Watched this entire course and not knowing too much about poker. Entered my first tournament with over 100 people and came 2nd. Highly recommend. Literally watching this entire course again because bad habits have crept into my game.
@@kwamestar To be honest I am not sure what to recommend for beginners. But if you want something that's fairly entertaining and at least somewhat educational, raiseyouredge has good videos. GTOwizard has some good videos too, but they might not be good for beginners. You can also just ask online on places like twoplustwo and r/poker about specific questions you have about the game, best way to learn is by engaging with other people like that. And if you seriously want to get good there's beginner courses like BBZ's $50 From The Ground Up course (some of it is free iirc). There may be better alternatives.
At 01:00:20, the AKs doesn't have the nuts, only the nut flush assuming they don't know of course the other hands. 76 hearts would have a straight flush on the turn.
There are a few mistakes in this lecture. This one where 76h already has a SF, but also his question about knowing when your fullhouse is best possible hand was wrong. QQ on board - having a Q and the highest side pair in your hand isn't a nut hand whatsoever. Another player could have a pair of the highest other pair in their hand...ie: QQ K97 player one has KQ, and his opponent has KK for a better full house.
@@numsig this absolutely needs clearer explanation too, your full house can only be the nuts if your singly paired card is highest on the board *and* the paired cards on the board are the highest index on the board as well, a critical detail. AK is the nuts on a board with AAK, but not AKK as your opponent could have AA.
@@jay98 that's exactly the point I was making. In the example in the video he states a "nut" hand which isn't. The lecturer seems a little nervous and unsure throughout this course, but the content is generally good.
Thanks for posting this! I have one question, he talks about some facts, and I didn't understand why he said that I need a pair on the board to have a full hous eor better, becaus I can have a straight flush or royal flush without it, even though isn't likely to happen
That's right, teacher "forgets" to consider SF and RF a lot. Like the "how can you be sure, that noone has better hand than your Fullhouse." With Q,Q,J,10,X (Q,J,10 suited) on the table, you could have QJ (or QQ for that matter) on your hand and still be far from nuts.. SFs are not likely to happen, but still possible..
@@donpistacios the 3 suited cards were too far apart in his examples to show a straight flush. I thought the same thing but the slide he shown didn't work for a SF. One thing that bothered me as well is that he says "if you have a pair the probability of someone else having a pair is lower" which isn't true. When you have a pair the probability of someone else having a pair goes up. You've taken a pair out of the deck which takes away one of the cards that would be entered into the equation of having two different cards.... The probability doesn't go up that much, but it does go up..... more than 1% I think just thinking about it quickly.
It's actually untrue that the probability of someone else having a pair if you have a pair goes down. The probability of someone else having a pair goes UP because your pair takes away one of the cards that might make someone elses hand not paired..... When you have a pair in your hand the likelyhood someone else does as well goes up..... not down. In fact, whenever I have a pair, I assume someone else does..... even though the probability doesn't go up THAT much it DOES go up.
I don't understand your reasoning, but this is wrong. The probability goes down. For the same reason that if you have an ace in your hand, the chance of someone else having pocket aces goes down. There are 3 combos instead of 6. If we dealt the cards face up to 2 opponents, and we saw that player 1 got an ace, we'd know that player 2 has a 1/450 chance to get dealt AA instead of 1/225. Same concept post-flop just less simple in terms of combos.
@@BarvGwydh The probability of someone else having a pair goes UP because your pair takes away 2 of the cards that might make someone elses hand not paired.....
@@upplsuckimcool16 No, there are less ways for them to have a pair. Let's say a board is 2 6 J. You have J8. This means there are only 2 other jacks, instead of 3 to worry about. So there are 2/3 as many combinations that make a pair of jacks as there would be if you did not have a jack yourself. Maybe if you give a specific example of what you mean then I can help you understand where you went wrong.
@@BarvGwydh we're talking about pocket pairs man. At least that's what I remember the video saying.... he was talking about pocket pairs... I was always talking about pocket pairs. When you have a pocket pair it makes it more likely someone else does by a non 0 %
I guess if youve literally never played poker before you will learn some stuff from this but it's pretty randomly organized and not how Id start teaching someone
yeah there is no point in watching this, you can sort of tell when he mentions his friend being a good player because he cashed in 2 tournaments, and then he shows some very outdated books that weren't even very good when they were released, now the game has advanced a ton and these books are pointless. learn poker from poker players
@@markpayton3895 it depends what you want to learn. I'm not sure for cash games. for tournaments, Modern Poker Theory is pretty good, but getting a little outdated maybe. whenever I talk to accomplished pros, they usually say they never read a book. people mostly learn from independent study (hand reviews) and study groups / mentors
Watched this entire course and not knowing too much about poker. Entered my first tournament with over 100 people and came 2nd. Highly recommend. Literally watching this entire course again because bad habits have crept into my game.
This is not a good resource for learning poker
@@BarvGwydh what would you recommend? i am struggling a little with the concepts
@@kwamestar To be honest I am not sure what to recommend for beginners. But if you want something that's fairly entertaining and at least somewhat educational, raiseyouredge has good videos. GTOwizard has some good videos too, but they might not be good for beginners. You can also just ask online on places like twoplustwo and r/poker about specific questions you have about the game, best way to learn is by engaging with other people like that. And if you seriously want to get good there's beginner courses like BBZ's $50 From The Ground Up course (some of it is free iirc). There may be better alternatives.
why you say so? @@BarvGwydh
Been playing 15 years and never caught on to the 5 or 10 straight rubric. Good teaching explicates the obvious. Thanks!
me neither.
Such a simple tactic that I can’t wait to start using!
At 01:00:20, the AKs doesn't have the nuts, only the nut flush assuming they don't know of course the other hands. 76 hearts would have a straight flush on the turn.
This is so cool! Thank you for these free lectures, I very much appreciate your work.
1:00:24 the A-high flush isn't the best possible hand; there are three straight flush possibilities because of the 345h board (A2h, 26h, 67h).
You cannot make a full house or better without a pair on the board --- You can, royal flush and straight flush
Hi there, thanks for the upload. May I know where we could possibly download the slides?
This editing still slaps
Facts
I agree
i want to take this class so bad!!!!
1:00:25: nope, best possible hand would be a straight flush since 345h are on the board (and someone could be holding 67h)
The video is excellent! I noticed at 1:00:00 that the player with AKh doesn't have the best *possible* hand, which on the turn is 67h
I came to the comments to check if someone had this same thought haha
There are a few mistakes in this lecture. This one where 76h already has a SF, but also his question about knowing when your fullhouse is best possible hand was wrong. QQ on board - having a Q and the highest side pair in your hand isn't a nut hand whatsoever. Another player could have a pair of the highest other pair in their hand...ie: QQ K97 player one has KQ, and his opponent has KK for a better full house.
@@numsig this absolutely needs clearer explanation too, your full house can only be the nuts if your singly paired card is highest on the board *and* the paired cards on the board are the highest index on the board as well, a critical detail. AK is the nuts on a board with AAK, but not AKK as your opponent could have AA.
@@alvarobcf me too! the best possible hand would be 6 and 7 of hearts.
@@jay98 that's exactly the point I was making. In the example in the video he states a "nut" hand which isn't. The lecturer seems a little nervous and unsure throughout this course, but the content is generally good.
Category 3: I have amnesia and am therefore not sure
Thanks for posting this! I have one question, he talks about some facts, and I didn't understand why he said that I need a pair on the board to have a full hous eor better, becaus I can have a straight flush or royal flush without it, even though isn't likely to happen
That's right, teacher "forgets" to consider SF and RF a lot. Like the "how can you be sure, that noone has better hand than your Fullhouse."
With Q,Q,J,10,X (Q,J,10 suited) on the table, you could have QJ (or QQ for that matter) on your hand and still be far from nuts.. SFs are not likely to happen, but still possible..
@@donpistacios the 3 suited cards were too far apart in his examples to show a straight flush.
I thought the same thing but the slide he shown didn't work for a SF.
One thing that bothered me as well is that he says "if you have a pair the probability of someone else having a pair is lower" which isn't true. When you have a pair the probability of someone else having a pair goes up. You've taken a pair out of the deck which takes away one of the cards that would be entered into the equation of having two different cards.... The probability doesn't go up that much, but it does go up..... more than 1% I think just thinking about it quickly.
sharks are not a type of fish
Biologically they are; in poker no
It's actually untrue that the probability of someone else having a pair if you have a pair goes down.
The probability of someone else having a pair goes UP because your pair takes away one of the cards that might make someone elses hand not paired.....
When you have a pair in your hand the likelyhood someone else does as well goes up..... not down.
In fact, whenever I have a pair, I assume someone else does..... even though the probability doesn't go up THAT much it DOES go up.
I don't understand your reasoning, but this is wrong. The probability goes down. For the same reason that if you have an ace in your hand, the chance of someone else having pocket aces goes down. There are 3 combos instead of 6. If we dealt the cards face up to 2 opponents, and we saw that player 1 got an ace, we'd know that player 2 has a 1/450 chance to get dealt AA instead of 1/225. Same concept post-flop just less simple in terms of combos.
@@BarvGwydh
The probability of someone else having a pair goes UP because your pair takes away 2 of the cards that might make someone elses hand not paired.....
@@upplsuckimcool16 No, there are less ways for them to have a pair. Let's say a board is 2 6 J. You have J8. This means there are only 2 other jacks, instead of 3 to worry about. So there are 2/3 as many combinations that make a pair of jacks as there would be if you did not have a jack yourself. Maybe if you give a specific example of what you mean then I can help you understand where you went wrong.
@@BarvGwydh we're talking about pocket pairs man.
At least that's what I remember the video saying.... he was talking about pocket pairs... I was always talking about pocket pairs.
When you have a pocket pair it makes it more likely someone else does by a non 0 %
Asking if anyone in that room if they have won more than $100k or $1M in a poker tournament seems like a pretty douche question.
Yeah definitely
that's why he didn't ask....... he stopped at 3k when noone raised their hand.
I guess if youve literally never played poker before you will learn some stuff from this but it's pretty randomly organized and not how Id start teaching someone
Best way to learn instead of this course?
@@markpayton3895 there are a dozen training sites that are much better
@@paulg6274 Are there any specific ones you recommend?
Don’t waste your time watching this
is it bad
@@worthplayingfor2197 Is it??
yeah there is no point in watching this, you can sort of tell when he mentions his friend being a good player because he cashed in 2 tournaments, and then he shows some very outdated books that weren't even very good when they were released, now the game has advanced a ton and these books are pointless. learn poker from poker players
@@BarvGwydh Any recommendation for better books that are more up to date or professional player to learn from?
@@markpayton3895 it depends what you want to learn. I'm not sure for cash games. for tournaments, Modern Poker Theory is pretty good, but getting a little outdated maybe. whenever I talk to accomplished pros, they usually say they never read a book. people mostly learn from independent study (hand reviews) and study groups / mentors
this is how to make math fun!