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

The presentation is very good in my opinion, because I can write everything down without listen to the audio repeatedly. So don`t make shorter cliffnotes, just write everything down like you did, please. I think you tought much stuff in just 45 minutes but it never was to hard to follow. I understood for the first time the more complex EV calculations for semibluffs.

So you covered the topics of the first three episodes of DCs "mathmatics for NLHE" in just one video but I never learned that much about the math behind poker like in this episode. Thank you very much for the good work.

edit: btw sorry for my bad english

Great start to the series.

As the above poster sad, this episode seems to be a summary of other series' found on DC and in a clear and concise way. Like a "Dummies guide to. . ." Not trying to offend you or anything, I think it's great so far. I thoroughly anticipate the next episode.

Nice work.

Clear and concise - well done.

Didn't watch the episode, skipped through each section after watching the first 10 minutes. It looks like a really good primer for those of you looking to get past the essential basics of poker games.

I hope you get a lot more technical later in the series. Give me a message if you want to do anything with modelling ranges in lowball draw poker or stud as I've done quite a bt of study into the combinatorics for lots of common spots.

I've also done some statistical modelling for determining the strength of a read based on a frequency analysis (this is really just a "simple" chi-squared relationship between # of measurements and observations, but I have a pretty spreadsheet and I've coupled it with some EV calcs for basic 3b/4b games to demonstrate at what point it is appropriate to "fight back" versus a TAG when you only have a small sample.)

Awesome first episode. I really enjoy the reinforcement of math in the DC videos. Equations (with examples) that I am still working on making automatic in all of my decisions (live and online).

Thanks. I am really looking forward to the rest of the series.

I hope you get a lot more technical later in the series.

Yes, this episode is a primer and as a result is very dense. We will go into more depth later on and cover new material in the later episodes.

I've also done some statistical modelling for determining the strength of a read based on a frequency analysis (this is really just a "simple" chi-squared relationship between # of measurements and observations, but I have a pretty spreadsheet and I've coupled it with some EV calcs for basic 3b/4b games to demonstrate at what point it is appropriate to "fight back" versus a TAG when you only have a small sample.)

Sounds very interesting, perhaps send me a PM and we can talk on instant messenger.

Well done. Looking forward to the next one.

Time Link to 00:44:31

Sorry if this is a basic question, but for those of us that aren't good with the math can you explain how you are doing this cal. I think that the last section of it in the [ ] should be done as 50*.32 then subtract that from 22. Is that correct? Great video. I'm looking forward to this series as someone who these types of cals. have been a problem learning. Keep it up.

SI think that the last section of it in the [ ] should be done as 50*.32 then subtract that from 22. Is that correct?.

Yes.
Here is the calculation with more steps included:
EV = .5*13+.5*[50*(.32)-22]
= 6.5 + .5 * [16 - 22]
= 6.5 + .5 * [-6]
= 6.5 - 3
= 3.5

This wikipedia page may help if you are unsure of the order in which operations are done:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

In the last example you keep saying that we 4bet-shove, howerver, we just 4bet. Unless we are both deep, the most likely outcome is either fold or shove from our opponent. If he shoves top 10%, we decide whether to call or not 78bb in the pot of 122bb with 32% equity.
So, its .5*(13)+.5[200*(.32)-78]=6.5-7=-0.5
If he actually calls, then its really hard to estimate the % we win.

In the last example you keep saying that we 4bet-shove, howerver, we just 4bet.

This may not have been 100% clear, but in the example we are playing a HUSNG and our 4bet sizing is meant to be a shove.

In a cash game with deep stacks then yes it will be different. In a deeper stacked cash game we can estimate the EV we have using a bunch of other techniques. These techniques are too advanced for a series primer but we will cover them later on. We plan to really study the whole 4 bet pot situation in a later episode, including an in depth analysis of the times that our opponent flats our 4 bet.

Nice video. Very good review material on simple EV calculations. I'm excited to watch the rest of the series now.

Time Link to 00:07:32

THAT'S A REALLY COOL SPHERE!

Great video. Very clearly explained - has been a great help.

One question:
My understanding is that the Pot Odds % calculation (Call/(Pot+Call)) is effectively the minimum equity required to make it correct to call. The example you gave was in respect of calling a shove - presumably this still works where there is money left behind for action on further streets?

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

Odds

presumably this still works where there is money left behind for action on further streets?

No it doesn't work. The more money we have left behind the less accurate making this assumption will be. Episode 3 deals with exactly this question so check it out!

Time Link to 00:22:53

that 7 should be a 5. if it was a 7 we would have 3 more outs(any 8 -8h)

Time Link to 00:34:50

I like the quote at the bottom of the picture

I like the way Shuttle explains basic poker concepts and then apply it with concrete examples. Its clear and efficient.

An interesting look at the equity of a shove with a hand with relatively little equity. What is a real eye-opener is the fact that our measly K4s still has 32% equity against a range of top 10% of hands.. increasing to around 38% if we held a suited A rag type hand.
This certainly means shoving preflop is an extremely profitable move.... in this situation where the stacks aren't terribly deep... and we are heads up....
Care needs to be taken when taking this lesson to the cash games.

By the way i enjoyed this explanation of the basics of equity. It was clear and easy to understand. just what I need..

I am watching episode two, and here its stated in the comments that we only win 101 when we shove 100 into 1.

So i have a question regarding to the EV example in this episode:

EV = .5*13+.5*[50*(.32)-22]
= 6.5 + .5 * [16 - 22]
= 6.5 + .5 * [-6]
= 6.5 - 3
= 3.5

50 = current pot (13) + our shove (22) + his call (15)

Should the amount we win in this example instead be our shove + current pot?

Our shove 22bb into pot of 13 = 35bb

So instead EV = .5*13+.5*[(35*.32)-22)] ?

Also, in episode two the formula is presented different. According to this, its should be;

EV = .5*13+.5*[(35*.32)-(22*.68)]

Whats correct?

Ok, i read a little closer and figured it out.

I'm just putting my findings out here in case any other newbies ends up wondering about the same

You can use two different formulas:

EV = (%Fold*pot) + call%[(WinEquity*NewPot) - AmountLoose)]

Where NewPot = pot + shove + VillainsCall

Newpot = 13+22+15 = 50

EV = .5*13 + .5((50*.32) - 22)

Or the other formula:

EV = (%fold*pot) + call%[(AmountWin*WinEquity) - (AmountLoose*LooseEquity)]

Where AmountWin = current pot + Villains call

AmountWin = 13 + 15 = 28

EV = .5*13 + .5[(28*.32) - (22*.68)]

And they will both give the same answer.

First let's derive the second formula and then I'll show how they're the same. Expectation (EV) is just a weighted sum of all possible payoffs weighted by their probability. So there are a lot of possible ways of expressing that which are all identical. As long as they are, you can use whichever is most convenient.

So if you shove 100 into 1, there are three outcomes

1) Villain folds & we win 1
2) Villain calls & we loose 100
3) Villain calls & we win 101

So weighted by probability these are

1) %fold * pot
2) %call * - amountloose * looseEquity
3) %call * amountWin * WinEquity

It's easy to see you can add those up, factor out the common %call and get

EV = (%fold*pot) + call%[(AmountWin*WinEquity) - (AmountLoose*LooseEquity)]

...and since LooseEquity is just 1- WinEquity it follows that is the same as

EV = (%Fold*pot) + call%[(WinEquity*NewPot) - AmountLoose)]

Don't believe me? Let's just look at the bit inside the "call%" for a sec and show it step by step.

(AmountWin * winEquity) - (AmountLoose * LooseEquity)

substitute 1-winEquity for LooseEquity

(AmountWin * winEquity) - (1-WinEquity)(AmountLoose)

Multiply out the bit in the brackets

AmountWin * winEquity - AmountLoose + WinEquity * AmountLoose

group the "winEquity" terms together.

WinEquity (Amountwin + AmountLoose) - AmountLoose

But what is "AmountWin + AmountLoose" ? why, amountWin is his call + the initial pot and amountLoose is our bet. And our bet + his call + the initial pot is the new pot size. So the two formulae are the same.

Hehe, two "different" formulas was stretching it. One is a simplifitaion of the other then. Thanks for further explaining this.

As huntse showed, they are essentially the same.