check out the very beginning of chapter 7. They should be there

Hi, am I correct to assume that according to the graph and equations on p. 227 our GTO bet sizing with 2 remaining effective stacks (pot-sized bets) and Villain holding 5% BCs is always all-in?

I finished the book, and just going over some questions and test yourself points again.

On pg. 184, Test Yourself and number 5: "How much equity do they need to have to call, according to your estimate of their range?". I thought pot odds dictate how much equity the weakest hand must have to call?
Could you please elaborate on this? Thank you.

Exercise on p. 248, assuming P=S=B:

hb = 1/2(3EQsb(hc)-1)
hb = 1/2(3x0.7-1)
hb = 0.55

does that mean, that Villain bets 45% of his range, 2/3 for value and 1/3 as bluff?

Sorry for the delay getting back to these threads. I have a 12 hr flight today, so I expect to get caught up as long as my battery holds

If you're interested in the basics of interacting with the mathematica system, I'd recommend just googling for a tutorial. I think that would be much more efficient than trying to figure things out by playing around with it or w/e.

If your goal is to get some idea of reasonable/standard ranges in common HU spots, this book probably isn't the best way to do that. Tbh, that's been done elsewhere many times before. But if you already beat 50NL online, you're probably not looking for a super basic intro? For more on what the book is, perhaps check out the preface, available on the book's website.

Yea, husng.com puts out lots of good content, much of it free -- videos as well as mers' ebook.

Yea, did you skip right to the end of the book or something?

Do you mean 5% traps? Then yes, within the assumptions of that model (we're on the river in a PvBC-plus-traps situation).

A naive pot odds calculation is the correct way to make a call-or-fold decision only when there's no future action. If there are more streets to play and money left behind, then there are other issues to take into account. (Some of these are described with "implied odds", "reverse implied odds", etc.)

At that point in the book, we hadn't really talked much about these multi-street issues (it's really a Volume 2 topic), so the question there is mostly just asking you to think a bit more about the ranges you chose.

Yea, I guess you could say that. This is the BB bet-or-check(fold) game, and the structure we've assumed is that BB bets some fraction of his best hands and c/fs the rest. That is, he doesn't really split his range into well-defined bluffing and value-betting regions.

But yea, you can see on the graph that his 30th percentile hand is precisely the one with 50% equity vs SB's starting distn. (i.e. it loses to the top half of SBs starting range which is all of his calling range). So the bottom 1/3 of BB's range never wins when called, and the top 2/3 sometimes does, but it's a little weird to call all of that 2/3 value bets, since a lot of it would rather just showdown if that were an option.

Just ordered the book on Amazon.de. Can't wait

Yeh, meant traps. Thanks for support even though v2 is already out! It's lying right beside me, can't wait to finish v1 and continue with v2.

Came across this exercise again. Do I just have to read it off the structures on p. 268 or can I make some calculations to achieve decent results?
It's quite obvious that we c/f all hands if Villain decreases his bluffing freq when checked to, but how does this affect our bet-fold range, if at all?
As we stated earlier, if we know Villain's equity for his weakest value bet-fold hand, we can calculate all other variables. Is this helpful for this exercise?

Few days ago I purchased your book, since a CR coach mentioned it... I have a question:

I'm trying to switch to your EV stack sizes method, however I got some problems...
I'm studying setmining right now, and we found in this thread ( http://www.cardrunners.com/cr_forums...ng-calculation ) ,using my example, that we have to take from our opponents 28BBs or more in order to compensate del loss of or call for pure setmining.

Now, I have problems with your method...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...%29+*+94+%3D+0
I think I should get X=128, while as you can see, X isn't not even close to that number, can you explain me what I'm doing wrong?

Looking at the mathematica for the SB bet-or-check game, I wonder how you entered all the points for the equity distribution graphs?! If you'd have to do it manually, it would just consume way too much time to analyze hands with this method imo but I'm sure there must be some sort of trick

The second video pack explains, among other things, how to produce equity distribution graphs using IPython.

I can't imagine what part of Tipton's book you might be referring to. Set mining is a rather untiptonian concept. He teaches thinking about whole ranges.

Well, you can do whatever you want, of course.

I don't think we c/f all hands if Villain decreases his bluffing freq, but if we did that, it would clearly have a significant effect on our b/f range, since if we're c/f all hands, we can't be b/f any?

I believe the calculation you're referring to assumes we're at equilibrium. The point of this exercise is to look at exploitative adjustments, i.e. things we do when we're not at equilibrium. So again, I encourage you to explore, but no, I wouldn't say that that's useful for this exercise.

Well, being able to do EV calculations is very important...

4-Star General, could you please explain the poker situation you're looking at (you have to be logged into CR to use that CR link) and also explain exactly where your equation comes from?

Yea that data was generated programmatically.

Hero opens to 2BB with 44
Villain 3bets to 6BB

Hero want to setmine, and he's calling 4BB

Assuming he's going to fold if he doesn't hit his set

How much BBs he has to make on average in order to compensate the preflop loss?

Below I made some calcs but I'm not sure it them are ok

-4 * 89 times = -359 BBs (loss over 100 trials)
359 / 11 = 32 BBs (amount we have to make on average each time we hit)

Since I'm getting about 32BBs, I think with your method I should get 132, which is our stack after we win the pot when we setmine.
However I tried but I can't figure out how to do it.

So the question is simple, how can you calculate how big should be your stack after setmining in order to compensate the loss when you doesn't hit
(sry for the language barrier, if you didn't understand I will rewrite my thoughts better)

Thanks, ya I agree with Sevendeuceo that setmining's usually not great hu. As compared to other formats, Villain's range is weaker which makes it harder to get paid when we hit but should also let us win more unimproved. But we can treat it like a math problem anyway.

So are we assuming 100 BB stacks? Then, we can find how much we need to end up with when we hit to make it a profitable call by setting EV(call 3-bet) = EV(fold to 3-bet). That'll give us the point where we have a break-even call, and then if calling's any better, we have a clear call, and if it's any worse, we have a clear fold.

So, EV(fold to 3-bet) = 98 BB.
And EV(call 3-bet) = (chance we miss)*(94BB) + (chance we hit)*(how much we end up with when we hit)

Your calculations seem to imply that (chance we hit) is 11%. That's close to the chance of flopping a set, and I'll go with it for consistency. So, plugging in, we have a break-even call when:

98 = (0.89)*94 + (0.11) * X
and so X = 130.4. Our stack needs to be that big at the end of the hand, on average when we flop a set, to make the call profitable (assuming we snap-lose whenever we don't flop a set). Other ways to think about that number are that Villain needs to put 30.4 into the pot over the whole hand, on avg, or to say that he needs to put 24.4 in postflop, since he put 6 in pre

I'm not quite sure where your earlier equation came from, so it's hard to say what was wrong with the reasoning that led to it.

Ty for your time, I've understood now

The previous equation comes from my confusion between the methods, basically instead of setting the EV of folding = 98, I set it = 0

I have an embarrassing question, but it's bothering me immensely...

pg 42 (or right before section 2.2.2 for eBook readers) we are given V's shoving range:

33+,A2s+,K2s+,Q5s+,J8s+,T8s+,A2o+,K4o+,Q8o+,J9o+

According to equilab, this range represents 40.42% of hands

We are given a shoving frequency of .4188 and a folding frequency of .5812

--------------

It seems intuitive to me that shoving frequency should equal the % of hands in V's shoving range, however we are given a .4042 shoving range and .4188 shoving frequency. Can someone explain to me the logic behind this? This just becomes concerning for me because if I were to create example problems for myself to solve, I would have to ensure that the range I assign makes sense with the shoving and folding frequency I assign and vice versa. Ensuring something makes sense is not finite, and that potential margin of error has me thinking that the problems I create and solve for myself might be wasted time. Here is an exaggerated example:

V's shoving range - JJ+, AKs (2.11% of hands)

V's shoving frequency - .853

So clearly, shoving range cannot be less than shoving frequency. Does the same principle apply the other way around?

Also I tried to create and solve a problem myself. If anyone can check the math for me I would appreciate it: