table in "Little Green Book".....................

JJay1231 · #1 02-16-2007, 11:46 PM

On page 190 of the LGB there is a table which basically gives you the break even odds for a call in relation to your opponents bet after the flop.

When I was trying to verify the figures in this table, I’m getting different ones for some of them and I listed them below. Not big differences but I guess I want it to be perfect as it could mean the difference between a call or fold if it's not.

With the first one of 5.0-1, with 1 card to come it has 9 outs in the table but I get 8...........
with a break even percentage of 17% (16.67%) to be exact) the minimum break even for 1 card to come is 8 outs (47-8)/8 = 4.88, to convert to % is 1/5.88 = 17% for turn and slightly higher for river which is 17.4%)

For the next one of 3.0-1 it has 13 outs for 1 card to come, but I get 12..........
with a break even percentage of 25% the minimum break even for 1 card is 12 outs (47-12)/12 = 2.92, when converted to % is 1/3.92 = 25.5% for turn and slightly higher for river 26.1%)

For the 2.3-1, I get the same as in the book for both 1 and 2 cards to come.

For the full pot of 2.0-1, it has 17 outs to break even for 1 more card but I get 16...........
with a break even percentage of 33% the minimum break even for 1 card is 16 outs (47-16)/16 = 1.94, when converted to % is 1/2.94 = 34% for turn and slightly higher for river 34.8%)

For double the pot of 1.5-1, it has 20 outs for 1 card to come but I get 19.............
with a break even percentage of 40% the minimum break even for 1 card is 19 outs (47-19)/19 = 1.47, when converted to % is 1/2.47 = 40.4% for turn and slightly higher for river 41.3%)
and for when there is 2 cards to come it has 10 outs but I get 11..............
with a break even percentage of 40%, the minimum break even for 2 cards to come is 11. The break even percentage for 10 outs for 2 cards to come is only 38.4% (1-(47-10)/47)*(46-10)/46), whereas 11 outs has a percentage of 41.72% (1-(47-11)/47)*(46-11)/46)

can someone tell me if I'm correct, …or am I just losing my marbles?? [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

cheers.

Red_Diamond · #2 02-17-2007, 01:40 AM

It has been discussed before here. Gordon seems to have some flawed tables in his book. Why he, or the Leaderer's didn't spot such obvious flaws is a good mystery. I start to wonder if there are pros who don't have these basic outs memorized.

JJay1231 · #3 02-17-2007, 07:04 AM

ah ok. I musn't have been registered here yet when it was discussed or not have the book yet. It is a real mystery how these top class pro's would get even basic fundamental concepts wrong. I just assumed my calculations were wrong and wasted a lot of time scratching my head over them just because I thought that I must be wrong and Gordon MUST be right. Oh well, still like Gordon's material though.

londomollari · #4 02-17-2007, 09:51 AM

Gordon was trying to claim that AQo was a 77% favourite versus ATs on poker after dark.

Starfish · #5 02-17-2007, 11:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
It is a real mystery how these top class pro's would get even basic fundamental concepts wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, numbers. Real poker, especially live poker where you go inside your opponent's mind and see his soul, isn't about terms like "Standard Deviation" and "EV." and all that geek stuff. Those are probably my two least favorite phrases in the world.

Don't bother reading any of those books about poker "theory". You can't learn how to play from a book. Books are filled with math and that [censored] doesn't matter in poker. You need to have instincts and balls of steel. Play No Limit Texas Holdem and just bluff the donkeys out of pots and learn how to stare into another man's eyes and know everything about his life.....that's the way to play poker. Books can't teach you that.

Red_Diamond · #6 02-17-2007, 02:34 PM

From what I understand, Gordon doesn't even use ratios for pot odds. His blue book instructs you to do some strange and really fancy method of breaking stack sizes down into percentages, and figure on a percentage break even point bases and then... is it roughly ok to call this bet or not.

I suspect he is one of the only pros who hasn't switched over to the simple value-to-1 ratios yet. Now I understand that you COULD do things differently from the pact. You COULD use the imperial system instead of using metric in the modern day and age. But why make things a little harder when there is no need.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to degrade him, he seems to be a decent character but there are a few things by Gordon that raises my eyebrows. He is technicaly free to use any system he wants when he plays.

kosher · #7 02-17-2007, 09:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Don't bother reading any of those books about poker "theory". You can't learn how to play from a book. Books are filled with math and that [censored] doesn't matter in poker. You need to have instincts and balls of steel.

[/ QUOTE ]

If poker "theory" is a load of crap, why are you even on this site?... Just to post your bad beats and brags??

Starfish · #8 02-17-2007, 09:20 PM

Oh, deac, come on...

deacsoft · #9 02-17-2007, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, deac, come on...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you guys want to talk about the book or something related to it, then by all means...

What I won't allow is personal confrontations. They don't do anyone any good, and they make a mess of otherwise useful threads. I see stuff like that and I delete it. No hard feelings to anyone. I just don't want that going on in this forum. I'm sure everyone understands. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Red_Diamond · #10 02-18-2007, 04:40 AM

I just briefed through the Jargon section of his Blue book. Some more things raise my eyebrows again. One example, for his definition of::

Fancy Play Syndrome (FPS) -- An expensive tendency, especially evident in players who have just read Sklansky and Malmuth, to overuse "trick" plays like check-raising or semibluffing.

Is he for real?

Also, on the next page get get to::

Level One Thinking -- The act of judging the strength of your hand in order to make a decision.

Ummm, isn't that the zeroth' level as pointed out in T&P by Sklansky? Or does Phil just assume because Sklansky was involved, he can re-write it as he sees fit?

And of course, his explanations for level Two and Three thinking are also quite off-base (to say the least).

Boy, isn't anyone proof reading books anymore?