Awesome video Chris, really looking forward to the next one!
Just a quick question which may be silly, but I've noticed a lot of the RIO pro's are using Equilab, and I have recently downloaded it, but what is the difference between Equilab and PokerStove in terms of practical application? Does Equilab do something that PS doesn't?
Oh boy, the problem with me answering this is that I'm not 100% certain what exactly pokerstove does anymore (it's been a longgggggg time).
I believe it's just an equity calculator? (So it does the calculations I performed in the video, and only those?)
If that's the case then equilab does everything pokerstove does (possibly better, not sure if pokerstove can account for blocker effects or what not) but it also does some other things.
I can't really describe them all in here but just as an example you can get equilab to answer the question, "What range has x% vs this range" That can be a really useful shortcut to answer "what do I stack off here".
My advice is to just get equilab and fiddle around with it (it's free). It ends up being a relatively useful program when trying to do some of the relatively simple things required to play good poker.
Nice video! I like the class room style and simplification of the math. If you are looking for suggestions, maybe some follow up home work assignments to reinforce the concepts, which would seem to be consistent with your class room style of teaching.
As this is a bit late, not sure if Chris will see it, but maybe someone else can help me. In the last example, when we only get it in vs BB, don't we have to account for the chips we still have regardless of outcome because we cover him?
Hi Chirs,
150/300 ante 75
I have a few questions on an ev calc I ran on the above 55 spot. CO - 7685, BU - 7422, SB - 6747, BB- 8842. To make the ev calc easier and to avoid side pots i set all stacks the same. I totalled the ev of me open jamming my 26BB stack and it was 8842, therefore plus ev. However, this seems rather high (mistake by me ???). Secondly, I was wondering just how inaccurate / potentially pointless it is to calculate ev in this spot by making all stacks the same. How far off the actual proper ev calc will my lazy method be ?
Really loving your series, I had a question or 2? hahha, First off, I use HRC and ICMizer, those help with shoving and calling ranges with specific hands, are they a more updated version than your initial mapped out
equations? Also, in your first example with A6o, doesn't Villain just need 46% equity to make the call vs your range?
Loading 13 Comments...
Nice video Chris, looking forward to the next one!
Awesome video Chris, really looking forward to the next one!
Just a quick question which may be silly, but I've noticed a lot of the RIO pro's are using Equilab, and I have recently downloaded it, but what is the difference between Equilab and PokerStove in terms of practical application? Does Equilab do something that PS doesn't?
Thanks,
Oh boy, the problem with me answering this is that I'm not 100% certain what exactly pokerstove does anymore (it's been a longgggggg time).
I believe it's just an equity calculator? (So it does the calculations I performed in the video, and only those?)
If that's the case then equilab does everything pokerstove does (possibly better, not sure if pokerstove can account for blocker effects or what not) but it also does some other things.
I can't really describe them all in here but just as an example you can get equilab to answer the question, "What range has x% vs this range" That can be a really useful shortcut to answer "what do I stack off here".
My advice is to just get equilab and fiddle around with it (it's free). It ends up being a relatively useful program when trying to do some of the relatively simple things required to play good poker.
Nice video! I like the class room style and simplification of the math. If you are looking for suggestions, maybe some follow up home work assignments to reinforce the concepts, which would seem to be consistent with your class room style of teaching.
Great video Chris!
I look forward to using this when reviewing my tournaments to improve my game.
I also agree that maybe a question to take home would be nice. Just to confirm theory sticks.
Thank you for the help on improving!
21:20 gonna assume pokerstars is more corrupt day by day, nice one bro
As this is a bit late, not sure if Chris will see it, but maybe someone else can help me. In the last example, when we only get it in vs BB, don't we have to account for the chips we still have regardless of outcome because we cover him?
I think I was account for change in stack. If we have 250 chips and you have 200 chips.
And we have x % of the pot for equity.
Then our final stack is = (250-200)+ (200+200)x
If you just want to calculate change in stack. Then change in stack is just= (200+200)x-200
You can perform the calculation either way, you just have to remember the reference point you chose
Hi Chirs,
150/300 ante 75
I have a few questions on an ev calc I ran on the above 55 spot. CO - 7685, BU - 7422, SB - 6747, BB- 8842. To make the ev calc easier and to avoid side pots i set all stacks the same. I totalled the ev of me open jamming my 26BB stack and it was 8842, therefore plus ev. However, this seems rather high (mistake by me ???). Secondly, I was wondering just how inaccurate / potentially pointless it is to calculate ev in this spot by making all stacks the same. How far off the actual proper ev calc will my lazy method be ?
Thanks
I meant 8238 was final total not 8842
Really loving your series, I had a question or 2? hahha, First off, I use HRC and ICMizer, those help with shoving and calling ranges with specific hands, are they a more updated version than your initial mapped out
equations? Also, in your first example with A6o, doesn't Villain just need 46% equity to make the call vs your range?
I can tell this is going to be a good video when he is already explaining a probability distribution better than any of my past stats teachers have.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.