Basic Strategy

[@starnotemusic]

I think the camera man has a crush on the teacher

[@boringmanager9559]

+Steve C every time they don't show the slide, I think of these words you said and laugh.

[@spacetech1825]

Lol

[@toulasantha]

Yes. Useless without seeing the screen… What’s the point.🤦‍♂️

[@royalflush8173]

Why you say that?

[@tylerjacobs5109]

I know right...this video is useless when you can't see the projection

[@i2Fluffy]

Not seeing the slides makes viewing very frustrating.

[@mitocw]

i2Fluffy The slides and other course materials are available on the MIT OpenCourseWare site at ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15

[@Darrvit]

i2Fluffy Disagree. I like these videos because I only need to LISTEN (can be multitasking). Thanks for the videos MIT!!!

[@kriptonis]

ok, but you understand that when the teacher says "you see this 30% here it comes from all the way back here" we are left completly clueless to what slides he is talking about? Still, thanks for the free lecture!

[@gregdancy9933]

@Fester Blats no one in the history of power point ever learn anything from the slides. stfu

[@doctirdaddy4876]

@@gregdancy9933 its because your ass never learned a damn thing ever

[@blaquesmith32]

i really tried to follow this course but it was difficult when the slides are not in view. i've opened up on a seperate window but when he made reference "here", "this" etc... he just lost me

[@mrb6913]

23:51 implied odds 44:55 fold equity

[@simon20002]

12:10 quick rule for win%

[@upplsuckimcool16]

Yeah good luck understanding his disjointed manic way of explaining fold equity.

[@upplsuckimcool16]

1:07:07 do you know where he is getting this 1.5 number from? He keeps throwing that into the equations but has not explained where it is coming from as far as I saw. It seems to be very important.

[@MrBlackOwner]

Thank you so much for giving free access to this course.

[@DJacksonII]

Not seeing the slides makes the lecture a lot less accessible.

[@benaribimohammedamin5093]

D. Jackson II ocw.mit.edu/courses/sloan-school-of-management/15-s50-poker-theory-and-analytics-january-iap-2015/lecture-notes/MIT15_S50IAP15_L3_Basic.pdf

[@DJacksonII]

Benaribi Mohammed Amin awesome! Thanks!

[@tragedyuk6218]

It's already been mentioned that not seeing the slides on the screen is a terrible decision and while they're available on the site there are errors on the PDF files given... Example would be page 12 of the PDF compared to 8:54 in the video, the PDF talks about a $60 bet but only a $30 loss while the video shows a $30 bet and loss yet shows the incorrect EV (unless I've failed at maths). I know this is a free resource but surely the teaching material should be correct from MIT.

[@bevansclan]

I literally just commented asking about this. I thought I forgot how to math because I kept getting an EV of 10. Not 17.5

[@upplsuckimcool16]

1:07:07 do you know where he is getting this 1.5 number from? He keeps throwing that into the equations but has not explained where it is coming from as far as I saw. It seems to be very important.

[@Eric-lt3gh]

@@upplsuckimcool16 it's the average slope. The slope changes between 1 and 2 depending on the % of your bet. so to simplify the math he just took the middle value.

[@MNC2k]

you can download the slides online and have them side by side. This is brilliant content!

[@shaibenshalom]

Where?

[@xyugi0007]

​@@shaibenshalom The link is in the description }

[@keyuliu4669]

This is great content, especially on the fold equity section. But the GTO strategy says the continuation bet is generally 1/3, which is quite different from 2015, which makes sense lol

[@ikaii6981]

... Guys... The slides are available on the actual course website where they have posted all the related material... its really not that difficult.

[@XieTianXieDi888]

IkaiI why would I waste my time trying to find something that should have been included in the video in the first place?!?

[@cactus2304]

+M Howard to learn the material

[@upplsuckimcool16]

1:07:07 do you know where he is getting this 1.5 number from? He keeps throwing that into the equations but has not explained where it is coming from as far as I saw. It seems to be very important.

[@rashadmahmood9235]

It’s actually given me confidence to go on tables

[@ruiyangli2198]

I'm pretty sure the win% calculation was off. He should be dividing by 47 and 46 instead of 49 and 48 because Hero has seen 5 cards instead of 3.

[@lexitorius6123]

I was just about to comment this. Calculation done on the lecture slides assumes the hero only knows the flop cards, but they know their hole cards too making 5 known cards and thus 47 unknown cards at that point. Doing it correctly approximates to 35% odds instead of 34%, which yields EV=$103 instead of $97.2

[@XieTianXieDi888]

Why is the camera fixed on him as he clicks through a slideshow and explains what is on those slides, but we don't get to see the slides that he is talking about?

[@bobu900]

Does anyone know where he got the win% sumber from. Specifically the 40/49 and 39/48? @11:13

[@stuarttrewern]

Why did he change his shirt at 23:48?

[@chanjohn5466]

Why in the fold equity formula, there is a -2 in both the denominator and normintor?

[@bevansclan]

What am I missing when the slide calculated EV at 8:44? 0.25 * (100+30) - 0.75 * 30 = (32.5 -22.5) = 10. The slide shows 17.5. I get the concept and the formula but this is driving me crazy thinking I'm missing something.

[@TheRedNick12]

I think you’re right, unless we’re misreading the slide. The answer would be 17,5 if for instance the first 30 was replaced by 60, but that wouldn’t make sense to me.

[@ragighobrial7849]

It should be 0.25(100+30+30)-0.75(30) because the pot would be 160 if you call the $30 bet

[@benjaminjudahusa]

If you study the slides and work through the homework assignments you can benefit from the video. Also i'm sure at MIT, when a book is in the slides it means..."Read it". This reminds me of college. They should have some assigned reading in or around the syllabus.

[@pranaysaraf3163]

Which book was on the slide?

[@benjaminjudahusa]

@@pranaysaraf3163 I can't recall them all but the one was definitely there: Harrington on Hold 'em

[@upplsuckimcool16]

1:07:07 do you know where he is getting this 1.5 number from? He keeps throwing that into the equations but has not explained where it is coming from as far as I saw. It seems to be very important.

[@Lt-Leinad]

One question I have: at 11:00 he explains calculating the winning percentage, but he says after the flop it's 9/49 * 9/48. However, shouldn't it be 9/47 * 9/46 since after the flop 5 cards have been exposed to the player; 2 whole cards + 3 flop cards. 52 - 5 is 47?

[@raresfilipescu3904]

I was having the same question. but then just apply the 2% per card rule and you should be fine

[@JRally6]

I had the exact same question!

[@ivankust3839]

The way he said, he was spitballing and approximating, but the point is it makes no significant difference. You are correct, it's Outs/47 flop to turn and Outs/46 turn to river, but, as @raresfilipescu3904 mentioned: apply 2% per card and you should be fine. The precise measurement is 2.13% per out flop to turn and 2.17% per out turn to river. So with 15 outs (which is a really good draw), on turn to river (which has larger margin of error between exact and the 2% rule) you get: - exact: 32,61% odds - using 2% rule: 15 * 2% = 30% odds This gives you an error of 2,61 percentage points, which shouldn't be a decision making difference. What's more, the 2% rule is more conservative (it always calculates slightly lower odds than the exact method), so if it's a call/raise with 2% rule, it's definitely a call/raise with exact method

[@Andrew-fb4vn]

Technically yes, but if doesn’t matter. You’re not going to be calculating exactly anyway on the moment, so just treat the denominator as 50, fixed. I guarantee there are parts of your game where you’re losing more EV in other parts of your game than the ev lost from slightly exaggerating pot odds

[@johndoe-ug3lo]

Why is the hero's call money included in the pot size in an EV calculation? Since this is money he would either be getting back or losing, isn't that pure risk? I always thought the calculation for the odds you needed to call was (villian's bet)/(pot including villian's bet). Can somebody explain this?

[@jackel5785]

You may think that when you need to call t2500 into a total pot t7500, that you would need a 33.3% chance of winning the pot to be able to make the call. This a common misconception, when you call the t2500 to win the t7500, you actually recieve t7500 + t2500 (your bet back). Thus you would only need a 25% chance of winning the pot to call this; This is because if you had a 25% chance of winning then you win 1/4 times.. So let's say the first 3 times you call you lose, thus you lose t7500 in total, however on the fourth time you win, when you win you get t10000, you know t2500 of the t10000 were your calling chips in an attempt to win the pot, therefore only t7500 of the chips are the profit. This shows that on average you will gain/lose no chips in the long run statistically.

[@werfweaf]

It might also help to look at the math to convince yourself: Let x = the probability we win Let P = the pot before the villain bets let B = the size of the villain's bet (the amount we will call). Our profit will be P+B when we win, and -B when we lose: EV = (P+B)*x - B*(1-x) so we want: (P+B)x - B(1-x) >= 0 solving for x: (P+B)x >= B(1-x) (P+B)x >= B - Bx (P+2B)x >= B x >= B/(P+2B)

[@brainstormingsharing1309]

Absolutely well done and definitely keep it up!!! 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@aaronbell5994]

Would you be OK with me editing the slides into this video and uploading it for everyone?

[@mitocw]

We would be more than okay with it... in fact we highly encourage it! It is one of the reasons we publish under the CC license that we have (ocw.mit.edu/terms). As long as you follow the same CC license (non-commercial, share and share alike, with attribution), you are good to go. =D

[@aaronbell5994]

Awesome!! Thank you!

[@idonthaveaname42]

@@mitocw Pi network is a crypto mining app + buy / sell platform that was developed by a team of Stanford graduates. Use kcwp42 as your referral code. It also works on a computer if you go to the website. You will be added to my team of 500. (lots of traders) and have access to the chat.

[@upplsuckimcool16]

@@aaronbell5994 have you done it?

[@upplsuckimcool16]

also 1:07:07 do you know where he is getting this 1.5 number from? He keeps throwing that into the equations but has not explained where it is coming from as far as I saw. It seems to be very important.

[@DerClaudius]

who cut those? I don't wanna see the speaker when he talks about and points out things on the slides 🙄

[@superorangebody]

Why are there so many people in their comments you’re complaining about the camera or the slice not working or some shit? This is a free resource nobody owes you anything.

[@gamiensrule]

Did this guys mother film the video? Show the diagrams, please!

[@mitocw]

Lecture notes are available on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!

[@upplsuckimcool16]

1:07:07 wait.... What is this 1.5 number? Where does this come from!?!?!? He just randomly throws that into the equation without explaining what it is....... The example before this I thought 1.5 was because he was rounding it to a pot sized bet, but this is no where near a pot sized bet so I'm so lost. Why isn't he explaining where this 1.5 comes from.

[@jonsnow6636]

At about 53:00 he seems to go a little crazy when explaining bluffing odds.

[@royalflush8173]

Split suit James Sweeny has a preflight and post flop book that explains all this also advance poker theory

[@dylanjoven4935]

so all of this strategy is for tournament play? not cash games?

[@netfischer]

His calculations at 40:25 are slightly off (assuming he's using the same slides) but not enough to affect the decision...

[@upplsuckimcool16]

1:07:07 do you know where he is getting this 1.5 number from? He keeps throwing that into the equations but has not explained where it is coming from as far as I saw. It seems to be very important.

[@TheNitroPython]

At 18:00 it’s difficult to follow when your camera is directly pointed at the teacher and not the board…

[@Allenzo04]

if u go on the course they linked in description, u can see all the slides under lecture note tab

[@craigcastleman2184]

It seems that the implied odds is wrong on the KcQc straight flush draw example. By my admitted gorilla math it should be $325 to break even, not $525. With 15 outs you are a 2:1 under dog. This means you can call a pot size bet and break even, so anything above the pot size of $275 is what you would need to win from your opponent after your hit. In this case $325. Let me know if I am missing something.

[@leungyikwai]

how 15 outs is 2:1, is more like 3:7

[@craigcastleman2184]

@@leungyikwai After the flop there are 47 unknown cards left in the deck. 15 of which makes your hand which means 32 cards miss. The ratio is 32:15 which breaks down to about 2:1.

[@stanleylouis402]

Agreed he must be more important than the material that we can't see

[@killermarmots]

What is this? The Ivey league?

[@HDsharp]

Why should you win more money in late position other than you get what other people do first? how would one take advantage of late position?

[@lucascavalcantidossantos]

bc you gather more information from the players that made a decision before you. if you are the last to play, and everyone fold to you, you will fell comfortable to raise with a pair of 9's. but if you are under the gun, you cant make a raise with that pair since you are the first to act and you dont know how the other players will behave

[@ikaii6981]

On a separate note, what is the instructor talking about refers to a player's M value? (29:56)

[@ikaii6981]

+IkaiI Im assuming its chip stack "health" but just wanted to confirm

[@renanbrazparente449]

+IkaiI He explains this in the intro lecture. M is the number of hands you can survive by folding every hand, take your stack, divide by the pot before the under the gun acts (that is, blinds + antes) and multiply by the number of players at the table. He thinks M is a better value than BBs to describe your stack.

[@matt22blaster]

21:18 No. We can't tell what's going on here.

[@FelipeV3444]

Hey, I have a question about the basics, I've been thinking this for a long while now and I believe most people have a mistake in the way they calculate pot odds, but please let me know where I get it wrong. Classic situation: Pot = 100 Bet = 50 Equity = 25% Normally, as in this lecture, people do it by dividing what you risk to lose, over the amount you stand to win. So Bet/(Pot+Bet) = 50/(100+50) = 0.333 and we fold. The way I think should be done, is by adding the amount you risk to lose in the denominator, because you win it back. In other words, the equation would be Bet/(Total size of the pot after calling) = Bet/(Pot + 2*Bet) = 50/(100+2*50) = 0.25 and we're indifferent between call and fold. I know it looks weird, but here's why I believe it works like this: Say we're flipping a coin, and whoever loses pays the other 10$. That would be the equivalent of facing a bet of 10 into a pot of 0. We know for a fact that is a breakeven bet, right? If you use the first equation we get Bet/(Pot+Bet) = 10/(0+10) = 1. Which means we need 100% equity to break even, but if we use the equation below we get Bet/(0+2*10) = 0.5 = 50%. You have to add the money you're calling in the amount you win, a.k.a the amount you win back, otherwise the model will lead you to fold your equity in the pot a lot more than you should. And he actually ends up mentioning this later, when he thinks about it as the % you're contributing to the final pot, yet the actual calculation is wrong. Am I wrong? Why? Hopefully someone even reads this XD

[@jackel5785]

If the pot was t100 and you faced a bet of t50, so the pot is now t150 and you making the decision to call you pot odds would be - 150:50 - 3:1 simplified. When you look at one side of a ratio it is relative to the whole ratio (all the units in the ratio). So the 1 can be seen as 25% because there are 4 units in total, and you're looking at just the 1. When you convert a ratio to a percentage you do: whatever side you're looking at / sum of both sides of ratio. Ratios and percentages are 2 very different things.

[@garylinyongjia2574]

You are right. When calculating pot odds, add your call to the equation.

[@upplsuckimcool16]

@@jackel5785 you mean.... if the pot is 100 and you face a bet of 50 then calling would make the pot 200 so the pot odds are 200:50 4:1..... Is that not how it's done? That's what this guy in this video seems to say.... this is how I've always thought it was.

[@upplsuckimcool16]

@@garylinyongjia2574 so then.... pot is 100.... bet 50... you calculate your odds have to be based on his bet and your call.... 200:50... 4:1.... 25% right?

[@joaquinsolis7071]

@@upplsuckimcool16 4:1 is 20%Not 25%

[@michaelgeiser5693]

Some of the information is dated, with the advent of solvers.

[@juanmanuelrodriguezvega938]

I wonder why he changes shirt 5 times during the video. Is he playing tennis or is this a compilation of different classes?

[@storaman12]

How did you get these numbers: Win% = 1 - (40/49 * 39/48) ≈ 34%.

[@bleacherz7503]

The two draws - 49 cards , then 48 cards, the two outs 40 , then 39.

[@storaman12]

Thank you.@@bleacherz7503

[@ChristmaswithDean]

When you hide the slides from view and just film the lecturers lips, you defeat the point of education!!! TERRIBLE FILM JOB!!

[@mitocw]

Tom Chasteen The slides and other course materials are available on the MIT OpenCourseWare site at ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15

[@jake5335]

***** how could you upload this video with this filming. hes talking about slides we cant see while you show us him talking. such a waste of a potentially good video

[@mitocw]

***** We appreciate your feedback and will forward your suggestion along to the OCW team member responsible for the course. Video recordings on OCW are a “snapshot” or archival record of the course as it was taught at MIT, and are not intended to be stand-alone products or tutorials. The full lecture slides and other course materials are available on the course site.

[@memotype]

Yet, the slides are shown sometimes, so obviously it was possible to include the slides in the video. And not only is it not obvious that the slides are available elsewhere, it's unnecessary and non-intuitive. It's not a radio broadcast, this is video, and visual imagery can be included, and is the general expectation given the media. Having to keep a PDF open in another window, obscuring the video, defeats the point of it being a video. KZbin isn't an "archival" service. I mean, I appreciate MIT's efforts to provide their educational material for free and all, but the criticisms this video series has received in the comments are perfectly valid. A very poor editing job, and certainly below the standards I would expect from such an institution.

[@aquababy2012]

The pdf is available online.

[@savdean9783]

These lectures are near useless without the projection being displayed. Also the lecture notes don't even load correctly, the characters are all jumbled.

[@mitocw]

We just checked the lecture note PDFs and they seem fine. How are you viewing these PDFs? We recommend that you download the PDFs and open them with Acrobat Reader. In-browser PDF display can sometimes be very unreliable.

[@antjoshwww]

teaching should be easy and fun. if see him once its enough. show the slides and im frustrated enough not to go to your site

[@Oj2roman]

Why is the cameraman off Temu 🤦🏻‍♂️

[@MaryJaneMcPot5]

is this still valuable? i just got started with poker and im really into learning how to play better

[@bleacherz7503]

Yes

[@michaelgeiser5693]

It's dated information, but it's not all bad. Assuming you know the basics of the game, I'd start out by reading Play Optimal Poker by Andrew Brokos. It's an introduction to game theory applied to poker. Secondly, I'd get familiar with using a solver such as GTO Wizard. I'd also watch their KZbin channel and channels like Finding Equilibrium.

[@manakin5]

In the example starting at 16:20 or so, I think the computation for how many out cards there are is faulty. For example he says that post-flop there are 8 total out cards in order to make a straight. The way to think of this though is how many 2-card combos are there that allow you to make a straight, out of the total number of 2-card combos remaining in the deck. Off the top of my head I don't know what that ratio would be, but my point is that it's not correct to compute this based on 8 cards out of 47, but rather all the 4-9 combos plus the 3-4 combos plus the 9-10 combos divided by all the possible 2-card combos. Maybe that result would magically collapse into the much simpler calculation he provides here, but that's not at all obvious to me. I think the actual result is much lower than what he suggests...just a hunch though.

[@manakin5]

There are 12 2-card combos that are outs for a straight in that scenario. If I remember and understand my combinatorics correctly, there are (47!)/(45!*2!) 2-card combos in the remaining unknown cards. That collapses to 47*46/2 or 47*23 or 1081 combos. 12 out pairs/1081 combos => 1.1% chance of hitting the straight, not 32% like he says.

[@jameslowell9656]

@@manakin5 he clearly says he has 6,7 hole cards and says his outs are 4's and 9's which obviously means the flop had a 8 and 5 in it. Therefore we have an open ended straight draw and any 4 or any 9 will complete the straight and thus he is 100% correct......

[@timtaylor7066]

Quite remarkable that in 2015 at MIT the video is like C-Span

[@longshot8052]

this stuff should be taught in school it would make learning so much more fun instead of just find x like i did at school

[@oluayanbiola7566]

Does this still hold up? Is it outdated?

[@Montecitodesign]

It’s clear that the person running the camera wasn’t hired on merit.

[@squader1]

why cam on him ?

[@jimbaker5110]

This is pretty good mathematical probability advice for poker.

[@nwedge4]

Too bad camera guy is unaware of how important the visual aids are.... ruining the presentation.

[@Elpaladino1]

It is incorrect to include your call into the formula for determining pot odds. Pot odds = [pot size]:[amount to call] where [pot size] includes any and all bets on the current street as well as the amount in the middle.

[@christianbarnay2499]

The formula is correct and agrees with your own statement. "all bets on the current street as well as the amount in the middle" is the same as "pot after call". - "amount in the middle" = the pot before Villain's bet. - "all bets on the current street" = Villain's bet and your call.

[@AnoNym-he1yv]

@barnay, no it doesnt. mistermiles is absolutely correct. pretty un-MIT-like to publish material with such HUGE mistakes. i mean, as bigger the bet is which we have to call, the bigger the mistake gets when we would determine our odds in the way the guy does in the vid. i cant believe it...

[@willguggn2]

Mistersmiles They don't calculate odds, but EV-percentages. Your call amount is part of the total pot size.

[@JivanPal]

+Mistermiles What you're saying actually agrees with the lecture completely. It's just that the lecturer prefers probabilities/percentages rather than odds: • If the odds are _x_ : _y_ , then the corresponding probability is _x_ / ( _x_ + _y_ ). • If the probability is _x_ / _y_ , then the corresponding odds are _x_ : ( _y_ - _x_ ). • Thus, if the probability is _x_ % = _x_ / 100, then the corresponding odds are _x_ : ( 100 - _x_ ). So now you can check whether his probabilities are equivalent to your odds. (Hint: they are.) IMO, percentages are nicer, since when you're comparing two sets of odds, you have to balance one side, which is why odds are typically given in the format _x_ : 1, because if some odds are _x_ : _a_ and _y_ : _a_ , you can just compare _x_ and _y_ directly, but when calculating them in your head, this is never usually the case. If the odds were _x_ : _a_ and _y_ : _b_ , you'd need to balance these; these are equivalent to _x_ / _a_ : 1 and _y_ / _b_ : 1, so you could compare _x_ / _a_ and _y_ / _b_ . Division is harder then multiplication, though, but since _a_ , _b_ > 0, you could also compare _xb_ and _ya_ to get the same result. However, if you're calculating percentages using estimates such as those described in this lecture, you never need to balance anything, because you're always already comparing like with like.

[@jackel5785]

You're wrong.

[@mahesh9511]

+MIT, Amazing strategies and points. I will definitely donate, how and where to donate? before that, i will try these strategies.

[@twofacesa]

Wow no slides for the whole video?

[@mitocw]

The lecture notes are available on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!

[@SS-ld9mt]

Listen to it at 1.25x or 1.5x, way better

[@solarsystem1605]

I can sum up this video in one sentence. " Do you feel lucky, Punk?"

[@justinchang9977]

from wt ive heard about 4 2 rule you always times 4 to your outs in flop and 2 in turn. However this lecturer only cares about "how many cards we will see realisticallt without having to pay". So he keep neglecting the 4 and multiplies by 2 on every flop to his outs. for e.g. according to him, if i have a flush draw on a flop i should times my outs (9) by 2 regardless because he believes i will likely face a bet in the turn as well. hence giving me an equity of only 18% whereas all the other videos on youtube regarding to equity will tell me i have 36%. I get why we times 4 or 2 because our chance of hitting the nut on each card contains 2% and I kinda agree with the lecturer the way we should really calculate our equity on flop by mutipliying by 2 only. But ofc he may be wrong, im super confused with this. Can someome pls explai??? are we mutiplying by 4% in the flop assuming we will see 2 cards in turn and river without any more costs (like the all in case) or is it compulsory for us to times by 4 whether we will face another bet on turn???

[@jackel5785]

Multiply outs by 2 on flop / on turn. Only multiply your outs by 4 when you're on the flop and the opponent pushes all in. When you multiply your outs by 4 you assume that you will see the turn/river for the current price your calling for, so when the player pushes all in you know for sure that you'll be seeing the turn/river without any further bets to call.

[@michaelfulton1080]

When the teacher doesn’t erase the physics notes from previous class to make the class look smarter

[@jonetyson]

You would think that MIT av guys would know by now to show the screen or board and not show the lecturer.

[@OneNvrKnoz]

2/4 rule was well known WAY before Phil Gordon's Little Green Book which was published in 2005!

[@upplsuckimcool16]

He said that.

[@banish6draw2]

"I'm sure someone figured it out before, but he was nice enough to coin it and write it in his book, which is why I'm giving him credit for it" Listening is hard

[@reykng]

Man, I wish I could see the screen. So frustrating to see someone point to something out of frame.

[@cameronburnard2301]

22:45

[@dshapiro12394]

Did anyone notice his shirt change?

[@intelos1249]

Updated video with slides: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sGjVmICVlt2JppY

[@intelos1249]

Sorry guys. ESPN blocked my video (!) because of the World Poker tour content here. Just filed a Fair Use dispute... UPDATE: Submitted a fair use claim. Should work, unless ESPN counters the dispute.

[@oshosidhant]

Thanks a lot for the video with slides.

[@lvzee]

Simplistic, propably ok for complete beginner, but a lot of over-simplifications and a few inaccuracies.

[@cameronburnard2301]

57:24

[@OGRE_HATES_NERDS]

what does he mean by the blinds getting a "discount" to see the flop? that is completely backwards thinking

[@nathans5259]

Cameraman sucks, how are we supposed to learn without seeing the powerpoint screen?

[@mitocw]

+Nathan Stewart The slides are available on the full OCW course site in the Lecture Notes section: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15.

[@autohustles]

Don't blame the cameraman, filming the slides and panning the camera constantly would be just as shit. They need to actually bother to edit the slides into the video so they're displayed whenever appropriate (presenter points at something, whatever). It's just lazy production. But it's free, so, eh.

[@miketait8254]

I love how complicated a genius can make simple math sound lol Too smart for there own good lol.

[@CommentGeneric]

doesn't sound complicated. *their

[@hugodiazroa]

or you might be too dumb for your own bad

[@AcidxAnarchy]

Did this guy just explain how chicken is played

[@simondwilkinson]

Some algebra would make this so much easier to understand than all this endless arithmetic. It's MIT, not middle school!

[@Poslouchajici]

These operations are rather simple already, Using alegebra would be an unnessesary overkill imo.

[@CavanMitchell]

Thks

[@webmaicon]

Terrible film job!!!!!

[@chaosordeal294]

Commenters are over-rating the need to see the slides. He tells you all the salient information. Important: you should think of this lecture ONLY as a way to understand and calculate EV, because much of the analysis is suspect. For example, when Hero holds KTo and Villian significantly under-bets the pot, the instructor assumes he is behind with middle pair. Assuming Villain has *exactly* an Ace and a blank is not good play -- worse middle pair is not a bad guess. In the first example Desmond_MIT has a 1 in 3 chance of hitting his flush, but this is AN EASY FOLD. Why? Well, in earlier lectures the instructor said he was teaching tournament play. In this circumstance, a call is for EV only slightly better than break-even, but it's a 2 in 3 chance of busting out of the tournament, so the amount of chips to be won is of secondary importance. In fact, this is an excellent example of where tournament strategy differs from cash play strategy. Also, the instructor determines that he should call in circumstances where a raise should at least be considered. It's a matter of taste, but I don't like the notion of determining that I can contribute x% to the pot. I find it more intuitive to think that if I am 1 in 3 to draw out, I need to be getting paid (expected EV) at least 3 to 1. The instructor talks about future expected bets as "dead money." This is an incorrect use of the term "dead money." (He also referred to calling stations as "calling machines" previously -- a term I have never heard before; and the other instructor makes a point of calling a player "steaming," when the far more commonly used phrase is "on tilt." Maybe not so important, but it's a little weird.)

[@whatreally9]

this is poker theory for fish!

[@elijahpickens]

You should call this "Polker Hands".

[@fenderoid1111]

People commenting about the camera view are absolutely ignorant or stupid. By focusing on the teacher you get all the other types of communications that can not be written in a pdf ffs. Free education and still we demand more.

[@jorgeb2789]

A bad camera view in a free education still being a bad camera view.

[@kolonko4425]

Try and explain this to Tom Dwan.🤣🤣

[@jasdfpasdfakdsjhfa]

Seems like a great course, shame about the video content. Pretty useless without the slides in view. This stuff is available in a million other places with way better presentation.

[@ranqizhu]

who ever filmed this is ... probably a bot who always center the face.

[@DKGuitars-DKG]

For MIT you'd expect them to show the hands to make the theory more understandable. The math it's good, poor video presentation

[@ronaldjkirby7220]

yes everytime we have something to see we get the lecturer and not the probem he is discussing really sucks hope you get that fixed before the next lecture

[@killersquir1]

But, if everyone took my advice it be harder for people me to win money, so please ignore me.

[@89Ayten]

Poker was more fun before the baseball nerds started branching out in to other sports, games.

[@jackel5785]

Why did he change his shirt lol?

[@camilozamora1933]

shitiest cameraman ever

[@vmodsm]

Sammy farha guest star

[@loudorchen9897]

Poker is too complex a game to learn anything but the basics like this you have to play millions of hands

[@garyj449]

You also have to take into consideration live play. All the different things that can happen at the table. Reading people is very important. Certain people have major tells, snap calls, how people handle chips, your poker face is a real thing. You enter a new world when you face people who like to talk a lot. The math is only a portion when you're at a live game. Online is different, you can get away with talking to yourself and not have to keep your face clean giving no information.

[@nosteinnogate7305]

@@garyj449 You can play a GTO strategy (practically not but something that comes reasonably close) to be unexploitable. You dont have to play exploiting yourself. That gives you more profit versus the players you exploit but also makes you exploitable.

[@savdean9783]

The chicken analogy is horrible. It's certainly not an infinitely bad outcome to call all in. Unlike chicken, both players can go head on but still one win or even a split pot.

[@jackel5785]

It was actually really good, but you missed the entire point of it. The point was that by shoving you're isolating the players options.

[@christianaellig8721]

Other than defining items to study, the presentation is useless... hence free

[@mickedmiston9037]

ugh tooo many calculations my brain hurts. makes sense why i wasnt MIT material

[@upplsuckimcool16]

Can the camera show the fuckin powerpoint screen so we can see what he's talking about!?

[@mitocw]

The PowerPoint slides are available in the Lecture Notes section on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!

[@tobiashansen488]

show the fucking board i understand nothing when you don´t show the board

[@guitarlessonsformortalssan8619]

Hey camera man! Duh!

[@jcjensenllc]

thumbs down for not showing the slides. i can hear speaker, don' t need to see him.

[@mitocw]

The slides and other course materials are available on the MIT OpenCourseWare site at ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15

[@francisfrancis6624]

The cameraman is his bf.

[@markphillips5067]

My boy's wicked smaaart!

[@jeffhiggins1974]

Ok videography here sucks. Video the screen so we can see the hand! Who cares what the speaker looks like!