In the final example, I would have thought putting the live 3 in back, particularly with the dead cards among those already set in back was the move. Can you explain in more detail why putting the 3 in the middle is better? Is it entirely due to the foul risk in the middle? Thanks much.
Good Q: There are a few factors here, and combined together they slightly nudge the locking up the middle route. My calcs below are not super precise but give a good sense of how I arrive to similar results as the SIM by hand or intuition.
Sixes and fours (seems I forgot to mention fours) are both totally live ranks. As I mention early in the vid, a totally live rank is very valuable when trying to hit a pair so that's already a sign we may wanna consider leaving the back open. Probably changes things from avg of 17% up to 20% so not huge but still a factor when talking ~12 point swing. And now we're super close to the odds of hitting the three (21.5%)....
Fouling the middle: So when we hit one of our five outs (45%), how many of these combos include two of the six cards (3 2, 2 A, 1 5) that will cause us to foul? This should 6 choose 2/24 choose 2 (276) x .045 (since it doesn't matter if we hit one of those combos when we don't hit our card, right?). So that's around 2.5%. Once we've done this calc (or heuristically, just notice that it's a possibility), it's enough to nudge us in favor of locking up the middle.
One more thing though:
We can still make a boat. May seem like a very minor factor in this case but does add something like (.025x7) or ~.17 of equity to locking up the middle, so it's an important tiebreaker. These kind of small edges add up.
Great video, probably the best I've watched on Pinapple in terms of instructiveness (if that's a word). The way Jen's approaching the problems by starting at the extremes and then changing variables to get closer to the middle (where the decision isn't as clear) is a super smart way to attack problems.
Thanks a lot, I've been thinking about this a lot lately and trying to incorporate the same thing to my NLHE study practice. Maybe I'll make a similar video on simul draws and FL (arguably even more important topic as I think easier to make an obvious looking move that's a mistake) though I'll have to adjust constantly for OFC Solution deflated value.
Important to play a ton of hands vs. a friend or even AI (though the ABC AI is much better). Nikolai's has some good articles over at Pokernews. I think my liveplay vids are pretty simple. Also the one on tactics I just made. The heavy math theory ones may be more interesting once you've played a bunch. GL!
Loading 7 Comments...
In the final example, I would have thought putting the live 3 in back, particularly with the dead cards among those already set in back was the move. Can you explain in more detail why putting the 3 in the middle is better? Is it entirely due to the foul risk in the middle? Thanks much.
Good Q: There are a few factors here, and combined together they slightly nudge the locking up the middle route. My calcs below are not super precise but give a good sense of how I arrive to similar results as the SIM by hand or intuition.
Sixes and fours (seems I forgot to mention fours) are both totally live ranks. As I mention early in the vid, a totally live rank is very valuable when trying to hit a pair so that's already a sign we may wanna consider leaving the back open. Probably changes things from avg of 17% up to 20% so not huge but still a factor when talking ~12 point swing. And now we're super close to the odds of hitting the three (21.5%)....
Fouling the middle: So when we hit one of our five outs (45%), how many of these combos include two of the six cards (3 2, 2 A, 1 5) that will cause us to foul? This should 6 choose 2/24 choose 2 (276) x .045 (since it doesn't matter if we hit one of those combos when we don't hit our card, right?). So that's around 2.5%. Once we've done this calc (or heuristically, just notice that it's a possibility), it's enough to nudge us in favor of locking up the middle.
One more thing though:
Great video, probably the best I've watched on Pinapple in terms of instructiveness (if that's a word). The way Jen's approaching the problems by starting at the extremes and then changing variables to get closer to the middle (where the decision isn't as clear) is a super smart way to attack problems.
Thanks a lot, I've been thinking about this a lot lately and trying to incorporate the same thing to my NLHE study practice. Maybe I'll make a similar video on simul draws and FL (arguably even more important topic as I think easier to make an obvious looking move that's a mistake) though I'll have to adjust constantly for OFC Solution deflated value.
Hey Jen,
best place to learn the basics for this game?
Important to play a ton of hands vs. a friend or even AI (though the ABC AI is much better). Nikolai's has some good articles over at Pokernews. I think my liveplay vids are pretty simple. Also the one on tactics I just made. The heavy math theory ones may be more interesting once you've played a bunch. GL!
Ty Jen!! will check out...
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.