Preflop Analysis
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- MIT 15.S50 Poker Theory and Analysis, IAP 2015
View the complete course: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15
Instructor: Kevin Desmond
This lecture focuses on how to play the pre-flop as close to optimally as possible by analyzing several scenarios.
License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA
More information at ocw.mit.edu/terms
More courses at ocw.mit.edu
![ตั๋วเมีย (ຕົວະເມຍ) - SOMBATH.97 Ft. YOUD SALAVAN [ Official music video ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/GV6qHagpp50/mqdefault.jpg)
For tomorrows class I'm going to show you how to misplay the J 7 offsuit.
i got full house thx ❤️❤️
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/
Yes, correct. I have the lecture notes open simultaneously, which helps my understanding immensely.
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
At 6:34 some people talking are pissing him off. I've seen that look.
Tom Bailey "Do you have a question?"
slides ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-s50-poker-theory-and-analytics-january-iap-2015/lecture-notes/MIT15_S50IAP15_L4_PreFlop.pdf
Great lecture
"im saying, like, even, like, err, no matter what his, like, the villain does, always always push all in with 9, 6 off suit"
200 IQ play right there. 2% of the time, it works, every time.
Thanks for posting
amazing lecture
what is more important, having la large edge in win % or having big edge as far as implied odds?
having a large edge in terms of double check-raising
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.
What theory is generalization of this to 6-ring cash game? Is the only solution is running solver on supercomputers?
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 TH-cam.
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.
can anyone exlplain how to find fold %? it seems to me like it just something poker tracker is tracking..
5:41 can you tell me how he figured out that villain will cal 27% of the time??
Super interesting
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.
Kloonike it's the absolute showdown equity over all hands (including those which villain folds)
Equity of 96o vs. 25% range: 31.65%
Equity of 96o vs. 50% range: 35.02%
SD Equity vs 25% range: 25% * 31.65% * Money = 7.91 % * money
SD Equity vs 50% range: 25% * 35.02% * Money = 17.51 % * money
Hopefully there will be a doctor thesis about "how to play JJ right" in the future.
this dude smart.
I'm sorry but i don't know english very well, and i didn't understand the variable M, what does it mean? Thanks, and sorry about the poor english
its your stack divided by SB + BB + antes
M is introduced in his first lecture, you may wish to revisit that lecture.
Do they provide Voss water to faculty and staff, or did he buy the Voss water?
Incredible observation and question
@@alptorungil9273 We need to know. 4 years later and still no answer
It's just tap water. He refills the Voss bottle
@@ollyoceango he has to buy he's only paid 4k for the class
Wow, no wonder I suck at poker.
please fire the cameraman
ill just call your 97o shove and take your stack thanks
He starts talking about "M" about half way through but I can't figure out where it is defined. What is M?
Nee Dmoreprivacy Chip Blinds
Look between L and N, you'll find it.
M is the amount of times you can pay all availible before going broke. divide the blinds and antes to your stack and that is you rM
it was in the first lecture, it's your stack as a percentage to SB + BB + antes
@@333Columbia this answer is correct
Good grief!! I thought poker was suppose to be fun :P
+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.
the camera completly sucks......how can u see this ?!!
You can download the slide deck and other materials on the course site: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15.
Wow. Do the real good players more effectively estimate ranges basically and do the math based on those ranges.
yes
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.
hey, theory and science is not fun. What did you expect? he explains stuff, not performing and entertaining show
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.
@@HC-jd4rc hahahah
"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.
You would be a very predictable regular
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.
@@jorge.rubiales good point, + this is only theory and we haven't covered a topic of balance
Watching people who don’t play poker try to break this down into only math is laughable. But I’m going to stay because I MAY learn something
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.
@@c.l.368Poker isn’t solvable, because your choices depend on whether or not your opponent is bluffing. This isn’t chess
@@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
@@YT7mc let me ask you this, is rock paper scissor solvable?
@@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 would love to play some of the people from this class. You can use all the math you want. i will play the player/cards.
Krhymez 86 and lose badly
notice the lecturer, hes so predictable he even speaks in a monotone...lol
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.
This is how daniel negreanu plays now... i would definitely trust him over you
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...
Yah no doubt, who needs things like pot odds, completely useless really.
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.
Smh... sarcasm man... sarcasm.
players can always bet more to make maths nerds fold because its not in the favour (mathmatically) to call:)
This guy is so dry I would fall asleep at the poker table.
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.
hey this is theory and science, it's always like that, what do you expect? a stand up comedy? or an entertaining show?
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
dude, you talk way too much. so what are your conclusions? is there a chart to see the conclusions?
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...
Well then your bet sizing is wrong.
worst camera man ever. for f sake, he doesn't even try...
push allin with 96 offsuit....what a fucking joke....this is only good for pokerstars...
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. ...
Daniel doesn't understand poker.