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

Glad you caught the math mistake at the end-At least you saw it before posting the vid and having someone else point it out to you.

It sounds like you may already have episode 7 packed with info, but something I think would be good to talk about is when to RAISE the flop with a draw vs calling. In today's games (at least at 6max where I play) it seems like TAGs are raising flush draws SO often. I think this is due to the fact that there are few players like the one in this video that slowplays their monsters and stacks off everytime with top pair. As a result, our implied odds can be deceiving. There are many players that will fold top pair when a 3 flush card hits (or at least fold to a raise), so the only way to commit them to the hand is raise the flop with a draw.

Can you expand on this idea and give some examples (perhaps with board texture or player types/positions) where raising a FD is better than calling? Should we ever raise if we have the right odds to call?


One more thing-I thought the "regular" (non-implied) odds were known as "immediate odds." I could also understand if it were referred to as "expressed odds" but "express odds" is new to me. Is this a typo or a newer/older term?

Yeah something really didn't sit right with me after I verbalized everything and when I went back to check, I saw that I'd made an error. Rather than redo the video (or even worse, ignore the mistake) I thought that tacking on a small video discussing the mistake (and fixing it, of course) would be the best course of action.

There are definitely a lot of TAGs that will raise their flush draws, and there are DEFINITELY benefits to doing so. These include

- FOLD EQUITY: Obviously, raising gives us the chance to make our opponent fold (either because we are repping a strong hand or because he has squat and doesn't want to risk a huge portion of his stack to rebluff us). Keep in mind that this benefit works best when either our opponent's range for opening/cbetting is fairly wide/weak, or our opponent will fold with decent frequency. (next episode, I plan on talking about how fold equity and pot equity combined will determine whether or not a play will be profitable). Remember that even if raising is profitable, it has to be weighed against our other options (which involve calling, either with the intent to float or the intent to bust a big (but worse) hand that won't fold.

- BALANCE: If we're going to be playing against observant regulars, we really can't afford to have transparent ranges (meaning that we always do one specific thing with one specific type of hand). If we're going to be fast-playing our very strong hands on the flop, to balance, we should be raising other types of hands as well, and draws are a very good hand to do this with. If our opponent has to guess as to what type of holding we have, it's less likely that he can play perfectly against us in this spot (again, by perfectly, I mean playing the same way he would if he could see our cards). Of course, we only gain this benefit if we're playing against an observant reg, and to boot, we do lose some opportunities to balance our floating range.

Much of the information in your post answers the questions in your second to last paragraph. Raising a FD will be better than calling when either you think your implied odds are bad (and thus, your fold equity is good). Lots of things can make this happen. I like to look for people who cbet a ton and don't play the turn really straight-forward, or people with a high "fold to flop raise"% (which you can put in a HUD popup...I have mine in the "cbet" popup). Wettish boards are also good, but severely wet boards may be better for calling. The reasoning there is that on a severely wet board, there are a ton of cards that your opponent will hate that you can rep quite easily and if he checks to you, you can bet and take it down. As always, knowing your villain (and your history with the villain) will be a great guide.

If we have the odds to call, then I feel that raising would solely be a balancing play and it'd really be up to you and your style. The implied odds/fold equity balance would also play in, but if your direct odds are good, calling will be a mistake FAR less often than raising will be.

Direct odds, regular odds, immediate odds, and express(ed) odds all refer to your call vs the pot size. I'm pretty sure I've seen it written as both "expressed" and "express" but not sure enough to put money on it. lol "Expressed" does sound better as well, now that you mention it. Thanks again for posting questions!

Can't wait to watch this, I've really been enjoying the series RE.

Thanks for your reply RE! looking forward to the next episode!

Regarding the implied odds calculations, don't we have to take into consideration that he is going to be betting the turn every time and we aren't really planning on folding to that bet either?

Your calculation suggests that the implied odds to call the flop bet are over 17 to 1, and the overall odds to call the turn bet are 6 to 1.

But if we do a calculation including both streets, I think it should be lower. Assuming we know that this villain is going to make a pot bet on the flop and turn every time, our direct odds on the flop are really (pot + all money we know he is going to put in on the flop and turn) : (all the money we will have to put in on the flop and turn) = (7.5+7.5+22.5) : (7.5+22.5), or 1.25 to 1. And our chance of hitting our flush on either the turn or river are 1 - the chance that we don't hit, or (1-((38/47)*(37/46))) = ~35%, or 2.85 to 1.

So, direct pot odds of 1.25 to 1, and odds of hitting of 2.85 to 1; direct odds would suggest a fold.

But assuming that we get his whole stack when we do hit, our implied odds are (money we win: money we have to put in). The money we win is his stack plus the blinds, or 126.5:30, reducing to 4.22 to 1.

So, our implied odds still make this a call, but I think it is misleading to say that the implied odds of calling on the flop are 17 to 1, considering we are never folding the turn (at least against this fictional opponent). And you don't have to take into account the chance of us hitting on the turn because he is going to be putting in money either way, and so are we. Is my reasoning (or math) flawed?

Regarding the implied odds calculations, don't we have to take into consideration that he is going to be betting the turn every time and we aren't really planning on folding to that bet either?

Your calculation suggests that the implied odds to call the flop bet are over 17 to 1, and the overall odds to call the turn bet are 6 to 1.

But if we do a calculation including both streets, I think it should be lower. Assuming we know that this villain is going to make a pot bet on the flop and turn every time, our direct odds on the flop are really (pot + all money we know he is going to put in on the flop and turn) : (all the money we will have to put in on the flop and turn) = (7.5+7.5+22.5) : (7.5+22.5), or 1.25 to 1. And our chance of hitting our flush on either the turn or river are 1 - the chance that we don't hit, or (1-((38/47)*(37/46))) = ~35%, or 2.85 to 1.

So, direct pot odds of 1.25 to 1, and odds of hitting of 2.85 to 1; direct odds would suggest a fold.

But assuming that we get his whole stack when we do hit, our implied odds are (money we win: money we have to put in). The money we win is his stack plus the blinds, or 126.5:30, reducing to 4.22 to 1.

So, our implied odds still make this a call, but I think it is misleading to say that the implied odds of calling on the flop are 17 to 1, considering we are never folding the turn (at least against this fictional opponent). And you don't have to take into account the chance of us hitting on the turn because he is going to be putting in money either way, and so are we. Is my reasoning (or math) flawed?

Nope, not flawed. There are two ways to do the equity calc.

1) Figure your chances for hitting your card on the next street. If we do it this way, we're not concerned with what happens on the next street and can do the normal IO calc.

2) Figure your chances for hitting your card on either of the next two streets. If we're using PokerStove, or figuring how often we'll have the best hand by the river, then we definitely need to figure out how often he's going to be betting the turn and how much he's going to be betting the turn for. The math gets a bit funky because (as you correctly stated) our IO are way different on the turn than they are on the flop and fusing our flop DO+IO and our turn DO+IO into one equity calc is messy and really not something we can readily do at the table.

Ok, so it's about simplicity of calculations while sitting at the table. That makes sense. Thanks for the quick response.

I was also wondering if there are any situations where implied odds make a pot sized bet on the flop a call, but a pot sized bet on the turn a fold (and taking it one step further, what happens when you fuse the equity calculation in this scenario).

For example, say his stack is only 80 BB instead of 125. In that case, flop implied odds are 81.5 : 7.5, or 10.8 to 1, which is better than our 4.2 to 1 to hit on the turn, dictating a call.

But then on the turn, our implied odds are 81.5 : 22.5, or 3.62 to 1, which is worse than our 4.26 to 1 to hit on the river, dictating a fold.

Fusing both streets together (knowing this villain will bet), our implied odds are 81.5 : 30, or 2.71 to 1, and our odds of hitting are, as above, 2.85 to 1, so this would be a fold according to that calculation.

So, that would seem like a case where our implied odds dictate a call on the flop, but a turn on the river if we separate the calculation, and if we fuse the calculation, it makes it a fold on the flop. I don't know if I am just getting confused, or if this is one of those situations where it really doesn't matter what you do because it is so thin either way. Or perhaps we take rake into account and it makes this a clear fold. Thoughts?

Ok, so it's about simplicity of calculations while sitting at the table. That makes sense. Thanks for the quick response.

I was also wondering if there are any situations where implied odds make a pot sized bet on the flop a call, but a pot sized bet on the turn a fold (and taking it one step further, what happens when you fuse the equity calculation in this scenario).

For example, say his stack is only 80 BB instead of 125. In that case, flop implied odds are 81.5 : 7.5, or 10.8 to 1, which is better than our 4.2 to 1 to hit on the turn, dictating a call.

But then on the turn, our implied odds are 81.5 : 22.5, or 3.62 to 1, which is worse than our 4.26 to 1 to hit on the river, dictating a fold.

Fusing both streets together (knowing this villain will bet), our implied odds are 81.5 : 30, or 2.71 to 1, and our odds of hitting are, as above, 2.85 to 1, so this would be a fold according to that calculation.

So, that would seem like a case where our implied odds dictate a call on the flop, but a turn on the river if we separate the calculation, and if we fuse the calculation, it makes it a fold on the flop. I don't know if I am just getting confused, or if this is one of those situations where it really doesn't matter what you do because it is so thin either way. Or perhaps we take rake into account and it makes this a clear fold. Thoughts?

The other issue with fusing (which should've occurred to be earlier) is that it assumes we're putting in both streets of money while behind. If we do hit on the turn, then it's never a mistake to call and we're no longer trying to hit anything (this is why I prefer street by street). I suppose we could multiply the amount of money we'd be paying on the turn by the probability that we miss to get a more accurate view of what we're paying ahead of time.

Ex: We have an OESFD for 17 outs and our opponent bets pot and we know he will bet pot on any turn and stack off to a shove. Assuming the pot is 9.5bb on the flop, we can plan on putting in 9.5 to win 105.5 when we hit. (which will be 1/3 of the time). When we call and hit, we've paid 9.5 to win $35 (his whole stack x 1/3). When we miss, we have to pay another PSB so we're paying 28.5 to win 115 or a fused 38 to win 105.5 1/3 of the time . (Assuming we get his stack on the river) As you can see, this gets messy. If something is this thin, we can certainly just let the hand go. Rake, variance, and the effect on the rest of your session could swing really tight spots one way or the other and if making a very small mistake now can prevent lots of larger ones later, it's better to just make the small one.

100-3=97

15+89.5=13.93:7.5

13.93:1

+EV

80-3=77

15+69.5=84.5:7.5

11.27:1

+EV

60-3=57

15+49.5=64.5:7.5

8.6:1

+EV

xxxx

10NL

preflop EP raise 0.40 and you call with SC

On the flop you have a flush draw so you are a 4.2:1 dog

They bet the pot on the flop

Flop pot 0.40+0.40+0.15=0.95

(0.95+0.95)/0.95=2

2:1


4.2(odds for draw)-2.0(pot odds)=2.2

0.95(his bet) X 2.2(from above)=2.09(what you need to make to break even)

Turn pot = 0.95+0.95+0.95=2.85

His stack
10-0.40(preflop bet)=9.60-0.95(flop bet)=8.65

Math Check
(0.95+0.95+2.09)/0.95=4.2
4.2:1

On the turn he bets the pot again
(2.85+2.85)/2.85=2
2:1

again we need 2.2x his bet

2.85(2.2)=6.27

His stack
8.65-2.85=5.80

So he doesn't have enough left for us to make to break even

implied odds ?

EX:

10NL

100BB deep

EP raise and you call on the button with SC

Flop pot 0.75

He bets 2/3 the pot 0.50

0.75+0.50=1.25/0.50=2.5:1

4.2-2.5=1.7

0.50(1.7)=0.85

So we need to make 0.85

The turn pot will be 1.75

His stack will be 10-0.30=9.7-0.50=9.2

He bets 2/3 the pot again on the turn
1.75(2/3)=1.15

Pot odd
1.75+1.15/1.15=2.52

4.2-2.52=1.68

1.15(1.68)=1.93

River pot
4.05

His stack
8.05

Do I have to take into account the odds that I had on the flop when I make the call on the turn? Would I have to add the difference in to my odds for a turn call?

EX
Would I have to add the 1.7 in so 4.2+1.7=5.9:1 so would I still be a 4:1 dog on the turn or would I be a 5.9:1 dog?

First thanks for the videos. They have been very helpful.

I noticed at the end of the video you said that it was a call because the implied odds were better than the pot odds. Shouldn't it have been a call because the implied odds were better than the odds of the flush draw even though the pot odds weren't.

I saw a video (can't remember where) that made it easier to determine whether you should call or not without all the math.

Since everyone knows that your actual odds to hit the flush are approx. 4:1 and villain's bet is 2:1 (pot), then you need to make 2 times his bet to break even with the actual odds. Then the question becomes: Based on stats/reads can you get more than the breakeven amount out of villain if you hit? If you think the answer is yes, call.

You can use this method no matter how much he bets. Simply figure out how much more you need to get from your villain to make the call beat the actual odds. It's pretty quick. You can then either be conservative or aggressive on your calls by varying the amount you want to get for the actual odds.

Kirk: Yes, thank you!

Student, the math looks good. You don't take into account your odds on the flop when considering your turn action...rather, the other way around. If you have a draw on the flop, you need to consider both your implied odds AND the likelihood that you're going to face another bet on the turn.

Sig: I agree that this is a much simpler version of whether or not we should call, but the more information we consider when making our decision, the better it will be. Let's consider

opponent A who always bets the flop and checks the turn when OOP

and

opponent B who always follows up with a turn pot-sized bet when he bets the flop when OOP

Think about how we would play the draws differently against each opponent. (Assume we have a nut flush draw)