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

## The +EVolution of a Poker Player: Episode Five

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

### The +EVolution of a Poker Player: Episode Five by sthief09

Sthief09 takes us back to his days as professor plotkin with a quick Math lesson for everyone. He talks basics of preflop and postflop math and lays some ground work for the future of the series.

#### About The +EVolution of a Poker Player

1st prize winner of the DC Invent-A-Series Contest. Everyone's favorite professor of Poker is back in this new series. Sthief09 talks of the math and mentallity behind playing micro-stakes no-limit.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 68 minutes long
• Posted over 4 years ago

## Comments for The +EVolution of a Poker Player: Episode Five

or track by Email or RSS

2 posts
Joined 07/2008

oO

#### kflo

152 posts
Joined 01/2008

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

#### Lostit2

8 posts
Joined 07/2008

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

#### TazUltimate

Production Manager
2761 posts
Joined 01/2008

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

#### TazUltimate

Production Manager
2761 posts
Joined 01/2008

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

#### kflo

152 posts
Joined 01/2008

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/

#### Gregster6

22 posts
Joined 03/2008

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

#### sthief09

2154 posts
Joined 07/2007

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?

#### Gregster6

22 posts
Joined 03/2008

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

#### sthief09

2154 posts
Joined 07/2007

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.

703 posts
Joined 10/2008

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

#### simpleasspie

404 posts
Joined 05/2009

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!

#### psiland

14 posts
Joined 05/2009

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)??

#### sthief09

2154 posts
Joined 07/2007

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.

HomePoker ForumsSmall Stakes Shorthanded NL → The +EVolution of a Poker Player : Episode Five