Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread - Page 42

Matt Flynn · #**411** 08-13-2007, 06:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't seen this mentioned yet. I don't understand the entire odds chart in Appendix B on page 306.

It appears that you are not taking into account your own cards.
For instance, the odds of hitting a flush with 2 cards to come is 1.86 to 1, not 1.97 to 1. What am I missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right. the table is wrong. divisors should be 47 and 46 instead of 49 and 48.

my apologies for the mistake.

matt

cjk73 · #**412** 08-13-2007, 10:06 PM

Hi Matt, Hi Sunny

Now I am confused! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Donkeychips points out that the book alludes to two distinct points...are you saying that the 1/3 small stack and 10% are actually the same? When I read it I assumed the same as what he refers to...the 10% is the "better make a decision now" point and the 1/3 is "decision is made, you're going with this hand now pal" point. Are you saying there really isn't two distinct points?

One other question, there are a few references that basically say that hitting your target spr and then pulling the trigger (assuming you make your hand) will get you the money in the long run because the math guarentees it...can ou elaborate a little on the math? Where I keep getting stuck is understanding what math defines an spr of 6 being better then an spr of 7 for top pair hands...am I too literal? I understand pragmatically why 6 is better then 7 (because the lower the number the weaker villain's hand can be to make the call down) but is there really math that proves it?

Btw, book was great, of course it will take some time to fully integrate it into my rather noobish game.

Matt Flynn · #**413** 08-13-2007, 10:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Matt, Hi Sunny

Now I am confused! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Donkeychips points out that the book alludes to two distinct points...are you saying that the 1/3 small stack and 10% are actually the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

nope. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] the commitment threshold is when the pot is one-fourth of the lesser stack. the more practical rule of thumb is 10% of the lesser stack. we do say the commitment threshold "warns that you are about to put in a third of the lesser stack." but admittedly without the italics.

as for target SPRs, the math is only as good as your estimate.

Splossy · #**414** 08-14-2007, 07:30 AM

Have the book now. I'm reading the Equity bit. It has a hand of 7s7h on a flop of 8d7c6d and you get raised all in. It says your equity against the straights is 35%. I'm sure this is obvious but how has that been derived?

One thing I'm a bit disappointed in in the Pot Control section is the lack of detail on more marginal hands. It's obvious when you have the examples given but in reality I struggle when I pick up more average hands and the opponent could have a wider range of hands.

DonkeyChip · #**415** 08-14-2007, 07:58 AM

I hope it's not uncool to do this but I started a thread on a hand that came up last night...thread is here . Would appreciate any input...I thought it was close.

binions · #**416** 08-14-2007, 08:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Have the book now. I'm reading the Equity bit. It has a hand of 7s7h on a flop of 8d7c6d and you get raised all in. It says your equity against the straights is 35%. I'm sure this is obvious but how has that been derived?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have 7 outs to pair the board and beat a straight on the turn, and if you miss, 10 outs on the river. The chance of the board not pairing is 38/45 * 34/44 or 65.25%. So, your chance of the board pairing at least once is 34.75%.

Note we use 45 and 44 unseen cards instead of 47 and 46 unseen cards in calculating equity against the straight because, by definition, if he has a straight on the flop, he can't have any of our outs (ie cards that pair the board) in his hand.

Splossy · #**417** 08-14-2007, 12:27 PM

Ahhh of course, the extra outs due to the extra card on the turn. Nice one thanks.

dividius · #**418** 08-14-2007, 12:54 PM

Just wanna say that I'm through Part 3 and I'm really diggin the book. I really like the thesis: "Plan your hands." The logical players are already doing that, but us instinctual players often need a blunt reminder that making decisions on the fly isn't always (ever?) the right way to do things. That's probably my biggest weakness: playing too much from street-to-street instead of having a cohesive plan for the entirety of the hand. A book like this was exactly what I needed.

Unfortunately, I got it right after picking up "The Mathematics of Poker," so I keep bouncing between the two. I'm spending more time with MoP due to the nature of the material, but PNLHE will get its due. Both of them are constantly reminding me how I need to think of hands in their entirety and not "one street at a time." I can already see my play on the turn improving dramatically. Thanks a lot, and good luck in the future.

skillzilla · #**419** 08-14-2007, 02:19 PM

has the book had any impact on the games yet?
a lot of people raising to different amounts preflop and betting 2/3 pot the rest of the way?

threads13 · #**420** 08-14-2007, 02:43 PM

I am on my 3rd read of the book and it is starting to absorb more and more.

This book is going to end up being a major contributing to NL strategy. I believe an astute reader can take a lot of the concepts in here and expand upon them. I am already excited about volume 2 which I believe will really add a lot of the good stuff to this strategy.