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

## Running the Streets: Episode Two

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or
Get the Flash Player to see this player.

### Running the Streets: Episode Two by shuttle, olliepa

Shuttle and Olliepa talk about value betting, protecting your hand, and bluffing and how they interact with one another as a hand progresses.

#### About Running the Streets

Have you ever found yourself in a spot where you know your opponent's range, but you still don't know the best play? If so, then this series is for you! We will show you how to determine the optimal lines in tough situations AFTER you have already assigned your opponent's range.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 47 minutes long
• Posted almost 3 years ago

### Downloads

Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.

## Comments for Running the Streets: Episode Two

or track by Email or RSS

#### JohnTheBad

80 posts
Joined 03/2008

Nice !

Is there an error @minute 22 ? TT should not be in his calling range ?

#### weeee7

28 posts
Joined 12/2008

this is probably interesting, but the audio quality is pretty bad unfortunately, I can barely understand some parts

#### Astute101

12 posts
Joined 07/2010

This is a super advanced way to look at poker. I love the theory intertwined with the mathematics. It is nice to understand the math behind our decisions we make. Although I would love to be able to use this on a regular basis in day to day play, I find it hard to see how I can calculate this so quickly in order to apply these concepts.

Do you do all of this math in your head when you are playing? Do you just have all of this memorized? Is it a guesstimate when you are playing that in the event that you reach a conclusion that is close, you feel comfortable with it?

I would like to understand this better and use the information to my benefit but I would love to know how you apply this? What happens when you are playing multiple hands?

Is it possible to just have this down so well that it becomes second nature? That EV formula is really long.

#### shuttle

3334 posts
Joined 11/2008

Nice !

Is there an error @minute 22 ? TT should not be in his calling range ?

TT was not meant to be in the calling range, so I have made a mistake putting the range into stove here.
It changes our equity when called from 79% to 74%, so it's not too far off. But I'd like to go over it again here so that it is correct.

Ok so this should hopefully be correct:
Value/Protection Hand Example

Heads up NLHE game
Board: K 6 5
Our hand: A K
Pot size: 100
Effective stacks: 100
Opponents range: {87s,TT,KQ}
We shove all in.

Let's say that our opponent calls with everything but the TT combos. From episode 1 we know that there are a total of 6 combinations of TT.
Because we hold the K blocker in our hand there are now only 2*4 = 8 combinations of KQ in our opponents range.
There are 4 combinations of 87s that our opponent can have.
In total there are 6 + 8 + 4 = 18 combinations in our opponents range.

putting in {AsKs} vs {KQ,87s} on K65 in stove gives us 74% equity so:

Pr(Villain Fold) = 6 / 18 = .33 (33%)
Amount won when villian folds = 100

Pr(Villain Call) = 12 / 18 = .67 (67%)
Pr(We win) = .74 (73.9% from pokerstove)
Pr(We lose) = .26 (26.1% from pokerstove)
Amount won when villain calls and we win = 200
Amount lost when villain calls and we lose = 100

EV = Pr(Villain Fold)*(Amount Won) +
Pr(Villain Call)*(Pr(We win)*(Amount Won)- Pr(Lose)*(Amount Lost))
= .33 * 100 + .67*(.74*200 â€“ .26*100)
= 33 + .67*(122)
= 33 + 81 = 114

So we win 33 from the times our opponent folds and we make 81 from the times when our opponent calls.

#### shuttle

3334 posts
Joined 11/2008

this is probably interesting, but the audio quality is pretty bad unfortunately, I can barely understand some parts

That's unfortunate, we were recording the episode in a space with a lot of background noise. Hopefully we have a better mic/place to record for the next episode.

#### Sneakers

2021 posts
Joined 09/2009

This is a super advanced way to look at poker. I love the theory intertwined with the mathematics. It is nice to understand the math behind our decisions we make. Although I would love to be able to use this on a regular basis in day to day play, I find it hard to see how I can calculate this so quickly in order to apply these concepts.

Do you do all of this math in your head when you are playing? Do you just have all of this memorized? Is it a guesstimate when you are playing that in the event that you reach a conclusion that is close, you feel comfortable with it?

I would like to understand this better and use the information to my benefit but I would love to know how you apply this? What happens when you are playing multiple hands?

Is it possible to just have this down so well that it becomes second nature? That EV formula is really long.

+1
I feel a bit overwhelmed by all of the spreadsheet calculations. It seems good (and it is fun) to understand the deeper decisions, but who actually does this? Is this what most winning players do??? I'm not lazy at all, just feeling a bit intimidated by the lengthy spreadsheet calculations.

#### olliepa

89 posts
Joined 03/2009

weeee7: We're aware of the bad audio and it should be fixed before episode 3.

Astute101: As far as actually pumping out detailed calculations goes, no one can be expected to do them in anything close to a rigorous fashion while playing a game.

Fortunately, applying these concepts does not require application of these calculations as you play. The idea of the series is to cover some old and new theory, and provide a bit of mathematical justification to it.

If you think about the theory, and do a bit of calculations away from the table, you will get a better intuitive feel for the reasoning behind bets.

The real aim of this episode was to explain the reasons for betting. If you really thoroughly understand protection for betting, its different forms, and how it is connected to valuebetting and bluffing, then you have gained what you should from this video. That understanding is likely to come only after you've sat down away from the table and done a few calculations similar to the one from this episode.

#### JohnTheBad

80 posts
Joined 03/2008

Thx Shuttle !

I tried to follow you as good as possible and wasnÂ´t 100% sure.

#### Entity

8058 posts
Joined 11/2006

this is probably interesting, but the audio quality is pretty bad unfortunately, I can barely understand some parts

We're shipping the guys new headsets, but unfortunately they're in Australia, so it will take a bit for new gear to reach them. We're on top of it as best we can be though.

Rob

#### Monsternut

63 posts
Joined 07/2008

great video again. The audio is just a little bad in the beginning. Very nice the detail work with the colored terms in every equation. I worked around 4 hours with this video. Very much information. Thank you guys.

#### Astute101

12 posts
Joined 07/2010

Time Link to 00:33:37

So here you are saying that this is a protection bet because you are not nessesarily "protecting your hand" but protecting your equity in the pot because you have SOME showdown value?

Because the villain will shove with anything in this spot... if he pushes you off the pot you cannot win and therefore would have 0 equity BUT if given the chance to showdown the hand, you have SOME equity because his range is such that he could have 9s 8s?

Obviously you gain some fold equity by betting because he would lay down the JJ but is this the concept? Am I on the right track here?

You are protecting your EQUITY not your hand.

* Plus by betting the river you risk the same amount as check calling but when you bet you gain some fold equity giving you a greater EV+. So if you are set on calling the river (only then) you are better off betting?

Thanks for the help

#### Astute101

12 posts
Joined 07/2010

Time Link to 00:46:38

hmmmmm.... well, I would think we are actually ahead here most of the time against anything except a set and in the example given TT is the only hand in the villain's range that could be actually ahead.

Taking that into consideration, I would say that this is a Value/Protection bet. By shoving we are protecting our equity because we are not giving the villain the opportunity to shove with a weak hand forcing us to show down. By shoving here we are forcing the villain to call and his calling range will shrink considerably as follows:

The only hands he could call with would be:

Ad3d and TT

This is only 2/4 within his range giving us 50% fold equity on top of the fact that we have 50%+ equity in the pot.

We are protecting our equity in the pot because we do not want him shoving with waker hands because we still only have a draw.

Here is my guess... looking forward to seeing the answer. Is this right? Value/Protection

*It can't be a semi-bluff as we are a favorite to win the hand against the villain's range.

#### olliepa

89 posts
Joined 03/2009

Astute101:

Your second paragraph is mostly correct, however he's not 'pushing us off a pot we can't win'. He just has a perfectly balanced range (this will get explained more when we discuss game theory).

Because his range is balanced, the fact that our hand has > zero equity vs one of his combos is irrelevant, and we will bet for the exact same reason we'd bluff - dead money.

However, we don't call this a bluff, because we don't aim to fold out better. We're betting simply because there's EV in getting villain to fold, but there isn't any when we check to him.

On the test hand: You are mostly right, it is about value and protection, however I think you should try to do the EV calculation to figure out whether it's value or protection that is the *primary* reason.

Suppose, as you suggested, that you have 50% equity vs his calling range. What percentage of his range is his calling range? What would the terms of the EV calculation be, and what do they say about what is better: making villain fold out equity, or making them call?

Also, our protection has nothing to do with not wanting him to 'shove with weaker hands because we still only have a draw'. Given that we are shoving for value, we'd be more than happy to let him shove a range into us that is even wider than his shove calling range (that said... a shove by either player's parts would be 3x pot, so the assumption that he shoves is bad since people infrequently do this)

#### gm66

10 posts
Joined 08/2009

My first post, so a warm hello to all DCers

Thanks for the Eureka moment while discussing the "pure protection" example at ~32mins.

As explained check/call and check/fold both are 0 EV; shove is +EV. At first this seemed counter-intuitive, as we give opponent the chance to dodge our winners. It wasn't until I realized that it actually takes away options for our opponent that it made sense ....

If we check, opponent can shove, say, 5/6 of the time, 4/6 when winning and 1/6 bluff. Now check/call is large -EV (1/5 * 300 - 100 = -40) AND losing half of our initial equity; and check/fold is = EV but we lose all our equity in the pot. Thus the label "protection": shove protects our equity against counter-strategy.

This sound about right?

Edit: in hindsight it seems this isn't the point of the example But thanks anyway.

HomePoker ForumsMicro Stakes Online NL → Running the Streets : Episode Two