---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by sthief09 (Micro/Small Stakes)

oO

The audio cuts out completely on the iPod version around the 13 minute mark.

You mentioned poker raiser software? Can't find it on the web. Any help?

I am working on getting another ipod version up.
-Rusty

There is a new working ipod version. Enjoy.
-Rusty

You mentioned poker raiser software? Can't find it on the web. Any help?

I haven't gotten to watch the full video yet, but I assume he means this:
http://pokerazor.com/

Great stuff Josh

One question

On hand example 1 "picking off a river bet" you say we use additive inverse of the probability of the probablility that he doesn't have a club.

Isn't it the complement?

Cheers

Great stuff Josh

One question

On hand example 1 "picking off a river bet" you say we use additive inverse of the probability of the probablility that he doesn't have a club.

Isn't it the complement?

Cheers

i think i was looking for the chances he did have a club in that example, right?

That's the one...[37:36]...1-chance of having any clubs

I'm no mathematician (so I'm very happy to be wrong) but I thought that additive inverse is the opposite of a number (so additive inverse of 5 is -5...when they're added together = 0).

Whereas complement quantifies something in terms of what it is not. So the chance of something not being the case = 1 - chance of it being the case.

If I'm wrong (>90%) I look like a nit-picking dickhead who is wrong...if I'm right (<10%) I still look like a nit-picking dickhead so the EV of my post is questionable!

Cheers

That's the one...[37:36]...1-chance of having any clubs

I'm no mathematician (so I'm very happy to be wrong) but I thought that additive inverse is the opposite of a number (so additive inverse of 5 is -5...when they're added together = 0).

Whereas complement quantifies something in terms of what it is not. So the chance of something not being the case = 1 - chance of it being the case.

If I'm wrong (>90%) I look like a nit-picking dickhead who is wrong...if I'm right (<10%) I still look like a nit-picking dickhead so the EV of my post is questionable!

Cheers

ah yeah my bad, you're right. didn't know what you meant at first.

Illuminating... I didn't know most of that about equity ^.^

About that bluffing turn and the river hand example, is the net when we bluff the river successfully supposed to be $130 instead of $90 (there was $50 in the pot on the turn, we bet $40 and the villain calls, so its $130) or it must be only the amount of villains $s?

btw, these are great series!

I have a question about ev calcultation (43:47 min): We bet 40$ to a 50$ pot, if villain call, we lose 40$ but if he fold we win a 90$ pot, right?
So EV=0.40*90+0.60*(-40)??

I have a question about ev calcultation (43:47 min): We bet 40$ to a 50$ pot, if villain call, we lose 40$ but if he fold we win a 90$ pot, right?
So EV=0.40*90+0.60*(-40)??

Well, if folds you've technically only won $50. You've invested $40, and gained $90 for a net of only $50. I think you're slightly confusing the situation where villain bets the river, and the situation where we bet the river. Here are 2 examples that'll hopefully make it more clear:

Our stack: $40
The pot: $50

- Let's say villain bets $40 into the $50 pot. If we lose, we have $0 (40 less than when we started). If we win, we have $130 (our original 40 + his 40 + pot of 50). We're left with $90 more than we started. So we're risking 40 to net 90.

- Now the example when we bluff $40 into the $50 pot. When we lose, we still have $0, which is -$40 from where we started. No difference here. The difference comes when villain folds and we win. Since he's folded we don't get his stack. We only get the $50 in the pot and our original $40 back. Our final stack will be $90, for a net of only $50. In this case we're risking 40 to net 50.

The basically conclusion of this is that under almost all circumstances circumstances, a bluff attempt needs to succeed a higher % of the time than an attempt to call a bluff.

Thank you, i understand now.
Your series rocks, I love it,I learned a lot thanks to you .

Time Link to 00:45:07

We'd actually be bluffing on 21 cards. I'm guessing you didn't discount the 7 on the board.

The math changes a bit but the conclusion does not:

The turn numbers stay the same:
40% he folds
10% he raises

On the river follow through (21/46) 45.7% and we give up (25/46) 54.3%.
So we give up (50%*54.3%) 27.1% of the time overall (i.e., out of 100%).
We bluff and win (50%*45.7%*60%) 13.7% of the time.
We bluff and lose (50%*45.7%*40%) 9.1% of the time.

Our EV drops to $4.67, which makes sense intuitively as we have a profitable bluffing opportunity that we are taking slightly less often.

How much math are you guys doing in a hand?

If you sat there and did a range calc,
then combinatorics,
then how those hands stack up against your holdings
then calculate fold equity from a raise or whatever

I mean... you can be sitting there for 25 minutes considering one flop call.

So I assume you work out a lot of mental shortcuts right? so that you can get close to the same depth of reasoning, but in 25 seconds rather than 25 minutes...

How much math are you guys doing in a hand?

If you sat there and did a range calc,
then combinatorics,
then how those hands stack up against your holdings
then calculate fold equity from a raise or whatever

I mean... you can be sitting there for 25 minutes considering one flop call.

So I assume you work out a lot of mental shortcuts right? so that you can get close to the same depth of reasoning, but in 25 seconds rather than 25 minutes...

Well the goal isn't to replicate the thought process at the table. The goal is to understand a given situation fully so you're able to handle similar situations at the table. You can definitely do some range calcs at the table depending on how good you are at crunching numbers in your head, but mostly you want to be equipped to handle as many situations as possible. It's true that all poker hands are unique, but many situations are similar enough where understanding one hand fully can help you handle many other situations. When that happens, there's no need to crunch numbers at the table.

6:33
there's probably a typo, if we bluff 100 into 100 we offer him a 2:1 right?

anyway really great series so far! good job

6:33
there's probably a typo, if we bluff 100 into 100 we offer him a 2:1 right?

anyway really great series so far! good job

sorry if that's unclear. what it means is we're getting 1:1 odds on a bluff, because we're risking $100 to win $100.