---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by sthief09 (Micro/Small Stakes)

oO

The audio cuts out completely on the iPod version around the 13 minute mark.

You mentioned poker raiser software? Can't find it on the web. Any help?

I am working on getting another ipod version up.
-Rusty

There is a new working ipod version. Enjoy.
-Rusty

You mentioned poker raiser software? Can't find it on the web. Any help?

I haven't gotten to watch the full video yet, but I assume he means this:
http://pokerazor.com/

Great stuff Josh

One question

On hand example 1 "picking off a river bet" you say we use additive inverse of the probability of the probablility that he doesn't have a club.

Isn't it the complement?

Cheers

Great stuff Josh

One question

On hand example 1 "picking off a river bet" you say we use additive inverse of the probability of the probablility that he doesn't have a club.

Isn't it the complement?

Cheers

i think i was looking for the chances he did have a club in that example, right?

That's the one...[37:36]...1-chance of having any clubs

I'm no mathematician (so I'm very happy to be wrong) but I thought that additive inverse is the opposite of a number (so additive inverse of 5 is -5...when they're added together = 0).

Whereas complement quantifies something in terms of what it is not. So the chance of something not being the case = 1 - chance of it being the case.

If I'm wrong (>90%) I look like a nit-picking dickhead who is wrong...if I'm right (<10%) I still look like a nit-picking dickhead so the EV of my post is questionable!

Cheers

That's the one...[37:36]...1-chance of having any clubs

I'm no mathematician (so I'm very happy to be wrong) but I thought that additive inverse is the opposite of a number (so additive inverse of 5 is -5...when they're added together = 0).

Whereas complement quantifies something in terms of what it is not. So the chance of something not being the case = 1 - chance of it being the case.

If I'm wrong (>90%) I look like a nit-picking dickhead who is wrong...if I'm right (<10%) I still look like a nit-picking dickhead so the EV of my post is questionable!

Cheers

ah yeah my bad, you're right. didn't know what you meant at first.

Illuminating... I didn't know most of that about equity ^.^

About that bluffing turn and the river hand example, is the net when we bluff the river successfully supposed to be $130 instead of $90 (there was $50 in the pot on the turn, we bet $40 and the villain calls, so its $130) or it must be only the amount of villains $s?

btw, these are great series!

I have a question about ev calcultation (43:47 min): We bet 40$ to a 50$ pot, if villain call, we lose 40$ but if he fold we win a 90$ pot, right?
So EV=0.40*90+0.60*(-40)??

I have a question about ev calcultation (43:47 min): We bet 40$ to a 50$ pot, if villain call, we lose 40$ but if he fold we win a 90$ pot, right?
So EV=0.40*90+0.60*(-40)??

Well, if folds you've technically only won $50. You've invested $40, and gained $90 for a net of only $50. I think you're slightly confusing the situation where villain bets the river, and the situation where we bet the river. Here are 2 examples that'll hopefully make it more clear:

Our stack: $40
The pot: $50

- Let's say villain bets $40 into the $50 pot. If we lose, we have $0 (40 less than when we started). If we win, we have $130 (our original 40 + his 40 + pot of 50). We're left with $90 more than we started. So we're risking 40 to net 90.

- Now the example when we bluff $40 into the $50 pot. When we lose, we still have $0, which is -$40 from where we started. No difference here. The difference comes when villain folds and we win. Since he's folded we don't get his stack. We only get the $50 in the pot and our original $40 back. Our final stack will be $90, for a net of only $50. In this case we're risking 40 to net 50.

The basically conclusion of this is that under almost all circumstances circumstances, a bluff attempt needs to succeed a higher % of the time than an attempt to call a bluff.