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

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

In Episode 7, DOGISHEAD and Gman walk you through the basics of how to Interpret Results and introduce you to the essentials Game Theory (finally!), showing you what it is, who to use it against, and how to apply it to improve your HUNL game.

You asked for it. You got it. The DOG in all his glory along with Gman discuss theory and actual play as they move from 50NL to 5000NL Heads Up.

### Video Details

• Game:
• Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
• 67 minutes long
• Posted over 4 years ago

or track by Email or RSS

#### nair

28 posts
Joined 10/2008

Pseudo-mathematical bullshit... I love it!

Stellar video for non-poker players and online grinders alike.

#### Greg15001

11 posts
Joined 09/2008

FUCK GTO LETS GO BACK TO SOUL READING. This series probably had the most work put into it and it shows. I don't play heads up alot but damn very good series gj gj

#### Paracelse

25 posts
Joined 03/2008

Something i am not sure to understand : assumed we make a pot sized bet on the river and bluff 33% of the time, if villain know we are bluffing 33% of the time and he has a bluff catcher he is indifferent to calling or folding, right ?
So if he calls he makes a play EV=0, so how can your EV be positive if your opponent not make a mistake ?
You said "he is break even against your bluff and loose money when i value bet" but for what i understand he won money over your bluff and loss money against your value bet which overall make his call breakeven. Where i am wrong ?

#### Mendez

810 posts
Joined 02/2008

So if he calls he makes a play EV=0, so how can your EV be positive if your opponent not make a mistake ?

Because of the money in the pot.

The fact that our opponent doesn't make a mistake doesn't mean that our play can't be EV positive. For example, imagine a turn where there's 50bb in the pot and there's 5bb stacks. We have a strong made hand, and villain had a draw with about 20% equity. We are correct in betting, and villain is correct in calling. Because of the money in the pot, both players can make correct, and EV positive, plays.

The only time the EV of the two players should sum to zero would be if there was no money in the pot.

#### danndann1

298 posts
Joined 05/2008

This has to be one of the top 3 statements available today online about how poker works! This is poker all about: over the long run we are dealt exact same situations as our opponents are. The profit/loss comes from how we manage to play those situations different.

A+ stuff from Tommy here.

4 posts
Joined 01/2011

Opponenet is...

Level 1- balance is irrelevant!
Level 2- balance is helfpful!
Level 3- balance is necessary!

Roughly equivalent to same slide or is this not true?
Obviously never definite but similar?

#### Juan_C

13 posts
Joined 01/2011

I love your analogies, they make the concepts much easier to understand.
Doesn't matter if they are silly, they get the job done, keep them coming! :-)

#### Deets

539 posts
Joined 11/2010

Re: the GTO frequencies table. I'm fine with the gto frequencies for value betting/bluffing river but something occurred to me when looking at this vid that I wonder if someone could comment on.

At 32 minutes, there is a payoff table. The GTO solution for the caller is to call 50% due to the bet being pot-size, this gives the bettor an EV of \$6. However, the payoffs show that even though calling 50% is the unexploitable solution, calling 66.7% is actually better than calling 50% unless the bettor is bluffing less than 10%.

So, even though it's recommended to take the GTO line vs an unknown, would we not be better off taking the non-GTO line of calling 66.7% because we have a (1-(10/80) = ) 87.5% chance of it being better for us than the GTO line? I understand it's exploitable but vs an unknown, isn't it better?

Calling 100% looks even better actually. So to get a truly "optimal" response vs an unknown shouldn't we estimate the likelihood that the player pool differs from optimal bluffing frequencies to each graded extent (bluffs 80%, 70%, etc, etc) and determine our pay offs vs the whole player pool that way and call the % that then gives us the highest EV on average? Is Bayes theorem usable here?