---

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

Ya I have the same question, I can't see how its 4 combos.

You have 1 ace and 1 King in your hand.
There is 1 Ace and 1 King on the board.

That leaves 2 Aces and 2 Kings or 4 combos

You have 1 ace and 1 King in your hand.
There is 1 Ace and 1 King on the board.

That leaves 2 Aces and 2 Kings or 4 combos

Unless you have no A or no K, then it leaves 3 A's and 3 K's = 9

Finally no limit math made simple for me to understand thankyou sooo much..

Finally no limit math made simple for me to understand thankyou sooo much..

you're very welcome! thanks for watching

Time Link to 00:42:23

Hi,
It depends on preflop action to consider KK for set : because most of us will raise / reraise with KK.

Time Link to 00:30:59

Hey Wilt,

Why do we need to consider implied odds in this example? Shouldn't we only consider it when the pot odds alone aren't enough to make the call?

Hey Wilt,

Why do we need to consider implied odds in this example? Shouldn't we only consider it when the pot odds alone aren't enough to make the call?

ideally you want to know what is the most profitable play by comparing all different options... calling, folding, raising. As part of knowing whether call is better than raise, it's worth considering how future streets will play out. So in other words, if you can only risk 100 in order to win 1000 very often, then that is a very high bar to set to make raising better than just calling. Often it's not quite that clear, but we should at least be thinking about it as part of the entire picture. If you know the direct odds are enough to make it +EV to call, then that tells you it is for sure better than folding, but it doesn't always tell you if it is for sure better than raising. Similarly if you figure out raising is +EV, that doesn't always mean it is better than calling, just that it is better than folding. Let me know if that doesn't make sense because it can be a little confusing.

Its much clearer to me now, I wasn't thinking how it would play out in the future street in case we miss on the turn or what kinda cards we can continue with as our equity will drop considerably. Also if we make our hand can we extract more value than just getting him to fold now.

Thanks for the response!

Time Link to 00:30:23

hi there, pot odds is calculated $100 from pot, opponent bets $100 and cost us $100 to call. so it would be 200:100 which is 2:1 pot odds. I have another way of calculating and wonder if this is a wrong calculation, I'll take $100 from pot + $100 bet + $100 from my call = $300 that I could win with my $100 call. which makes it 100/300 in fraction which gives 33.33% of pot odds. Is this a correct way? and since I have 68% of winning, and the pot odds is only 33.33% , its a good EV.

Yes that is correct , 2:1 pot odds essentially means 33.33%

Thank you!

Time Link to 00:09:11

Hi WiltOnTilt,

Great video!

Quick question here, when you say "to correctly continue in a hand, in terms of pot odds, your price to continue must be better than the odds against you making your hand (or having the best hand)", is that the same as wanting the odds of hitting our hand to be at or better than the pot odds?
Or is it the other way round?

On the next slide, with the OESD and being 5:1 dog, the pot odds were 2.25:1 and you say we don't call. Does this mean in order to make a profitable call, pot odds have to smaller than odds of improving our hand?

I've been thinking about this for a while...and I'm probably getting myself confused more than anything. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Anyways, looking forward to watching the next episode later tonight!

Hi WiltOnTilt,

Great video!

Quick question here, when you say "to correctly continue in a hand, in terms of pot odds, your price to continue must be better than the odds against you making your hand (or having the best hand)", is that the same as wanting the odds of hitting our hand to be at or better than the pot odds?
Or is it the other way round?

On the next slide, with the OESD and being 5:1 dog, the pot odds were 2.25:1 and you say we don't call. Does this mean in order to make a profitable call, pot odds have to smaller than odds of improving our hand?

I've been thinking about this for a while...and I'm probably getting myself confused more than anything. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Anyways, looking forward to watching the next episode later tonight!

Hi Kiwi, ya probably it is just the wording that gets confusing.

So if you have a draw that is 5:1 underdog to hit and you are only getting 2:1 on your money, then you do not have a profitable call based on the pot odds alone.

Said another way, a 5:1 underdog would mean that he loses 5 times for every 1 time he wins. In other words, 5 out of 6 times he loses. If you compare that to pot odds, you can tally up how many times you will lose that bet compared to winning the pot. So say the pot is $100 and your opponent bets $100, so it is $100 for you to call. You call that $100 to win $200, so you are getting 2:1 on your money. If you have that same 5:1 underdog hand, and you lose five times for each time you win, we can count those up and add them so see how we would fare:

-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
+200
---------
= -300

As you can see, we lose the 100$ 5 times and win that $200 one time since we are a 5:1 dog...we are losing money overall.

If we had to call 100 to win 500, we would break even.

I can't remember the exact language i use in the series, but probably we should say that we need better pot odds to call than our odds of making our hand in order for the call to be profitable (purely from pot odds perspective)

Does that make sense?

Thanks for taking the time to explain that Wilt, it makes perfect sense!

I'm up to episode 4 so far, and your EV calculations there is simply stellar!

Back to the math for GTO training! This was recommended during the GTO explanation series by Krantz and Blah. These videos will never be out of date and should be required for everyone's training material.