EV, but if your bet size makes your opponent play perfectly, then a smaller bet is more +EV. That's what I was getting at. In practice if you aren't overbetting the pot, you aren't going to run into this problem with top pair type hands.

53 posts
Joined 01/2009

I see this is specific to NLHE (in terms of hand examples), but would this episode help out a PLO-exclusive player?

2150 posts
Joined 03/2008

I see this is specific to NLHE (in terms of hand examples), but would this episode help out a PLO-exclusive player?

Yeah, the math is the same, it's just the numbers (win-rate and standard deviation are different). From my understanding the standard deviation for most players is quite a bit larger at PLO. I believe win-rates tend to be somewhat higher as well. I'm totally guessing, but you could try running some of these calcs with win-rates of 4bb/100 and a standard devaition of 110bb/100 as compared to 2 and 70 (I think those are some of the numbers I used).

53 posts
Joined 01/2009

Does this video series explain win rate/standard deviation etc? I mean, I have a basic grasp on the ideas, but it would be great to have a from-the-ground-up explanation of all this stuff.

2150 posts
Joined 03/2008

Does this video series explain win rate/standard deviation etc? I mean, I have a basic grasp on the ideas, but it would be great to have a from-the-ground-up explanation of all this stuff.

Yeah, you just have to watch episode one before you watch episode two

#### Zeke Ferrari

26 posts
Joined 09/2012

You mentioned that if the mean/SD ratio is higher, you'll experience less negative variance. But wouldn't you also have less positive variance as well? Basically you're saying that our overall results, over time, will be less swingy, so they might not take a big dip downward, but they might not take a sharp spike upward either. Am I understanding your point here?

2150 posts
Joined 03/2008

Your results will be less not be negative as often as they have to "overpower" the mean which is higher. When you catch positive variance with a higher mean then you will have even bigger positive swings.

#### Zeke Ferrari

26 posts
Joined 09/2012

Your results will be less not be negative as often as they have to "overpower" the mean which is higher. When you catch positive variance with a higher mean then you will have even bigger positive swings.

Ok, I think I get it, but let me check. Let's assume we have a mean = \$100 and a SD such that our 3sigma outcome over some sample is -\$100 to \$300. If our mean increases more than the SD increases (aka the mean/SD ratio gets higher), then we end up in a situation where the mean goes up to some value, let's say \$200, but the SD doesn't go up as much. As a result, the range of our 3sigma results over the same sample might be something like \$0 to \$400. The mean shifts the normal curve in the positive direction, but the SD doesn't change that much so the tails of the normal curve don't extend out too much further. As a result, over time, we would expect to see less negative results given the new mean and SD.

Hopefully that's clear, I guess I'm still having trouble expressing this in a clear and concise manner.

2150 posts
Joined 03/2008

Yes, that's correct.

#### Zeke Ferrari

26 posts
Joined 09/2012

Cool, thanks threads13. I'm really enjoying this series and I really like your video style. Appreciate the feedback.

#### Entity

8634 posts
Joined 11/2006

Ok, I think I get it, but let me check. Let's assume we have a mean = \$100 and a SD such that our 3sigma outcome over some sample is -\$100 to \$300. If our mean increases more than the SD increases (aka the mean/SD ratio gets higher), then we end up in a situation where the mean goes up to some value, let's say \$200, but the SD doesn't go up as much. As a result, the range of our 3sigma results over the same sample might be something like \$0 to \$400. The mean shifts the normal curve in the positive direction, but the SD doesn't change that much so the tails of the normal curve don't extend out too much further. As a result, over time, we would expect to see less negative results given the new mean and SD.

Hopefully that's clear, I guess I'm still having trouble expressing this in a clear and concise manner.

If that's you being unclear and unconcise, I'd hate to see what you're like when you're clear and concise. That's an excellent summation IMO.

Rob

HomePoker ForumsPoker Theory → Tolerance : Episode Two