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

Another great video Wot, it help me a lot with my thought process on the table.
I use something similar on these kind of situations (better than nothing i guess )but not as accurate as the real math, i list all of the possible hands in his range and see what hands im winning vs hands im losing or flipping and if hands i am winning are smaller number than the other side i would know im not getting even 30% percent equity (again this is mostly just based on feel and experience with pokerstove), but the way i do it doesnt account weighted possibilites of combos and the cards in my hand that block some of the villains out, and etc . Ill start using this method more and practice with it till i get a good feel of it.

Keep it coming.

Demo.

Wiltontilt....I wanna give this video like a 9!!! Its one of the best videos ever on DC.
granted it fits very well with were my NL game is, which is not that advanced.
however, I want to encourage all the admins making videos to use your "my thought process" example.
Getting a new poker tool(or in my case receipy for my cookbook) is great.
But you showing how this new tool fits into your decision, while perhaps seeming simple for you, is exactly what the student needs for a better understanding of the given principal.
I am hoping I can get DD or Entity and/or Danzasmack to do this "my thought process" kinda thing with hand/flop reading in limit. I will go post a request form them to watch or re-watch this technigue of yours.
ty so much....keep up the good work. I can't wait for the next one!

Thanks for the kind words guys :-)

This is some crazy stuff WOT...I'm trying to digest it right now but I really don't see how I could go through that process and come up with an estimation in the amount of time we have online.



The tupac method might work live though, I could simply pop in his CD and let the table know I'll be ready in about 2 songs...after I get done calculating of course

haha... yea man I understand the concern. Trust me, with practice you can get pretty good at it. Listen again to my "thought process" section at the end of the video. That thought process essentially follows TUPAC w/o explicitly saying "step 1", "step 2" etc.

You're right though, it would be tough to go through on a site that does not have the time-bank feature online. In a live game it should be doable. Hell everyone loves to pretend like they are on the WPT at the final table anyway, right? At least this will give you something to think about when everyone else assumes you're just "hollywooding" :-)

Good luck

<3 <3 <3

I cannot find episode Three?

Edit: it just showed up when I did another filter? Some kind've bug or something because it wasn't on my filters at first(I just filtered videos for Mathematics, it wasn't there, then I took it off and filtered for Wilt videos and it didn't show up. Now it is there though)

ya this must be the best tip ive ever gotten in a poker video(!), and ive watched way over 100 vids on CR and deucescracked combined...

thx, cant w8 to watch the next one (and until i get better at estimating my eq quicker).

Really compelling, interesting stuff. Great videos, Aaron. I'm not a real math guy, so these have been very illuminating for me and very helpful to my thought processes at the table.

WOT, intense is an understatement. I think though that I came away an understanding of how an average math guy (myself) might be able to apply TUPAC. Please let me know if my simplification still works:

1) Using Pokerstove, memorize common post flop equities before playing (TP vs FD, TP vs OESD, OESD vs set). At least have them taped on your monitor or tattooed on your arm for live play.
2) Estimate (taking into account combos) the % of villain holding each range (50% he has FD, 25% he has set, 25% he has 2 pair)
3) Multiply equity by % of range for each range and add to get overall equity. (50% FD at 66% equity, 25% set at 2% equity, 25% 2 pair at 25% equity; when added together: .5*.66 + .25*.02 + .25*.25 which is 40% equity)

Am I using TUPAC right here? If so, I think that I could do this quickly after MUCH experience.

As an afterthought, I was laughing uncontrollably that 2 minutes prior to introducing TUPAC you were concerned that we would need to round 675 up to 700 and 325 down to 300 to add them up to get 1000. Steep learning curve in that 2 minutes.

Great video. That 45 minutes alone is worth an entire year subscription to DC!

remax, that's basically it!

We're essentially trying to determine his range, (step 1), group up all the different hand types and think about their equities (step 2), consider any outlier hands and their likely equity (step 3) then do a weighted average based on how 'likely' (ie how many combos) each grouping has... and there's your estimate.

It takes a lot of work, and isn't a trivial process, but with work and time in pokerstove you can get pretty good at it.

WoT

maybe im too tired and missing something here. either way its not that important i just wanna make sure im not misunderstanding something. u said there are 3 ways to make 2 pair with 98s Wilt but since the 9c and the 8d is out there 98cc and 98dd is not a part of his range, so there are actually only 2 combos of 98s (98hh 98ss) riiiiiight?

ya you're right, when i did that part i must have thought the board was Kd 9c 8c instead of Kc 9c 8d

Sorry about that. The oversight shouldn't change anything as far as the math/estimations go, but you're right that is a mistake. My apologies, and thanks for pointing that out.

WoT

best vid iv ever seen(seen tons), thanks very much

Great series WOT. Been stupidly playing for about a year without really emersing myself in the math behind the game. Now im learning from u, i feel ive been playing blind all this time. And although some of the theory is hard to get my head around, (not really a maths kinda guy), i see the huge importance of knowing these fundamentals of poker. Look forward to watching the rest of the series, many many thanks dude.

This is THE video I have been looking for on Combinations for MONTHS!! Awesome. On my all time list of favourite videos...and I've watched quite a few videos!

I finally feel optimistic that I will be able to start moving my game to a next level, that I knew was out there, but felt I lacked the formal education, or that I was missing a few concepts to fully grasp. This video has given me my "missing links!" Thanks so much!!!!

wow what a great video. i'm embarrassed to admit but i've been playing poker for a living for over 2 years now and have been half-assing my way through equity calculations this whole time. this is the exact video i've been looking for, for some time now. thanks for taking the time WoT to make this series of videos. they aren't easy to get through but i can't wait to get to the next one. amazing

wow what a great video. i'm embarrassed to admit but i've been playing poker for a living for over 2 years now and have been half-assing my way through equity calculations this whole time. this is the exact video i've been looking for, for some time now. thanks for taking the time WoT to make this series of videos. they aren't easy to get through but i can't wait to get to the next one. amazing

Thanks man. Really appreciate the kind words.

Hope you "enjoy" (read: dont fall asleep) through the rest of the series

Aaron

Another good video.Loving this series.Put off learning the fundamental math for poker with stale equations for quite a while now.Overawed by it all,but the way you explain the concepts are much easier to absorb.Well done.

im completely lost in this tupac method. So all we are doing is combining all the combinations of hands that could beat us, that we could beat decently, and those we're we are a slight favorite. We put them in 3 seperate categories and get the combinations. Combine the crushes us combos with the slight favorie combos and avg the equity from each bucket range out. Then we do that with the ones we are a decent favorite against. Now we combine all the equity calcs out for our total equity approx against that range? Is that all? if it is thats not hard at all. Maybe im making it harder then it seems. But what i dont understand is two things. Number one, the range we are using for opponent is it the potential draws on the board or a bayesian inference of the preflop holdings adjusted for card removel effects from the board and our the cards in our hand? And what are we doing with pokerstove? thats what im confused about most.

So I know if I'm getting the basics - the answer to your mini-homework assignment in the beginning of #4 (where you remove the three marginal hands from your opponent's range): is the EV = -$200 or am I lost?

I have a procedural question. Would a valid derivative of your plan be to simply eliminate, pair for pair, a combo where you are crushed along with a combo where you crush. If I say "I crush" am I not stating:
(1 - equity of the villain)?
Given:
{[x + (1-x)]/2}=0.50
the equity of one or one thousand "I crush" averaged with the same number of "I'm crushed" is always 0.50 assuming equal crushing. If I have 50% equity than so must the villain. As such can't we ignore it?

I guessing you've thought of this as it would be easier but dispensed with it anyway, so I assume I'm wrong, but I don't see how.

Let's say my pair vs villain's range is:
I crush: 13 combos
I am crushed: 15 combos
Slight advantage me: 2 combos

Isn't there an equation that reduces from the above to:
I am crushed: 2 combos
Slight advantage me: 2 combos

you can't exactly ignore/reduce combo-for-combo crushing vs crushed combos because remember the weight of the 50% will also effect the overall equity. so think of it in the extreme.... say you had 1000 combos where we crush them and 1000 combos where they crush us, that will average out to 50% as you say, but we can't simply ignore it because then let's say we have 10 combos where we're slightly ahead at say 60/40 favorite... well those 10 combos at 60% will also average in to the other 2000 combos, but not so much that we can simply cancel out and ignore the other 2000 combos. In other words, if we do the averaging, the answer will still be close to 50% because of the sheer weight they hold with so many combos.

So you're right, the crushing and crushed combos will average out to 50%, and if there are only a few of those combos, you can sort of ignore them, but you can't completely ignore them as the number of crushing/crushed combos increases, the closer to 50% your overall equity will become.

So to use your example:

I crush: 13 combos
I am crushed: 15 combos
Slight advantage me: 2 combos

you can't cancel out and ignore the 13 "i crush" and 13 of the 15 "i am crushed" combos as they will average out to 50%, and those 26 combos will pull up the equity of the 2 extra "i am crushed" combos and weight down the equity of the 2 "slight advantage me" combos.

Try it out in pokerstove real quick. Here's a super simple example:

Player 1: 9c9d
Player 2: 8c8d

Stove this and see 9c9d has 82.628% and 8c8d has 17.372%

Now what if we added canceling out combos of AJ and KJ suited?

Player 1: 9c9d,AhJh,KsJs
Player 2: 8c8d,AsJs,KhJh

Even though the 2 AJ and KJ combos of each player would be lumped in the buckets and seemingly "cancel out" in reality they don't as you can see by the new equities (try it out).

So what you've done is shown that TUPAC method isn't fool proof for every example (I believe I stated that in the vid, i hope so lol)... but the important thing is that IN PRACTICE, with many more combos, the inaccuracy we've shown here with very contrived examples doesn't tend to hurt you to this degree. Basically what happens is that the more combos you're canceling out (as a % of the total # of combos we're looking at) the more this inaccuracy will effect the estimate. That makes sense right? ... in the 99,AJ,KJ vs 88,AJ,KJ case we were looking at 2 combos out of 3 combos for each player that were being "canceled" and we noticed a dramatic effect. In the first example I gave with 2000 combos being canceled, that represented a high % of the total number of combos, and therefore a huge inaccuracy occurs. In practice, it tends to not be so dramatic (as shown in the vid).

I hope that makes sense.
WoT

Wow , no wonder you made it onto your local news station they must of seen this series hehe , this is awesome stuff , really opened my mind to how to go about thinkin of the game, i mean not only the math side but as a whole
id imagine mastering this side of the game alone would make someone a huge favourite at the table
i plan to work alot with the notes ive taken from this series , would it be possible for you to make a homework video where we can test ourselves ? maybe play a hand and tell us the information avalible then say pause the video , we work it out on paper and then you work it out so we can compair and find out where we mit be goin wrong ? id love to practise this stuff while also been shown if im thinking and goin about it in the right way , along with coming up with the right answers
Cheers

I think there are a couple of slight mistakes towards the end of the TUPAC section of this video. First of all, the 98s hand is part of the "Crushing Us" section when we break up the hands in his range. Then when we analyse it later we put it in the same section as the JTs/67s and use it to average out the JTs combos. This confused me for a little bit as I was watching the video so I thought I would point it out.

Also, when we consider the 67s part of Villains range, it says on WoTs slide that 67 is about 1/6th of his range but then shows the hand combs as (3 combos of 67s / 13+9+3 of other combos). If I'm not mistaken or missing something that comes to 3 over 25 or roughly 1/8th. If we have 66% equity vs this 12.5% (1/8th) of his range, this would work out to be around 8% equity. This 8% when added to the 27% we got earlier from combing the crushing and flipping hands gives us 35% equity vs the entire range, which was the equity Pokerstove gave us. This little mistake makes our end answer a little less accurate. I hope I'm not wrong in pointing this out!

Thanks for doing this series Wilt, it's absolutely brilliant!

WoT, thanks for the great series.
I have a question though. At 18 minutes in this video there´s 700 in the pot in this example. Let´s say for convenience that 350 of it is the player´s. With 290 expected to lose by playing, the result of calling is -EV you say.

But if you look at it long term, isn't folding even more -EV? Since you'll always be 'losing' the 350, even though it's not yours anymore. It still is if you look at it long-term?

So since losing 290 is less then 350, wouldn't it be better to call with this amount of money behind?

Another question: What if calling was -10$ EV, would calling be a better option then since the 350 is in the pot already even though it's -EV?

WoT, thanks for the great series.
I have a question though. At 18 minutes in this video there´s 700 in the pot in this example. Let´s say for convenience that 350 of it is the player´s. With 290 expected to lose by playing, the result of calling is -EV you say.

But if you look at it long term, isn't folding even more -EV? Since you'll always be 'losing' the 350, even though it's not yours anymore. It still is if you look at it long-term?

So since losing 290 is less then 350, wouldn't it be better to call with this amount of money behind?

Another question: What if calling was -10$ EV, would calling be a better option then since the 350 is in the pot already even though it's -EV?

once the money is in the pot, it's already lost. i'm pretty sure it's faulty logic to look at folding as "losing" that money, because the calculation on the EV of putting that money into the pot should have already been considered. Once the action is made, the money is no longer yours, which is why we define folding as 0 ev. This is how Sklansky looks at it, so i'll default to him.

Thanks for watching
WoT

TheGeek, TUPAC method is a methodology of estimation. You're correct it's not perfect, but it will usually get us closer to the answer than just pure guessing, which is sort of the idea. It gives us an idea of how we can mentally analyze hand ranges and assign equity and weights to them, which is the key to mentally figuring out our equity when we're at the table and can't use pokerstove.

It's definitely an imperfect strategy, but it's close, and that's all we need is to be close when making table decisions because the tie breaker in closer decisions will be in game reads.

Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
WoT

TheGeek, TUPAC method is a methodology of estimation. You're correct it's not perfect, but it will usually get us closer to the answer than just pure guessing, which is sort of the idea. It gives us an idea of how we can mentally analyze hand ranges and assign equity and weights to them, which is the key to mentally figuring out our equity when we're at the table and can't use pokerstove.

It's definitely an imperfect strategy, but it's close, and that's all we need is to be close when making table decisions because the tie breaker in closer decisions will be in game reads.

Thanks for the comment and thanks for watching!
WoT

No, I understand that. I don't think I explained myself clearly enough.

If you look at the slide at about 39 minutes into the video, I think there's a mistake with the hand combos that you use in the TUPAC method. The slide says "Our 3 unaccounted hands make up about 1/6th of our range: 3/(13+9+3)" But 3/25 is about 1/8th not 1/6th as it says in the slide, which makes the end estimate a little less accurate than it could be. When we use the correct figures in the TUPAC method for this hand it turns out to be very, very accurate. It's only a little nitpicky mistake but I wanted to point it out because a) I want to make sure I'm right and aren't missing something obvious and b) You're selling your awesome TUPAC method a little short by having a little error throw off it's accuracy!

The TUPAC method, and this series are absolutely fantastic, thanks so much for doing it!

Ahh I see what you mean. Thanks for pointing that out.

WiltOnTilt -

Just finished episode 5. I am new to the forums and fairly new to the game. Thanks for the detailed breakdowns - as I was listening to the method, it brought to mind the old "cancelling method" we used to reduce fractions when I was a kid. No jokes about my age showing! Thanks for vids. Very good.

Time Link to 00:24:34

Homework: ~ negative $200

Great series. Trying to get a handle on Tupac but my first thought was that I would put my opponent on a very different range so the resulting equity and EV calcs would also be very different. I am playing very low stakes NL (6-max) and at this level I would never leave AA or KK or AK in his range (he would 4-bet those preflop). And, if he is frustrated (as you said) I would include all pairs in his range preflop and include TT, JJ & QQ in his pushing range on the flop. That small change is enough to make this a positive equity situation against his range (mostly due to the 18 combinations of QQ, JJ & TT with which he might push). So I guess my point here is I would like to see more info about putting someone on a range of hands and how that varies by stakes. Maybe I am crazy thinking that a TAG would push TT here - but I see it every day at the stakes I am playing... Anyway, this video is pretty old so probably no one will even read this. But Wilt if you do read it thanks and keep up the good work...

very nice video, but when i am playing on 4/6 tables, very dificult to do that...BUT I THINK CAN GET EXPERIENCE IN THAT CASE
but i thnk to see whole serie 4-5 times to understand better, but i also think the most player go not calculate that, because he also can makes bluf , when somebody shoove me and i have one pair only with straight and flushdraw on the board i will fold without thinking is that wrong?


because i am beat lot of times i guess

Any MAC equivalents to pokerstove?

Homework: ~ negative $200

Homework assignment: [24m34s]

our equity = 26%
total pot = $2015
cost of call = $675

[.26 * 2015] - 675 = negative $151

LowWaterMark and PygmyHero say negative $200
What did I do wrong?

Time Link to 00:37:57

Isn't there a mistake ? 3 ways of making 2 pairs with 89s when the flop has got Kc9c8d ? I'd say only hearts and diamonds left for that... So that's 2 ways.

Isn't there a mistake ? 3 ways of making 2 pairs with 89s when the flop has got Kc9c8d ? I'd say only hearts and diamonds left for that... So that's 2 ways.

Yeah, you're definitely right there, nice catch.

Rob

Time Link to 00:51:03

Poker at its best - the RE of R.E.M. broken down in its essentials. Havent seen a better piece of work on hand ranges and equity than that.

Great Job Aron

Here are my notes on this episode, I tried to correct everything that was wrong in the video and be more accurate with my rounding. thanks WoT, best series ever. If anyone see's any errors feel free to correct me.

Notes on Mathematics of NL Hold’em episode4 by WiltonTilt
By KGBMIKED

Video # 4 is all about EV Calculations.

Basic EV calculation setup:

EV = (Result of win) – (Result of loss)

EV=(Our Equity) * (What we win) – (Villain’s Equity) * (What we lose).

Basic Example:

We’re in the big blind with AsAc. The UTG player shoves with KhKd and folds to you. It’s $900 to call to win 1015 (stack+blinds) 5/10, $1000 stacks

Ev = (our Equity) * (What we win) – Villain’s equity) * (What we lose)

Ev = .81*1015 - .19 * 990

Ev = 822.15 – 188.1

Ev = +634.05

Thus, every time this situation occurs we expect to profit $634.05


ALTERNATE METHOD

Ev = (Our Equity) * (Total pot) – cost of our call
Ev = (.81) * 2005 -990
Ev 634.05

Both methods work, choose the one that seems to make the most sense to you. He prefers the first method because he thinks it’s easier to build on, but it’s essentially the same thing just a different way of thinking.



EV Calcs Vs Hand Ranges:

We have KsQc We have 3 bet this guy a lot, we are in position we 3 bet pf again he calls.
AK is not in his range because he would have 4bet. He checks the flop We bet 200 he jams for 875. There is 265 in the pot. The board is Kc9c8d
We assume he is check jamming here with at least 8 outs.

His range is KK+; 99,88, AcQc, AcJc , AcTc, Ac8c, QcJc,JcTc, 98s, 7c8c, JTs, 67s

.35(1075+265) - .65(675) = +30.25


#4 has how to do Tupac method at the table


This is not in the video but very valuable math.


One concern for me in NL H’E math is that most people finding Equity do it through poker stove which gives you your equity for seeing all 5 cards. This article can help you find your equity PFR to Flop and then you can recalculate for turn and river. I think knowing your equity based on the 3 flop cards and not just all 5 cards is one of the most under rated math concepts in poker.
Chance Of Overcards Hitting
Question: dear poker master,
i've been thinking a lot about this situation as it pertains to tourneys. what are the odds for the overcards hitting again? and how do you figure them out before the flop. i know that there is a 6 out of 47 and 6 out of 46 percent chance of hitting on the turn and river but how do you calculate for all three cards of the flrop?
thanks
andrew
Answer: To calculate the odds of hitting them on the flop you use a similar equation like you do for the turn and river. Let's do an example with KQ. You have 2 cards in your hand and that leaves 50 unseen cards for the first flop card. You have 6 outs for the flop cards (3 Kings and 3 queens). The next card you have the same 6 outs but this time only out of 49 cards. The last flop card gives us 6 outs out of 48. That looks like this:
6/50 6/49 6/48
Here is the tricky part. Whenever you have a situation when an event, hitting your card, can happen on more then one chance you figure out the odds of it NOT hitting and then subract it by one.
1 - [ ((Cards - Outs) / Cards) * ((Cards - Outs) / Cards) ... ]
Let's try that with our numbers:
1 - [(44/50) * (43/49) * (42/48)]
1 - [.88 * .8775 * .875]
1 - [.675] ----- this basically shows there's a 68% chance of us NOT getting our cards.
32% ---- this means that there is a 32% chance we WILL get our cards.
That seems like a high percentage until you think of it compared to the flush draw which seems like it never gets there. If you want to figure out how often AK will hit by the river then just add the turn and river cards to the equation:
6/50 6/49 6/48 6/47 6/46
Flip these again to cards that won't help us:
44/50 * 43/49 * 42/48 * 41/47 * 40/46
.88 * .8775 * .875 * .872 * .869
= 51% of the time it not getting there.
= 49% of the time it will hit by the river.

Here are my notes on this episode, I tried to correct everything that was wrong in the video and be more accurate with my rounding. thanks WoT, best series ever. If anyone see's any errors feel free to correct me.

Notes on Mathematics of NL Hold’em episode4 by WiltonTilt
By KGBMIKED

this post is Winning!

The matching up of combos was pretty confusing to me. Wouldn't this be an easier way to estimate?

13 combos of hands that crush us
9 combos of flips
6 combos of hands we are favorites over

drop all 9 flips
13 losses : 6 wins (round it down to 12:6, reduce to get 2:1)
So we are a 2:1 dog

Does this just work in this example? And if it doesn't maybe you have come up with an easier way of matching combos in the last 3 years?

You can't exactly drop the 50/50 combos because they do hold weight. Think of an extreme example. 100 flip combos. 2 big favorites. 1 big dog. Overall this would still end up
being a "flip" in terms of us estimating, not 2:1 favorite.

you can't exactly ignore/reduce combo-for-combo crushing vs crushed combos because remember the weight of the 50% will also effect the overall equity. so think of it in the extreme.... say you had 1000 combos where we crush them and 1000 combos where they crush us, that will average out to 50% as you say, but we can't simply ignore it because then let's say we have 10 combos where we're slightly ahead at say 60/40 favorite... well those 10 combos at 60% will also average in to the other 2000 combos, but not so much that we can simply cancel out and ignore the other 2000 combos. In other words, if we do the averaging, the answer will still be close to 50% because of the sheer weight they hold with so many combos.

So you're right, the crushing and crushed combos will average out to 50%, and if there are only a few of those combos, you can sort of ignore them, but you can't completely ignore them as the number of crushing/crushed combos increases, the closer to 50% your overall equity will become.

This will probably sound like a dumb comparison but your explanation reminds me a lot of it. At my job (10 hour work day) our positions are all computer calculated with random job assignments where X amount of time is assigned to complete these task. If we are assigned 1 hour to do the assignment and we do it in an hour we are at 100%. If I do it in an hour and 10 min I'm at like a 90%. So if I'm at a 90% for that hour assignment and the next one I get is only 10 minutes and I do it in 5 minutes I'd get 200%, but since it was such a short assignment combined with my former hour long assignment I'll only go up to around 100%.Similarly if I'm 9 hours into my day with an 85% (that's 9 hours strong) and I get an hour long assignment and do it in 35 minutes and get like 175% it only raises me up to like 89%. Hope that made sense.

Guess I've been doing this job so long your explanation makes complete sense to me.

This will probably sound like a dumb comparison but your explanation reminds me a lot of it. At my job (10 hour work day) our positions are all computer calculated with random job assignments where X amount of time is assigned to complete these task. If we are assigned 1 hour to do the assignment and we do it in an hour we are at 100%. If I do it in an hour and 10 min I'm at like a 90%. So if I'm at a 90% for that hour assignment and the next one I get is only 10 minutes and I do it in 5 minutes I'd get 200%, but since it was such a short assignment combined with my former hour long assignment I'll only go up to around 100%.Similarly if I'm 9 hours into my day with an 85% (that's 9 hours strong) and I get an hour long assignment and do it in 35 minutes and get like 175% it only raises me up to like 89%. Hope that made sense.

Guess I've been doing this job so long your explanation makes complete sense to me.

yup thats the exact type of thing that is going on here.

Time Link to 00:38:13

here you say that there are 3 unaccounted hands make up to 1/6 of our range: 3/ (13+9+3).

But our range is 6-AA; 1-KK; 3-88; 3-99; 2-98s ; 9-clubhands; 3-67s; 3-JTs =6+1+3+3+2+9+3+3=30

so isn't it 3/30 = 1/10 ?

here you say that there are 3 unaccounted hands make up to 1/6 of our range: 3/ (13+9+3).

But our range is 6-AA; 1-KK; 3-88; 3-99; 2-98s ; 9-clubhands; 3-67s; 3-JTs =6+1+3+3+2+9+3+3=30

so isn't it 3/30 = 1/10 ?

You're right in my opinion. Even further so, if we take the 27% from step 2, add 6.6% from step 3 (1/10th of range with 66% equity vs that range 76s) we get 33.6%. Add 1 to 2 points for the JTs averaging out the 98s hands (more like 2 points since in reality there are only 2 combos of 98s and not 3 which gives 1 extra combo in his range of JTs where we are 3:1 fav against) we end up with a result of 35,6% which is indeed very close to the mathematical calculation.

Bottom line: TUPAC gives a nice estimation but being able to do it at the table is very hard to do and errors seem to slip in easily seeing that an "expert" as WiltOnTilt mades some mistakes here. But all we need is to get to the thought process explained at the end which leads to the real conclusion.

Time Link to 00:08:00

Edit: nevermind, i'm retarded lol.

Great series!

Great episode^^
The Tipac-Method is rly nice:

Only one thing:
@ Min. 38.30, you are saying that the 3 uncounted combos (76s) are making ~1/6th of Villain`s range:
3/(13+9+3) - wouldn`t it be actually ~1/8th?

edit: Wouldn`t it be actually even only 1/10th?
B/c to stiamte how large of a part the 3 combos are of his whole range, you actually also should include them into his range ? -> 3 : (13+9+3+3)

Time Link to 00:13:50

a bit less than 4:1 on our money? Isn t it suppose to be around 4.7:1 since 52 cards - 6 = 46 which 8 makes you win and 38 lose 38:8 or 4.7:1

Time Link to 00:13:50

but it s true that when you apply the 2 and 4 rule it makes it around 18% you win and 82% lose, so it s like a little less than 4:1

I might be missing something here but.....

In section 2 of the TUPAC method, the pairing combos to known equities section, you match the crushing hands to the flips but you left out 98s.
Was this done as you knew in advance that you could "cancel out" 98s with JTs in section 3, analyze unpaired combos?

Surely in a real scenario we would pair off as many hands as possible in section 2 as we wouldn't have the prior knowledge of "canceling out" in section 3. Or maybe "cancel out" hands first?

It's also possible I'm suffering the effects of trying to do this at 3 in the morning.

I might be missing something here but.....

In section 2 of the TUPAC method, the pairing combos to known equities section, you match the crushing hands to the flips but you left out 98s.
Was this done as you knew in advance that you could "cancel out" 98s with JTs in section 3, analyze unpaired combos?

Surely in a real scenario we would pair off as many hands as possible in section 2 as we wouldn't have the prior knowledge of "canceling out" in section 3. Or maybe "cancel out" hands first?

It's also possible I'm suffering the effects of trying to do this at 3 in the morning.

probably an oversight. generally you should be putting the hands in their respective buckets and then figuring out how many of each you can cancel out

I think I understand everything except for the final part regarding the JTs+ 89s , there are five combos overall, and we are 2:1 favourite and dog respectively. When I work the two % out separately I get 7% for my JTs(1/10 range multiplied by my 70% equity) + 1.98% for the 98s ( 1/15 of 33%equity) . Obviously this is wrong but I am having trouble understanding what the problem is. How do they just cancel each other out? Thanks in advance.

pokenum -h 8s 9s - ks qs -- kc 9c 8d
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Kc 9c 8d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
9s 8s 722 72.93 268 27.07 0 0.00 0.729
Ks Qs 268 27.07 722 72.93 0 0.00 0.271

pokenum -h js ts - ks qs -- kc 9c 8d
Holdem Hi: 990 enumerated boards containing Kc 9c 8d
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Js Ts 284 28.69 706 71.31 0 0.00 0.287
Ks Qs 706 71.31 284 28.69 0 0.00 0.713

In these cases, the equity is about the same. For the example, I should have made the board Kc 9s 8s so there would be a closer number of combinations, but for this particular example with Kc 9c 8x that means there's only 2 combos of 98s and 4 combos of JTs, so in reality only 2 of the 98s "cancel out" 2 of the JTs, and we're left with a couple JTs left over, but this falls into the idea that it's supposed to be a rough estimation to begin with, so as long as we can get a close approximation, we're doing fine.

I think I'm getting it now, the reason I think I got mixed up was because I had been taking all their individual % but you are just rounding up. So would it be correct if

The 18 flips and crushes are taken as 60% of the range of hands ( 13crushes+9flips+8unmatched combos) which would be .6x 28%(our avg equity with flips +crushes) = 16.8

Then we take the 4 combos . which is 13% of the total range and multiply that times our equity which would be about 20% , .13x20= 2.4%

Now we have 8 unmatched combos left, we take the JTs vs our hand, this sum done the same as the previous examples, end up as .1x66% = 6.6%
Then we take 98s- sum ends up being- .15x33=4.95%
Last we take the 67s hands , this sum ends up as .1x60%=6%

Lastly I added all these together, making up 16.8+2.4+4.95+6 = 36.75

Apologies for writing so much, I hope it makes some sense, I just want to know is that the correct way to do it outright?
That was the reason I got mixed up with the JTs and 89s cancelling out, I know you are getting a rough estimate by counting the crushed and flipped hands as 27% but how come those others just cancel out, any help at all would be great. Thanks for your previous reply sorry if this is a stupid question.

Thank you, This helps alot! BTW 2Pac has been my fav rapper over 16 years now, so that helps too! THANK YOU for the hard work you put in this vid. Very well explained.

Time Link to 00:35:15

So lets say were vs a fishier villian who has say a total of 15 FD combos, and out of those 6 extra I have added for this fishier villian how would I go about getting a estimated equity. Cleary our equity would be higher I just dont know how much higher, and how to go about finding that number out. Id really appreciate some help on this. THX!

So lets say were vs a fishier villian who has say a total of 15 FD combos, and out of those 6 extra I have added for this fishier villian how would I go about getting a estimated equity. Cleary our equity would be higher I just dont know how much higher, and how to go about finding that number out. Id really appreciate some help on this. THX!

of the combos that are leftover (they dont pair up with something else) you'd want to see what your equity is (roughly 2:1 favorite for extra flush draws) and then see how many of those leftover combos there are compared to the total number. So if it's 6 extra combos out of 100, that extra 67% will help push you up a few points but probably not drastically. If it's 6 extra combos out of 15 total then yea that extra 67% for each of those will weigh a lot more.

Since it's at the table math, it will be hard to do the weighted average in your head, but just try to think about a) how big your edge is in those unpaired combos and b) how many of those exist relative to the entire range and then move your estimate up and down accordingly

I think I'm getting it now, the reason I think I got mixed up was because I had been taking all their individual % but you are just rounding up. So would it be correct if

The 18 flips and crushes are taken as 60% of the range of hands ( 13crushes+9flips+8unmatched combos) which would be .6x 28%(our avg equity with flips +crushes) = 16.8

Then we take the 4 combos . which is 13% of the total range and multiply that times our equity which would be about 20% , .13x20= 2.4%

Now we have 8 unmatched combos left, we take the JTs vs our hand, this sum done the same as the previous examples, end up as .1x66% = 6.6%
Then we take 98s- sum ends up being- .15x33=4.95%
Last we take the 67s hands , this sum ends up as .1x60%=6%

Lastly I added all these together, making up 16.8+2.4+4.95+6 = 36.75

Apologies for writing so much, I hope it makes some sense, I just want to know is that the correct way to do it outright?
That was the reason I got mixed up with the JTs and 89s cancelling out, I know you are getting a rough estimate by counting the crushed and flipped hands as 27% but how come those others just cancel out, any help at all would be great. Thanks for your previous reply sorry if this is a stupid question.

So the terms "cancel out" might be a bit confusing. It isn't canceling out to zero but to 50%. So think of a simple example where there are 2 combos. We are either 80/20 favorite or 80/20 dog. If you average those, we are 50%. So it's possible a lot of those "canceling out" combos could actually raise your overall equity if you have tons and tons of them and a few combos that crush you where you are a big dog. Make sense?

But yea to answer your question it looks like you are correctly weighting these equities by their share of the range, which is definitely one of the goals of the exercise. You're taking the hand equity times the share of the range they make up and then putting it all together at the end, which is a good way to think about what we are doing in steps 3 and 4.