---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by threads13 (Micro/Small Stakes)

Very good episode, once more. I now realise this is a subject I never fully understood, now I am starting to understand it and it's a very big switch in looking at poker and getting better at poker

It does make me realise how much somebody can be a lucky *peep*, or an unlucky *peep*

Thank you

can we get this in ipod format??

Time Link to 00:18:55

This slide should be:

variance = (.80)*[(100 - 50)^2] + (.20)*[(-150 - 50)^2]
variance = (.80)*[2500] + (.20)*[40000]
variance = 2000 + 8000 = 10000

S.D. = sqrt(10000) = 100

Right?

This slide should be:

variance = (.80)*[(100 - 50)^2] + (.20)*[(-150 - 50)^2]
variance = (.80)*[2500] + (.20)*[40000]
variance = 2000 + 8000 = 10000

S.D. = sqrt(10000) = 100

Right?

Yeah, you got it. My apologies.

This is a small enough mistake that it doesn't affect any of the points made after, and in fact only make the case for the $150 bluff having less variance stronger.

I'm just wondering about this entire thing you are talking about with bigger bets being higher EV and a higher SD.

This is all based on elastic calling ranges am i right?

Cause i can think of ALOT of situations where villain would fold like the exact same % of hands to a 60% potbet and a 80% potbet. Its my theory that alot of players actually have very inelastic calling ranges in almost every spot, especially on the flop considering cbet sizes.

In this scenario the better play is still to bet less cause that works out to be higher EV and still have the same SD?

I mean i've always kinda frowned upon these math video's where they assume a river bluff folds out 80% a smaller bet folds out 60% etc and they work out which has the highest EV.

I'm just wondering about this entire thing you are talking about with bigger bets being higher EV and a higher SD.


This is all based on elastic calling ranges am i right?


Cause i can think of ALOT of situations where villain would fold like the exact same % of hands to a 60% potbet and a 80% potbet. Its my theory that alot of players actually have very inelastic calling ranges in almost every spot, especially on the flop considering cbet sizes.

In this scenario the better play is still to bet less cause that works out to be higher EV and still have the same SD?

In the example I gave it is true that we should bet bigger. I believe that with 100bb stacks this is very often true. I certainly am not making any claim that bigger bets are always better. It might have came off that way because I am trying to dispel the myth that "betting more is riskier". I think that is a misunderstanding of most players. Of course, there is more too it than big bet = best, but the math often supports the big bets. There are competing variables (for example, lower SPRs demands smaller bets).

I agree that there are plenty of spots where we should just use a smaller bet size because the villain's calling range won't change much by bet size. In fact, there are plenty of spots where I implement this strategy as well. Specifically, this often occurs when we have a ton of FE(say 80% plus, in that case the villain is only calling with the top of his range regardless).

However, in a lot of spots it doesn't take much more FE to make a bigger bet higher EV than a smaller one. That's what I am getting at in this example as well as trying to dispel a myth. I do think you will often get a little bit extra FE such that the bigger bet will be better. Also, with 100bb stacks a bigger bet sets up a stack decision on the river. This will often carry with it additional FE on later streets in significantly bigger pots; which certainly is a highly +EV situation.

I have looked at mine and a few friends databases and I have found this to be true. A bigger bet doesn't carry significantly more FE, but it often carries slightly more FE such that a bigger bet is higher EV. In the example I gave we barely picked up any FE, but it was still better to bet bigger. If we feel that we can pick up a few extra folds it is probably worth it to bet larger assuming we have no other constraints (like a low SPR that will rob us of a street of profitable barreling). It's hard to imagine that a player won't fold a few extra hands to a significantly larger bet. It's also often better to bet larger if we are betting the top of our range.

I mean i've always kinda frowned upon these math video's where they assume a river bluff folds out 80% a smaller bet folds out 60% etc and they work out which has the highest EV.

Why? There certainly are times when the bet size won't affect your FE, but there certainly are times that they will. This is absolutely true. So, that being true, there is merit to figuring out which bet size will be the highest EV. I think frowning on it and (presumably) not studying it is definitely missing out on some EV.

I feel like such a sleuth.

Great series, as a PLO player, I nearly missed it, being tagged as NLH content.
In PLO the math gets really scary, when you are dealing with 150 bb/100 Std Dev and above.

Just one of the better videos i had ever seen. Thanks a lot!!

Time Link to 00:36:54

Of course I love your examples, but I find that you should especially here tell that this is only theoretical...
The thing is that I do not rly assume that you are rly making on such dry Boards like in the example a 83%-PS-Cbet - it is probably worse for your whole range than making a smaller cbet here.
I also think that btw. callingranges vs. at least Flopcbets are often pretty inelastic regards to the size (unless you overjam^^).

I just would have wished here that you would have told your viewers that this is maybe more theoretical and what you prefer for which reasons practical (which betsize).

I mean,
anywhere has to be a border regards to a soild overall gameplan?
I mean, if not then overjamming (194$ into a 12 $-Pot) is probably with FEQ of (just let`s guess) 99%+ in the vacuum the most +ev Cbetsize... - I think, you know what I mean^^

But anyways,
I also like the 2nd part - btw.,
how much parts will this series have?

Of course I love your examples, but I find that you should especially here tell that this is only theoretical...
The thing is that I do not rly assume that you are rly making on such dry Boards like in the example a 83%-PS-Cbet - it is probably worse for your whole range than making a smaller cbet here.
I also think that btw. callingranges vs. at least Flopcbets are often pretty inelastic regards to the size (unless you overjam^^).

I just would have wished here that you would have told your viewers that this is maybe more theoretical and what you prefer for which reasons practical (which betsize).

I mean,
anywhere has to be a border regards to a soild overall gameplan?
I mean, if not then overjamming (194$ into a 12 $-Pot) is probably with FEQ of (just let`s guess) 99%+ in the vacuum the most +ev Cbetsize... - I think, you know what I mean^^

But anyways,
I also like the 2nd part - btw.,
how much parts will this series have?

I will often use large bet sizes on dry boards with a balanced range, so I don't think it is necessarily only a point in theory land. There are portions of my range that I will bet large on this flop, especially if I am going to go bet-bet-shove with 100bb stacks.

FWIW, I also think there could be some practical uses for over-betting (like 2x'ing) the flop with a balanced range. This takes a lot more work to figure out how opponents will react to it. It's something I intend to experiment with in the future.

In regards to future videos, I have been putting together some information on stat analysis. I think I may have one or two episodes to put in here, but it's still a work in progress. It's more something I thought of after the fact and was unplanned.

I will often use large bet sizes on dry boards with a balanced range, so I don't think it is necessarily only a point in theory land. There are portions of my range that I will bet large on this flop, especially if I am going to go bet-bet-shove with 100bb stacks.

FWIW, I also think there could be some practical uses for over-betting (like 2x'ing) the flop with a balanced range. This takes a lot more work to figure out how opponents will react to it. It's something I intend to experiment with in the future.

In regards to future videos, I have been putting together some information on stat analysis. I think I may have one or two episodes to put in here, but it's still a work in progress. It's more something I thought of after the fact and was unplanned.

Thannks for the interesting answer

Time Link to 00:39:12

this is referring to bigger bets when bluffing, but what about when value betting? what does the math say about what's higher EV: smaller value bets or bigger value bets?

this is referring to bigger bets when bluffing, but what about when value betting? what does the math say about what's higher EV: smaller value bets or bigger value bets?

If you have the top of your range and you expect to be 70% versus his calling range would you rather him call a $5 bet or a $10? Also, when he calls the pot is bigger, which allows us to make bigger bets on later streets.

If you have the top of your range and you expect to be 70% versus his calling range would you rather him call a $5 bet or a $10? Also, when he calls the pot is bigger, which allows us to make bigger bets on later streets.

id rather him call a $10 bet, but doesnt our bet size influence his calling range? in other words, what is generally higher EV in most situations: betting bigger and getting called by fewer hands or betting smaller and getting called by a wider range of hands?

id rather him call a $10 bet, but doesnt our bet size influence his calling range? in other words, what is generally higher EV in most situations: betting bigger and getting called by fewer hands or betting smaller and getting called by a wider range of hands?

It does, but probably not enough when we have a strong value betting hand. I'll poke in a few numbers to give you a look at what is happening mathematically. The numbers to be concerned with are our FE and our PE (pot equity). It's very simple if we have the nuts. If we bet half as much, we need him to call twice as much for it to be equally profitable. When we don't have a 100% lock, we have to consider our pot equity when called. Here's some estimates at what will happen in a typical scenario.

So, let's say he calls 50% of the time and we have 80% pot equity if we bet half pot. Let's say he calls 40% of with 75% equity when we pot it. For the sake of just comparing the flop bet sizes in a vacuum, I'll assume that we are going AI with this bet. Later play effects our EV, but it's my contention that the bigger bet makes our later play higher EV as well. Still, we'll look at just the flop play (as I did for bluffs in the video). This is by no means accurate, but will give you an idea of how it's going to play out.

Assumming 10bb in the pot:

small bet EV = (.50)(10) + (.50)[(.8)(5) + (.2)(-5)]
= 5 + (.50)*(.4 - .1)
= 5 + (.50)*(.3)
= 5 + .15
= 5.15

big bet EV = (.60)(10) + (.40)[(.7)(10) + (.3)(-10)]
= 6 + (.40)*(.7 - .3)
= 6 + .16
= 6.16


That's an extra BB of profit immediately. That is about 20% of an EV increase comparatively speaking. That's huge. The pot also will be bigger for us in the future, which means our later +EV bets will be more +EV as well. We can value bet bigger, which helps us, and we win bigger pots when we two/three-barrel. The time you wouldn't want to do this is if you FE doesn't go up enough, and your PE goes down a lot. In other words, if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, you should probably bet smaller. That's quite unlikely though.

The time you wouldn't want to do this is if you FE doesn't go up enough, and your PE goes down a lot. In other words, if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, you should probably bet smaller. That's quite unlikely though.

awesome. thank you for great explanation. the only thing im still a bit confused about is the above quote. if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, then doesnt your FE go up a lot (given that he's folding everything but the nuts)? in other words, i understand that if he will only call a pot sized bet with the nuts, then a smaller bet is best because it will get calls from hands other than the nuts, but how does FE play a part in choosing our bet size in this example?

or how would more fold equity (you said, "you wouldn't want to do this if your FE doesn't go up enough") affect our bet size when we have top pair and are value betting?

awesome. thank you for great explanation. the only thing im still a bit confused about is the above quote. if you are value betting top pair and he only calls with the nuts, then doesnt your FE go up a lot (given that he's folding everything but the nuts)? in other words, i understand that if he will only call a pot sized bet with the nuts, then a smaller bet is best because it will get calls from hands other than the nuts, but how does FE play a part in choosing our bet size in this example?

Sure, FE is always a part. I think it's best to step back and take a look at the big picture. You don't want to take a hand that is strong and bet so big such that he only calls with better hands. Sure, your FE goes up enough, but now your PE goes down so much that a smaller bet would have been better. It's certainly still going to be +EV, but if your bet size makes your opponent play perfectly, then a smaller bet is more +EV. That's what I was getting at. In practice if you aren't overbetting the pot, you aren't going to run into this problem with top pair type hands.

I see this is specific to NLHE (in terms of hand examples), but would this episode help out a PLO-exclusive player?

I see this is specific to NLHE (in terms of hand examples), but would this episode help out a PLO-exclusive player?

Yeah, the math is the same, it's just the numbers (win-rate and standard deviation are different). From my understanding the standard deviation for most players is quite a bit larger at PLO. I believe win-rates tend to be somewhat higher as well. I'm totally guessing, but you could try running some of these calcs with win-rates of 4bb/100 and a standard devaition of 110bb/100 as compared to 2 and 70 (I think those are some of the numbers I used).

Does this video series explain win rate/standard deviation etc? I mean, I have a basic grasp on the ideas, but it would be great to have a from-the-ground-up explanation of all this stuff.

Does this video series explain win rate/standard deviation etc? I mean, I have a basic grasp on the ideas, but it would be great to have a from-the-ground-up explanation of all this stuff.

Yeah, you just have to watch episode one before you watch episode two

Time Link to 00:21:11

You mentioned that if the mean/SD ratio is higher, you'll experience less negative variance. But wouldn't you also have less positive variance as well? Basically you're saying that our overall results, over time, will be less swingy, so they might not take a big dip downward, but they might not take a sharp spike upward either. Am I understanding your point here?

Your results will be less not be negative as often as they have to "overpower" the mean which is higher. When you catch positive variance with a higher mean then you will have even bigger positive swings.

Your results will be less not be negative as often as they have to "overpower" the mean which is higher. When you catch positive variance with a higher mean then you will have even bigger positive swings.

Ok, I think I get it, but let me check. Let's assume we have a mean = $100 and a SD such that our 3sigma outcome over some sample is -$100 to $300. If our mean increases more than the SD increases (aka the mean/SD ratio gets higher), then we end up in a situation where the mean goes up to some value, let's say $200, but the SD doesn't go up as much. As a result, the range of our 3sigma results over the same sample might be something like $0 to $400. The mean shifts the normal curve in the positive direction, but the SD doesn't change that much so the tails of the normal curve don't extend out too much further. As a result, over time, we would expect to see less negative results given the new mean and SD.

Hopefully that's clear, I guess I'm still having trouble expressing this in a clear and concise manner.

Yes, that's correct.

Cool, thanks threads13. I'm really enjoying this series and I really like your video style. Appreciate the feedback.

Ok, I think I get it, but let me check. Let's assume we have a mean = $100 and a SD such that our 3sigma outcome over some sample is -$100 to $300. If our mean increases more than the SD increases (aka the mean/SD ratio gets higher), then we end up in a situation where the mean goes up to some value, let's say $200, but the SD doesn't go up as much. As a result, the range of our 3sigma results over the same sample might be something like $0 to $400. The mean shifts the normal curve in the positive direction, but the SD doesn't change that much so the tails of the normal curve don't extend out too much further. As a result, over time, we would expect to see less negative results given the new mean and SD.

Hopefully that's clear, I guess I'm still having trouble expressing this in a clear and concise manner.

If that's you being unclear and unconcise, I'd hate to see what you're like when you're clear and concise. That's an excellent summation IMO.

Rob

If that's you being unclear and unconcise, I'd hate to see what you're like when you're clear and concise. That's an excellent summation IMO.

Rob

Give me enough time and I am sure I can say things in some convoluted way that will amaze you. But I'm glad it made sense to at least a few folks other than myself.

If that's you being unclear and unconcise, I'd hate to see what you're like when you're clear and concise. That's an excellent summation IMO.

Rob

Truth. It took me like 10 seconds to read and I was pretty quickly thinking... yeah that's it.

Thanks for this series threads13.

This morning I had the biggest loss in a single session since I've been playing. 3 high variance spots went against me while I was taking a shot at 10nl. I won't bore you with any specific details, but when you go down 3 buy-ins while watching a 53/5 suck out 3 times on the river with hands he had no business even playing and go up 2.5 buy-ins it easy to see the high impact variance does have!

I also lost all that I'd gained in the last 2 weeks while I've been on holidays.

I also in the same session had this happen but got no action

BB: $10.13
UTG: $10.15
Hero (MP): $10.27
CO: $10.00
BTN: $22.95
SB: $12.77

Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is MP with Q J
1 fold, Hero raises to $0.35, CO calls $0.35, 3 folds

Flop: ($0.85) K T A (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

Turn: ($0.85) T (2 players)
Hero bets $0.53, CO folds

Strangely, partly thanks to the fact I'm watching this series currently I don't feel that bad about it and am looking forward to my next session confident that I will be unaffected.

One day I hope that this drop in my bankroll today pales in comparison to the positive end negative swings I'll experience. Well in $ terms anyway.

Thanks again.

I'm now realizing why some good online grinders I know prefer using their time running house games instead.

Video gone?

Video gone?

No, it's still there. Are you having issues trying to play it?

Rob

Sorry, just took some longer time to load it than the first. Also I could only find one of the vids in the series looking at threads13 vids. Thanks