---

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

Did we ever get an answer to the problem at the end of this video?

Did we ever get an answer to the problem at the end of this video?

if you watch ep 4 and 5 you should be able to do it no problem

Time Link to 00:06:01

Hey WoT,

I'm a little bit confused on the first pot odds example. What I'm confused about is where are you getting the 4.9:1 odds amount with the OESD. If you base it off of pot odds alone we only require pot odds of 2.2:1 or better to break even or to profit. Even if this was based on just seeing the turn card only, we would need 4.7:1 or better. I'm just wondering where you came up with 4.9:1...

ya weird, must have been a mistype when i made the powerpoint and then when I was talking about it I just didn't catch it. you are right about 4.7:1

ya weird, must have been a mistype when i made the powerpoint and then when I was talking about it I just didn't catch it. you are right about 4.7:1

Okay, thanks for clarifying Wilt, this series is so freaking badass and you put so much work into it, just wanted to say great job man.

Okay, thanks for clarifying Wilt, this series is so freaking badass and you put so much work into it, just wanted to say great job man.

Really appreciate it, thanks!

Hey Wilt,
with implied odds, your example has your pot odds at 340 : 140, and because your opponents cash stack is 765 deep you add that to get an implied odd of 1105 : 140. So i take it that we assume he has a chance of betting his 765 into the pot in the future, but wouldn't that mean we would definately have to call 765 to be in the pot making our implied odds 1105 : (140 + 765) ? How does implied odds actually work, i 'm a little confused. thanks !

Hey Wilt,
with implied odds, your example has your pot odds at 340 : 140, and because your opponents cash stack is 765 deep you add that to get an implied odd of 1105 : 140. So i take it that we assume he has a chance of betting his 765 into the pot in the future, but wouldn't that mean we would definately have to call 765 to be in the pot making our implied odds 1105 : (140 + 765) ? How does implied odds actually work, i 'm a little confused. thanks !

Good question. The way implied odds work is basically we assume that when we hit, we will have the winning hand a very high % of the time. Therefore, if we have to call say 140, to try to hit the next card and then have a lock on the hand, giviing us the opportunity to win that final 765. Usually implied odds are used when you think your opponent has a strong hand and you can draw to a stronger one such that when you hit you can win a lot of his remaining money. There are other factors to consider though, for instance, maybe your read was off and he doesn't have a strong hand. This would mean your implied odds go down because when you hit, you wont get paid off, so if you are calling with a hand to draw where the pot odds aren't good enough alone and you don't have good implied odds for when you hit (because he doesn't have much and you wont get paid off) then you could be making a bad call. However, it cuts both ways. If he doesn't have much, you might still be able to make a call because even though your implied odds went down, you can still profit by bluffing the next street.

Another consideration you bring up with your question is: what about the rest of the money I need to risk to win his last 765. If we draw and hit the nuts, it's not a concern (unless he has some redraws). Although what if we are drawing to a hand that might give us a second best hand often? That is the concept of reverse-implied odds. So when you hit, instead of winning a big pot, you might lose a big pot. You will see this term sometimes thrown around in situations where you might call a 3bet against a tight player with a hand like JTo where yes, you might have really good implied odds because if you hit 2pair+ you will get paid off however what happens when you (more often) flop a medium strength top pair against this tight player? If you aren't disciplined then you might lose a lot, and therefore your reverse implied odds are quite high.

Let me know if you have any follow up questions.
Aaron

Hey Aaron, awesome series.

I have a question about the mental shortcuts part, in example 2 you are talking about fudging it to make the math easier. I think in this case the fudging it makes the math harder.

When you see that someone puts out about a 1/2 potsize bet, and to be thinking in terms of UNITS, it is much easier to see real quick that if his betting 365 is the one unit, you can see he is betting 1 unit into 2 units, to make your pot a total of 3 unit's having to call just 1 unit.

Best regards, and thanks for a 4 year old series that is still super awesome.

Hey Aaron, awesome series.

I have a question about the mental shortcuts part, in example 2 you are talking about fudging it to make the math easier. I think in this case the fudging it makes the math harder.

When you see that someone puts out about a 1/2 potsize bet, and to be thinking in terms of UNITS, it is much easier to see real quick that if his betting 365 is the one unit, you can see he is betting 1 unit into 2 units, to make your pot a total of 3 unit's having to call just 1 unit.

Best regards, and thanks for a 4 year old series that is still super awesome.

Good point! Thanks for the post and I'm glad you're enjoying the series.

Wilt question here are all the calculations in the chart at the beginning off because I'm getting all different answers.

Mazein, can you post your work? I don't think the chart is wrong...

Time Link to 00:29:26

a tricky play would be to make a small raise here and then utg would have to worry about us having flopped a set so he would be inclined to just call our small raise at which point we probably have gotten the right implied odds to draw and have taken the lead in the hand. The action would be re-opened for the SB but that shouldn't be harmful unless he has a set or strong draw and re pops it, but given utg's super tight range the SB shouldn't be leading those hands...then again, he shouldn't really be leading any hands and he did so who knows...

a tricky play would be to make a small raise here and then utg would have to worry about us having flopped a set so he would be inclined to just call our small raise at which point we probably have gotten the right implied odds to draw and have taken the lead in the hand. The action would be re-opened for the SB but that shouldn't be harmful unless he has a set or strong draw and re pops it, but given utg's super tight range the SB shouldn't be leading those hands...then again, he shouldn't really be leading any hands and he did so who knows...

good point