---

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

i feel like im in a college physics lecture. i dont know maybe its me but i immediately get sleepy within 3 minutes no make that 2 minutes.this is extrememly dry material which i think could use some simplification into lay mans terms . i think its to "mathy". i know u put a lot of work into it and i like the series but i cant stay awake why listening to it. thank u though i just am trying to be constructive, have u seen some of royalflush clubs videos. they keep it simple . they probably dont make as much cash as u guys at the tables but they keep it simple. and i find it to be pretty easy viewing. thye basically tell u your pant and hand odds and why they r playing the hand. thats it.
ed
didnt mean to sound ungrateful. i have an engineering degree and cant fathom the interest to follow along

If you can't follow along with it, it may not be the series for you (it's already complete and was recorded in our first season). MoNLH is one of the more popular series we have on DeucesCracked but is generally considered to a series that you get back what you put in -- it's not for everyone. Basically -- it's definitely dense, definitely dry, but will definitely pay off if you work your way through it.

All that said, you may want to check out some more live play and more basic videos if you felt it was too mathy, given that the title really says it all here.

Rob

Hi Ed, Thanks for the feedback.

If you found episodes 1-3 too complex, you'll definitely want to steer clear of episodes 4-8 as the intensity level raises a few notches.

WoT

Loved the 5,5 hand. Before I was 3-betting that hand more randomly but now I got a good foundation to understand when it's correct to 3-bet and when it's correct to call.

The Reverse Impled Odds calculation is incorrect. It should be
EV(TT-AA)=(1/2*[-279.23]-61.13+86.59+86.59+86.59)/4.5

or

EV(TT-AA)=(3*[-279.23]+6*[-61.13]+18*86.59)/27

which is about EV(TT-AA)=13.12

This makes kinda sense. Anyone can approve this?
Especially your second explanation makes me think this should be right, but I'm not sure and I don't want to start off with the wrong theory.

Thx in advance

This makes kinda sense. Anyone can approve this?
Especially your second explanation makes me think this should be right, but I'm not sure and I don't want to start off with the wrong theory.

Thx in advance

i just started watching the series and came here to post about this very mistake but agentus beat me to it.

agentus way using the combos leaves no room for mistakes like this (which can easily occur and im not bling WoT).
one could also go by the fractions using EV(TT-AA)=(1*[-279.23]+2*[-61.13]+6*86.59)/9 since TT is 1/9th of villains range, JJ is 2/9th and QQ+ is 6/9th, but thats pretty much the same thing as the combomethod.

Time Link to 01:06:06

I realize no one is ever going to check this thread, but I'm just now watching this series and I'm throwing out my equation and guess as for the final example.

The equation I used was -220 = .46x - .54x

x being his bet. 46% of the time we win what he bets, then 54% we lose so we have to figure out for what X makes the equation equal 220.

.46 - .54 = -.08

-220 = -.08x

220/.08 = 2750

If he bets more than 2750, we will be making less than the dead money in the pot offers us in the long run.

Now I'm going to watch the next eps to see if I'm right lol.

Hi Tecmo,

Your setup is incorrect because it doesn't account for us winning the $220 already in the pot when we make the best hand. I set the problem up as:

0 = 0.54 * (-x) + 0.46 * (220 + x)

Where 0 is the breakeven point (our EV is 0)
0.54 is the chance we lose
x is villain's bet size (note that we lose it 54% of the time so the first one is negative)
0.46 is the chance we win
220 is the money already in the pot

Solving the equation:

0 = -0.54x + 101.2 + 0.46x
0 = -0.08x + 101.2
0.08x = 101.2
x = 1265

We can also check this. Let's assume villain bets 1265.

54% of the time we lose our 1265 call
0.54 * (-1265) ~ -683.10 (N.B. NEGATIVE 683.10)

46% of the time we win villain's 1265 bet plus the 220 already in the pot
0.46 * (1265 + 220) ~ 683.10

So calling here when villain bets 1265 is neutral EV.

Time Link to 00:56:35

FWIW I think you made this problem WAY too hard.

We have to call 365, which I will define as one unit.

There is 725 in the pot, which is conveniently approximately two units (365*2 = 730).

Therefore when the action is on use there are ~3 units in the pot (the two already in there and the villain's bet). Again, we are looking at calling one unit (because of the way I set the problem up), so it's easy to see we're getting ~3:1 here.

I realize your point was to explore easy mental math tricks for approximating these types of situations, and I'm fine with the methods you used in general. But I also think it's important to recognize situations where we can use an even easier method.

Hi Tecmo,

Your setup is incorrect because it doesn't account for us winning the $220 already in the pot when we make the best hand. I set the problem up as:

0 = 0.54 * (-x) + 0.46 * (220 + x)

Where 0 is the breakeven point (our EV is 0)
0.54 is the chance we lose
x is villain's bet size (note that we lose it 54% of the time so the first one is negative)
0.46 is the chance we win
220 is the money already in the pot

Solving the equation:

0 = -0.54x + 101.2 + 0.46x
0 = -0.08x + 101.2
0.08x = 101.2
x = 1265

We can also check this. Let's assume villain bets 1265.

54% of the time we lose our 1265 call
0.54 * (-1265) ~ -683.10 (N.B. NEGATIVE 683.10)

46% of the time we win villain's 1265 bet plus the 220 already in the pot
0.46 * (1265 + 220) ~ 683.10

So calling here when villain bets 1265 is neutral EV.

Thanks for the help Pygmy. Will have to rewatch this later just to drill it into my head.

Hi Tecmo,

Your setup is incorrect because it doesn't account for us winning the $220 already in the pot when we make the best hand. I set the problem up as:

0 = 0.54 * (-x) + 0.46 * (220 + x)

Where 0 is the breakeven point (our EV is 0)
0.54 is the chance we lose
x is villain's bet size (note that we lose it 54% of the time so the first one is negative)
0.46 is the chance we win
220 is the money already in the pot

Solving the equation:

0 = -0.54x + 101.2 + 0.46x
0 = -0.08x + 101.2
0.08x = 101.2
x = 1265

We can also check this. Let's assume villain bets 1265.

54% of the time we lose our 1265 call
0.54 * (-1265) ~ -683.10 (N.B. NEGATIVE 683.10)

46% of the time we win villain's 1265 bet plus the 220 already in the pot
0.46 * (1265 + 220) ~ 683.10

So calling here when villain bets 1265 is neutral EV.

y = money already in pot.

Ok, so my equation was 0 = y + .46x - .54x.

Your equation was 0 = (y + x).46 - .54x.

I was close! In my equation, I am adding y as if we win that amount no matter what happens (win or lose). In your equation, it accounts for the fact that we only win y 46% of the time (when we win). That makes sense now. Is this correct?

I was close! In my equation, I am adding y as if we win that amount no matter what happens (win or lose). In your equation, it accounts for the fact that we only win y 46% of the time (when we win). That makes sense now. Is this correct?

Yeah, that's right. Basically I think of your equation as:

0 = 100% * 220 + 46% * x - 54% * x

In that setup we win the money in the pot 100% of the time.

HI WOT,

been working through this series really like it, however when looking at reverse implied odds on the hand where we have the OESD on x4T 4 facing a turn bet, you have done some calculations and in each one you say we are 18.2% to hit our OESD, but on your chart in episode one it said 8 outs on the turn is 17.4% to hit?

also when we have just 4 clean outs to the straight you say we are 9.1% to hit our hand, yet in week 1 you said 4 outs has an 8.7% chance hit by the turn?

Is there something I am missing or doing wrong?

thanks

FWIW I think you made this problem WAY too hard.

We have to call 365, which I will define as one unit.

There is 725 in the pot, which is conveniently approximately two units (365*2 = 730).

Therefore when the action is on use there are ~3 units in the pot (the two already in there and the villain's bet). Again, we are looking at calling one unit (because of the way I set the problem up), so it's easy to see we're getting ~3:1 here.

I realize your point was to explore easy mental math tricks for approximating these types of situations, and I'm fine with the methods you used in general. But I also think it's important to recognize situations where we can use an even easier method.

wow this is an awesome trick and makes it much easier to calculate the math. Thanks, a lot pygmy

Texas Donald,
Stuggled with this a bit too - you've probably now worked this out but for anyone else who gets stuck - it's because he's counting the two cards the opponent has as 'seen'.

So there are 52 in the deck, we've seen our 2 hole cards, 4 on the board and the opponent's 2 (say QQ).

52-8 = 44.

There are 8 cards which will help our hand (8 to make the OESD)and 36 unseen that won't. So 36/8, which means we're 4.5:1 to improve.

Convert to percentage: 1/5.5 = 0.181818181 or 18.2%.

Without knowing (or estimating) the opponent's holding, it's 17.4%.

Think this is right but then again I couldn't convert a ratio to percentage or back before I started this series yesterday, so it could be nonsense

Thanks Wilt btw - it's brilliant and fascinating.