709 reputation
116
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Aug 13 at 15:55

Aug
24
comment NL100: Deep Stack Shoves On River. Do You Call?
Well I found the problem, when I selects the combos, equilab include more hands (T8, 89 as straigth) I think it's a bug. I will send a report to the team of pokerstrategy. I have fixed the answer.
Aug
24
comment NL100: Deep Stack Shoves On River. Do You Call?
I performed all calculation with Equilab. You right, I have put 240 instead of of 204. So the true equity is 36% Sorry :) Well from the full range, if you click on the cake graph near equity value of your opponent, you can choose the combos (straight, three of kind, two pair or whatever you like) that your opponent is likely to go all-in. Then recalculate the value. The little difference may depends from the fact that equilab perform a montecarlo simulation and the numbers converges at the infinity. Anyway because your odds are better then your equity is a simple call.
Aug
24
comment NL100: Deep Stack Shoves On River. Do You Call?
Until all cards are face up you are in between (remember the schrodinger cat experiment), so in my opinion equity is correct. Equity is the simple calculation as ever, don't forget that 2:1=33.3%, 1.5:1=40%, 1:1=50%, so your equity can not be right. If you don't trust me you can use Equilab of pokerstrategy, that will show you the same and will show you all the combos too. Of course asuming the same starting range of the opponent. I hope this helped :)
Aug
23
comment NL100: Deep Stack Shoves On River. Do You Call?
Calling 204.80bb to win 370.80bb is 41,64% of equity.
Aug
23
comment NL100: Deep Stack Shoves On River. Do You Call?
Allin is often a sign of weakness.
Aug
17
comment AKo all in v 57o?
@Inafziger: The ICM shift the equity of few points. The difference here is quite big. Anyway you can perform the calculation with Equilab, and you can see that equity is only of 29% and Equilab tell you that call with 57o is the right move.
Aug
16
comment AKo all in v 57o?
@Inafziger Your calculation are wrong. The equity required is 29% and not 41%.
Jul
2
comment The more advice I read - the worse I play. What am I doing wrong?
check this link bookos.org/md5/B08FAC3BD2B0DEA2636680E7FCA479BC
Jul
2
comment The more advice I read - the worse I play. What am I doing wrong?
Toby Booth addressed the core of the problem. Try to understand the concepts, not apply them as they are stated. Even more the books you have cited (Hellmuth & Harrington) are teaching an old style of poker that is not still valid, because the game that is played today is a lot more aggressive. You must understand the core concepts of poker in order to be "liquid", namely you can adapt your game to your opponents. Forget Hellmuth, Harrington and Ivey and start to study the basic theory. I would suggest you -Small Stakes Hold 'em (Miller, Sklansky & Mallmuth)
Jun
6
comment Fictitious play for multiway hand in push or fold regime
great! thanx @Inafzieger
Apr
4
comment Easy to remember push/fold/callpush table/formula
@RaduMurzea when you start using formulas, begins to understanding the nature of things.
Mar
25
comment Gap concept and pot odds
@TTT look at this gottatalkpoker.com/GTP_odds.pdf Suppose you define monster as "at least two pair" you need at least 48.5 to 1 odds.
Mar
24
comment Gap concept and pot odds
@TTT actually it's not true. looks at my answer. the request of equity in relation to the number of players narrows the range playable.
Mar
21
comment How is Poker a game of skill?
wow, a lot of math skilled players :). I know that the math here is not correct, but what I would show is the exceptionality of the occurence of the event. This is a binomial event, if we call W the numbers of wins and L the number of looses, we have that the probability of this even is BinCoeff(W+L,W)P^W(1-P)^L. If P is very small the order of magnitude of this event is P^W. @Cory This is a binomial event, in such case standart deviation(that is = NP(1-P)) can't be greater (in value) than mean = NP where N=W+L.
Mar
6
comment Converting Backdoor Draws Into Equity
Thanx. Very good theoritical answer, but I am looking for a quick and dirty method of converting backdoor draws in outs counting.
Mar
6
comment Converting Backdoor Draws Into Equity
Thanx, I am sorry for my poor english.
Feb
22
comment The groups of Sklansky starting hands
with the term 'computer generated' i am referring to the preflop jam equity of the hole cards against a fixed numbers of opponents forced to call the jam.
Feb
20
comment New school and old school
ok, I am sorry.
Feb
11
comment Effect of number of players in the probability distribution of poker hands
I don't think that will be any reversal, because the rank depends only by the number of cards and how many cards you can change (none in this case). Anyway you can test it by a simple montecarlo simulation. R has a library for texas holdem. You can measure the frequency for straight and flush on changing the number of players.
Feb
8
comment Gap concept and pot odds
I have good equity in the pot ;)