Poker Video: Misc/Other by bellatrix (Micro/Small Stakes)

Math Attacks: Episode Nine

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

Math Attacks: Episode Nine by bellatrix

Bellatrix continues to work her way through the book, with Chapter 9: Adaptive Play and Distribution vs. Distribution. Homework for this week can be found here.

About Math Attacks Subscribe to

Bellatrix takes you on a journey through The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman, breaking down each chapter one at at time. Warning - if you haven't figured it out by now, there will be math!

Tags

bellatrix math attacks powerpoint theory ipod friendly classroom

Video Details

  • Game: other
  • Stakes: Micro/Small Stakes
  • 35 minutes long
  • Posted about 2 years ago

Downloads

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

Sign Up Today


Comments for Math Attacks: Episode Nine

or track by Email or RSS

random_99

Avatar for random_99

161 posts
Joined 12/2007

Very profound. I dearly hope you stay the course and make all 30!

Posted about 2 years ago

bellatrix

Avatar for bellatrix

826 posts
Joined 12/2007

Very profound. I dearly hope you stay the course and make all 30!



Thanks, I know I owe you one answer to one of your questions, please forgive me and I haven't forgotten. I will answer within the next two weeks (life is hectic atm as I'm moving across the ocean).

Posted about 2 years ago

ttpmaven

Avatar for ttpmaven

112 posts
Joined 01/2010

Possibly confused/misread the homework.

"At what point is it not profitable to jam 2-3x pot anymore?"

Even if we donk 3x pot, we're not all-in ($100 stack - $5 defend - $33 donk bet = $62 stack remaining).

Given that CO opens 25%, it's seems that it's always profitable to donk bet 2x or 3x pot. Opponent either folds too much and we take down the pot enough to outweigh our equity disadvantage against his tight calling range or opponent calls wide enough that we have an equity advantage against his wider calling range.

Am I missing something (e.g. assumptions about our/opponent's play on the turn)?

Using Combonator top 25% = 66+, A2s+, A8o+, K6s+, K9o+, Q8s+, QTo+, J8s+, JTo, T8s+ (259 combos given card removal)

EV of betting 2x pot, sets+ call = .977*11+(1-.977)*(.3475*55-22) = 10.6805875
EV of betting 2x pot, 2 pair+ call = .965*11+(1-.965)*(.3806*55-22) = 10.577655
EV of betting 2x pot, overpair+ call = .884*11+(1-.884)*(.4407*55-22) = 9.983666
EV of betting 2x pot, TP+ call = .699*11+(1-.699)*(.4898*55-22) = 9.175639
EV of betting 2x pot, AJ+ call = .378*11+(1-.378)*(.5343*55-22) = 8.752403

EV of betting 3x pot, sets+ call = .977*11+(1-.977)*(.3475*77-33) = 10.6034225
EV of betting 3x pot, 2 pair+ call = .965*11+(1-.965)*(.3806*77-33) = 10.485717
EV of betting 3x pot, overpair+ call = .884*11+(1-.884)*(.4407*77-33) = 9.8323324
EV of betting 3x pot, TP+ call = .699*11+(1-.699)*(.4898*77-33) = 9.1080946
EV of betting 3x pot, AJ+ call = .378*11+(1-.378)*(.5343*77-33) = 9.2217642

Posted about 1 month ago



HomePoker Videos → Math Attacks → Episode Nine