This would be significantly more useful if the screen showed his slide deck about 80 percent of the time, and only showed him on camera the other 20 percent (such as when he's standing away from the screen and not referring to something on the slide).
The lecture notes are available on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-s50-poker-theory-and-analytics-january-iap-2015/lecture-notes/
He is pretty much talking about table image and how that can correlate with fold equity, this does work most definitely, but I think it’s biggest kryptonite is the farther you get away from it will increase ur opponents chance of having a better hand, so timing is key and gagging runners (if u are play online and seeing more hands than u would live), and this also correlates with how aggressive u are playing and frequencies u and ur opponent may be on in an intuitive sense.
Thanks for the good lecture, but the notes on your site are completely out of order compared to his slides, it is really hard to follow when you first have to check on what page he is now. Anyway, thanks for the upload
I know this is an old video but he says that if you call 50% of the time and the villain shoves 50% of the time you will dominate his range but how could that possibly be true if you have the same range as the other guy? It's basically a coinflip but this video perfe tly sums up why I hate heads up poker and youre better off just shoving allin and trying to make the better hand.
Cash is significantly deeper stacked compared to these examples. A normal computer can solve "optimal" play for cash, using GTO. Tons of videos about GTO solver/game theory optimal play on RU-vid. Basically the same as this range calculation to start, and then with extra streets/actions available to look forward to and the possibility of your hand improving (or degrading). With some pot odds/ stack ratios and potential extra bets math to really make things confusing.
9:55 - how does SD Equity go up versus a stronger calling range? It doesn't make sense, there shouldn't be a curve (we shouldn't have more SD equity vs 20% calling range compared to a 80% calling range).
Kloonike There is more SD equity vs a 20% calling range because the villains possible whole cards is dramatically less. With an 80% calling range there are more hands out there that have a possibility to win.
+Justin Giglio Poker is fun. It's just a lot of work to play mathematically optimal. But it becomes instinct after a while. This is just the math stuff, getting a feel for the players at you're table and understanding how those players see you is just as important.
41:25 mostly on the pushing (sb) side. Knowing the numbers and exploiting small edges that add up over thousands (hundreds of thousands) of spots. I haven't played online since black Friday, but casual players will always be too tight in 6 or less handed situations, or weakly trying to play (fold) into maybe one higher pay position. Which is a whole other lecture about tournament pay jumps/chip equity. Especially in low M situations caused by turbo structures, being the aggressor and shoving a very high % is a +ev play, because "tight" or even "good" players will overfold and let you print free chips without needing to showdown (which you can then use to take a 40/60 with a short stack when your blind defends come, effectively freerolling that hand). Live, the structures of serious (non daily) tournaments never get that low on M...and so most of the TV guys still play normal (bad) poker, and there isn't this push/fold dynamic...so they don't get preyed on as hard. Deeper stack it's more about 3 betting light, firing multiple streets postflop. The same levels of aggression (with the same intended effect of making "good/solid" players overfold), just in a less calculatable and much larger action tree.
At 1:39. All in with 3rd pair on the river... and its a pair of 9s. Either this is this a class on how to be the best fish you can possibly be or this guy's a con man. Who in their right mind would do that in a cash game, online. Like its less than 2 minutes into the lecture and I know I'm about to be fed generous amounts of bullshit. Then, not long after, I'm not disappointed when the goes "so... umm, you should always go ALL IN with 9 .6 off suit"..... WOW. Give this man an Oscar because, unless he's completely clueless, I don't know how he did that with a straight face.
Is this the standard of lecturers MIT students have to put up with, talking robots? looks like from the response from the class only the lecturer knows what hes taking about. I've learnt so much more in explainations miles shorter than this, this lecture drives me mad.
Doesn't matter, if you play optimal mathematics you'll win on the long run. That's why bots are not allowed on serious sites, because you need opponents that can make mathematical mistakes.
First 6 minutes, he says, seems counter-intuitive? That's because his calcs are wrong. Yes, the fold equity value is about $120 (27% of 450). But, how can that possibly increase, when added to the negative non-fold equity. Non-fold equity portion is always negative when hero is the underdog. This guy can play at my house and keep shipping it with 9-6 and other garbage hands until his money runs out. Better I get it than someone else.
Actually, you're wrong. I'll let you find your error yourself (Hint : your error is at he fold equity value). You're trying to contradict the basic maths of a teacher at MIT.
"Yes, the fold equity value is about $120 (27% of 450)" You're using 27% when you should be using the inverse, 73%. 27% constitutes the percentage of time he calls, not folds, therefore FE= (73% of 450)=328.5 More importantly, he already proved mathematically that there is no way to exploit the shove with 96off. This is all related to how ridiculously shallow the stacks get in these turbos.
Dry..lol (definately), he sounds like a typical nerd, its as if he speaks another language even tho he clearly speaks english and we understand poker terms.
It's for very low M. So for extremely short stack play, like up to 10BB (but mostly 1-2BB). And then it is the less bad move. And it's not concerning ICM. ...
what makes you think he doesn't play poker? also, it's undeniable poker as a game is mathematically solvable, we're just not there yet, and even when we do solve it with a supercomputer in the future, humans won't be able to play perfectly, much like in chess. But this game is 100% theoretically solvable.
@@YT7mc woah you clearly know what you're talking about mate, it's not like computer software *today* is already playing close to perfect poker, let alone a few years down the line....... The fact that you would bring up "ppl can bluff" as an argument just shows me how clueless you are
@@c.l.368 Poker plays similarly to rock paper scissors. Of course it’s different, but my point is that in chess there’s an objectively correct move. Have you not noticed that every time a play is mentioned, you need to consider the opponent’s range? Sure, there’s perfect play if your opponent is also playing perfectly (in which case the game will be incredibly stagnant and determined by luck).
I understand the formulaic approach...but formulas don't account for human interaction, behavior and stress response. Additionally, when you're at the tables, you don't have the luxury of running formulas in your head. The other players get bent out of shape if you take too long. If you think you can "calculate" your way out of a bad flop or river, you're sorely mistaken.
Yet knowing the formulas shouldnt make you play worse, than you did before. Understanding them shloud give you an opportunity to get a maximum of each situation if you manage to use them in harmony with your "poker instinkt" you should be able to become much more succesful player...
Pot odds are completely useless really? Bwhahahaha. I can't laugh enough at this. Pot Odds are a very important aspect of poker and are really not complicated AT ALL. They allow you to make profitable decisions if you're not playing with them you're not going to be a winning player. It should be one of the first things you learn to do when taking poker serious.
The complete poker player is the one that plays a player/cards AND uses the math. they have a lecture about game theory as well so really pointless comment.
He's referring specifically to common scenarios in turbos where the stacks are extremely shallow, thus "playing the player" boils down to variables such as "what % of range do they shove here..." and that's really the only types of decisions to be made with such high blinds.
These fkn math players always make call against me cause the math says so and they would be way behind and always hit fkn rag with ace when i have ace king...
Why do people take this class instead of getting a runitonce subscription? All the coaches on runitonce know poker/(including the math) better than this guy, and actually know how to beat zoom500 too.
To boost their gpa and have some fun in the winter break. It's not a semester course. It's just a 1 month course and it's only worth 1 unit and not the usual 3/4 units