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

## Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

### Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two by WiltOnTilt

WiltOnTilt follows up last episodeâ€™s introduction to NL Math with a crash-course in pot odds, implied odds, fold equity, and hand combinations. Also, youâ€™ll be presented with the idea of G-Bucks for the first time.

#### About Mathematics of NL Hold'em

WiltOnTilt will discuss key concepts related to the mathematics of No-Limit play using Powerpoint. Begin with the basics: probability and pot odds. Then follow Wilt to more advanced arenas: implied odds and reverse implied odds, software tools and mental shortcuts for equity calculations, complex EV calculations, and an exploration of fold equity. And watch this series conclude with a discourse on the ultimate in professional poker math: hand frequencies, valuebetting, and G-bucks.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 49 minutes long
• Posted over 5 years ago

## Comments for Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two

or track by Email or RSS

#### dudemoney7

1 posts
Joined 07/2012

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

#### fezoff

81 posts
Joined 07/2011

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

#### TheThing

1 posts
Joined 07/2012

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

#### WiltOnTilt

2404 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

you're very welcome! thanks for watching

#### OranRai

59 posts
Joined 02/2010

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

#### akramak

13 posts
Joined 01/2013

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?

#### WiltOnTilt

2404 posts
Joined 10/2007

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.

#### akramak

13 posts
Joined 01/2013

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!

#### anvolution

2 posts
Joined 03/2013

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.

#### akramak

13 posts
Joined 01/2013

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

2 posts
Joined 03/2013

Thank you!

#### kiwifruit

16 posts
Joined 11/2010

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!

#### WiltOnTilt

2404 posts
Joined 10/2007

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?

#### kiwifruit

16 posts
Joined 11/2010

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!

#### 1luckyflip

16 posts
Joined 11/2012

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.

HomePoker ForumsMicro Stakes Online NL → Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two