Options

Math Help!!! min raise folding

2»

Comments

  • philliivey wrote: »
    Min raising works?;)


    okerStars Hand #85562616357: Tournament #608362640, $1.29+$0.21 USD Hold'em No Limit - Level IV (50/100) - 2012/09/01 19:07:02 ET
    Table '608362640 1' 9-max Seat #7 is the button
    Seat 1: mindmaster99 (2656 in chips)
    Seat 2: nugget1291 (2965 in chips)
    Seat 3: Mr Demantova (1440 in chips)
    Seat 4: Ferum416 (4004 in chips)
    Seat 6: thiagopzago (4580 in chips)
    Seat 7: PHILLIIVEY1 (1908 in chips)
    Seat 8: jockspi (2260 in chips) out of hand (moved from another table into small blind)
    Seat 9: ciprilimon (7187 in chips)
    ciprilimon: posts small blind 50
    mindmaster99: posts big blind 100
    *** HOLE CARDS ***
    Dealt to PHILLIIVEY1 [6c 6s]
    nugget1291: folds
    Mr Demantova: folds
    Ferum416: folds
    thiagopzago: folds
    PHILLIIVEY1: raises 100 to 200
    ciprilimon: folds
    mindmaster99: folds
    Uncalled bet (100) returned to PHILLIIVEY1
    PHILLIIVEY1 collected 250 from pot
    PHILLIIVEY1: doesn't show hand
    *** SUMMARY ***
    Total pot 250 | Rake 0
    Seat 1: mindmaster99 (big blind) folded before Flop
    Seat 2: nugget1291 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
    Seat 3: Mr Demantova folded before Flop (didn't bet)
    Seat 4: Ferum416 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
    Seat 6: thiagopzago folded before Flop (didn't bet)
    Seat 7: PHILLIIVEY1 (button) collected (250)
    Seat 9: ciprilimon (small blind) folded before Flop

    SIMON-CONFUSED-GIF.gif
  • philliivey wrote: »
    Min raising works?;)
    knew it!
  • I got some time to work on my game so im going over some hands and "refreshing" some stuff with theory and what not...

    2 things about this thread

    1) its amazing how stupid I can be when i post

    and

    2) amazing the knowledge can be learned from the MATH in this thread and the VIDEO in this thread.. check it out if you havent.

    literally everyone should watch this and try to learn...

    so sick that Darb took the time to figure this stuff out and to try and provide a resource to forum members so they could get better... never wanted a thing in return

    #freeyoda
  • Ya the video is very good, and there's actual math to back it up! Very helpful for 180s imo.

    #freeyoda
  • I only noticed darbday's video today, but it is asking for a password. Can anybody please post or PM me the password?
    darbday wrote: »
    The disclaimer is I could be totally wrong
    https://vimeo.com/48573123
  • Welcome back, darbday. This poker forum badly needs your POKER posts. How can I watch your video ("Permission Denied")?
    SmithPoker wrote: »
    I'll def spend time explaining it to anyone who wants to listen.
  • BlondeFish wrote: »
    Welcome back, darbday. This poker forum badly needs your POKER posts. How can I watch your video ("Permission Denied")?

    No.

    He should be gone immediately. He had his chances, mods should be booting him immediately.


    Mark
  • Um no he had no chances.
  • Um no he had no chances.

    Not entirely sure what you're talking about... you know this guy is clearly darbday right?

    Mark
  • no pepsi, coke
  • It was only a 1 year ban for Darb, wasn't it?
  • darbday wrote: »
    I've been trying to find somewhere that could explain to me the theory of min-raise/folding. I think I finally made headway into figuring it out and understanding the concept. But some of the math trips me up. This will be a scratch pad for it because I know there are a bunch here who can clear this up or check it. I'm also pretty sure a lot of mtt grinders here wanna see this math.

    This certainly needs checking because I haven't worked it all out yet...

    I was told by V that min raising is a separate event from calling a shove...so......


    PART1

    Ex: blinds are 100/200/25 antes 9 handed........

    So if we min raise we raise we risk 400 to win 525 (blinds + antes)

    which gives us 1.3125 to 1 on our bet (525/400)

    which is 100 * (1 + 1.3125)^-1 = 43.24%

    So if our min raise gets through 43.24% or more of the time, its profitable with any two cards.

    PART2

    So assuming 43.24% is correct if we are in the sb and action is folded to us, we can profitably min raise ATC as long as the bb doesn't reshove more than 1-43.24% = 56.76% of hands

    PART3

    If there is more than one opponent behind us the formula for the amount of times we get through is the percent each of our opponents folds multiplied together.

    so if we min raise from the CU
    Bu reshoves 20%
    Sb reshove 10%
    Bb reshoves 15%

    we get through .8 * .9 * .85 = .612 = 60%

    but we only we only to get through 43.24%


    Part 4

    From each position we can take the nth root of 43.24 where n is the players left to act and see what the average reshove range needs to be for us to min raise to show a profit (so assuming each villain shoves the same, whats their max shove range that we can still min raise ATC):

    Attachment not found.


    Part 5

    There seems to be an relation between the sum of the reshove %'s and their product. So if one player shoves 5% too much we are ok if another player folds 5% to much. I don't think its exactly linear but I don't want to dig so far into it until I know the rest is correct.

    Also it may be too complex to figure out the adjusting with so many variables but I think if we treat it linear the amount of error is small?

    This is why you can't just rely on math. There are too many factors in poker to often successfully use math. You haven't taken into account that when you raise with 52o or whatever and you get called, you're in a position with negative implied odds. Also, people float a LOT these days in the BB and its very difficult to play bvb oop.
  • Darbday's assumptions may have been wrong, but math can still be used in factoring in the negative implied odds and positional disadvantage to see that min-raising with 43.24% of hands is not necessarily profitable.
    ryanghall wrote: »
    This is why you can't just rely on math. There are too many factors in poker to often successfully use math. You haven't taken into account that when you raise with 52o or whatever and you get called, you're in a position with negative implied odds. Also, people float a LOT these days in the BB and its very difficult to play bvb oop.
  • ryanghall wrote: »
    This is why you can't just rely on math. There are too many factors in poker to often successfully use math. You haven't taken into account that when you raise with 52o or whatever and you get called, you're in a position with negative implied odds. Also, people float a LOT these days in the BB and its very difficult to play bvb oop.

    So much to say about this.
    BlondeFish wrote: »
    Darbday's assumptions may have been wrong, but math can still be used in factoring in the negative implied odds and positional disadvantage to see that min-raising with 43.24% of hands is not necessarily profitable.

    So much to say about this.

    The vid is around but its out of date, I've pushed this line very far since. Looking forward to bouncing it off others!
Sign In or Register to comment.