Sorry my mistake.Not worth it anyway imo.

I've linked it before:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/poker...ine&id=2817110

Dead money is "the amount of money in the pot other than the equal amounts bet by active remaining players in that pot." (Wikipedia, I know, I know) Baluga says that capitalization of dead money is "making the opponent fold, whether his hand is better or worse, and collecting the money in the pot."

He gives this example of capitalizing dead money:

Raise in the CO, 4-bet when BTN shows resistance, then shove pre with T9o.

He says "after the button 5-bets, there is a TON of dead money in the pot." Also, the button needs to fold "a relatively small percentage to make the shove correct."

OK .. cool, thanks for that example Jabber, nice of you to share the good stuff with us

No, he had it right and you've got it wrong.

If you read the article, Galfond describes g-bucks as being your opponent's hand VS. YOUR RANGE.

I recall on the forums a bit of nit-picking that Baluga described g-bucks as the hero's specific hand against the OPPONENTS entire range.

Now obviously, Galfond surely knew that the concept applied both ways, and could have written the article from either perspective. From that standpoint, your definition is just fine too: it works both ways.

So you see, my good friend, you can have a conversation without being reflexively negative, or telling someone they're wrong because they're not using the precise definition you (mistakenly) believe to be correct. It's obvious that Baluga understand G-bucks, even if he chose to illustrate the other side of the equation. So does Joeynumbaz. So do you, for that matter. But you should be careful about telling people that they don't understand something.

I watched the Coaching Tree series. Baluga explains his definitions for things there too. Yeah, he uses 'dead money' to talk about the likelihood that your opponent will fold, or concede his equity share in the pot.

I'm not really interested in this sort of nit-picking. In the videos he makes it very clear what definition he's using. As long as you understand the concepts, I don't care if he prefers to call 'betting for protection' betting for 'thin value.' As long as you understand it.

Recently got Baluga whale's easy game 1 and 2 , small stakes by ed miller ,poker puzzle by improva...and let there be range by cts. right now reading ed millers but moving to easy game after that . ive watched improva and baluga whales videos and it has improved my game like by 300 %. bottom line i play 200Nl at atlantic city and i have been destroying it. granted 1-2 no limit might be little for some ppl but it has been great to finally understand the reasons why im doing something as opposed to just doing what i see without even knowing how to defend against it. the book is even worth more than the prices if u ask me and its actually a priveledge to see how great minds think. u dont see players like Ivey breaking their games up for everybody to see.

How many videos come with this? and what subjects do they cover?

There must be videos similiar to these on the everyday training sites. Am i wrong thinking this?

That's not nit-picking that's completely wrong.Galfond uses that range v hand example just to make the maths manageable for the article.You obviously should measure range v range equities to get the accurate picture of ptofitability of any play.You seem to have missed the point of it completely which is to get your opponent to make negative G-buck plays with his range against yours.


My real complaint is that it doesn't fit in the book.What's the point of including this nonsense and leaving out important topics like 3-betting etc?Baluga admitted his own mistake in an amendment to the book..


Not only is his use of the term wrong it's inconsistent from one usage to the next.It makes him incoherent.

Live games can be very soft compared online ones.

1.) Just to be clear, Hero never has a range. He represents a range to villain. He holds two cards.
2.) In the above example, after the button 5-bets, there is SOME dead money in the pot, the blinds.

In game it's range v range.You play according to your opponent's range and vice versa.

Let me quote the article:

"The way that Galfond Dollars work is similar to the way Sklansky Dollars work. However, instead of taking your hand and seeing how it does against your opponent's hand, you take the entire range of your hand and see how it does against his hand."

Really? I thought you wanted to make your opponent make good plays against you. Thank you for clearing up this matter for me.

Seriously though. You are attacking me for something I never said. Arguing with you is like taking to an aggravation robot. I say something completely factual and true, and you answer back with a retort that has nothing to do with what I said. Why are you a holocaust denier? When did you join the Nazi party? See? That's what it's like. You must be a laugh riot at parties.

This is from the article :-

"The next level would be taking range versus range, but that gets very complicated mathematically"

I have tried to explain the application of this in games but you are more interested in launching puerile personal attacks.My point is that this was a waste of space in Baluga's book.

concept #2 is wholly correct in writing but the application is very wrong.

He has not applied anything he's just explained what dead money is.

OK. Look. I agree with you conceptually, the idea works both ways, your range, his range. And the passage you quote seems to imply that both things can be called G-bucks, probably, although some people (you?) took Baluga to talk for explaining it the other way. But when someone quotes the definition Galfond gave almost verbatim, you say: You're wrong! You don't understand g-bucks! Also, Balugawhale doesn't understand g-bucks! (Which I believe he does.) As I said before, I believe you do too. It's actually not very complicated to understand.

This is so boring. My heart aches for the poor soul who is searching this thread looking for information about Improva's book.

Besides, you won't see me telling people not to shove T9o pre.

Improva is pretty unknown.I haven't found any decent vids or numbers on him.His book/coaching combo is ok but he does not go into much depth.It's just the basic stuff about board texture etc etc etc eg there's very little about turn and river play.I find his delivery of the material slow and boring.It's obvious he's a teacher.It's like doing double French at school.I'd recommend his course for a lazy micro player.If all the exercises are done the fundamentals should be learnt by the end.

I wouldn't tell then this either: the logical play is to 4-bet and hope the initial raiser folds so that you can call a 5-bet shove with T9o.

FWIW, Improva just put out a video today on Deuces Cracked.

I bought Baluga's book when it first came out and it definitely included 3betting. First you've got the price wrong and now this.

I remember this from the thread about the book. I'm pretty sure it was added shortly after the release, due to popular demand.

it was included in section 1 pre release.

there was always a chapter on 3-betting in section 2.

Andrew

It's a bit grand to call it a chapter.It's less than two pages of very basic assumptions and generalisations and you did state that readers would have to buy the far more expensive volume 2 to get the topic covered in detail.Ed Miller devotes over twenty pages to the topic of 3,4 and 5-betting in his far cheaper book.

Total sample size under 4,000 hands at $1/$2.I wonder what his usual screen name is.Still a vid's better than nothing.