---

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

I've watched and taken notes on the first two episodes and have found it to be very helpful and in the neighborhood of solid gold.

One thing about your teaching style I like is your use of practical examples. You don't dumb the examples down to situations that rarely come up just for the sake of making a point, you keep the material very realistic imo.

I would pay $1k + for this course in total vnh sir. -Zed

Zed, thanks so much for the kind words. It's posts like that which make all the hours I've spent on this entire series worth it.

regards,
WoT

keep it up. this is gold.

Good work. Much appreciated.

DUCY?

Wow wow wow, today I watched first two episodes and it is a piece of art. You definitely know how to teach and make slides .

Hi, one question about the hand combo chart. It says there are only four two pair combos for having top two on an AK5 board. Shouldn't it be 9 combos (3 aces, 3 kings left)? The chart says there are only 2 aces and 2 kings left, but I don't understand why...

But your videos (I've watched the first two episodes) are simply great.

Mosh- you're right that is a mistake. Sorry about that.

i recently joined this site and i can say w/o a doubt that the first 2 episodes of this series have already paid for the membership, thanks for the great info.

Very nice videos, and to the point, GJ and thanks for sharing the info cheers

i recently joined this site and i can say w/o a doubt that the first 2 episodes of this series have already paid for the membership, thanks for the great info.

QFT

Exactly the course material I was looking for. Thanks Wilt!

I've watched and taken notes on the first two episodes and have found it to be very helpful and in the neighborhood of solid gold.

One thing about your teaching style I like is your use of practical examples. You don't dumb the examples down to situations that rarely come up just for the sake of making a point, you keep the material very realistic imo.

I would pay $1k + for this course in total vnh sir. -Zed

--- I agree with this.

--- I agree with this.

Please send payments to WiltOnTilt at Full Tilt Poker or PokerStars .... ;-)

j/k

thanks guys for the kind words, it really means a lot!

WoT

Wilt, I am in the trial period of my membership. I live on Lake of the Ozarks(I know u know where that is). Frankly your video series on "The Mathematics of Poker" is the best thing I've seen on this or any other poker training site. I was a longtime member of PSO and had around six months of membership at another well know site. Most offer videos like many of the videos on this site with just some TAG play or LAG play and lots of comments about how "BAD" the players are. Frankly pokertracker gives me more information then that. Your series is outstanding. I am now viewing the series you did with Krantz who suggested membership in this site would be better than buying his dvds.

Anyway enough of the sucking up. I would like to see a bankroll building series for both online and live poker. I would like to see a series on dealing with tilt. Along the same lines as the BR series how about something on managing your BR as it grows including some tax related issues. How about a series on "Why we suck" or "Why we can't get out of the Micros". How about more on using PT to refine your game and identify weakness.

I would challenge you to do a series starting with a dollar and building a bankroll. Maybe I could see how you keep someone from getting all their chips in against aces and sucking out with 4,3 offsuit? Thanks for your insightful video series.

Wilt, I am in the trial period of my membership. I live on Lake of the Ozarks(I know u know where that is). Frankly your video series on "The Mathematics of Poker" is the best thing I've seen on this or any other poker training site. I was a longtime member of PSO and had around six months of membership at another well know site. Most offer videos like many of the videos on this site with just some TAG play or LAG play and lots of comments about how "BAD" the players are. Frankly pokertracker gives me more information then that. Your series is outstanding. I am now viewing the series you did with Krantz who suggested membership in this site would be better than buying his dvds.

Anyway enough of the sucking up. I would like to see a bankroll building series for both online and live poker. I would like to see a series on dealing with tilt. Along the same lines as the BR series how about something on managing your BR as it grows including some tax related issues. How about a series on "Why we suck" or "Why we can't get out of the Micros". How about more on using PT to refine your game and identify weakness.

I would challenge you to do a series starting with a dollar and building a bankroll. Maybe I could see how you keep someone from getting all their chips in against aces and sucking out with 4,3 offsuit? Thanks for your insightful video series.

Hi SetMiner, thanks for all the comments and praises :-) Really appreciate that a lot. The Lake of the Ozarks is an awesome place. If you're ever in Kansas City let me know and we'll grab a bite or get a drink.

As for your suggestions, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with what's to come in future seasons. I can't guarantee the timeline but as for your suggestion on how to deal with tilt issues, Tommy Angelo (long time coach and author of "The Elements of Poker") is rumored to be doing an audio series around poker mentality/tilt/perspective at some point. Also, in terms of starting at the low stakes and working up, in Season 4 I'll be doing a series called "Real Life: Micro NL Grinder" where I take a low stakes player under my wing, give them tons of coaching, record the coaching sessions and analyze their play to improve their game and jump out of those stakes. Hopefully this is close to what you're looking for. If you play 10c/25c or 25c/50c, be sure to check out the General Forum for my post, and submit an application!

I think your series idea of starting with a dollar and trying to move up is a really good one. I'm not sure if I'll be doing it anytime soon (have some other series plans) but we will keep your suggestion in mind for someone to do in future seasons.

Thanks again
WoT

p.s. i promise you i can't teach how to not get sucked out on with AA hahaah I wish I knew how too!

"Real life Micro Limit Grinder" sounds interesting. I would especially want my 18 year old to have a go with a mentor. He's got a future in the game I think. Online poker is so different from the live game, I see some LAGs live but not near as many and I don't see too many of them calling allins with 9,4 suited against aces.(B&M seems so much easier sometimes) Thanks again for the great video series.

P.S. I do come to KC to play sometimes usually in tournaments I have done fairly well in them. Most of my family still lives in KC so I hope we do cross paths at some point in the future. I'll treat ya to dinner if you can teach an old dog new tricks.

I have taught many old dogs many tricks :-) They are usually my best students!

Many thanks for your video on mathematics, from an old maths nerd called omaha!

It was really good to see things spelt out properly and explained so that a human can understand things, as opposed to sklanskys books where things are spelt out properly and explained hideously! (side note- that DS really, really, really needs an editor!)

One quick question for you Wilt, Is the G Bucks section in your video basically another way of stating the RE parts of the REM process, as outlined in the new Mehta book? I think it is, basically it talks about getting a hand range (as opposed to a hand) and then thinking about your average equity amongst all of those hands? Is there any difference between this and G bucks?

Second question. Will you let me wear a deuces cracked cap at the final table of the WSOP as your representative from the Real Life: microstakes grinder graduate ?

Any idea when the lucky person will be chosen? Cause I can start straight away!

Yes the G-bucks calcs are similar to the RE part of the REM process but there's a subtle difference I believe (i read mehta's volume 1 like 6 months ago, so i might be wrong on REM).

As far as G-bucks goes, it's essentially doing math the math where we see how OUR range does against villain's hand. So say villain snaps us off on a bluff, we figure out what our range is in a spot and see how villain's call does against our range.

Some of the other math I do in this series in episodes 4-8 has to do with how our hand does against a range (i think that's closer to RE in REM).

The final step would be figuring out how our range does against their range, but the math for that can get quite complicated when figuring our each hand in our range effects the # of combos of the hands in villain's range etc.

Have you watched Episode 8 yet ? That's the one that talks about G-bucks and implementing it.

Good luck
Aaron

p.s. When you make the wsop final table i'll demand you wear a blue power ranger suit with your deuces cracked hat :-)

I will probably choose the winner sometime this week, i have lots and lots of apps to go through

Ah, so thats the difference. (I havent watched all the vids yet, and will prolly watch them 3-4 times anyway so it all sinks in)

I went through Mehtas book again, basically the REM looks at our hand we have, against the opponents range. Sounds like G bucks is a bit more involved if we are comparing our range to their range!

All this talk of math is making Omahas head hurt. Why cant poker be as easy as integration, differentiation and calculus?

p.s. When you make the wsop final table i'll BEG you to wear a BLUE power ranger suit with your deuces cracked hat :-)


I will probably choose the winner sometime this week, i have lots and lots of apps to go through

Omaha

I keep trying to watch this but keep falling asleep haha. Nice work.

I keep trying to watch this but keep falling asleep haha. Nice work.

haha, yea i think in one of the videos i suggest not watching them right before bed time :-)

try to watch them over lunch or while you're pumping in caffeine or something!

WoT

Or, alternatively, you could market them to the non poker playing community as a guaranteed way of curing insomnia

Omaha

so I just got around watching episode 2 after our little chitchat last night on irc as we were railing the 25K HU. Now I don't remember why I ever stopped watching this series after finishing episode 1, and I'm definitely watching all remaining episodes in the next 3 days.
I have a solid mathematical background so thus far what was really interesting for me was the plain English explanation of the concepts and the examples, and I think the way you elaborated on implied odds and fold equity was really great.

You do a great job of presenting the material so it's easy to follow and understand.

Really enjoying this series.You present it well and the way you explain things is very easy to understand.I'll be watching them all.Well done.

Time Link to 00:45:00

2pair with no other info:
isn't that 3x3=9 combos?

please delete if i'm wrong

As a beginner (been playing for 1 month), I would say these videos have improved my game more then any other so far.

Thank you very much for spending the time to make these videos and explaining the math from the ground up.

It's truly changed the way I play NLH!

Thanks Again,
-Ian

This series is answering a whole lot of questions I have from watching other videos. Thanks man!

Time Link to 01:26:27

Flush draw and overcards example: Great example! I just spent 15minutes trying to work out the best play. I cannot see how we can make a raise that is optimal for us where it would be incorrect for the villain to fold. The closest I could come up with is to raise to $250 so pot is $450 and he is folding for $150 which is wrong but just marginally.

The other advantage I can see here is that the slightly more than minraise might cause him to spaz out and jam which is great or alternatively buy us a free card in the roughly 50% of the times we miss (you have to discount the T because we can't really be happy with that either)

Also this builds the pot so we have a bit over pot left.

Any other thoughts?

Time Link to 01:31:53

Just a small point: this example doesn't work out because if you open the CO, BU calls and SB squeezes then yes BB folds but BU is still in the hand, which is why it's a squeeze? ;-)

Found the example useful if I just assumed that we raised and the SB reraised.

BTW I love the series, have watched it once already and Haj school and it is the lessons from that which have made me go through this series again much more involved - making notes and visualising every example - which I recommend to everyone. Spotting mistakes like this may seem like nitpicking but I get so much more from it by really paying attention.

Great job Wilt

Time Link to 01:44:06

The example here should be Top two pair eg AK 3x3 = 9 combos not 4.

Two pair 27combos - 3 combos of 9 for any two pair because there are top 2, top and bottom, bottom 2. Some will be more or less likely depending on action and texture. For example on KQJ & AT9 all are quite likely and on K65 bottom 2 is more likely IMO.

Time Link to 00:10:28

With 6 cards visible and 46 cards unknown, the odds would actually be (46 - 8)/8 or 38/8, which would be 4.75 : 1 exactly. (Just to be completely precise.)

With 6 cards visible and 46 cards unknown, the odds would actually be (46 - 8)/8 or 38/8, which would be 4.75 : 1 exactly. (Just to be completely precise.)

u r right, thanks

there were a cpl errors in this series throughout the vids (unrealistic to expect otherwise i think) but no game-changer mistakes

Hi wilt, i was wondering if it is possible to publish the power point you use in the video, it will be very useful to print out and tak notes

Regarding the Hand Combinations chart [43m12sec]

Am I missing something. People are saying that this example is wrong:
Two Pair hand with no other info: ex.AK on AK5 2 aces * 2 kings = 4 combos
but it is not. Right? I am not the smartest man but...

if i have AK in my hand and the board is AK5 doesn't that mean there are only 2 aces and 2 kings left which would be 4 combos and not 9 combos like a few people are saying?

the other example on the chart nobody has said anything about:
Pair + Kicker with no other info: ex. AK on K95 4 aces * 3 Kings = 12 combos is wrong?

should it not be 3 aces * 2 kings = 6 combos

if you want to make your own quasi-powerpoint of this awesome series:

take snapshots of each slide with media player of your choosing.
combine all jpeg's into an adobe pdf document
done

Hi wilt, i was wondering if it is possible to publish the power point you use in the video, it will be very useful to print out and tak notes

if you want to make your own quasi-powerpoint of this awesome series:

take snapshots of each slide with media player of your choosing.
combine all jpeg's into an adobe pdf document
done

Time Link to 00:14:38

Hi, I had a question about the 2.2 number, when referring to outs. I'm not really sure where that number came from. If you have seen 5 cards, thats 52-5=47, which would give you 39:8, or 4.8:1. I understand the 2:1 pot odds, but I'm a little unclear of where the 2.2 number came from.

Hi, I had a question about the 2.2 number, when referring to outs. I'm not really sure where that number came from. If you have seen 5 cards, thats 52-5=47, which would give you 39:8, or 4.8:1. I understand the 2:1 pot odds, but I'm a little unclear of where the 2.2 number came from.

The "2.2 number" came from assuming we get to see both the turn and river with 8 outs. In the next slide in the video, WoT explains it's better to calculate based on the odds you'll hit on the next street only, except of course if you go all in, then the 2.2:1 would be correct. So you are correct with the 4.8:1 ratio.

Link to drawing probability excel worksheet:

http://www.filedropper.com/drawingprobabilityexcelworksheet

So if that is the case, how would you calculate it. What would be the mathmatical formula to get 2.2.

So if that is the case, how would you calculate it. What would be the mathmatical formula to get 2.2.

probability of drawing from flop to turn, (outs / 47)
probability of drawing from turn to river, (outs / 46)
probability of drawing from flop to river,
P = 1 - (47 - outs / 47) * (46 - outs / 46)

Time Link to 00:44:57

why does two pair with no other info have only 4 combos? aren't there 3 aces left in the deck and 3 kings for a total of 9 combos?

thanks

WoT I gotta say I didn't think it was possible. I've never been bad at any form of math but always hated lessons and note taking. But in the past 2 hours I've covered my monitor with stickies and notes that will obviously have to be written on paper for me to actually use it in practice. The videos I've seen by you, Balugawhale, and Tubasteve alone make this site worth its fee and I've only just begun climbing lol. Keep up the quality work

WoT I gotta say I didn't think it was possible. I've never been bad at any form of math but always hated lessons and note taking. But in the past 2 hours I've covered my monitor with stickies and notes that will obviously have to be written on paper for me to actually use it in practice. The videos I've seen by you, Balugawhale, and Tubasteve alone make this site worth its fee and I've only just begun climbing lol. Keep up the quality work

Really appreciate the kind words. These math videos were some of the first vids i ever made so i'm glad you're finding them useful

why does two pair with no other info have only 4 combos? aren't there 3 aces left in the deck and 3 kings for a total of 9 combos?

thanks

Ya I have the same question, I can't see how its 4 combos.

Ya I have the same question, I can't see how its 4 combos.

Yes, that was a mistake. 9 combos

Hi Wilt

I'm working my way over this series as well at the moment and have to say that all of the sudden poker is starting to make a whole lot more sense! (hooray) Albeit the eurka moment is only after having you watched explain the same thing for about the sixth time!

Anyways, just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying the series and wanted to ask you if there is any chance that you have any work in excel that we can practice with? Otherwise I'll have to make an attempt to recreate it all from the ground up

Thanks

Hi Wilt

I'm working my way over this series as well at the moment and have to say that all of the sudden poker is starting to make a whole lot more sense! (hooray) Albeit the eurka moment is only after having you watched explain the same thing for about the sixth time!

Anyways, just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying the series and wanted to ask you if there is any chance that you have any work in excel that we can practice with? Otherwise I'll have to make an attempt to recreate it all from the ground up

Thanks

Sorry I don't have anything currently made up in Excel, i think there have been some excel shortcuts for fold equity etc floating around though

Time Link to 00:10:44

Hi if you had the 10h instead of the 6h wouldn't you have more outs against his current range?



Wilt btw love your video:-) Thanks after years off swimming around like nemo i feel i finaly found my family with deucescracked;-)

Hi if you had the 10h instead of the 6h wouldn't you have more outs against his current range?



Wilt btw love your video:-) Thanks after years off swimming around like nemo i feel i finaly found my family with deucescracked;-)

Yea if we had say T8hh instead of 68hh we would have another 3 outs when he has top pair, so our equity would be better vs that part of his range (and therefore overall we'd be doing better vs his range)

Been going back over videos due to the recent indictments and wanted to contribute to the thread a little. In the examples of figuring combinations for pocket pairs it works similarly to the two card combos except you divide by two. So for possible combos of 22 you take (4*3)/2=6 combos. So if you want to know the combos of set of deuces on 27K then its (3*2)/2=3 Thats the remaining 3 deuces multiplied by the remaining 2 deuces. You divide it by two because if you were to figure all the combinations you would actually come up with 12 total combos for pocket pairs but the second half would actually be the same two card combos as the first half just reversed i.e. 2d2h and 2h2d. Hope this helps someone.

Hey Aaron, quick question on g-bucks. I think you said it is covered in more detail in ep8 and if this is answered there I apologize. So can you play based on g-bucks if you are playing someone who does not think about your range of hands. Meaning if you know you take a certain line with this range of hands, and your opponent calls you down with whatever and he is the kind that does not think about your range, do g-bucks still apply?

Hey Aaron, quick question on g-bucks. I think you said it is covered in more detail in ep8 and if this is answered there I apologize. So can you play based on g-bucks if you are playing someone who does not think about your range of hands. Meaning if you know you take a certain line with this range of hands, and your opponent calls you down with whatever and he is the kind that does not think about your range, do g-bucks still apply?

Yes, definitely still applies assuming you have a good handle on what the ranges are (more in ep 8)

Definitely an awesome series. I was scared the math concepts would be more difficult to understand but your examples and wording definitely make it easier to grasp then I originally thought I would b able too. Awesome video and I'll def revisit this one to write down your combo chart

Just so you know WoT there is a trick to getting the combos for pocket pairs like QQ 4x3 /2 = 6. The total number of cards x the total number -1 / 2.

Time Link to 00:29:59

Hey Wot,
just wondering how come there is 3 sixes and 3 jacks assuming that villain doesn't hold j-6? Is it just a way to count our outs or what?

Hey Wot,
just wondering how come there is 3 sixes and 3 jacks assuming that villain doesn't hold j-6? Is it just a way to count our outs or what?

yea just counting outs, thats all

and being certain to not double count the Js and 6s

Ya I have the same question, I can't see how its 4 combos.

You have 1 ace and 1 King in your hand.
There is 1 Ace and 1 King on the board.

That leaves 2 Aces and 2 Kings or 4 combos

You have 1 ace and 1 King in your hand.
There is 1 Ace and 1 King on the board.

That leaves 2 Aces and 2 Kings or 4 combos

Unless you have no A or no K, then it leaves 3 A's and 3 K's = 9

Finally no limit math made simple for me to understand thankyou sooo much..

Finally no limit math made simple for me to understand thankyou sooo much..

you're very welcome! thanks for watching

Time Link to 00:42:23

Hi,
It depends on preflop action to consider KK for set : because most of us will raise / reraise with KK.

Time Link to 00:30:59

Hey Wilt,

Why do we need to consider implied odds in this example? Shouldn't we only consider it when the pot odds alone aren't enough to make the call?

Hey Wilt,

Why do we need to consider implied odds in this example? Shouldn't we only consider it when the pot odds alone aren't enough to make the call?

ideally you want to know what is the most profitable play by comparing all different options... calling, folding, raising. As part of knowing whether call is better than raise, it's worth considering how future streets will play out. So in other words, if you can only risk 100 in order to win 1000 very often, then that is a very high bar to set to make raising better than just calling. Often it's not quite that clear, but we should at least be thinking about it as part of the entire picture. If you know the direct odds are enough to make it +EV to call, then that tells you it is for sure better than folding, but it doesn't always tell you if it is for sure better than raising. Similarly if you figure out raising is +EV, that doesn't always mean it is better than calling, just that it is better than folding. Let me know if that doesn't make sense because it can be a little confusing.

Its much clearer to me now, I wasn't thinking how it would play out in the future street in case we miss on the turn or what kinda cards we can continue with as our equity will drop considerably. Also if we make our hand can we extract more value than just getting him to fold now.

Thanks for the response!

Time Link to 00:30:23

hi there, pot odds is calculated $100 from pot, opponent bets $100 and cost us $100 to call. so it would be 200:100 which is 2:1 pot odds. I have another way of calculating and wonder if this is a wrong calculation, I'll take $100 from pot + $100 bet + $100 from my call = $300 that I could win with my $100 call. which makes it 100/300 in fraction which gives 33.33% of pot odds. Is this a correct way? and since I have 68% of winning, and the pot odds is only 33.33% , its a good EV.

Yes that is correct , 2:1 pot odds essentially means 33.33%

Thank you!

Time Link to 00:09:11

Hi WiltOnTilt,

Great video!

Quick question here, when you say "to correctly continue in a hand, in terms of pot odds, your price to continue must be better than the odds against you making your hand (or having the best hand)", is that the same as wanting the odds of hitting our hand to be at or better than the pot odds?
Or is it the other way round?

On the next slide, with the OESD and being 5:1 dog, the pot odds were 2.25:1 and you say we don't call. Does this mean in order to make a profitable call, pot odds have to smaller than odds of improving our hand?

I've been thinking about this for a while...and I'm probably getting myself confused more than anything. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Anyways, looking forward to watching the next episode later tonight!

Hi WiltOnTilt,

Great video!

Quick question here, when you say "to correctly continue in a hand, in terms of pot odds, your price to continue must be better than the odds against you making your hand (or having the best hand)", is that the same as wanting the odds of hitting our hand to be at or better than the pot odds?
Or is it the other way round?

On the next slide, with the OESD and being 5:1 dog, the pot odds were 2.25:1 and you say we don't call. Does this mean in order to make a profitable call, pot odds have to smaller than odds of improving our hand?

I've been thinking about this for a while...and I'm probably getting myself confused more than anything. Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Anyways, looking forward to watching the next episode later tonight!

Hi Kiwi, ya probably it is just the wording that gets confusing.

So if you have a draw that is 5:1 underdog to hit and you are only getting 2:1 on your money, then you do not have a profitable call based on the pot odds alone.

Said another way, a 5:1 underdog would mean that he loses 5 times for every 1 time he wins. In other words, 5 out of 6 times he loses. If you compare that to pot odds, you can tally up how many times you will lose that bet compared to winning the pot. So say the pot is $100 and your opponent bets $100, so it is $100 for you to call. You call that $100 to win $200, so you are getting 2:1 on your money. If you have that same 5:1 underdog hand, and you lose five times for each time you win, we can count those up and add them so see how we would fare:

-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
+200
---------
= -300

As you can see, we lose the 100$ 5 times and win that $200 one time since we are a 5:1 dog...we are losing money overall.

If we had to call 100 to win 500, we would break even.

I can't remember the exact language i use in the series, but probably we should say that we need better pot odds to call than our odds of making our hand in order for the call to be profitable (purely from pot odds perspective)

Does that make sense?

Thanks for taking the time to explain that Wilt, it makes perfect sense!

I'm up to episode 4 so far, and your EV calculations there is simply stellar!

Back to the math for GTO training! This was recommended during the GTO explanation series by Krantz and Blah. These videos will never be out of date and should be required for everyone's training material.

Do we only use the turn % for the flush outs on the flop when we are considering implied odds? Seems like if a player always cut his % in half and converted that to a ratio on the flop he would never have correct pot odds to call a flop bet. I am confused here unless we expect to get paid out more than the turn 4.7:1 ratio? Excellent series btw Mr. Wilt on Tilt.

Do we only use the turn % for the flush outs on the flop when we are considering implied odds? Seems like if a player always cut his % in half and converted that to a ratio on the flop he would never have correct pot odds to call a flop bet. I am confused here unless we expect to get paid out more than the turn 4.7:1 ratio? Excellent series btw Mr. Wilt on Tilt.

When speaking about +EV pot odds calls, you are technically only comparing your current price you are being laid compared to your odds of improving on the next card.

So for instance, there is $100 in the pot. Our opponent bets $50. We are getting 3:1 on a call (we call 50 to win the 100+50= 150. 150:50 = 3:1).

Now if we have a 9 out draw on the flop, we have 2 cards in our hand and 3 on the board. There are 52 cards in the deck, but we know what 5 of them are. 52-5 = 47 unknown cards. Of those 47 unknowns, 9 of them will make our flush. So the odds of making our flush would be 9 out of 47 or 9/47 = 19.1% = 38:9 = 4.2:1

If we were on the turn, we would know another card, so 46 unknowns or 9/46 = 19.5% = 4.1:1

So you are right, in terms of only pot odds, we would be making a -EV call...but of course poker (especially NL/PL) is more than just the odds being laid for us to draw. It is about opportunities to bluff the turn when checked to or improve and then get paid off (implied odds) etc.

So another step further, say we call that 50 to win 100 but we think if we hit, we get paid off another $200 every time. Now we are calling 50 to win 350 (150 now + 200 on the next street) so we are getting 3:1 immediately but 7:1 with implied odds, so we can make a profitable call with the implied odds.

Hope that helps!

Ty Wilt on Tilt. Got it.