It's so funny how all these negative comments 6 years ago have proven to be wrong. This guy's teaching was ahead of his time. Gto poker is all about the math . The math guys crush today's tournaments
Its not all about math, like everything else in poker it depends, you have to open up and narrow your range to adjust to your opponents, often times your gonna have toss the nash equilibrium chart out the door and play pretty unbalanced.
@@brucelee5576 you are correct on that point. But in the long run if you make bets best on positive expectation you win negative expectation you lose. That's all math. That's how casinos operate and profit based on math.
Royal, theres a difference between what you teach and how you teach, you are right ,WHAT he teaches is excellent, but he,s a horrendous teacher as far as HOW he teaches, he doesn't make clear points at the same time that he,s ambiguous. Just awful !
For example, when he was talking about Harrington,s. M ratio, totally confusing and useless. Go back and try to make sense of that explanation , good luck!
The main takeaways that I got are: 1. Poker is often a waiting game, 2. Online poker is totally different from live (probably the same for the types of poker), 3. We should play based on how many chips we have compared to our opponents (betting more loosely more when losing), 4. There are poker personalities tight/loose + aggressive/passive, and 5. Some people play tight or loose ranges based on how many rounds they can survive when folding right away (M number; betting more loosely when losing). I find the terms passive and tight to be, at first, hard to differentiate. Doesn't it kind of sound like a passive player doesn't raise much? I'm pretty sure passive players just choose what their bet is based on their own situation which can lead to some big calls, whereas tight means they only bet if they have a really good hand (like maybe tight players hate the humiliation of times when making big raises against someone and then lose because it's less humiliating to just fold earlier). The M number calculation is a passive strategy and playing ranges based off of how many chips an opponent has is aggressive even though, if you're winning, you might play tight (and fold early).
Well passive is related to the tendencies of that players **actions** while tight is related to the **range** of the player. A play can be "loose passive", "tight passive", "loose aggressive" (LAG), or "tight aggressive" (TAG). For instance, a passive player preflop will mostly limp in with hands rather than raising hands. If they limp in with a wide range of hands, we're going to label them as loose passive. If they limp in with a small range of hands, we're going to label them as tight passive. A TAG player will raise a narrow range of hands preflop and take other aggressive actions such as 3betting+. A LAG player will take the same actions, but with a wider range of hands. When it comes to postflop, the TAG is essentially following some heuristic of value betting their good hands and giving up with their weaker hands. Again, "tight" is a way to describe their range and "aggressive" is a way to define the actions they take. So, when their range is strong, they bet. It's a simple heuristic that works well against certain types of opponents and simplifies the strategy of the game.
I’m actually experiencing FOMO watching this! I wouldn’t make the student debt for it though, but really appreciated the voice in my head saying “TH-cam poker class”
yea for the first 10-20 minutes I was like how is this guy a MIT teacher there is no structure to this course but them realized he's a poker player not a teacher.
@@kyle6521 come on, you guys are being so hard on him. It's literally the orientation, he looks exactly like every other professor I have on the start of class and I'm going for my master's in physics and have a math degree he looks exactly like a professor in math (I assume this is type of a math course?)
every time there is a teacher on youtube people analyze every word they say but students are not stupid. Most of the work is done OUTSIDE of class. I feel like the people who write these comments are into school themselves because it is totally standard.
@@Richard-ot5ss That isn’t true. I go to Purdue and I saw the MIT homework and it is absolutely crazy. Their discrete math on week 5 is already past our entire semester’s worth of content. Their classes are much harder than their equivalent at another school. I also don’t thing Purdue’s discrete math for CS is a easy class. The class average was 65 in my class and the average ACT score for my class was 35.
“So you’ll hear people talk about like ‘Oh I had ten big blinds’ or fifteen big blinds or whatever to talk about their chip stack but that has the fundamental problem of...um...it...it has a lot of different problems. One is it doesn’t, um, it doesn’t tell the story of...so blinds - so the usual blind levels are one/two or two/four where the big blind is just twice the small blind...so that’s just like the assumption. But if you’re at a blind level that’s at, like, one/three and then like..or three/five the number of big blinds you have is not indicative of...of...anything. It’s not indicative of, like, how many hands you can see or how much you care about winning a pot pre flop. So using big blinds is bad. In addition to, once you start having like..if you’re fifty/a hundred blinds and you have an ante of, like twenty-five, like you, like, have basically half the stack that you had before in realistic terms.” They're the actual words that come out of his actual mouth at around 25:40 onward.
A lot of poker pros have Ivy league education. They make money doing what they studied for and once they have the bankroll they go on to play poker full-time.
If you're smart enough to get into MIT, chances are you're smart enough to make a living playing online poker. Or, at the very least they wouldn't go broke.
People saying this guy is not a teacher I disagree. This is exactly what I want from a teacher: experience. Theorical stuff I can read a book. i need real life experience
It's applying the process to something that people can interact with to understand analytical data. On the other hand, if you get good at poker through the course... who's to say that you can play your way through an expensive college. It's just like chess, but each move will cost you a lot sooner than later. I'd prefer the poker in regards to chess.
I don't think that's true. You can have a garbage strategy or no strategy and still be up after multiple sessions in poker. They're similar in that they've both been virtually "solved" with computers in comparison to humans. They're also similar in that generally the farther the hand/game progresses the value of decisions increase exponentially, that seems to be the opposite "cost you a lot sooner than later", but maybe that's a misinterpretation of what you meant.
@@internetanalytics618 good chess players can clean you out from nowhere with deception as well. In both games, its all about who makes the best move. Unfortunately in poker luck is more of a factor for each decision. Chess is not, it is purely logical.
The Harrington books had players basically flipping their cards up during the Moneymaker era. People would start stupid arguments with me after I had the stronger hand when the money went in (which is like, the goal of the game), with "Have you even read Harrington"? Whether I read Harrington or not, your squeeze was garbage, because nobody folded. And you were so predictable that I called with pocket 6s because you guys always squeeze with tiny pairs. But what I would actually say was "what's that?" following Mike Caro's advice that you never give lessons at the poker table.
@@royalflush8173 eh, don't ask. When I read them they were unbelievably trendy, and you had players springing leaks because they all followed the plays Harrington recommended with the same combination of cards. But at any rate, the classic Harrington books are on tournaments, which are high variance and not my thing.
Just now seeing this and being casual poker player... and 24yrs military, gotta love the irony in the LAG acronym--meaning complete opposite of the lag term most people are used to hearing tossed around, aka slow af.
Too bad nobody commented in 2 years.. You saw Anal in a random poker video that's really funny you have a social media? Maybe we could play some poker?
The Aces are only 85% favourite to win, 15 times in 100 they will get cracked, there are no certainties based on the first two cards. If you play 100,000 hands and check the stats in Poker Tracker you will find the probabilities hold up, instead of just playing for a week and getting sucked out on so much that you believe its all rigged.
Eric Carrillo POW is only about calling on the river when you are beat but a calling stations will call at unfavorable odds at any point when they should either be raising or folding.
i thought it would be technical course coz you know, MIT but he going over the social & strategy aspect more. I was waiting for ranges, EV, equity, positioning etc but comments tell me he's a player so his teaching does feel that way.
office hours scenario: student: i missed what to do if we get pocket jacks against king 10 off suit. teacher: (puts 25 dollars on the table). let’s do a $25 buy in and we will play it out both ways.
i keep expecting the camera to turn around and show that he is talkin to a group of ten year olds. this video make me feel like such a better poker player than I felt like I was before.
I love that MIT did a course like this, and that the insructor is obviously a quintessential poker nerd, but if I had to listen to a guy use the word "like" as often, and as incorrectly as this at a top-tier university, I'd be pretty disappointed. I assume also that most of the people who sign up for this course are already into poker and know the basics and a lot of the terminology. Anyone without some poker knowledge would be lost after 20 minutes.
Poker in the US still is in a grey area. You might want to talk to a lawyer before you give legal definitions. The only places Poker for real money is illegal in the US are the states that have passed specific laws that bar it, either entirely, or only blocking those that don't hold a local licence. Other sites operate in a grey market that is unregulated, but not illegal under US law. The Black Friday indictments were mainly for money laundering and related charges, and not for offering an illegal game (these charges have never gone to court, and no site has ever been charged with offering an illegal service inside the US). Just a PSA to advise of the legal status of poker in the US. Looking forward to the rest of the series. It's great to see a seat of learning as prestigious as MIT getting involved in poker theory.
Here is the playlist for the course: th-cam.com/play/PLUl4u3cNGP61kfOW3zAIfpNhf0piao8oo.html. For more info and materials, visit the course on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!
Sounds like this guy is trying to teach the class about what he's just been learning about Poker as a means to further develop his Poker ability. Spouts a lot of unsure, confusing nonsense but his heart's in the right place.
For those who might not know, this instructor is telling you things that have many errors. i.e. a passive player is not a rock. Rocks are very selective with their hands, but generally play the hands they get strongly.
I thought Rocks were considered Tight-Passive. What you're describing sounds more like Tight-Aggressive ( TAG ) which I haven't heard people use interchangeably with Rock. Surely, that doesn't mean you're wrong, though.
@@Beatyofeet32 A rock is just tight. It's also a word that comes from non-academic slang "that guy was the rock of gibralter." but isn"t that useful in a theoretical framework, because it doesn't tell you how hard he pushes, or doesn"t push, his hands.
Loving the depth of this content? There exists a book with an analogous focus I'd recommend. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
You should check out the lecture notes, they might be of help: ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-s50-poker-theory-and-analytics-january-iap-2015/pages/lecture-notes/ Best wishes on your studies!
Also big blind/small blind are just the ante's at the start of a game (big blind is x amount of chips, small blind is half that. only two people are assigned the small blind and big blind and it rotates around the board so that they cant just sit out and wait for a good hand the entire game)
Playmoney is good for learning the game and how it works and why sound theory is practical, but it won't help you advance in real money games the higher you go in stakes and the better he players become...
Harrington M & Q value is important - his 3 books on tournament play is the bible, plus Theory of Poker, then you have to go to GTO books...it's a journey not a rush
I truly wonder if he still holds to the same view he taught 10 years ago because it’s completely different and you cannot play the way he’s teaching in this. Don’t get me wrong for the most part. Some of the things are just normally natural to do but I’m talking about playingthe tight game. I would say if he still playing poker then he would know this type of playing doesn’t get you anywhere
i watched a video about caisno games and stats. and then i thought wow if i got taught probability in highschool in the context of casino games, i would have loved it lol. well turns out someone already did that in mit
I think I know less now than before I watched the video. He spent over 4 mins talking about types of players (which should take 10 seconds) and then 1 minute on M-ratio. Don't know if I should watch anymore of these! Nothing personal, I am sure he'll get better as he gets more used to teaching the course. Goodluck!
He is 11 minutes in and has used the term "preflop analysis" at least 20 times and I have not a clue what the hell he is talking about. He has said nothing at all about how to play poker, and certainly nothing about how to play on-line. He may be very bright, but as a teacher he just seems to waste time. 12 minutes in and he is talking about "minor adjustments" but for all that he has babbled he might be talking about how you sit in your chair. Then he mentions "half big blind" as if we were all refugees from gamblers anonymous. "Meta-game" he assures us, "is always fun." At 15 minutes he introduces the term "ROI" which he again fails to define. It seems apparent that what you are not going to learn from him, is how to play poker.
hisxmark you can see that alot is clipped away from this video. I have played some poker recently, and I know what ROI, preflop etc means. Still didn't find this video very helpfull, but I hope the next ones will, since this was some sort of an introduction. I'm sure you'll find it helpfull if you google these expressios so you can understand what they mean. If you are looking to learn the basic rules of poker, you'll have to look somewhere else.
MrSupernova111 I didn't even watch all of this one, because I would have needed to know what he was saying before I could make sense of the jargon, which he did not in this "introduction", define. In every introductory science course that I have taken, the first time a technical term was used it was defined. This is not an introductory course. This is a course for experienced losers who are tired of losing, and rather than give up gambling, think they can learn to win. I doubt not that it is also an example of the adage: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
hisxmark You have a very limited view, especially since you haven't seen the other videos. Tell me, what did you get your bachelor's degree in? Was there any math involved? Until you see the other videos you have little room to be critiquing.
MrSupernova111 What I was pointing out, sir, was that this is not an introductory course. It starts "in media res" assuming extensive pre-requisites, and knowledge of poker jargon. And while I am familiar with probabilities, and game theory, he has not introduced these topics or illustrated them in this "introduction".
If you're not interested in role playing as a college student, you can skip to 17:00.
Thanks
lol nice
But.. But I am a college student lol.
Thanks for saving me time
Thank you
It's so funny how all these negative comments 6 years ago have proven to be wrong. This guy's teaching was ahead of his time. Gto poker is all about the math . The math guys crush today's tournaments
Its not all about math, like everything else in poker it depends, you have to open up and narrow your range to adjust to your opponents, often times your gonna have toss the nash equilibrium chart out the door and play pretty unbalanced.
@@brucelee5576 you are correct on that point. But in the long run if you make bets best on positive expectation you win negative expectation you lose. That's all math. That's how casinos operate and profit based on math.
Royal, theres a difference between what you teach and how you teach, you are right ,WHAT he teaches is excellent, but he,s a horrendous teacher as far as HOW he teaches, he doesn't make clear points at the same time that he,s ambiguous. Just awful !
For example, when he was talking about Harrington,s. M ratio, totally confusing and useless. Go back and try to make sense of that explanation , good luck!
@@royalflush8173
True, but the casino analogy not best , facing the casino always neg. EV.
This is quite possibly the best class I’ve ever watched on opencourse 😂
Nothing like going to a 45 grand a year best in the world engineering school to learn to play cards.
murmaider2 Nothing like a free course online from a 45-grand-a-year school about learning to play cards
Audiack fk yea
murmaider2 Sucka! lol
herpherpbrocolli Yep, definitely wouldn't bother - It'd certainly be a waste, in your case.
herpherpbrocolli Am I right in thinking that the only State Variable you'll need to track in your future will be, "Which way up is the pattie?" ? :-/
this seems like such a dope class to take
The main takeaways that I got are:
1. Poker is often a waiting game,
2. Online poker is totally different from live (probably the same for the types of poker),
3. We should play based on how many chips we have compared to our opponents (betting more loosely more when losing),
4. There are poker personalities tight/loose + aggressive/passive, and
5. Some people play tight or loose ranges based on how many rounds they can survive when folding right away (M number; betting more loosely when losing).
I find the terms passive and tight to be, at first, hard to differentiate. Doesn't it kind of sound like a passive player doesn't raise much? I'm pretty sure passive players just choose what their bet is based on their own situation which can lead to some big calls, whereas tight means they only bet if they have a really good hand (like maybe tight players hate the humiliation of times when making big raises against someone and then lose because it's less humiliating to just fold earlier). The M number calculation is a passive strategy and playing ranges based off of how many chips an opponent has is aggressive even though, if you're winning, you might play tight (and fold early).
Well passive is related to the tendencies of that players **actions** while tight is related to the **range** of the player. A play can be "loose passive", "tight passive", "loose aggressive" (LAG), or "tight aggressive" (TAG). For instance, a passive player preflop will mostly limp in with hands rather than raising hands. If they limp in with a wide range of hands, we're going to label them as loose passive. If they limp in with a small range of hands, we're going to label them as tight passive. A TAG player will raise a narrow range of hands preflop and take other aggressive actions such as 3betting+. A LAG player will take the same actions, but with a wider range of hands.
When it comes to postflop, the TAG is essentially following some heuristic of value betting their good hands and giving up with their weaker hands. Again, "tight" is a way to describe their range and "aggressive" is a way to define the actions they take. So, when their range is strong, they bet. It's a simple heuristic that works well against certain types of opponents and simplifies the strategy of the game.
I’m actually experiencing FOMO watching this! I wouldn’t make the student debt for it though, but really appreciated the voice in my head saying “TH-cam poker class”
Bro it’s a 3hr credit class. Debts being accumulated through the other 117 hrs
He seems like a better player than teacher. He's all over the place.
yea for the first 10-20 minutes I was like how is this guy a MIT teacher there is no structure to this course but them realized he's a poker player not a teacher.
@@kyle6521 come on, you guys are being so hard on him. It's literally the orientation, he looks exactly like every other professor I have on the start of class and I'm going for my master's in physics and have a math degree he looks exactly like a professor in math (I assume this is type of a math course?)
every time there is a teacher on youtube people analyze every word they say but students are not stupid. Most of the work is done OUTSIDE of class. I feel like the people who write these comments are into school themselves because it is totally standard.
Finally an MIT class I could pass
even MIT has to teach the same material. It's the same curriculum as their equivalent class in another school
@@Richard-ot5ss That isn’t true. I go to Purdue and I saw the MIT homework and it is absolutely crazy. Their discrete math on week 5 is already past our entire semester’s worth of content. Their classes are much harder than their equivalent at another school. I also don’t thing Purdue’s discrete math for CS is a easy class. The class average was 65 in my class and the average ACT score for my class was 35.
@@jasonli4961 purdue like the chickens?
at least you got the point he is trying to make
@@jasonli4961no wonder 70% acceptance rate school is easier than a 4% one. Duh
"Honestly, like, this league is going to be really cool."
Thanks MIT!
Bwahahahha
It’s like a quote from idiocracy
@@allstarmark12345why what happens whe
“So you’ll hear people talk about like ‘Oh I had ten big blinds’ or fifteen big blinds or whatever to talk about their chip stack but that has the fundamental problem of...um...it...it has a lot of different problems. One is it doesn’t, um, it doesn’t tell the story of...so blinds - so the usual blind levels are one/two or two/four where the big blind is just twice the small blind...so that’s just like the assumption. But if you’re at a blind level that’s at, like, one/three and then like..or three/five the number of big blinds you have is not indicative of...of...anything. It’s not indicative of, like, how many hands you can see or how much you care about winning a pot pre flop. So using big blinds is bad. In addition to, once you start having like..if you’re fifty/a hundred blinds and you have an ante of, like twenty-five, like you, like, have basically half the stack that you had before in realistic terms.”
They're the actual words that come out of his actual mouth at around 25:40 onward.
Steven Rowland lol 😂
And what’s an ante? He never explained looool
Yeah, I specifically noticed this word-salad run too. 😂
Plot twist: half the class dropped out of MIT to play poker online and went broke.
anon ymous I doubt that very much. More like they dropped out of school and became rich poker pros.
A lot of poker pros have Ivy league education. They make money doing what they studied for and once they have the bankroll they go on to play poker full-time.
delusion is correct.
YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT POKER. What u said is absolutely NOT TRUE.
If you're smart enough to get into MIT, chances are you're smart enough to make a living playing online poker. Or, at the very least they wouldn't go broke.
"effective M is... is your M divided by aaaahm...you multiply by how short stack your table or how short handed your table is "
16:06 is where the poker stuff starts
My gosh. I only saw this after lol
Big Dog!
Thank you!
As a Poker Player, it's hilarious to see this as a college course. 22:45 is key.
The way to play against tight aggressive is by not letting them flop until they give in
I remember this class..
It's where it all darn started
excellent work... almost makes me wish i was a beginner again.
If you think this was excellent poker education, you are a beginner.
@@internetanalytics618 everyone back away take cover we have the ultimate bad ass here
People saying this guy is not a teacher I disagree. This is exactly what I want from a teacher: experience. Theorical stuff I can read a book. i need real life experience
This course is an absolute dream
Keep these coming please! Especially the advance stuff!
It's applying the process to something that people can interact with to understand analytical data.
On the other hand, if you get good at poker through the course... who's to say that you can play your way through an expensive college.
It's just like chess, but each move will cost you a lot sooner than later. I'd prefer the poker in regards to chess.
Poker and chess are very dissimilar. Good poker players can clean u out from nowhere with deception. In chess you can see it coming.
I don't think that's true. You can have a garbage strategy or no strategy and still be up after multiple sessions in poker. They're similar in that they've both been virtually "solved" with computers in comparison to humans. They're also similar in that generally the farther the hand/game progresses the value of decisions increase exponentially, that seems to be the opposite "cost you a lot sooner than later", but maybe that's a misinterpretation of what you meant.
Stupid comparison...
@@jaironunez7196 When you make an empty and unsubstantiated claim, it's only your comment...
@@internetanalytics618 good chess players can clean you out from nowhere with deception as well. In both games, its all about who makes the best move. Unfortunately in poker luck is more of a factor for each decision. Chess is not, it is purely logical.
no more other classes. this; all day every day
Need an advanced strategy class for sports betting (each sport should have their own class strategy taught) also
The Dan Harrington books is all I needed to learn this game.
hey is just mentioned in Harrington in a previous comment. Harrington is LEGIT
Dan Harrington's books are outdated now for example nobody uses M now
The Harrington books had players basically flipping their cards up during the Moneymaker era.
People would start stupid arguments with me after I had the stronger hand when the money went in (which is like, the goal of the game), with "Have you even read Harrington"? Whether I read Harrington or not, your squeeze was garbage, because nobody folded. And you were so predictable that I called with pocket 6s because you guys always squeeze with tiny pairs.
But what I would actually say was "what's that?" following Mike Caro's advice that you never give lessons at the poker table.
@@jessejordache1869 what are you trying to say? I missed your point.
@@royalflush8173 eh, don't ask. When I read them they were unbelievably trendy, and you had players springing leaks because they all followed the plays Harrington recommended with the same combination of cards.
But at any rate, the classic Harrington books are on tournaments, which are high variance and not my thing.
16:01 begins actually discussing poker
Is bluff allowed during the exam : could we use cheat sheet
I love the fact this class is online, but a lecturer @ MIT should not keep saying "like" every minute.
it's harder to get in than stay in
He was nicknamed Action Dan by Mayfair (an NYC poker club) because of his genral tightness.
i have been playing cards since i was a little kid (specifically omaha)- i wish i had this class at my college
The action Dan call out 8 years ago is wild as he continues to dominate the live stream poker field over the last few months
Different guy lmao
Just now seeing this and being casual poker player... and 24yrs military, gotta love the irony in the LAG acronym--meaning complete opposite of the lag term most people are used to hearing tossed around, aka slow af.
Should this course be named "Poker Theory"? The content so far is more "Applied Poker"? Was expecting [0 1] and stuff
mjs28s I guess you are right. Bill Chen and Hoss_TBF's lectures at least should cover some theory. But this lecture was only applied poker.
This course should be called "The Ramblings of a Mad Man".
This dude looks like he read a book about poker and got REALLY into it, but wasn’t really prepared to teach a class.
Unless at some point he says during the lecture "I am not mad" then it doesn't fulfill the MIT rubric for Madman Studies.
6:11 pause and read blackboard
Too bad nobody commented in 2 years.. You saw Anal in a random poker video that's really funny you have a social media? Maybe we could play some poker?
😂
in online doesn't matter, you can call an all in preflop with 72 off suited to a pocket aces and you will win, test it
Yes who tests the RNGs for actual 52 card deck simulation? Beats Me.
The Aces are only 85% favourite to win, 15 times in 100 they will get cracked, there are no certainties based on the first two cards. If you play 100,000 hands and check the stats in Poker Tracker you will find the probabilities hold up, instead of just playing for a week and getting sucked out on so much that you believe its all rigged.
Calling "machine"? What? I've never heard that terminology. It's a Calling station.
lul
Same difference
9uvwxyz same thing, ace.
9uvwxyz It's P. O. W. Pay off wizard.
Eric Carrillo POW is only about calling on the river when you are beat but a calling stations will call at unfavorable odds at any point when they should either be raising or folding.
Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍
Experience will always be the best teacher
Still, even the best players have coaches, and spend time going over hands and situations.
@@ManoceanLive Experience will also teach you how to read players.
i thought it would be technical course coz you know, MIT but he going over the social & strategy aspect more. I was waiting for ranges, EV, equity, positioning etc but comments tell me he's a player so his teaching does feel that way.
absolute HYPE, thank you MIT.
With all the amazing content out there - having something this elementary with someone so underqualified is remarkable for MIT.
office hours scenario:
student: i missed what to do if we get pocket jacks against king 10 off suit.
teacher: (puts 25 dollars on the table). let’s do a $25 buy in and we will play it out both ways.
Thank you algorithm, nice find.
i keep expecting the camera to turn around and show that he is talkin to a group of ten year olds. this video make me feel like such a better poker player than I felt like I was before.
Some terms and agreements 🧐
Professor tell your students about the rake that gets taken out of the pools
That’s why the players fade away and are always looking for backers
He definitely saw this comment.
What do you do if your opponent is loose aggressive
I love that MIT did a course like this, and that the insructor is obviously a quintessential poker nerd, but if I had to listen to a guy use the word "like" as often, and as incorrectly as this at a top-tier university, I'd be pretty disappointed. I assume also that most of the people who sign up for this course are already into poker and know the basics and a lot of the terminology. Anyone without some poker knowledge would be lost after 20 minutes.
Poker in the US still is in a grey area. You might want to talk to a lawyer before you give legal definitions. The only places Poker for real money is illegal in the US are the states that have passed specific laws that bar it, either entirely, or only blocking those that don't hold a local licence.
Other sites operate in a grey market that is unregulated, but not illegal under US law. The Black Friday indictments were mainly for money laundering and related charges, and not for offering an illegal game (these charges have never gone to court, and no site has ever been charged with offering an illegal service inside the US).
Just a PSA to advise of the legal status of poker in the US. Looking forward to the rest of the series. It's great to see a seat of learning as prestigious as MIT getting involved in poker theory.
He basically said “online poker is black and white, it’s not allowed”. But go on
@@CampCucumber replying to a comment I made 6 years ago? Luckily for me the legality of poler in the US hasn't changed, and I work in the Industry
@@robking6975 Wow! It was such a bizarre comment that I had to reply.
Is there an advanced course in DonkeyNomics???
GTO poker was a thing back when I started in 08.
Which lecture is “all in”
Skip to 17:00
Is Ben Campbell in the audience? Yup! as well is Fisher,Choi, Kianna and Jill Taylor in the class😅
Where are the rest of the clip
Here is the playlist for the course: th-cam.com/play/PLUl4u3cNGP61kfOW3zAIfpNhf0piao8oo.html. For more info and materials, visit the course on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!
Math is wrong at 18:43 you have 75 blinds, 1500/20 = 75
Sounds like this guy is trying to teach the class about what he's just been learning about Poker as a means to further develop his Poker ability. Spouts a lot of unsure, confusing nonsense but his heart's in the right place.
? It is better to be unsure.
GL in 2016 and never give up!
It’s funny how he wipes off the zeroes just to write over the first numbers and write the zeroes again
16:30, non class specific video start
anyone sharing the invite code?
For those who might not know, this instructor is telling you things that have many errors. i.e. a passive player is not a rock. Rocks are very selective with their hands, but generally play the hands they get strongly.
I thought Rocks were considered Tight-Passive. What you're describing sounds more like Tight-Aggressive ( TAG ) which I haven't heard people use interchangeably with Rock. Surely, that doesn't mean you're wrong, though.
@@Beatyofeet32 A rock is just tight. It's also a word that comes from non-academic slang "that guy was the rock of gibralter." but isn"t that useful in a theoretical framework, because it doesn't tell you how hard he pushes, or doesn"t push, his hands.
does he say Kevin Dossman??? is he related to dossman from Hacksaw Ridge???
Wasn’t there a movie with this same narrative lol
21? 🎬 with Kevin Spacey
Ola, entrando agora no time
Play money is the biggest waste of time to improve your poker past learning the basics
I wonder if in thirty years every MIT professor will say "like" four times per sentence.
And ta instead of 'to' and 'gonna' instead of going. (Yah gonna like ta (May be a sentence)).
It's a PA. That's why 😭
This guy is pretty clearly a low limit player.
Leggo My Ego could you pls elaborate?
nano-stakes confirmed
You should stay at nano stakes donkey. It will save you a TON of money and the live players will CLEAN YOU OUT.
Poker legend Ryan Skappel sent me here!!
If the mind remains unmoved by
circumstances, it will be detached from
the notion of form.
do students have computers to take notes
Loving the depth of this content? There exists a book with an analogous focus I'd recommend. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell
Would be nice to have the terms defined before the course begins. small blind, big blind no clue.
You should check out the lecture notes, they might be of help: ocw.mit.edu/courses/15-s50-poker-theory-and-analytics-january-iap-2015/pages/lecture-notes/
Best wishes on your studies!
@ thank you - I read through the intro notes / nothing on terms definition.
Why are you watching an MIT video on poker theory if you don't even know how to play poker? lol
Also big blind/small blind are just the ante's at the start of a game (big blind is x amount of chips, small blind is half that. only two people are assigned the small blind and big blind and it rotates around the board so that they cant just sit out and wait for a good hand the entire game)
@@peestrem31 uh too learn
was this course before pokerstars NJ opened? cause its legal in Jersey
Playmoney is good for learning the game and how it works and why sound theory is practical, but it won't help you advance in real money games the higher you go in stakes and the better he players become...
Which basically just means that you are going to lose all the time and all of your real money. Why, exactly, would you do that to yourself?
What’s the code???
Harrington M & Q value is important - his 3 books on tournament play is the bible, plus Theory of Poker, then you have to go to GTO books...it's a journey not a rush
I truly wonder if he still holds to the same view he taught 10 years ago because it’s completely different and you cannot play the way he’s teaching in this. Don’t get me wrong for the most part. Some of the things are just normally natural to do but I’m talking about playingthe tight game. I would say if he still playing poker then he would know this type of playing doesn’t get you anywhere
Perhaps TAG is more so for getting people comfortable with learning how to play before they really get good at reading people and bluffing people.
should have in the title, this is not related to the GREAT GAME OF PLO
where can I find the actual screen?
oh my god, is this really MIT? 22.00 he said tight passive player is what is called "weak player". NO, weak play is lose passive player.
Why is it illegal to gamble online. That seems like a silly law
Silly until you realize laws are only passed at the behest of big business. Once online sports books bribe enough politicians, it'll happen.
Now you can play online
i watched a video about caisno games and stats. and then i thought wow if i got taught probability in highschool in the context of casino games, i would have loved it lol. well turns out someone already did that in mit
Anyone have issues with Universal Hand Replayer?
is threre some write material about this class?
Check out the full course site on OCW for the materials (includes lecture slides and psets + solutions): ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15.
there called "calling stations" not calling machines
*They're*
Yo where are them slides
The course materials are available on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!
I think I know less now than before I watched the video. He spent over 4 mins talking about types of players (which should take 10 seconds) and then 1 minute on M-ratio. Don't know if I should watch anymore of these!
Nothing personal, I am sure he'll get better as he gets more used to teaching the course. Goodluck!
The way he explains things makes it harder to understand tbh
ayo i would’ve never in my *LIFE* expect MIT to have poker classes wtf haha
Thanks
Information starts at 3:50
Eyebrows are out of control
what major is this class a part of?
is this math, psychology, game theory, stats? (i dont want to watch the full class.)
Did anyone else try and read the old chalk writing to get something useful?
Kgb - " Give that man his likes ."
QQ??? He says FOLD PREFLOP LOL. (He never discussed starting hands)
Fuck me... this is going to school at MIT... should have worked harder in high school... at least there's always a Master's program to do
He is 11 minutes in and has used the term "preflop analysis" at least 20 times and I have not a clue what the hell he is talking about. He has said nothing at all about how to play poker, and certainly nothing about how to play on-line. He may be very bright, but as a teacher he just seems to waste time.
12 minutes in and he is talking about "minor adjustments" but for all that he has babbled he might be talking about how you sit in your chair. Then he mentions "half big blind" as if we were all refugees from gamblers anonymous. "Meta-game" he assures us, "is always fun." At 15 minutes he introduces the term "ROI" which he again fails to define. It seems apparent that what you are not going to learn from him, is how to play poker.
hisxmark you can see that alot is clipped away from this video. I have played some poker recently, and I know what ROI, preflop etc means. Still didn't find this video very helpfull, but I hope the next ones will, since this was some sort of an introduction. I'm sure you'll find it helpfull if you google these expressios so you can understand what they mean. If you are looking to learn the basic rules of poker, you'll have to look somewhere else.
hisxmark This is part of a 8 video playlist. Have you seen the other 7?
MrSupernova111 I didn't even watch all of this one, because I would have needed to know what he was saying before I could make sense of the jargon, which he did not in this "introduction", define. In every introductory science course that I have taken, the first time a technical term was used it was defined. This is not an introductory course. This is a course for experienced losers who are tired of losing, and rather than give up gambling, think they can learn to win. I doubt not that it is also an example of the adage: Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach.
hisxmark You have a very limited view, especially since you haven't seen the other videos. Tell me, what did you get your bachelor's degree in? Was there any math involved?
Until you see the other videos you have little room to be critiquing.
MrSupernova111 What I was pointing out, sir, was that this is not an introductory course. It starts "in media res" assuming extensive pre-requisites, and knowledge of poker jargon. And while I am familiar with probabilities, and game theory, he has not introduced these topics or illustrated them in this "introduction".