Introduction to Poker Theory

[@Catcrumbs]

If you're not interested in role playing as a college student, you can skip to 17:00.

[@Intiom]

Thanks

[@ycafe123]

lol nice

[@9uvwxyz]

But.. But I am a college student lol.

[@thomasblackledge3583]

Thanks for saving me time

[@Blep42O]

Thank you

[@royalflush8173]

It's so funny how all these negative comments 6 years ago have proven to be wrong. This guy's teaching was ahead of his time. Gto poker is all about the math . The math guys crush today's tournaments

[@brucelee5576]

Its not all about math, like everything else in poker it depends, you have to open up and narrow your range to adjust to your opponents, often times your gonna have toss the nash equilibrium chart out the door and play pretty unbalanced.

[@royalflush8173]

@@brucelee5576 you are correct on that point. But in the long run if you make bets best on positive expectation you win negative expectation you lose. That's all math. That's how casinos operate and profit based on math.

[@shivasirons6159]

Royal, theres a difference between what you teach and how you teach, you are right ,WHAT he teaches is excellent, but he,s a horrendous teacher as far as HOW he teaches, he doesn't make clear points at the same time that he,s ambiguous. Just awful !

[@shivasirons6159]

For example, when he was talking about Harrington,s. M ratio, totally confusing and useless. Go back and try to make sense of that explanation , good luck!

[@brucelee5576]

@@royalflush8173 True, but the casino analogy not best , facing the casino always neg. EV.

[@samhermano7558]

The main takeaways that I got are: 1. Poker is often a waiting game, 2. Online poker is totally different from live (probably the same for the types of poker), 3. We should play based on how many chips we have compared to our opponents (betting more loosely more when losing), 4. There are poker personalities tight/loose + aggressive/passive, and 5. Some people play tight or loose ranges based on how many rounds they can survive when folding right away (M number; betting more loosely when losing). I find the terms passive and tight to be, at first, hard to differentiate. Doesn't it kind of sound like a passive player doesn't raise much? I'm pretty sure passive players just choose what their bet is based on their own situation which can lead to some big calls, whereas tight means they only bet if they have a really good hand (like maybe tight players hate the humiliation of times when making big raises against someone and then lose because it's less humiliating to just fold earlier). The M number calculation is a passive strategy and playing ranges based off of how many chips an opponent has is aggressive even though, if you're winning, you might play tight (and fold early).

[@okseaj]

Well passive is related to the tendencies of that players **actions** while tight is related to the **range** of the player. A play can be "loose passive", "tight passive", "loose aggressive" (LAG), or "tight aggressive" (TAG). For instance, a passive player preflop will mostly limp in with hands rather than raising hands. If they limp in with a wide range of hands, we're going to label them as loose passive. If they limp in with a small range of hands, we're going to label them as tight passive. A TAG player will raise a narrow range of hands preflop and take other aggressive actions such as 3betting+. A LAG player will take the same actions, but with a wider range of hands. When it comes to postflop, the TAG is essentially following some heuristic of value betting their good hands and giving up with their weaker hands. Again, "tight" is a way to describe their range and "aggressive" is a way to define the actions they take. So, when their range is strong, they bet. It's a simple heuristic that works well against certain types of opponents and simplifies the strategy of the game.

[@iPROxIAMROCK]

This is quite possibly the best class I’ve ever watched on opencourse 😂

[@murmaider2]

Nothing like going to a 45 grand a year best in the world engineering school to learn to play cards.

[@Audiack]

murmaider2 Nothing like a free course online from a 45-grand-a-year school about learning to play cards

[@TheBullGangGeneral]

Audiack fk yea

[@MrSupernova111]

murmaider2 Sucka! lol

[@RogerBarraud]

herpherpbrocolli Yep, definitely wouldn't bother - It'd certainly be a waste, in your case.

[@RogerBarraud]

herpherpbrocolli Am I right in thinking that the only State Variable you'll need to track in your future will be, "Which way up is the pattie?" ? :-/

[@charleshan0207]

this seems like such a dope class to take

[@LetGoAndFlourish]

Plot twist: half the class dropped out of MIT to play poker online and went broke.

[@MrSupernova111]

anon ymous I doubt that very much. More like they dropped out of school and became rich poker pros.

[@mermintube]

A lot of poker pros have Ivy league education. They make money doing what they studied for and once they have the bankroll they go on to play poker full-time.

[@internetanalytics618]

delusion is correct.

[@internetanalytics618]

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT POKER. What u said is absolutely NOT TRUE.

[@DrVanNostrand01]

If you're smart enough to get into MIT, chances are you're smart enough to make a living playing online poker. Or, at the very least they wouldn't go broke.

[@RoadieC]

He seems like a better player than teacher. He's all over the place.

[@kyle6521]

yea for the first 10-20 minutes I was like how is this guy a MIT teacher there is no structure to this course but them realized he's a poker player not a teacher.

[@Richard-ot5ss]

@@kyle6521 come on, you guys are being so hard on him. It's literally the orientation, he looks exactly like every other professor I have on the start of class and I'm going for my master's in physics and have a math degree he looks exactly like a professor in math (I assume this is type of a math course?)

[@Richard-ot5ss]

every time there is a teacher on youtube people analyze every word they say but students are not stupid. Most of the work is done OUTSIDE of class. I feel like the people who write these comments are into school themselves because it is totally standard.

[@nikitakucherov5028]

Finally an MIT class I could pass

[@Richard-ot5ss]

even MIT has to teach the same material. It's the same curriculum as their equivalent class in another school

[@jasonli4961]

⁠​⁠​⁠@@Richard-ot5ss That isn’t true. I go to Purdue and I saw the MIT homework and it is absolutely crazy. Their discrete math on week 5 is already past our entire semester’s worth of content. Their classes are much harder than their equivalent at another school. I also don’t thing Purdue’s discrete math for CS is a easy class. The class average was 65 in my class and the average ACT score for my class was 35.

[@latjjtal]

@@jasonli4961 purdue like the chickens?

[@anstinsk]

at least you got the point he is trying to make

[@seu6]

@@jasonli4961no wonder 70% acceptance rate school is easier than a 4% one. Duh

[@johannesd06]

16:06 is where the poker stuff starts

[@BrokTheLoneWolf]

My gosh. I only saw this after lol

[@MasterDebater47]

Big Dog!

[@Factsmatter626]

Thank you!

[@caterpillajoe5225]

6:11 pause and read blackboard

[@CozyCoziee]

Too bad nobody commented in 2 years.. You saw Anal in a random poker video that's really funny you have a social media? Maybe we could play some poker?

[@AviGhorecha]

😂

[@zentrading]

I’m actually experiencing FOMO watching this! I wouldn’t make the student debt for it though, but really appreciated the voice in my head saying “KZbin poker class”

[@stevenrowland7666]

“So you’ll hear people talk about like ‘Oh I had ten big blinds’ or fifteen big blinds or whatever to talk about their chip stack but that has the fundamental problem of...um...it...it has a lot of different problems. One is it doesn’t, um, it doesn’t tell the story of...so blinds - so the usual blind levels are one/two or two/four where the big blind is just twice the small blind...so that’s just like the assumption. But if you’re at a blind level that’s at, like, one/three and then like..or three/five the number of big blinds you have is not indicative of...of...anything. It’s not indicative of, like, how many hands you can see or how much you care about winning a pot pre flop. So using big blinds is bad. In addition to, once you start having like..if you’re fifty/a hundred blinds and you have an ante of, like twenty-five, like you, like, have basically half the stack that you had before in realistic terms.” They're the actual words that come out of his actual mouth at around 25:40 onward.

[@brannanburdette2558]

Steven Rowland lol 😂

[@chrisgonepro9648]

And what’s an ante? He never explained looool

[@unprofound]

Yeah, I specifically noticed this word-salad run too. 😂

[@GitanoRenegado]

The way to play against tight aggressive is by not letting them flop until they give in

[@danvilela]

People saying this guy is not a teacher I disagree. This is exactly what I want from a teacher: experience. Theorical stuff I can read a book. i need real life experience

[@elltrlolz8621]

"effective M is... is your M divided by aaaahm...you multiply by how short stack your table or how short handed your table is "

[@Aint1S]

It's applying the process to something that people can interact with to understand analytical data. On the other hand, if you get good at poker through the course... who's to say that you can play your way through an expensive college. It's just like chess, but each move will cost you a lot sooner than later. I'd prefer the poker in regards to chess.

[@internetanalytics618]

Poker and chess are very dissimilar. Good poker players can clean u out from nowhere with deception. In chess you can see it coming.

[@88mphDrBrown]

I don't think that's true. You can have a garbage strategy or no strategy and still be up after multiple sessions in poker. They're similar in that they've both been virtually "solved" with computers in comparison to humans. They're also similar in that generally the farther the hand/game progresses the value of decisions increase exponentially, that seems to be the opposite "cost you a lot sooner than later", but maybe that's a misinterpretation of what you meant.

[@jaironunez7196]

Stupid comparison...

[@Aint1S]

@@jaironunez7196 When you make an empty and unsubstantiated claim, it's only your comment...

[@youngpatrick29]

@@internetanalytics618 good chess players can clean you out from nowhere with deception as well. In both games, its all about who makes the best move. Unfortunately in poker luck is more of a factor for each decision. Chess is not, it is purely logical.

[@Mike-zj3zj]

"Honestly, like, this league is going to be really cool." Thanks MIT!

[@allstarmark12345]

Bwahahahha

[@allstarmark12345]

It’s like a quote from idiocracy

[@makemoney3282]

@@allstarmark12345why what happens whe

[@MotoCzar]

16:01 begins actually discussing poker

[@WahranRai]

Is bluff allowed during the exam : could we use cheat sheet

[@decarlocalloway01]

As a Poker Player, it's hilarious to see this as a college course. 22:45 is key.

[@SRSports-xw5yu]

The action Dan call out 8 years ago is wild as he continues to dominate the live stream poker field over the last few months

[@visualize25]

Different guy lmao

[@jimbaker5110]

Need an advanced strategy class for sports betting (each sport should have their own class strategy taught) also

[@timothykozlowski2945]

Experience will always be the best teacher

[@ManoceanLive]

Still, even the best players have coaches, and spend time going over hands and situations.

[@timothykozlowski2945]

@@ManoceanLive Experience will also teach you how to read players.

[@keepingupwiththecichlids]

The Dan Harrington books is all I needed to learn this game.

[@internetanalytics618]

hey is just mentioned in Harrington in a previous comment. Harrington is LEGIT

[@royalflush8173]

Dan Harrington's books are outdated now for example nobody uses M now

[@jessejordache1869]

The Harrington books had players basically flipping their cards up during the Moneymaker era. People would start stupid arguments with me after I had the stronger hand when the money went in (which is like, the goal of the game), with "Have you even read Harrington"? Whether I read Harrington or not, your squeeze was garbage, because nobody folded. And you were so predictable that I called with pocket 6s because you guys always squeeze with tiny pairs. But what I would actually say was "what's that?" following Mike Caro's advice that you never give lessons at the poker table.

[@royalflush8173]

@@jessejordache1869 what are you trying to say? I missed your point.

[@jessejordache1869]

@@royalflush8173 eh, don't ask. When I read them they were unbelievably trendy, and you had players springing leaks because they all followed the plays Harrington recommended with the same combination of cards. But at any rate, the classic Harrington books are on tournaments, which are high variance and not my thing.

[@adammilat-meyer5436]

excellent work... almost makes me wish i was a beginner again.

[@internetanalytics618]

If you think this was excellent poker education, you are a beginner.

[@DJB1017]

Internet Analytics check out the title of the video.

[@Ripred0219]

@@internetanalytics618 everyone back away take cover we have the ultimate bad ass here

[@R__K]

Just now seeing this and being casual poker player... and 24yrs military, gotta love the irony in the LAG acronym--meaning complete opposite of the lag term most people are used to hearing tossed around, aka slow af.

[@9uvwxyz]

Calling "machine"? What? I've never heard that terminology. It's a Calling station.

[@teflondon4963]

lul

[@internetanalytics618]

Same difference

[@BB-re6nz]

9uvwxyz same thing, ace.

[@OGecalien]

9uvwxyz It's P. O. W. Pay off wizard.

[@goclbert]

Eric Carrillo POW is only about calling on the river when you are beat but a calling stations will call at unfavorable odds at any point when they should either be raising or folding.

[@carlhopkinson]

Is there an advanced course in DonkeyNomics???

[@lvzee]

He was nicknamed Action Dan by Mayfair (an NYC poker club) because of his genral tightness.

[@evanmanolis3385]

This course is an absolute dream

[@bilinguru]

I love that MIT did a course like this, and that the insructor is obviously a quintessential poker nerd, but if I had to listen to a guy use the word "like" as often, and as incorrectly as this at a top-tier university, I'd be pretty disappointed. I assume also that most of the people who sign up for this course are already into poker and know the basics and a lot of the terminology. Anyone without some poker knowledge would be lost after 20 minutes.

[@nawkee2008]

does he say Kevin Dossman??? is he related to dossman from Hacksaw Ridge???

[@spotlessmind9263]

i thought it would be technical course coz you know, MIT but he going over the social & strategy aspect more. I was waiting for ranges, EV, equity, positioning etc but comments tell me he's a player so his teaching does feel that way.

[@YukYuk12]

Where are the rest of the clip

[@mitocw]

Here is the playlist for the course: kzbin.info/aero/PLUl4u3cNGP61kfOW3zAIfpNhf0piao8oo. For more info and materials, visit the course on MIT OpenCourseWare at: ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15. Best wishes on your studies!

[@pedrocarvalho4013]

is threre some write material about this class?

[@mitocw]

Check out the full course site on OCW for the materials (includes lecture slides and psets + solutions): ocw.mit.edu/15-S50IAP15.

[@pinballanon8531]

was this course before pokerstars NJ opened? cause its legal in Jersey

[@GodDamnit7711]

Keep these coming please! Especially the advance stuff!

[@theirishpizzaguy6663]

16:30, non class specific video start

[@raticida123456]

in online doesn't matter, you can call an all in preflop with 72 off suited to a pocket aces and you will win, test it

[@internetanalytics618]

Yes who tests the RNGs for actual 52 card deck simulation? Beats Me.

[@Veaseify]

The Aces are only 85% favourite to win, 15 times in 100 they will get cracked, there are no certainties based on the first two cards. If you play 100,000 hands and check the stats in Poker Tracker you will find the probabilities hold up, instead of just playing for a week and getting sucked out on so much that you believe its all rigged.

[@jacobc8019]

What do you do if your opponent is loose aggressive

[@angelguzman001]

Wasn’t there a movie with this same narrative lol 21? 🎬 with Kevin Spacey

[@robking6975]

Poker in the US still is in a grey area. You might want to talk to a lawyer before you give legal definitions. The only places Poker for real money is illegal in the US are the states that have passed specific laws that bar it, either entirely, or only blocking those that don't hold a local licence. Other sites operate in a grey market that is unregulated, but not illegal under US law. The Black Friday indictments were mainly for money laundering and related charges, and not for offering an illegal game (these charges have never gone to court, and no site has ever been charged with offering an illegal service inside the US). Just a PSA to advise of the legal status of poker in the US. Looking forward to the rest of the series. It's great to see a seat of learning as prestigious as MIT getting involved in poker theory.

[@CampCucumber]

He basically said “online poker is black and white, it’s not allowed”. But go on

[@robking6975]

@@CampCucumber replying to a comment I made 6 years ago? Luckily for me the legality of poler in the US hasn't changed, and I work in the Industry

[@CampCucumber]

@@robking6975 Wow! It was such a bizarre comment that I had to reply.

[@jackdaniels423]

where can I find the actual screen?

[@2011blueman]

This guy is pretty clearly a low limit player.

[@gumikebbap]

Leggo My Ego could you pls elaborate?

[@hugmedonkey]

nano-stakes confirmed

[@internetanalytics618]

You should stay at nano stakes donkey. It will save you a TON of money and the live players will CLEAN YOU OUT.

[@DJVasiliGR]

i have been playing cards since i was a little kid (specifically omaha)- i wish i had this class at my college

[@mccorrect3470]

Skip to 17:00

[@vmodsm]

Which lecture is “all in”

[@johnsmith-zx5er]

there called "calling stations" not calling machines

[@cityloyal]

*They're*

[@jackdavis8596]

I love the fact this class is online, but a lecturer @ MIT should not keep saying "like" every minute.

[@jamescollier3]

it's harder to get in than stay in

[@adamkelemen4607]

Yo where are them slides

[@mitocw]

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

[@will195]

I truly wonder if he still holds to the same view he taught 10 years ago because it’s completely different and you cannot play the way he’s teaching in this. Don’t get me wrong for the most part. Some of the things are just normally natural to do but I’m talking about playingthe tight game. I would say if he still playing poker then he would know this type of playing doesn’t get you anywhere

[@Part-Time-Larry]

Perhaps TAG is more so for getting people comfortable with learning how to play before they really get good at reading people and bluffing people.

[@solomonvonherclestein]

Ola, entrando agora no time

[@SmittxDawg]

Some terms and agreements 🧐

[@heltok]

Should this course be named "Poker Theory"? The content so far is more "Applied Poker"? Was expecting [0 1] and stuff

[@heltok]

mjs28s I guess you are right. Bill Chen and Hoss_TBF's lectures at least should cover some theory. But this lecture was only applied poker.

[@bobdole7292]

Why is it illegal to gamble online. That seems like a silly law

[@F1Mike000]

Silly until you realize laws are only passed at the behest of big business. Once online sports books bribe enough politicians, it'll happen.

[@justinmanley8131]

For those who might not know, this instructor is telling you things that have many errors. i.e. a passive player is not a rock. Rocks are very selective with their hands, but generally play the hands they get strongly.

[@Beatyofeet32]

I thought Rocks were considered Tight-Passive. What you're describing sounds more like Tight-Aggressive ( TAG ) which I haven't heard people use interchangeably with Rock. Surely, that doesn't mean you're wrong, though.

[@jessejordache1869]

@@Beatyofeet32 A rock is just tight. It's also a word that comes from non-academic slang "that guy was the rock of gibralter." but isn"t that useful in a theoretical framework, because it doesn't tell you how hard he pushes, or doesn"t push, his hands.

[@atkinsj24]

Do you need to know poker first, or will you learn it by watching the videos?

[@dwane5368]

If you know the basic terms, sure you will learn

[@mermintube]

This course is mostly about teaching you how to be winning player, you gotta already know how to play poker.

[@lentilsAre]

do students have computers to take notes

[@Love1isall]

Playmoney is good for learning the game and how it works and why sound theory is practical, but it won't help you advance in real money games the higher you go in stakes and the better he players become...

[@schmetterling4477]

Which basically just means that you are going to lose all the time and all of your real money. Why, exactly, would you do that to yourself?

[@MajinXarris]

GTO poker was a thing back when I started in 08.

[@OGRE_HATES_NERDS]

i keep expecting the camera to turn around and show that he is talkin to a group of ten year olds. this video make me feel like such a better poker player than I felt like I was before.

[@shivasirons6159]

18:00 ive listened to this a few times , what,d he say? , " sb has 300 chip and you have SOME MATH CHIPS WITH QUEENS" ? What,d he say?

[@georgebrantley776]

Big blind has 300 chips, you have same amount of chips with queens.

[@shivasirons6159]

Thanks for getting back and very good point.

[@johnbradleyaustin]

anyone sharing the invite code?

[@MrTylerNinja]

Anyone have issues with Universal Hand Replayer?

[@katastrafika5253]

Professor tell your students about the rake that gets taken out of the pools That’s why the players fade away and are always looking for backers

[@etoobrute]

He definitely saw this comment.

[@paulgibbons-keynotespeaker]

With all the amazing content out there - having something this elementary with someone so underqualified is remarkable for MIT.

[@benjaminclarkson3376]

It’s funny how he wipes off the zeroes just to write over the first numbers and write the zeroes again

[@tonyakarp]

what major is this class a part of? is this math, psychology, game theory, stats? (i dont want to watch the full class.)

[@paulkim1521]

Is Ben Campbell in the audience? Yup! as well is Fisher,Choi, Kianna and Jill Taylor in the class😅

[@EldeLDorELLEN]

Play money is the biggest waste of time to improve your poker past learning the basics

[@Sundance94]

Now you can play online

[@The_Youtube_Winner]

office hours scenario: student: i missed what to do if we get pocket jacks against king 10 off suit. teacher: (puts 25 dollars on the table). let’s do a $25 buy in and we will play it out both ways.

[@jimz1024]

Math is wrong at 18:43 you have 75 blinds, 1500/20 = 75

[@卢军宏台长心灵法-u3d]

If the mind remains unmoved by circumstances, it will be detached from the notion of form.

[@aadiskywalker]

Thank you algorithm, nice find.

[@cosmicdog9683]

This course should be called "The Ramblings of a Mad Man".

[@dirtymike3329]

This dude looks like he read a book about poker and got REALLY into it, but wasn’t really prepared to teach a class.

[@jessejordache1869]

Unless at some point he says during the lecture "I am not mad" then it doesn't fulfill the MIT rubric for Madman Studies.

[@dejpsyd0421]

What’s the code???

[@victorialiao3154]

May I know is this the last course of Poker Theory and Analysis? THX

[@BitBard302]

Loving the depth of this content? There exists a book with an analogous focus I'd recommend. "Game Theory and the Pursuit of Algorithmic Fairness" by Jack Frostwell

[@karimzeidan95]

The way he explains things makes it harder to understand tbh

[@charliemcdanger]

I wonder if in thirty years every MIT professor will say "like" four times per sentence.

[@MikeGreenwood51]

And ta instead of 'to' and 'gonna' instead of going. (Yah gonna like ta (May be a sentence)).

[@TOYCH]

It's a PA. That's why 😭

[@TheMASDrummer]

should have in the title, this is not related to the GREAT GAME OF PLO

[@sirus312]

Im just trying to see which troll below is Phil Hellmuth.

[@stevenfortey9641]

Harrington M & Q value is important - his 3 books on tournament play is the bible, plus Theory of Poker, then you have to go to GTO books...it's a journey not a rush

[@BuddhistProdigy]

Love it when a school with a $23.5B endowment asks me for a donation so they can put videos on KZbin

[@mitocw]

The additional funds we are asking for is not survival but to thrive! MIT gives $1-2 million every year to MIT OpenCourseWare and that's not going away. We've been publishing for 20+ years now, e.g. MIT has given tens of millions of dollars away for free (not to mention the generous material contributions of all the instructors and students at MIT... which is purely voluntary). We will always be publishing courses... but we could always publish more with more money. You can help us publish more courses and help us share more knowledge. ocw.mit.edu/donate

[@Ask81204]

Thanks a lot its very helpful i covered half of my physics from here :)​@@mitocw

[@jacklempke7779]

“Like” “Like” “Like” “Like” “Like” This guy spoke very clearly, but all of the “like”s made it so hard to listen to for me personally.

[@cervantesnetwork8137]

Are you still teaching this?

[@mitocw]

This subject has been taught in the past during MIT's Independent Activities Period (IAP) which occurs in the month of January. This is taught only when there is someone available with the expertise and interest in teaching the course. It is not part of the regular MIT curriculum.

[@McGavel1]

GL in 2016 and never give up!

[@T500Kz]

absolute HYPE, thank you MIT.

[@lemonstrangler]

i watched a video about caisno games and stats. and then i thought wow if i got taught probability in highschool in the context of casino games, i would have loved it lol. well turns out someone already did that in mit

[@whatachola]

I love how everyone in this thread proves that people will forever overthink poker. It’s not hard, you play the hand you’re dealt and play it smart.

[@TitusObbayi]

No with that attitude you'll get totally run over by players who will figure out you're essentially playing face up. If your intention is to win as much money as you can you have to find a strategy that allows you to win even if you're not getting good cards

[@whatachola]

@@TitusObbayi I simply disagree. I don't care how good someone thinks they are at probabilities and analytics, you will always lose to a better hand if someone has a better hand. I will forever take luck over math. No amount of bluffing bad cards will take you as far as playing the hand you're dealt.

[@minhtrietvo8448]

@@whatachola better hand doesn't always win. Bad beat is an example, and a lot of hands are coin toss as well. Luck is probabilities, and luck works both ways: for the better hand and for the worse hand. Bluffing is an essential part of poker. If you don't bluff in heads-up, you'll simply never win. Poker theory is about balancing bluff and value; that's it.

[@whatachola]

@@minhtrietvo8448 I simply don’t agree. I would take luck over math any day of the week because probabilities don’t tell you anything about what someone else has. But if you have the better hand then probabilities don’t matter. If you play a slop hand like it’s the nuts, you’re going to get beat by someone who actually has the nuts and lose way more than you needed to, plain and simple.

[@minhtrietvo8448]

@@whatachola If you believe you're lucky, you will play every hand like you have the nuts and will lose massive amount of money. Poker is also about bluffing, not just who have the better hands, and you would never be able to bluff correctly if you don't understand the math behind it. Very rarely would you get in a situation where you have 0% equity. That's where the math comes in to help you make decision with the amount of equity you have. If you don't understand equity, please don't ever go to a poker table; you'll get burned.

[@joshuamerrell2550]

"...this is why the live tournament scene is dominated by online pros..." False. The best tournament players in the world are people who are live players. Negeanu, Mercier, Phil Hellmuth are not online players, yet PH has the most bracelets and cashes in WSOP history, Negreanu is in the top tournament all-time money list (I think he is actually the top) and Mercier is always at the top of the GPI.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

So, those players you mentioned are the best at online tournaments? It sounds like you're talking about two different things.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

***** This is what I read: "'The online tournament scene is being dominated by online pros.' - false."

[@joshuamerrell2550]

mdiem You're right. I had a typo in the quote. He says "...this is why the live tournament scene is dominated by online pros..." which is ridiculous. Not only that, but I couldn't find any credentials for the person teaching this course, and if I was new to poker would have felt that MIT had failed me. This person had no business teaching this course, at least from what I have seen here. Edit: While I am not a poker pro, I couldn't find anything about this person in regard to poker achievements. And having played quite a bit, followed WSOP extensively, and read many books, this is just my opinion. It looked more like a commercial for Pokertracker in the first couple of videos. I personally think it's garbage, and the person teaching this lecture doesn't have any credentials to back anything he has said up. Real poker is real poker. You have no HUD in real tournaments, so that commercial pokertracker probably paid MIT for is wasted. Recording hands is one thing. Having software make your decisions for you doesn't make you a good poker player.

[@NoActuallyGo-KCUF-Yourself]

***** Ok. Thanks for the clarification. I'm very good online because I'm a tight player and can do a lot of the math discussed in this course in my head, but live games are much different. I have a terrible poker face, and likewise can be thrown off by other player's body language. Plus, when I play in live games, it's more about socializing and having fun, so I'm not as competitive. Online, it's about trying to win the game. I don't think that's necessarily the case with other players, but it makes sense that if one does one or the other exclusively, skill won't translate 100% over. Possibly what was meant, was that players who also do a lot of online games and use the analytic tools can learn faster and be better than a similar person who only does live games.

[@krhymezgaming2908]

***** Just look at Tom Dwan... he was one of the best online players. Now he is a wanted man for debts. He looked good on the tv shows.. but really wasnt a great player.

[@kerrypooley0112]

Sounds like this guy is trying to teach the class about what he's just been learning about Poker as a means to further develop his Poker ability. Spouts a lot of unsure, confusing nonsense but his heart's in the right place.

[@mareksicinski3726]

? It is better to be unsure.

[@liyexiang666]

oh my god, is this really MIT? 22.00 he said tight passive player is what is called "weak player". NO, weak play is lose passive player.

[@EobwQohf]

I think somehow we learn who we really are and then live with that decision.

[@88mphDrBrown]

It seems bizarre to see a reg describe a LAG as "someone that's definitely willing to call a lot", that's just a straight up fish/ calling station. Tbc a LAG can still be a fish, but LAGs are by definition aggressive so "calling a lot" is not a trait of there game play. Overall this seemed like a pretty good opener. I know he mentioned it but I wish he had really emphasized how important aggression is more.

[@jessejordache1869]

I've seen what he's describing called a "LAP", which isn't great, but at least it's not wrong.

[@dmed312]

The truth about poker is that no winning poker player wants to give out the secrets to success. If everyone were good at poker, poker would be much harder to make money at. Winning is very dependent on lots of people losing.

[@ThanhTriet600]

Poker is a highly dynamic game, and there are no secrets. It's all about making fewer mistakes than your opponents like most other sports and games. Your logic is like saying nobody wants to give out the secrets to basketball because then they'd sweep the NBA. No. There is a lot more that goes into it beyond knowing all the plays.

[@superdannny]

ayo i would’ve never in my *LIFE* expect MIT to have poker classes wtf haha

[@mertulasan91]

Thanks