|
|
#71
08-21-2007, 12:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
[ QUOTE ]
Sunny what is this mIRC channel that you speak of? I have the slightest clue to what that is. [/ QUOTE ] http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD 
|
|
#72
08-21-2007, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
[ QUOTE ]
The example is contrived (as mentioned in OP) to focus on the math and my curiosity confusion around being +EV but losing money. It is not about strategy, optimal lines, or anything else. You could even remove poker from the example and turn it into a ball throwing contest. [/ QUOTE ] I understand this, and like Matt said, you can calculate EV for a particular street, or for your entire line... you can be +EV on every street, but be -EV for the entire line. It's usually easier to just calculate EV for a street so that you don't have to constantly try to remember how much you've put in the pot so far, and it's probably going to be a good indication of your overall EV (i.e. you're not going to run into many situations where you were +EV on every street but not overall). But, yeah, if you find yourself in this situation often, you need to take a look at your bet sizes and/or opponents.
|
|
#73
08-21-2007, 10:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Sunny what is this mIRC channel that you speak of? I have the slightest clue to what that is. [/ QUOTE ] http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD [/ QUOTE ] I think it would make more sense to keep the discussion of this book in the 2+2 forum. This way everyone can benefit from what's discussed in the same location. my $0.02
|
|
#74
08-21-2007, 10:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Sunny what is this mIRC channel that you speak of? I have the slightest clue to what that is. [/ QUOTE ] http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...;gonew=1#UNREAD [/ QUOTE ] I think it would make more sense to keep the discussion of this book in the 2+2 forum. This way everyone can benefit from what's discussed in the same location. my $0.02 [/ QUOTE ] Agreed. A lot of people can't participate when the chat is going on, so it would suck for them to not be able to see the discussion.
|
|
#75
08-21-2007, 11:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
QUICK RULE-of-THUMB question.
OK, I will be getting my book today -- I only eyeballed thru the chapters to be discussed and will ask a few qns on that later. But speaking of thumb rules (such as the 2/3 pot bet) for now can you explain the 2:1 rule? I'm mostly a *tourney* player and there are many situations when if you are big stacked you can call if the pot odds are 1:2 to you and your opponent is pretty much committed to the pot. (This is because I believe most heads up situations are 36:64 or close to 1:2 but any real clarification would be helpful.) thanks
|
|
#76
08-21-2007, 12:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
Actually, I modify the question --- Can you explain if a 2:1 thumb-rule actually applies in ring games? In tourneys we have a 2:1 rule, where you can call a raise with marginal hands in specific situations.
|
|
#77
08-23-2007, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
[ QUOTE ]
Some minor note which I find useful because I'm a nit: the 'multiply by four' rule can be improved a bit to p = outs * 4 - (number of outs above 8), e.g. for 15 outs p = 15*4 - 7 = 53% instead of 60% (real number 54%). [/ QUOTE ] When talk of "true" outs in a heads up battle, we should use 45 and 44 unseen cards. In that sense, I find that 11 outs is the cut off. 11 x 4% = 44%. After that, I assign each extra out 3% in value. So, 13 true outs would be 50%. In reality, 1 - (32/45 * 31/44) = 50.1% so it works pretty well.
|
|
#78
08-24-2007, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
[ QUOTE ]
When talk of "true" outs in a heads up battle, we should use 45 and 44 unseen cards. In that sense, I find that 11 outs is the cut off. [/ QUOTE ]I thought that the "virtual deck" always contains 47 cards on the flop (even vs 8 players), since as far as a player is concerned all unseen cards are equally likely.
|
|
#79
08-25-2007, 02:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
By "true" outs, binions means the actual outs we have against the specific opponent hand, i.e., any tainted "outs" are not being counted. Also, sometimes, if we know we are behind, then we know the remaining cards are 45/44, not 47/46. E.g., on the turn we have top set but are convinced that opponent must have a straight - in this case we have our outs to make a boat, but being behind necessarily implies that none of those outs are in opponent's hand. We have 10 outs on 44 cards. Same thing often happens if you are convinced opponent has an overpair, and you are trying to improve to two pair or a straight using small cards.
|
|
#80
08-28-2007, 10:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Professional No-Limit Hold \'em Study Group Day 1
Ho my... I have been searching an answer to this specific question for a long time! So we'll take this straight draw on the flop example again.
Let say I'm being offered 3 to 1 (half sized-pot bet, 50 in a pot of 100) on the flop, so if I hit on the turn, I must do at least 100 more to get even on my draw, right? If I miss my straight draw, and the villain bets half the pot again, (75 in 150 this time) giving me 3 to 1 in my pot odds again, if I decide to call, how much more will have to gain to get even with my 2 calls? It is 100 for the first call then 150 for the second call for a total of 250 more or am I totally wrong here ?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
