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

Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two

This video is a two minute preview. To view the entire video, please Log In or Sign Up Now

Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two by WiltOnTilt

WiltOnTilt follows up last episode’s introduction to NL Math with a crash-course in pot odds, implied odds, fold equity, and hand combinations. Also, you’ll be presented with the idea of G-Bucks for the first time.

About Mathematics of NL Hold'em Subscribe to

WiltOnTilt will discuss key concepts related to the mathematics of No-Limit play using Powerpoint. Begin with the basics: probability and pot odds. Then follow Wilt to more advanced arenas: implied odds and reverse implied odds, software tools and mental shortcuts for equity calculations, complex EV calculations, and an exploration of fold equity. And watch this series conclude with a discourse on the ultimate in professional poker math: hand frequencies, valuebetting, and G-bucks.

Tags

wiltontilt math nl hold'em classroom pot odds fold equity g-bucks ipod friendly

Video Details

Downloads

Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.

Sign Up Today


Comments for Mathematics of NL Hold'em: Episode Two

or track by Email or RSS

zed

Avatar for zed

224 posts
Joined 01/2008

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

Posted about 9 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted about 9 years ago

Hellsen

Avatar for Hellsen

46 posts
Joined 01/2008

dangerfish

Avatar for dangerfish

39 posts
Joined 02/2007

DMoogle

Avatar for DMoogle

6 posts
Joined 01/2008

dzejkej

Avatar for dzejkej

363 posts
Joined 01/2008

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 Smile.

Posted almost 9 years ago

Moshmopok

Avatar for Moshmopok

86 posts
Joined 01/2008

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.

Posted almost 9 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted almost 9 years ago

DJT

Avatar for DJT

1 posts
Joined 02/2008

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.

Posted almost 9 years ago

LastManDancing

Avatar for LastManDancing

62 posts
Joined 02/2008

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

Posted almost 9 years ago

Rui Nunes

Avatar for Rui Nunes

1 posts
Joined 02/2008

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

Posted almost 9 years ago

Idmaf

Avatar for Idmaf

34 posts
Joined 03/2008

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

Posted almost 9 years ago

SoAmbitious

Avatar for SoAmbitious

7 posts
Joined 04/2008

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.

Posted over 8 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

--- 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

Posted over 8 years ago

SetMiner

Avatar for SetMiner

2 posts
Joined 01/2008

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.

Posted over 8 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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!

Posted over 8 years ago

SetMiner

Avatar for SetMiner

2 posts
Joined 01/2008

"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.

Posted over 8 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted over 8 years ago

omaha

Avatar for omaha

60 posts
Joined 03/2008

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 Wink ?

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

Posted over 8 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted over 8 years ago

omaha

Avatar for omaha

60 posts
Joined 03/2008

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

Posted over 8 years ago

Super Rock

Avatar for Super Rock

8 posts
Joined 04/2008

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

Posted over 8 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted over 8 years ago

omaha

Avatar for omaha

60 posts
Joined 03/2008

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

Omaha

Posted over 8 years ago

czzarr

Avatar for czzarr

243 posts
Joined 02/2008

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.

Posted over 8 years ago

SixPackofBud

Avatar for SixPackofBud

6 posts
Joined 05/2008

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

Posted over 8 years ago

jimike

Avatar for jimike

8 posts
Joined 05/2008

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.

Posted over 8 years ago

HermanCod

Avatar for HermanCod

6 posts
Joined 09/2009

Time Link to 00:45:00

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

please delete if i'm wrong

Posted over 7 years ago

wfsfan

Avatar for wfsfan

1 posts
Joined 11/2009

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

Posted about 7 years ago

DK_Phoenix

Avatar for DK_Phoenix

1 posts
Joined 01/2010

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

Posted almost 7 years ago

steamer1956

Avatar for steamer1956

117 posts
Joined 11/2009

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?

Posted almost 7 years ago

steamer1956

Avatar for steamer1956

117 posts
Joined 11/2009

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

Posted almost 7 years ago

steamer1956

Avatar for steamer1956

117 posts
Joined 11/2009

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.

Posted almost 7 years ago

Osprey

Avatar for Osprey

3 posts
Joined 02/2010

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.)

Posted almost 7 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted almost 7 years ago

lux79ita

Avatar for lux79ita

2 posts
Joined 04/2010

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

Posted over 6 years ago

Dr. Loiselle

Avatar for Dr. Loiselle

10 posts
Joined 03/2010

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

Posted over 6 years ago

Dr. Loiselle

Avatar for Dr. Loiselle

10 posts
Joined 03/2010

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

Posted over 6 years ago

Dr. Loiselle

Avatar for Dr. Loiselle

10 posts
Joined 03/2010

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

Posted over 6 years ago

chuckd33

Avatar for chuckd33

79 posts
Joined 04/2010

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.

Posted over 6 years ago

Dr. Loiselle

Avatar for Dr. Loiselle

10 posts
Joined 03/2010

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

Posted over 6 years ago

chuckd33

Avatar for chuckd33

79 posts
Joined 04/2010

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

Posted over 6 years ago

Dr. Loiselle

Avatar for Dr. Loiselle

10 posts
Joined 03/2010

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)

Posted over 6 years ago

Fortitude

Avatar for Fortitude

3 posts
Joined 08/2009

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

Posted over 6 years ago

maydayncs

Avatar for maydayncs

93 posts
Joined 12/2010

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

Posted almost 6 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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 Smile

Posted almost 6 years ago

sc24evr

Avatar for sc24evr

40 posts
Joined 01/2011

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.

Posted almost 6 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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



Yes, that was a mistake. 9 combos

Posted almost 6 years ago

Estist

Avatar for Estist

1352 posts
Joined 09/2010

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! Wink

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 Smile

Thanks

Posted almost 6 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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! Wink

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 Smile

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

Posted almost 6 years ago

Did I Do That

Avatar for Did I Do That

7 posts
Joined 02/2011

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;-)

Posted almost 6 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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)

Posted almost 6 years ago

pkrvamp

Avatar for pkrvamp

81 posts
Joined 05/2009

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.

Posted over 5 years ago

pkrvamp

Avatar for pkrvamp

81 posts
Joined 05/2009

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?

Posted over 5 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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)

Posted over 5 years ago

brainfreeze0

Avatar for brainfreeze0

68 posts
Joined 05/2011

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 Grin

Posted over 5 years ago

Liquid Cash

Avatar for Liquid Cash

144 posts
Joined 07/2011

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.

Posted over 5 years ago

Jonnolimit

Avatar for Jonnolimit

29 posts
Joined 07/2011

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?

Posted over 5 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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

Posted over 5 years ago

dudemoney7

Avatar for dudemoney7

1 posts
Joined 07/2012

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

Posted over 4 years ago

fezoff

Avatar for fezoff

84 posts
Joined 07/2011

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

Posted over 4 years ago

TheThing

Avatar for TheThing

1 posts
Joined 07/2012

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

Posted over 4 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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



you're very welcome! thanks for watching

Posted over 4 years ago

OranRai

Avatar for OranRai

59 posts
Joined 02/2010

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.

Posted over 4 years ago

akramak

Avatar for akramak

13 posts
Joined 01/2013

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?

Posted almost 4 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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.

Posted almost 4 years ago

akramak

Avatar for akramak

13 posts
Joined 01/2013

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!

Posted almost 4 years ago

anvolution

Avatar for anvolution

2 posts
Joined 03/2013

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.

Posted almost 4 years ago

akramak

Avatar for akramak

13 posts
Joined 01/2013

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

Posted almost 4 years ago

anvolution

Avatar for anvolution

2 posts
Joined 03/2013

kiwifruit

Avatar for kiwifruit

48 posts
Joined 11/2010

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!

Posted almost 4 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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?

Posted over 3 years ago

kiwifruit

Avatar for kiwifruit

48 posts
Joined 11/2010

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!

Posted over 3 years ago

1luckyflip

Avatar for 1luckyflip

16 posts
Joined 11/2012

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.

Posted over 3 years ago

micsquab

Avatar for micsquab

750 posts
Joined 09/2010

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.

Posted over 3 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

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!

Posted over 3 years ago

micsquab

Avatar for micsquab

750 posts
Joined 09/2010

diecats

Avatar for diecats

1 posts
Joined 09/2009

Thanks for a great series WoT. One question about the G-Bucks. I haven't finished the video yet, so forgive me if its corrected later but isn't the concept supposed to be our holding vs opponent's range. The first slide has g-bucks as our range vs his holding which doesnt seem as useful to me.

Thanks Wilt!

Posted over 3 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

Thanks for a great series WoT. One question about the G-Bucks. I haven't finished the video yet, so forgive me if its corrected later but isn't the concept supposed to be our holding vs opponent's range. The first slide has g-bucks as our range vs his holding which doesnt seem as useful to me.

Thanks Wilt!



For the exact concept of gbucks, it's right in the video, but as you point out there are other ways of analyzing poker hands. The most useful (and the hardest) is range vs range. To effectively do that, you need some better poker tools than are used in this video (flopzilla and cardrunners ev come to mind). As you can see, poker tools have evolved a lot since 2008 Smile

Posted over 3 years ago

TKDka

Avatar for TKDka

2 posts
Joined 01/2014

Time Link to 00:27:19

Hello,

I would start off by saying that the videos are superb! Very well explained and easy to follow!

However, i am a bit confused when it comes to raising on the flop. I understand that our implied odds are not so good because it will be very obvious to our opponent when we make our hand. But this seems somewhat contradicting to what David Sklansky writes in his book "The Theory of Poker". On page 150 he explaines and i quote "that Semi-Bluffs have 3 ways of winning. 1) by making your opponent fold, 2) by catching a scare card and to make villain fold later, 3) by making the best hand later.
But he says this is not as profitable versus a loose player because 1) they are rarely willing to fold immediately, and 2) if you catch a scare card that doesn't improve your hand, loose players are more likely to "keep you honest" with a call. So without these 2 ways of winning, semi-bluffs no longer have positive expectation. Therefore, you must abandon most semi-bluffs when there is a high probability that the only way we can win is by improving to the best hand."
Now you can understand how this is somewhat confusing to me.
Can this theory be ignored because our equity in this particular hand is so good?
I would love to hear your view on this!
Thank you!

Posted about 3 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

Hello,

I would start off by saying that the videos are superb! Very well explained and easy to follow!

However, i am a bit confused when it comes to raising on the flop. I understand that our implied odds are not so good because it will be very obvious to our opponent when we make our hand. But this seems somewhat contradicting to what David Sklansky writes in his book "The Theory of Poker". On page 150 he explaines and i quote "that Semi-Bluffs have 3 ways of winning. 1) by making your opponent fold, 2) by catching a scare card and to make villain fold later, 3) by making the best hand later.
But he says this is not as profitable versus a loose player because 1) they are rarely willing to fold immediately, and 2) if you catch a scare card that doesn't improve your hand, loose players are more likely to "keep you honest" with a call. So without these 2 ways of winning, semi-bluffs no longer have positive expectation. Therefore, you must abandon most semi-bluffs when there is a high probability that the only way we can win is by improving to the best hand."
Now you can understand how this is somewhat confusing to me.
Can this theory be ignored because our equity in this particular hand is so good?
I would love to hear your view on this!
Thank you!




I think both the quote you made from Sklansky's book and also my video here are a bit oversimplifications to what is really going on here when we decide whether or not to call or raise.

Everything I said about our implied odds being not great when we call and our potential equity edge here are true. In general, the stuff Sklansky said is also reasonable logic. The problem comes in that each situation is different and which variables are most important will change based on the texture of the board and what each players' range is.

So for instance, in this spot with ASpadeTSpade against a loose player, it's not that bad for us to raise for the following reasons: A) We can push an equity edge B) We can make Villain fold a lot of equity (Even something like A8 has decent equity against us but is going to be a nightmare for villain to play) C) We might be able to get villain to call and fold later streets

Sklansky's #2 doesn't really apply to this scenario, but I don't really think that means it's a contradition. Similarly, #1 and #3 are consistent with what I mention above. Sklansky not mentioning the implied odds logic also I don't think is contradicting, it's just leaving out some potential variables. Just like my A,B,C above, there are probably also some other good reasons for raising aside from just those, but it might be less general.

It could be that I overstated the implied odds logic as part of the video, but I was probably trying to structure it toward the slide we are on, even though there are plenty of other good reasons for raising. Often in any poker scenario, you will find multiple reasons for doing one thing or another. Some will have more weight than others. I guess for this slide I was just trying to highlight the implied odds argument here.

Let me know if any of that didnt make sense!
Aaron

Posted about 3 years ago

TKDka

Avatar for TKDka

2 posts
Joined 01/2014

Well, it actually did make sense! But i've decided to let you know anyway. Wink
Thank you Aaron!

TKDka

Posted about 3 years ago

activee

Avatar for activee

26 posts
Joined 11/2011

Time Link to 00:26:42

Ok ok we should raise because we are favorite.. And I agree that in your example raising is good because we are ahead. But what if we don't count overs as outs. If we expect him to call a raise he is rather loose, we also expect our odds to drop significantly on the turn. Then what to do on the turn ? Or should we even raise in the first place ? This is a spot I'm not sure what to do.

Posted almost 3 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

Ok ok we should raise because we are favorite.. And I agree that in your example raising is good because we are ahead. But what if we don't count overs as outs. If we expect him to call a raise he is rather loose, we also expect our odds to drop significantly on the turn. Then what to do on the turn ? Or should we even raise in the first place ? This is a spot I'm not sure what to do.



Both raising and calling have merits. This example was used to illustrate concepts surrounding implied odds and how board texture/our hand can effect those as well as the counter intuitive nature of a "draw" being an equity favorite in NLHE.

Exploitatively, we want to raise here when we think we can make our villain fold a lot of equity, if he's cbetting too wide and therefore has a lot of air we can win the pot against right now, etc. As for what to do on the turn when called, we have to think about what sort of hands are only bet/calling and not bet/shoving over our raise. Once you identify those, it becomes a bit easier to determine what we should do on different turn cards. For instance, most people are probably reraising with a lot of their straights at least, maybe sets depending on our image and the table positions (to determine how many combos of straights we can have). Otherwise it will be a lot of hands like TT, JJ, 9T who think they might have the best hand but also have some equity when behind.

From more of a range perspective, our range looks pretty strong when raising boards like this, so you might choose to put this hand in your flop raising range because it gives us some bluffs. If this was a 3bet pot, you might choose to call flop and jam most turns because of your equity and because your flop calling range will look somewhat weak in general. You can see that depending on the situation, we might choose a lot of different things with this type of hand because of the good amount of equity and playability it has. So our job is to figure out how our opponent reacts to different lines and take the best one.

Posted almost 3 years ago

WinglessMan

Avatar for WinglessMan

3 posts
Joined 08/2013

Time Link to 00:09:14

I'm slightly confuse about pot odds. You said if we called the 500 and won, we would profit a thousand and if we called twice, we would lose a thousand. In the two games that we lost, we lost 1500, 750 in each game. If we make one profit call, we still lose 750 in the three games. So this 2:1 break even act, wouldn't it be a lost in the end result?

And to think that the 1000 pot was dead money in the first place. The positive 1000 that we get from the one right call is only actually 500 profit due to the other 500 being ours. So, when we don't make the right call the other two times, we're losing 500 in the end! Again 2:1 couldn't be a break even act.

Posted almost 3 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

I'm slightly confuse about pot odds. You said if we called the 500 and won, we would profit a thousand and if we called twice, we would lose a thousand. In the two games that we lost, we lost 1500, 750 in each game. If we make one profit call, we still lose 750 in the three games. So this 2:1 break even act, wouldn't it be a lost in the end result?

And to think that the 1000 pot was dead money in the first place. The positive 1000 that we get from the one right call is only actually 500 profit due to the other 500 being ours. So, when we don't make the right call the other two times, we're losing 500 in the end! Again 2:1 couldn't be a break even act.



I think the part that is tripping you up is that the $1000 is the total amount in the pot. Meaning, there could be $500 in the middle and our opponent bets $500...so when the action is on us, there is $1000 to win and we must risk our own $500 to win that $1000, hence 2:1.

The money out there is dead...We can't change anything about what happened previous to that, we can only make good decisions moving forward. One could argue that we made a mistake earlier in the hand (or our opponent did) but we are still left with the question of "what do we do now?" In order to move forward in the hand, we must risk $500 to win the $1000 total. If we win that $1000 out there one time, we can risk and lose $500 2 more times to break even.... so we must win 1 time out of 3 = 1/3 = 33.3333% = 2:1 underdog.

Make sense now?

Posted almost 3 years ago

dddogkillah

Avatar for dddogkillah

2883 posts
Joined 06/2014

Time Link to 00:16:43

hey wilt im trying to figure out the math behind this
We've got 8 outs to the str, that mean we need 2.2:1 on a call to call based on pot odds alone.
we have 2 cards and there are three on the board leaving 47 cards so as a ratio we would express it as 39:8 --> 4.9:1 that's for 1 card so there are 2 cards left to see so do we div that by 2???
If we did it would be close to 2.2:1 but not quite...... 2.4:1 I just wanted to make sure that I get the actually math right vs just memorizing the chart........

Posted about 2 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

hey wilt im trying to figure out the math behind this
We've got 8 outs to the str, that mean we need 2.2:1 on a call to call based on pot odds alone.
we have 2 cards and there are three on the board leaving 47 cards so as a ratio we would express it as 39:8 --> 4.9:1 that's for 1 card so there are 2 cards left to see so do we div that by 2???
If we did it would be close to 2.2:1 but not quite...... 2.4:1 I just wanted to make sure that I get the actually math right vs just memorizing the chart........



This question came up a bit earlier in the thread, let me quote:


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)



it would be 47 unknowns and 8 winners for the turn and then if we miss, it's 46 unknowns and 8 winners.

percentages:

8/47 = ~17%
8/46 = ~17.4%

Combined % (you can do this by looking at the odds you don't hit and then subtract that from 1:

P = 1 - (47 - outs / 47) * (46 - outs / 46)

1 - (39/47) * (38/46)

= ~ 0.3145

0.6855:0.3145 = 2.18:1

Posted about 2 years ago

dddogkillah

Avatar for dddogkillah

2883 posts
Joined 06/2014

dddogkillah

Avatar for dddogkillah

2883 posts
Joined 06/2014

Time Link to 00:31:06

You described this great!!! Actually it reminds me of the formula PE+FE= Aggression, Thanks again Wilt great ep!!

Posted about 2 years ago

choosen26

Avatar for choosen26

45 posts
Joined 07/2012

Time Link to 00:31:02

hey wilt,
quick question are we ever considering our opponent playing style when we are going for fold equity? or are we making this play based on how much we will win in the long run.

Posted almost 2 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

hey wilt,
quick question are we ever considering our opponent playing style when we are going for fold equity? or are we making this play based on how much we will win in the long run.



ya for sure, we need to have an idea of his range to figure out how much of that range he would fold

Posted almost 2 years ago

choosen26

Avatar for choosen26

45 posts
Joined 07/2012

hey wilt,
so is it possible to say fold equity doesnt apply to certain types of opponent (loose passive/calling stations) that are just in capable of folding any parts of their range? I am just trying to figure out what kind of opponents would fold equity be profitable against

Posted almost 2 years ago

bitcoinbo$$

Avatar for bitcoinbo$$

26 posts
Joined 10/2013

hey wilt,
so is it possible to say fold equity doesnt apply to certain types of opponent (loose passive/calling stations) that are just in capable of folding any parts of their range? I am just trying to figure out what kind of opponents would fold equity be profitable against



Fold equity is not a on/off yes/no, think more of a spectrum. Let's look at two extreme examples:

Super nit who will always fold anything but nuts -- vs this type of guy you have massive amounts of fold equity

Super calling station who will call you down with bottom pair or maybe even call you with nothing, just to see your hand -- vs this guy you have close to zero fold equity

Vs super nit we have tons of fold equity and should be bluffing him A LOT, and vs the super calling station we should not worry about bluffing him and simply increase our value range (i.e. maybe we can bet the river w/ 3rd pair good kicker for value)

So those are the two extremes, and each opponent will be somewhere in between there.

Maybe instead of thinking "what opponents will fold equity be profitable against", but more of "how much fold equity do I have on this particular fold/turn or river vs this specific opponent on this runout".

Hope that makes some sense Smile

Posted almost 2 years ago

choosen26

Avatar for choosen26

45 posts
Joined 07/2012

hey thanks for the reply,

i know wilt made a an example with AsTs hand on 7s8s9o board w/options of calling or raising. do we ever take into account that our opponent isnt never folding TPGK on this flop and does this somehow change how we can think about fold equity against this villian.

Posted almost 2 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

hey thanks for the reply,

i know wilt made a an example with AsTs hand on 7s8s9o board w/options of calling or raising. do we ever take into account that our opponent isnt never folding TPGK on this flop and does this somehow change how we can think about fold equity against this villian.



think of fold equity as simply "the % chance that villain folds"

If we know his range is A, B, C and we know he will always fold A but never B or C and A, B, C have all the same weight (same frequency/same number of combos) then we can say our FE vs villain is 33% (he will fold 1 hand out of 3).

So if we know he never folds top pair or better but he will fold everything worse, we need to find the fraction of his range that represents top pair+ and the fraction of his range that represents worse than top pair. that second fraction is our fold equity %.

Posted almost 2 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

Fold equity is not a on/off yes/no, think more of a spectrum. Let's look at two extreme examples:

Super nit who will always fold anything but nuts -- vs this type of guy you have massive amounts of fold equity

Super calling station who will call you down with bottom pair or maybe even call you with nothing, just to see your hand -- vs this guy you have close to zero fold equity

Vs super nit we have tons of fold equity and should be bluffing him A LOT, and vs the super calling station we should not worry about bluffing him and simply increase our value range (i.e. maybe we can bet the river w/ 3rd pair good kicker for value)

So those are the two extremes, and each opponent will be somewhere in between there.

Maybe instead of thinking "what opponents will fold equity be profitable against", but more of "how much fold equity do I have on this particular fold/turn or river vs this specific opponent on this runout".

Hope that makes some sense Smile



good post

Posted almost 2 years ago

choosen26

Avatar for choosen26

45 posts
Joined 07/2012

thanks for the reply wilt and bitcoin. i will try to process that information Smile I might have more questions later but thank you for taking your time to reply to my questions.

Posted almost 2 years ago

fergalmeist

Avatar for fergalmeist

5 posts
Joined 12/2014

Hey Wilt,

How are we quickly simplifying this:

=-0.3145

0.6855:0.3145= 2.18:1

fantastic series by the way!

Posted almost 2 years ago

fergalmeist

Avatar for fergalmeist

5 posts
Joined 12/2014

Sorry I cant actually see where we are getting the 0.6855 from either?

Posted almost 2 years ago

WiltOnTilt

Avatar for WiltOnTilt

2990 posts
Joined 10/2007

Hey Wilt,

How are we quickly simplifying this:

=-0.3145

0.6855:0.3145= 2.18:1

fantastic series by the way!



When thinking about the probability for hitting and missing, we know we either hit or we miss (there's no 3rd option). So hit + miss = 100%

In the formula a few posts up, P = 1 - (47 - outs / 47) * (46 - outs / 46) we are saying subtract from 1, the % we miss on the turn (47-outs/47) times the percentage we miss on the river (46-outs/46) which gives us the total % that we miss.

If we now subtract the % that we miss from 100% (ie 1) then we are left with the probability we hit.

Then to get the odds ratio, we take misses:hits which would be 0.6855:0.3145 and we can reduce that by dividing both sides by 0.3145 and we get 2.18:1

So the 0.6855 is actually the % of the time we miss. We know that because we got the % of the time we hit to be 0.3145...so we can just again subtract that part from 1 to get the times we miss, since we always know that hits + misses = 100%

Hopefully that clarifies a bit.

Posted almost 2 years ago

fergalmeist

Avatar for fergalmeist

5 posts
Joined 12/2014

That totally makes sense now. thank you for getting back so quickly.

Posted almost 2 years ago

choosen26

Avatar for choosen26

45 posts
Joined 07/2012

PRSplaya

Avatar for PRSplaya

3 posts
Joined 04/2014

Shouldn't the combos of 2 pair with no other info be: 3 aces x 3 kings = 9 combos, not 4 combos?

Posted 8 months ago



HomePoker Videos → Mathematics of NL Hold'em → Episode Two