Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by sthief09 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Josh and Paddy: First thanks for another good video.

Usually implied odds and R implied odds are discussed in conjunction with SPR. I wonder with those equations with SPR of 3-5 range from recollection - do you think that range of SPR had any peculiar features?

I would have like to see where SPR of 1-2 or SPR of 10-20 and see if that effects the overall game plans.

Umm - the thought occurred to me - with the 9522 and requisite equity needed on turn as well as your implication about flop equity vs aggressive opponents needing to be so high - that even strong bluff catchers are losing propositions like TT.........that this is perhaps illustrate in an oblique way with 100bb stacked poker why 3-betting and PF/Flop aggroness is so widespread given the power of intiative that you described.

Josh and Paddy: First thanks for another good video.

Usually implied odds and R implied odds are discussed in conjunction with SPR. I wonder with those equations with SPR of 3-5 range from recollection - do you think that range of SPR had any peculiar features?

I would have like to see where SPR of 1-2 or SPR of 10-20 and see if that effects the overall game plans.

Umm - the thought occurred to me - with the 9522 and requisite equity needed on turn as well as your implication about flop equity vs aggressive opponents needing to be so high - that even strong bluff catchers are losing propositions like TT.........that this is perhaps illustrate in an oblique way with 100bb stacked poker why 3-betting and PF/Flop aggroness is so widespread given the power of intiative that you described.

I think implied odds are usually talked about with SPR because often that's regarding preflop or the flop. If you're deciding whether to go set-mining preflop, you have 3 streets in which to extract value from your opponent. On the flop with a flush draw, you have 2 streets. In those scenarios, it's possible to extract a greater amount of chips and if villain has a short stack relative to pot, it's going to harm your overall EV.

In this 2-street model we've presented, entire stacks often don't come into play. More relevant might be the ratio of (turn bet + river bet) : pot. That's pretty similar to SPR but it's more like relevent stack to pot ratio.

I'll add that to the spreadsheet, which I'll be posting in a couple of minutes. You'll notice the sheet has some graphs on it, showing the relationship between several individual inputs and the EV of the overall line. I'll try to add this "threat to stack ratio" to the graphs.

Umm - the thought occurred to me - with the 9522 and requisite equity needed on turn as well as your implication about flop equity vs aggressive opponents needing to be so high - that even strong bluff catchers are losing propositions like TT.........that this is perhaps illustrate in an oblique way with 100bb stacked poker why 3-betting and PF/Flop aggroness is so widespread given the power of intiative that you described.

Yes! This is really what this is pointing to, aggression on earlier streets. Between episodes 1 and 4, we're getting a better idea of just how important initiative and position are, and the benefit of having the 2nd way of winning the pot (fold equity). The early streets really are a battle to gain initiative, and the loser of that battle is the one who is stuck in call mode and likely the one who has to fold early on.

We're definitely going to keep developing ideas based off these conclusions.

Here's a link to the spreadsheet:
https://www.yousendit.com/download/aHlUeW45NmN6NEkwTVE9PQ

Digger, I added the "SPR" which is just the ratio of turn+river bets to the initial pot. 2 halfpot bets would be 1.5x, 2 3/4 pot bets 2.625x, and 2 pot bets would be a 4x ratio.

Josh/Paddy
Couple of other points I got out of the video - that you touched on.

1)The fact that it overall -EV despite being correct on both sts.
(a) reminds me of DJ sensei discussing in PLO Cap series how you find you keep getting the right price on each st but end up putting a ton of money in with 40% equity overall - which he highlights why PF hand selection is so important.
It occurred to me - that this is similiar in that you are talking relatively small SPR on turns and in your example you are getting to showdown sooo often that your hot/cold equity vs his range is paramount.

2) You mention it is prolly counter-intuitive. I see that part. But it also makes a ton of sense from a villian classification standpoint. I have seen myself in my play as well as the tonnes of better players on vid's here discuss how villians range just becomes are shitload stronger once they bet the turn. This illustrates that its a fools hope to believe that there is much air in his range once he bets the turn..........

3) I mentioned stack depth mainly in 100bb this seems key - because in none of the examples do we have the capacity to bluff past the flop. All these example seem to be centred around where Hero will be facing a shove on the river - where if we are in single raised pots more than 250+bb deep - we do not have nearly the same problem because we at least have the capacity to turn our bluff catchers into bluffs on the river which would counter-balance villians air range.

4)Against these types of regulars - do you see any implications this has to our flop plays with our weak made hand or bluff catching range?

Josh/Paddy
Couple of other points I got out of the video - that you touched on.

1)The fact that it overall -EV despite being correct on both sts.
(a) reminds me of DJ sensei discussing in PLO Cap series how you find you keep getting the right price on each st but end up putting a ton of money in with 40% equity overall - which he highlights why PF hand selection is so important.
It occurred to me - that this is similiar in that you are talking relatively small SPR on turns and in your example you are getting to showdown sooo often that your hot/cold equity vs his range is paramount.

2) You mention it is prolly counter-intuitive. I see that part. But it also makes a ton of sense from a villian classification standpoint. I have seen myself in my play as well as the tonnes of better players on vid's here discuss how villians range just becomes are shitload stronger once they bet the turn. This illustrates that its a fools hope to believe that there is much air in his range once he bets the turn..........

3) I mentioned stack depth mainly in 100bb this seems key - because in none of the examples do we have the capacity to bluff past the flop. All these example seem to be centred around where Hero will be facing a shove on the river - where if we are in single raised pots more than 250+bb deep - we do not have nearly the same problem because we at least have the capacity to turn our bluff catchers into bluffs on the river which would counter-balance villians air range.

4)Against these types of regulars - do you see any implications this has to our flop plays with our weak made hand or bluff catching range?

1) Yes, something that we didn't get around to talking about is that sometimes with low SPRs it can be best to just raise/jam with medium strength pairs even if:
- The opponent knew our cards and played perfectly
and(!)
- We knew precisely the opponents range and strategy for later streets.

In other words the much maligned "raise for protection" sometimes is the optimal play.

2) Agree but remember that there are people out there will really unbalanced ranges. Play with Josh's spreadsheet and you can see that against players who never bluff the river and don't value bet well (i.e most people at small stakes and below) calling can be ok, whereas taking the precise same turn range and action but against a player who plays the river well.... we burn money.

Or the flip side would be the classic maniac, where we just close our eyes and click call call call. You can model that on the sheet too.

3) Yep, being able to bluff raise rivers is an added dynamic.

4) Which types?

Josh/Paddy
Couple of other points I got out of the video - that you touched on.

1)The fact that it overall -EV despite being correct on both sts.
(a) reminds me of DJ sensei discussing in PLO Cap series how you find you keep getting the right price on each st but end up putting a ton of money in with 40% equity overall - which he highlights why PF hand selection is so important.
It occurred to me - that this is similiar in that you are talking relatively small SPR on turns and in your example you are getting to showdown sooo often that your hot/cold equity vs his range is paramount.

2) You mention it is prolly counter-intuitive. I see that part. But it also makes a ton of sense from a villian classification standpoint. I have seen myself in my play as well as the tonnes of better players on vid's here discuss how villians range just becomes are shitload stronger once they bet the turn. This illustrates that its a fools hope to believe that there is much air in his range once he bets the turn..........

3) I mentioned stack depth mainly in 100bb this seems key - because in none of the examples do we have the capacity to bluff past the flop. All these example seem to be centred around where Hero will be facing a shove on the river - where if we are in single raised pots more than 250+bb deep - we do not have nearly the same problem because we at least have the capacity to turn our bluff catchers into bluffs on the river which would counter-balance villians air range.

4)Against these types of regulars - do you see any implications this has to our flop plays with our weak made hand or bluff catching range?

1. Yeah, the deeper the SPR the less pot odds matter. Hot and cold equity is still critical though (especially the breakdown--how much of your equity is strong hands as opposed to current "best hands" with little way of improving), because it dictates how often you'll be in a winning or losing situation on later streets.

Your example is a great one, because it really illustrates the importance of setting the stages on early streets. An appropriate flop calling range will leave us in much better shape on the turn.


2. Not so sure I entirely agree with this. Some villains frequency 2 barrel the turn, and more importantly, certain boards are conducive for barreling.

Absolutely the next step for this model is to add in the capacity to raise a street. We need to know how the ability to c/r the river changes things, from an EV perspective to a villain value betting perspective. With history and deep stacks, it's conceivable that villain's value bet % gets driven down into the 50 or 60% range. That's why we need to start looking at real hand examples.

I think the concept of when and why to raise is more important than the actual stacks. Right now we've limited our options to folding vs. calling on both streets. The stacks are mostly irrelevent relative to these options. As you basically pointed to, we need to actually look at how c/r changes the EV and the dynamic.

Regarding #4: I think it tells me a couple of things. I think it makes it clear it's bad to make those light peels that people make with hands that are "probably ahead" like 44 on 973r. Against any decent players at least.

It makes it much more appealing to flip the situation. Put in a raise and put your opponent in the reverse implied odds spot with the majority of his calling range. We know from this video that those stubborn calls people make vs. a flop raise are probably wrong so you can take advantage of a tendency to make those stubborn calls. If villain starts 3-betting, that's another story.

So my basic conclusion is to essentially manicure our calling ranges. Turn the hands with good equity (bottom pair and backdoors) into bluffs with greater frequency, and make some seemingly tight folds with hands that have little way of improving. It might also make sense to start raising the stronger portion of your calldown range since calling is deceptively unprofitable (think KQ on K84 or 3-betting 99 OOP preflop), but at the same time I do think it's important to have as strong a calling range as possible. These are a lot of adjustments many of us have already made, but it's possible we're not doing it to a great enough extent.

Josh/Paddy,

What I am struggling with is in the situation around 33:30, where the EV is -.625 with R implied odds, so we should fold. However, by folding every time we are in an almost coin flip situation, aren't we losing much more EV by folding in this position. If we fold every time here, we would lose the $50 dollars we invested into the pot. However, by calling both times, overall we would be losing about 60 cents. Can we not consider the previous investment at all?

Thanks.

Josh/Paddy,

What I am struggling with is in the situation around 33:30, where the EV is -.625 with R implied odds, so we should fold. However, by folding every time we are in an almost coin flip situation, aren't we losing much more EV by folding in this position. If we fold every time here, we would lose the $50 dollars we invested into the pot. However, by calling both times, overall we would be losing about 60 cents. Can we not consider the previous investment at all?

Thanks.

Despite the dead money in the pot the EV of folding is always 0 for the purposes of calculation.

This confused us too but Josh ran the EV calcs several different ways (using a method to calculate EV of final stack) and the results came out the same.

Josh/Paddy,

What I am struggling with is in the situation around 33:30, where the EV is -.625 with R implied odds, so we should fold. However, by folding every time we are in an almost coin flip situation, aren't we losing much more EV by folding in this position. If we fold every time here, we would lose the $50 dollars we invested into the pot. However, by calling both times, overall we would be losing about 60 cents. Can we not consider the previous investment at all?

Thanks.

the 50 we've invested that has led to the $100 pot is a sunk cost. you see on TV people talk about protecting their money in the pot, but it's a bad way of looking at it. the money you've previously invested is irrelevant from the perspective of the turn decision. it's dead money now and folding costs us nothing.

-.625 is the EV, starting at the turn decision. perspective is very important. it's not the EV of the whole hand. it is strictly the EV of calling the turn and river. it's very possible that a mistake was made on the flop that led to that turn spot.

Good vid. I'm a bit slow, only just caught up on this.

Could someone reupload the excel file please? Maybe to Megaupload or something so that it doesn't expire.

Good vid. I'm a bit slow, only just caught up on this.

Could someone reupload the excel file please? Maybe to Megaupload or something so that it doesn't expire.

http://www.yousendit.com/download/aHlUYURGeWFwcFd4dnc9PQ

that also has the episode 5 sheet.

Time Link to 00:25:55

How you have calculated the BE-TurnEQ?
(I could rerad ti from a tabulatur).
But is there an easy way to calculate it quickly?

http://www.yousendit.com/download/aHlUYURGeWFwcFd4dnc9PQ

that also has the episode 5 sheet.

Hi Sthief, can you upload the excel file once more because it likes like download link is expired or something

Why not upload to the MyDC amazon storage through the website?

Hi Sthief, can you upload the excel file once more because it likes like download link is expired or something

https://www.yousendit.com/download/aHlReUNJNHZwcFh2Wmc9PQ

Why not upload to the MyDC amazon storage through the website?

i kind of like getting to manage it. i don't mind tracking my dc account and seeing when people ask for it.

Time Link to 00:34:23

Hi!

I just don`t get the formula which calculates the Riverbetting-frequency.
What has the EQ to do with estimating frequencies?

Hi!

I just don`t get the formula which calculates the Riverbetting-frequency.
What has the EQ to do with estimating frequencies?

Can you be more specific? I'm having a hard time following right now.

Time Link to 00:29:42

Maybe it will get clearer by showing you this example.

I just do not see, how you can calculate the Riverbet % with this formula (Rbet % = E+(B-V) + V.

Something like this would make sense to me, for instance:
Bluff River: 10%
Value River: 30%
check River: 60%

-> the Riverbetting % (frequency) would be just: 1- P(Rivercheck)

What the estimating of riverbet% has to do with E is for me pointless.

I am not sure if you can follow me now b/c it is hard to explain here for me, what my problem is.
So if not,
just ignore this one b/c I guess it is anyways not soooo important...

Time Link to 00:57:04

Cost of Fold_when Villain bets should be 169,6$ (0,3392*500)?

Sthief,
Please upload the excel file again b/c it has expired.

Stheif and Sounded Simple,
This is an excellent series... thanks.

GalacticRewind

http://membervideos.deucescracked.com/sthief09/7762/Playbook Sheets.rar

that should be a permanent link to all the sheets.

I am loving this series, but could you upload the spreadsheets again as even the last link appears to be broken. Thank you,

Contacted DC tech rapid response unit for you

Contacted DC tech rapid response unit for you

The last link is not broken, but you must copy and paste the full link (all the way through .rar) into your browser window for it to work, you cannot simply click it.
-Rusty

Ty Rusty.

The last link is not broken, but you must copy and paste the full link (all the way through .rar) into your browser window for it to work, you cannot simply click it.
-Rusty

Ok, I tried that, and I tried opening it and all I get is a spreadsheet full of jibberish.

Contacted DC tech rapid response unit for you

Thanks, I need tech rapid response daily!

I re-downloaded and they all open ok for me.
Is it one in particular? What version of excel do you have?

2007 version,

I'm using 2002, not sure but that might be the issue. You might have to try it on a different PC or something. Sorry I can't be of more help

Could you try a different download program like megaupload or something? I would really like to experiment with this spreadsheet. It might be worth a try.

Could you try a different download program like megaupload or something? I would really like to experiment with this spreadsheet. It might be worth a try.

It's highly unlikely that a *.rar gets corrupted in the upload/download process - that's partly why we have *.rar.
Much more likely to be your excel If you can get access to a PC with excel 2002 try that. If that fails, pm me your email and I will send.

Thanks guys for the awesome series so far. Is it possible to get the spreadsheet uploaded again? None of the posted links does work. Sucks!:-(

Thanks guys for the awesome series so far. Is it possible to get the spreadsheet uploaded again? None of the posted links does work. Sucks!:-(

PM me your email.

Josh's link from earlier had an incorrect URL, everyone can get all the sheets here:

http://membervideos.deucescracked.com/sthief09/7762/Playbook%20Sheets.rar

Time Link to 00:44:00

Paddy, you mentioned that villains at low stakes can often be assumed to be in the not bluffing enough on the river camp, allowing you to call the turn planning to fold the river. Then the next point is that against villains who don't value bet well, we can just call down. Well, even more so than being poor bluffers, low stakes villains value bet very, very badly. Might this result in a sort of accidental re-balancing on the river? It certainly leads to a lot of river checking going on at the smallest games, which obviously reduces our RIO. But how do we reconcile these things?

I suppose either way it makes calling the turn more attractive because we're getting to showdown so much more. I guess I should just put some numbers into the calculations and see what happens. (I'm kinda thinking through this as I type.)

My questions were pretty much addressed in the thread. Thanks for the great video/series, guys. This one in particular has been a real eye-opener.

Maybe it will get clearer by showing you this example.

I just do not see, how you can calculate the Riverbet % with this formula (Rbet % = E+(B-V) + V.

Something like this would make sense to me, for instance:
Bluff River: 10%
Value River: 30%
check River: 60%

-> the Riverbetting % (frequency) would be just: 1- P(Rivercheck)

What the estimating of riverbet% has to do with E is for me pointless.

I am not sure if you can follow me now b/c it is hard to explain here for me, what my problem is.
So if not,
just ignore this one b/c I guess it is anyways not soooo important...

Your question is old, but I saw that it was never really addressed and it's something other people might be curious about so I'll give a stab at it.

Our equity in the pot relates to villain's river betting frequencies because it determines how often he will have the opportunity to take an action. For example:

If we have 50% equity on the turn, villain will have an opportunity to
- bluff 50% (the times we are ahead)
- value bet 50% (the times we are behind)

So if he bluffs 45% of his bluff range, we need to multiply .45*.50 to get his actual river bluffing frequency of 22.5% of rivers.

But, if we have 75% equity on the turn, villain will have an opportunity to
- bluff 75% (the times we are ahead on the river)
- value bet 25% (the times we are behind on the river)

So if he bluffs 45% of his bluff range, we need to multiply .45*.75 to get his actual river bluffing frequency of 33.75% of rivers.

Hopefully that clears it up for you or anyone else with your question.

Your question is old, but I saw that it was never really addressed and it's something other people might be curious about so I'll give a stab at it.

Our equity in the pot relates to villain's river betting frequencies because it determines how often he will have the opportunity to take an action. For example:

If we have 50% equity on the turn, villain will have an opportunity to
- bluff 50% (the times we are ahead)
- value bet 50% (the times we are behind)

So if he bluffs 45% of his bluff range, we need to multiply .45*.50 to get his actual river bluffing frequency of 22.5% of rivers.

But, if we have 75% equity on the turn, villain will have an opportunity to
- bluff 75% (the times we are ahead on the river)
- value bet 25% (the times we are behind on the river)

So if he bluffs 45% of his bluff range, we need to multiply .45*.75 to get his actual river bluffing frequency of 33.75% of rivers.

Hopefully that clears it up for you or anyone else with your question.

right! from the initial range, there are sort of sub-ranges created. this was eye-opening for me as well. It helps me to analyze individual situations because I have a better understanding of how a range is constructed.

"If we have 50% equity on the turn, villain will have an opportunity to
- bluff 50% (the times we are ahead)
- value bet 50% (the times we are behind)

So if he bluffs 45% of his bluff range, we need to multiply .45*.50 to get his actual river bluffing frequency of 22.5% of rivers."


so in terms of combos it would look like this ??

10 value combos
10 bluff combos of which he bluffs 45% so 4,5 combo

and 4,5 combos is 22,5% of 20

but he isnt betting 20 combos, he is betting 14,5 combos of which 4,5 are bluffs, which means we have 31% on the river right ?? and his river betting Fq% would be 14,5/20 = 72,5% and the rest he checks back = the 55% of his bluffs