Vidpack 1 assumes you've finished volume 1.

Vidpack 2 (Solving Poker) really just assumes you have a good understanding of chapters 1 and 2 of Volume 1.

As for which you might like better, it's hard to say. They're pretty different. There are hours of free samples, though, so check those out and decide for yourself, imo.

If your goal is to make as many chips as possible, on average, every hand, then the rake in the cashgames is the only difference between a cashgame hand and a SNG hand with the same effective stacks.

Yea, it's absolutely critical to be able to estimate opponents' range and your equity against it at the table. (I mean, this isn't just a property of game theoretic play; any remotely credible poker resource will tell you the same thing.)

So, the quick tip for hand-vs-hand postflop equity calcs is the rule of 4 and 2. Pick which hand is currently behind, count its outs, multiply by 4 on the flop or 2 on the turn, and that's a rough estimate of its equity. The other hand, ofc, has a equity of 1 minus that.

To do hand-vs-range calcs, you do hand-vs-hand for every sort of hand in Villain's range and take a weighted average. E.g. if you think Villain has a made hand with 80% equity half the time and a draw with 30% equity half the time, then on average, you have (1/2)(1-0.8)+(1/2)(1-0.3) equity.

It makes sense to me to start learning the correct way to think about the game from day 1.

mm, looking at those graphs now, it doesn't seem like either player's average equity changed much with the advent of the flop. It had a bit of a polarizing effect on the BB's distribution, though, which is good for the BB, so I'd say it was strong for him in that regard.

Well, at least in the second book, I made a point to provide an answer for the questions that actually have a single "right" answer, but a lot of them are somewhat open-ended. If you're unsure about any in particular, perhaps discussing them with other players, here or elsewhere, would be the best way to check.

Hey Will, or anyone that can answer this

What does Symmetric distribution mean?

And where can I go to purchase the video packs?

I see in chapter 7 you ignore card removal effects. Do you look at them in the 2nd volume? if not would you have any recommendations for read/viewing how bet sizing is influenced by removal effects?

Im not sure if I am aloud to directly quote from the book. So I will avoid doing it until I know im aloud to? On pg 307 volume 1. you use the example of a 3bb bet in your game for example 4. then later on it is stated you can improve the EV by 4bbs/100 by switching to a bet of 5.37bb. Im not sure if you are saying the 3bb is sub optimal and 5.37 is actually optimal. or you are saying 5.37 would be optimal, assuming villain doesn't bluff raise. the latter makes a lot more sense to me, but from the way im reading it, it seams the former is true.

I read earlier in the book I cant remember where, and maybe I am stating this wrong, (sorry i am just stumbled across this 2plus2 page today) When compering bluffing the river, with a polar range combined with the nuts and threshold bluffing hands with ShownDownValue=0%, i.e say we bet POT with 30% value and 15%bluffs( assume we are all in or cant get bluff raised for simplicity) Compering the same spot with i.e 30% value and 15% bluffs but now our threshold equity for our bluffs has SDV=10% from what I gathered from the book it was saying I should increase my sizing above POT. Although I wasn't fully processing the math, The opposite would seam more intuitive to me. i.e villain needs to call less to make us indifferent to checking back and bluffing our threshold hands and because we are adding hands with equity into our bluffing range, increasing the sizing would just lower calling frequency even more. Im not meaning to across as disputing what you are saying, just having a hard time getting my head around this. If I am reading it wrong great. If I am getting it wrong, if you could try give me a simple example to illustrate, I would appreciate it, that being said when I am finsihed, I will go back at look over the section in question and have another crack at it.

On the river, mathematically it means EQSB(h) = EQBB(h). Graphically, it means both players' equity distributions are straight lines from (1,0) to (0,1). Poker-wise, it means the players hold the same ranges.

husng.com or dandbpoker.com

Card removal effects are ignored in the games simple enough to solve by hand in chapter 7, but they're included in the spots we solve computationally, and they get lots of discussion in the context of those spots. Vol 2 takes the same approach.

mm I guess it's a matter of length? Couple sentences is fine, multiple paragraphs probably not.

As it says, "If we change the SB's 3 BB bet sizing option to 5.37 BB and re-solve for the equilibrium, the value of the game for the BB increases by about 4 BB per 100 hands." As explained, 5.37 is notable since it's the optimal value for the PvBC-plus-traps spot we saw earlier. Nothing is said about optimality of the sizing in this spot, and of course Villain can bluff raise.


If we're perfectly polar as you say, Villain will never want to bluff raise us.

You made up the sizing of pot previously, but the equilibrium of the spot above was to bet as large as possible, ie all-in (assuming we have sufficient amount of bluffs in range). If I understand the spot you're describing here, we can't bet larger than all-in, but can continue using all-in though.

Generally speaking though, if our bluffing hands have more showdown value, then the EV of checking is higher, so villain will have to fold more to make our EV of bluffing higher as well, if he wishes to make us indifferent. This stuff is discussed in the context of the [0,1] games in ch 7 and some of the examples as well.

I'm having trouble interpretting the graph on p. 239 figure 7.9. Can someone explain the graph to me?

Why did he label the horizontal axis with "1-BB hand" and "1-SB equity"?

Is EQ(hb) BB's equity with hb vs SB's river range or SB's hc range?

The book says hc = 0.7 but the graph shows that hc = .767

Shouldn't the difference between hb and hc be the same on the x axis as the y axis?

Please read pg 240 and also review section 5.3, "Equity distributions on the river".

I read the p.240-243 5 times and I'm still having trouble understanding it.

Can you please explain it in a way that's easier to understand?

Why did he label the horizontal axis with "1-BB hand" and "1-SB equity"?

Is EQ(hb) BB's equity with hb vs SB's river range or SB's hc range?

The book says hc = 0.7 but the graph shows that hc = .767

Shouldn't the difference between hb and hc be the same on the x axis as the y axis?

What can be learned from studying this graph?

I finally figured it out. I'm just not sure of what there is to learn in analyzing the graph besides what fraction of BB's betting range SB's calling cutoff hand beats.

Is there a mistake in the book? It says hc = 0.7 but the graph shows hc = 0.767

Hi, this question is not related with a book, but as Game Theory expert maybe you could take a look.

It's 6max situation BBvsBU and SBvsBU, lets assume we somehow solved BBvsBU game tree and found out that BB 3bets top 10% BU responds with poloraised 4bet range of 4,5% and we found that bottom of BU defend range vs 4bet is to cold call with 99. Now we sloved for SBvsBU and found that SB 3bets top 15% BU responds with 4.5% 4bet range but its's value heavy, JJ+ AK, and 1/4 bluffs, and we found that bottom of SB defend range is to cold call with 77. My question is if it's theoretically possible that defanding 77 can be in equilibrium strategy for SB, but NOT for BB, because if there is a way to defend 77 profitably vs stronger range as SBvsBU, how come it's not vs weaker range as BBvsBU.

I would appreciate if you could only say yes it's possible or not.

And once again thanks for your books, and time you spend here ITT.

In Figure 7.11 1-hv is 8/10 on the horizontal axis and 7.2/10 on the vertical axis. Does this mean that SB’s range is stronger because hv is stronger than 80% of SB’s range and stronger than 72% of BB’s range.

On p. 251 it says "EQsb(hv) = 1.1hv (i.e. the SB's range is moderately strong)"
How is this possible? Doesn't 1 = 100% of his range?

In figure 7.12, does the x-axis represent percent of range and y-axis represent equity?

If anyone is interested in joining my HU study group where the focus of the group is studying Will Tipton's Expert Heads Up No Limit Holdem books, send me a message on Skype to ryfoa6. We can do the exercises in the book together and compare results. We also have discussions of the concepts from the book.

Hi,

Why are you multiplaying it by 4 on flop and by 2 at turn?

Because there are 2 cards to come after the flop, and 1 after the turn.

Lets see we have 5 outs why are we having an eq of 20 on flop and an eq of 10 on turn?

Shouldnt we just multiply it by 2 at flop and 1 at turn?

No because 1 out is roughly 2% chance to hit per street.

Google something like "rule of two four poker" and im sure you will find the relevant info.

thx

Hi, I'm on section 2.2.3, here you talk about hero and villain's best river play on a J63J2 board where hero cr flop, barrel turn, and shoves or cf river. You say villain should call hero's river shove if 48.5bb>150bb EQh, where 48.5b is vill's remaining stack on the river, 150bb total size of the pot if he calls river shove and EQh is the equity of his hand vs hero's shoving range.

Shouldn't it be that vill should call if 48.5bb<150bb EQh instead??