---

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

Time Link to 00:31:27

What how did you just copy that?

Time Link to 00:57:02

I've been dying to know what that cool pop up is!

I've been dying to know what that cool pop up is!

I think you mean "launchy" - http://www.launchy.net/. It's a useful way of starting programmes on windows without having to search through the menus.

Hi

I am with some dificulty to calculate the math in splits pots.

If villain bets pot on the river I only need 33% equity against his range to make the call.

But if there are some combos of split pot all the math changes, can you give a pratical example?

Ty

wow my head...:=) thanks for the work !

Hi Josh,

@00:47:55

You said there's 3 combos of AQ+FD on a board of Qh 9d 2s (3x-7x) when we're holding Kc Jc, but I think there's only 2. Spades and diamonds. A club won't bring a flush draw and the Qh is already out there. I don't think it'll change it much either way but is that right?

Cheers

Hi Josh,

@00:47:55

You said there's 3 combos of AQ+FD on a board of Qh 9d 2s (3x-7x) when we're holding Kc Jc, but I think there's only 2. Spades and diamonds. A club won't bring a flush draw and the Qh is already out there. I don't think it'll change it much either way but is that right?

Cheers

yeah, you're right. I fall victim to careless errors like that sometimes, but hopefully it doesn't have much of impact on the final #s.

Hey cool vids, ive been struggling along trying to make sense of it all, its quite complicated. However, sitting in the lounge watching tv and bang it just clicks. Funny how things work that way.

I believe my understanding of what your trying to achieve will be shown in the following question( i think )

For example, on the flop within his range we are dealing with 2 possible combinations of J9s. To our check raise he is folding 75% of the time. Thus on the turn should our equity table not now show that we are now only dealing with .5 combinations of J9s.

If im wrong, youve already mentioned this, or its come up in a previous comment, can you point me in the right direction.

Another excellent video!! It's insane the amount of time we can spend on a single hand and not feel its getting too abstract.

Just wanted to make this observation: when I compare and contrast this series, which I have found worth the value of my subscription alone (alongside WOTs math one), with 'moving beyond micro stakes', its almost like another person has made it. Here we get detailed, methodical and incredibly well articulated thought processes which we can apply to our study away from the tables. The classic being taught to fish vs been given a fish.

In the micro series, which I returned to ep 8 after getting really frustrated with lots of drawn out semi-focused discussion, and I found it pretty much the same, i.e an hour video with maybe 15mins of value....

I found myself totally confused and shouting out 'why not use this template for the micro stake one'!!!

All of the topics covered: Hand reading, range analysis, software etc could be setup as you have done so well here, e.g. basic training, real situation and then technical application, so we get the framework and then can go off and self-study. Anyway.....

My 10c. Thanks so much for this excellent series.

In the micro series, which I returned to ep 8 after getting really frustrated with lots of drawn out semi-focused discussion, and I found it pretty much the same, i.e an hour video with maybe 15mins of value....

I found myself totally confused and shouting out 'why not use this template for the micro stake one'!!!

All of the topics covered: Hand reading, range analysis, software etc could be setup as you have done so well here, e.g. basic training, real situation and then technical application, so we get the framework and then can go off and self-study. Anyway.....

My 10c. Thanks so much for this excellent series.

What specifically don't you like about the other one? feel free to pick it apart. it'll only help me. I appreciate the way you've approached this criticism.

and I think most of the rest of that series will have closer to this type of analysis. this Sunday will be a crEV analysis.

I think there are two issues with putting out lots of videos like these ones: (1) it appeals to a smaller segment of people. the number of people interested in math has grown significantly imo, but a lot of people just want to get down to poker talk. (2) maybe this is incorrect and please tell me if you disagree, but if I did 50 of these a year, they'd start losing value quickly. I think this is what I do best, but I think I also can't do it 100% of the time. what I can do is work on improving the non-math series, or incorporating this more into those non-math series.

HI ya,

I generally like the design of the series, but I feel the application is not focused enough. So for example,

in ep 8/9 where your discussing hand reading there is a tendency to waffle and the focus becomes very fragmented where lots of ' well it could be this or that'. I understand completely that there is alot of uncertainty in poker but is exactly why we should be more focused ourselves. So for example in ep 9 where Stamore flats with K3s with two limpers and a whale in the BB I would have this setup in place:

- Hero is aware of the hands to be reviewed (this is not explicitly stated, and by the discussions that does occur it seems to be off the cuff, off the cuff in poker IMHO as far as trying to build a solid study program is the devil)

- Hero has prepared his line of thought and justification for actions on a street by street basis of opps ranges ( I love Grindcores coin idea in his recent short series). It's fine to say 'I had no idea what the hell was going on so I defaulted to xy or z' We all do that sometimes.

- Hero speaks about PF. Coach (who is aware of Hands to be discussed) critiques PF play. The same happens for turn, river. When then get a step by step analysis of specific points where mistakes are made or where we get it right.

- when then get into the 'what if' scenarios: what if its a reg in the BB, under what situations can we play K3s profitably? what if we had 99? JTs, Ax etc Here we breakout CR EV, Flopzilla, Stove, excel whatever. I don't care if it's 1 or 10 hands, what is important is the steps.


This is just an idea but what is extremely valuable is to adopt an analytical approach to our analysis: as your provide hear with the Excel spreadsheets. We build it up together, do a detailed analysis of a single hand then the viewer can go off and preform the task on their own. In the HH review in ep 8. I got the overriding impression that Hero hadn't prepared his thoughts, and without a preview of that, you had to think off the cuff; so the video was longer than need be, with less than desired focus.

Of course off the cuff can be useful at times, but here we are trying to build a solid foundation. So fuck it if it not fun, I, and I hope others are here to grind poker like a job. I wanted to leave EP 8 with a framework of how winning players review the HH...... I didn't get that. I will continue with the series as there is value, but overall I was hoping for more of a general framework that I could use to make my post sessions reviews more focused and time efficient.

cheers,

Hi Josh,

@00:47:55

You said there's 3 combos of AQ+FD on a board of Qh 9d 2s (3x-7x) when we're holding Kc Jc, but I think there's only 2. Spades and diamonds. A club won't bring a flush draw and the Qh is already out there. I don't think it'll change it much either way but is that right?

Cheers

I think it is the same for A9s+FD(hearts and spades) and A2s+FD (hearts and diamonds) + some hands below including the Q and the 9.

I would say that there are some mistakes like this in the A bluff table too (QTs+FD; T9s+FD, 89s+FD)
In that case we can have only 2 types of FD (eg: no clubs+no diamond if the flop has the 9d and no clubs).

Josh do you agree or is there a flaw in my reasoning?

I think it is the same for A9s+FD(hearts and spades) and A2s+FD (hearts and diamonds) + some hands below including the Q and the 9.

I would say that there are some mistakes like this in the A bluff table too (QTs+FD; T9s+FD, 89s+FD)
In that case we can have only 2 types of FD (eg: no clubs+no diamond if the flop has the 9d and no clubs).

Josh do you agree or is there a flaw in my reasoning?

yeah I am pretty certain that you're correct.