Villain was a maniac, 73/32/12 (3bet) through 41 hands.
He had donked 3/11 flops. One of those times, he donked 25% pot bet with middle pair, holding Q7o on 57Jr board, before calling a raise. He followed this by c/c a 3/4 PSB on T and checking the R.
Had also seen villain 4xBB raise UTG before calling a 3bet OOP with QJo. C/c a 60% pot bet with a GSSD. Hit a pair on T, checked. Checked R.
Villain also stacked off pre with QQ. 3betting and then 5bet shoving.
OK, so what is villain's range here. With him just calling the 3bet pre, can we rule out QQ+?
Flop - When he donks flop and calls a raise, what could he have? 77, 99-JJ ( would he re-raise with 66/88?), AdTd-AdKd...anything else Villain could have?
Turn - He c/c this time. Can we change his range at all? I doubt he carries on now with 77 or 99. Might continue with TT/JJ. Would probably continue with his big FD type hands as well.
River - I feel like I should shove here. That's what I intended to do with the T bet if he called, just wondering what range people would put villain on.
Thoughts?
02-17-2013, 11:02 AM
Savy
I think you shove.
He has a much wider range than that you have given him imo. Could just have a hand like A8, A6.
Quote:
One of those times, he donked 25% pot bet with middle pair, holding Q7o on 57Jr board, before calling a raise. He followed this by c/c a 3/4 PSB on T and checking the R.
That's pretty much how the hand played. Your shove is only a 1/2 pot sized bet too (If my maths is right) so he calls with loads of TPGK type hands. Probably any flush draw that he may have had (may fold this on the river).
02-17-2013, 11:08 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
I think you shove.
He has a much wider range than that you have given him imo. Could just have a hand like A8, A6.
That's pretty much how the hand played. Your shove is only a 1/2 pot sized bet too (If my maths is right) so he calls with loads of TPGK type hands. Probably any flush draw that he may have had (may fold this on the river).
I did think about A8/A6 but I didn't think he would call a 3bet with it. You could be right, maybe I should have included A8/A6 in the range I gave him.
When you say he calls with TPGK type hands what exactly are you putting him on? K8/Q8? I don't think he calls 3bets with these type hands either.
I also wasn't sure if I shoved whether I was turning my hand into a bluff? What hands am I looking to get value from, other than smaller PP's and maybe some badly played A8/A6 type hands if these are even in villain's range.
02-17-2013, 11:14 AM
Savy
If his VPIP is 73 I'm assuming he calls a lot of 3bets with a lot of crappy hands. If otherwise should let us know.
When you have a hand against someone like that just value bet large and thin. There isn't any point trying to put a huge amount of effort into how he plays as he calls you down with complete rubbish and does things with seemingly no proper logic behind them.
02-17-2013, 11:23 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
If his VPIP is 73 I'm assuming he calls a lot of 3bets with a lot of crappy hands. If otherwise should let us know.
When you have a hand against someone like that just value bet large and thin. There isn't any point trying to put a huge amount of effort into how he plays as he calls you down with complete rubbish and does things with seemingly no proper logic behind them.
Can you use his VPIP to assume he calls a lot of 3bets wide? I know he called one with QJo, but that's at least broadway cards. That doesn't mean he calls with A8/A6/K8/Q8.
02-17-2013, 11:45 AM
Savy
His fold to 3bet and call 3bet would be better stats. It does suggest that he doesn't fold very much though.
02-17-2013, 11:52 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
His fold to 3bet and call 3bet would be better stats. It does suggest that he doesn't fold very much though.
His fold/call to 3bet stats are definitely not relevant in 41 hands.
02-17-2013, 12:35 PM
supa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
His fold/call to 3bet stats are definitely not relevant in 58 hands.
This is a horrible assumption unless you're going off those stats alone. With the info you already have these stats can be gold.
02-17-2013, 01:00 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by supa
This is a horrible assumption unless you're going off those stats alone. With the info you already have these stats can be gold.
I'm sorry but I disagree. I think his 3bet call/fold % is about as relevant as his Call flop raise in 3bet pot %.
Maybe if we had more hands on villain and he 3bet a hell of a lot, then yeah, it would become more relevant.
02-17-2013, 01:16 PM
supa
Unbelievable.
02-17-2013, 01:34 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
His fold/call to 3bet stats are definitely not relevant in 41 hands.
This depends entirely on how many times he's faced a 3-bet, so you can't say that without giving the number of times he's faced one, and supa is entirely right on here.
Your flop raise size is entirely too small. Shove the river because you're crushing his calling range.
02-17-2013, 01:50 PM
Pascal
He's 73/32 over 41 hands, this allows you to make assumptions such as: he won't fold to 3bets often. Players who are willing to play 73% of hands don't only call 3bets with strong hands.
02-17-2013, 02:06 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
This depends entirely on how many times he's faced a 3-bet, so you can't say that without giving the number of times he's faced one, and supa is entirely right on here.
Your flop raise size is entirely too small. Shove the river because you're crushing his calling range.
How much should I be raising the flop? $2 raise would be pot sized raise but I am committed to the pot then as I already have half my stack invested.
Villain had only faced one previous 3bet, which he called with QJo.
02-17-2013, 02:43 PM
Savy
A pot sized raise would be $2.32 btw. Not $2.
(I think)
02-17-2013, 03:18 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
How much should I be raising the flop? $2 raise would be pot sized raise but I am committed to the pot then as I already have half my stack invested.
Villain had only faced one previous 3bet, which he called with QJo.
I'm not sure what the bold has to do with anything.
02-17-2013, 04:44 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
A pot sized raise would be $2.32 btw. Not $2.
(I think)
How do you work that out? I thought it was pot ($1.27) + villain's bet (0.35) + my call (0.35).
$1.27 + 0.35 + 0.35 = $1.97? Or am I missing something?
Unless I have to raise $1.97 on top of my 0.35 call?
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I'm not sure what the bold has to do with anything.
I'm not sure I want to commit to the pot without further information. If I have half my stack in and I get 3bet shoved, I can't really fold.
02-17-2013, 04:59 PM
Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
How do you work that out? I thought it was pot ($1.27) + villain's bet (0.35) + my call (0.35).
$1.27 + 0.35 + 0.35 = $1.97? Or am I missing something?
Unless I have to raise $1.97 on top of my 0.35 call?
The pot includes villains bet though.
So it's $1.62 (which is $1.27 +0.35) + $0.70 = $2.32
02-17-2013, 05:11 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
The pot includes villains bet though.
So it's $1.62 (which is $1.27 +0.35) + $0.70 = $2.32
No it doesn't? The pot on the flop, before any action is taken is $1.27, then villain bets 0.35 making it $1.62, plus my call making it $1.97???
Can someone clear this up please coz am lost now.
EDIT - I think I got it now. Pot is $1.27, villain bets 0.35 making it $1.62. I call that bet, before I raise, making pot $1.97. I can now raise a further $1.97 as that is what the current pot is at. Making my PSR $2.32.
02-17-2013, 05:32 PM
Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
No it doesn't? The pot on the flop, before any action is taken is $1.27, then villain bets 0.35 making it $1.62, plus my call making it $1.97???
Can someone clear this up please coz am lost now.
Say you are the first to act. Let the pot size be P.
A pot sized bet is P.
Making the pot now P+P = 2P
Your opponent has to call P.
So your opponent has to put in 1/3 of the money of the pot.
(P is 1/3 of 3P)
This is proof that in a heads up situation a pot sized raise should always result in your opponent having to call a total of 1/3 of the final pot.
What You Said
If your opponent acts first and bets B into a pot P then the pot is now P+B.
If you bet P+B+B = P+2B
The pot is now 2P+3B
You have raised by P+B (to P+2B) so your opponent has to call P+B.
This makes the total pot 2P+3B + P+B = 3P+4B
P+B =/= 1/3(3P+4B) (it is less than)
What I said
Pot is P+B (same as before)
You raise to P+3B
The pot total is now P+B + P+3B = 2P+4B
Your opponent has to call P+3B - B = P+2B (Your raise minus his bet)
P+2B = 1/3 (3P+6B)
Which is a pot sized raise.
02-17-2013, 05:33 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Say you are the first to act. Let the pot size be P.
A pot sized bet is P+P = 2P and your opponent has to call P. So your opponent has to put in 1/3 of the money of the pot. (P is 1/3 of 3P)
If your opponent acts first and bets B into a pot P then the pot is now P+B.
If you bet P+B+B then the total pot is now 2P+3B
You have raised by P+B (to P+2B) so your opponent has to call P+B.
P+B =/= 1/3(3P + 4B)
However if the pot is P+B (same as before) and you raise to P+3B then the pot is now 2P+4B.
Your opponent has to call your raise of P+2B (as he already has B in)
P+2B = 1/3 (3P+6B)
Which is a pot sized raise.
Not a chance of me understanding a single thing you just wrote. I hate it when letters are used in equations. Just use numbers, makes life so much easier.
02-17-2013, 05:40 PM
Savy
If I use numbers it could just prove it for that situation rather than for everything. I can give you a couple of numerical examples if you would like though.
02-17-2013, 05:41 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
If I use numbers it could just prove it for that situation rather than for everything. I can give you a couple of numerical examples if you would like though.
Yeah just use it for this situation please. Then I will be able to apply it to other situations.
02-17-2013, 05:50 PM
Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Yeah just use it for this situation please. Then I will be able to apply it to other situations.
What you said later was correct.
It's the fact that you have to raise BY the amount you work out, not TO the amount you work out.
It's easier to work out what you have to raise TO, not BY.
(Just as easy too)
1) Do 2x opponents bet.
2) Add step 1) to the total pot amount.
That's what you need to raise TO.
I'd also suggest learning how to use basic algebra (Spoonitnow has a thread on it I will link here when I find it) it's really simple.
EDIT - I think I got it now. Pot is $1.27, villain bets 0.35 making it $1.62. I call that bet, before I raise, making pot $1.97. I can now raise a further $1.97 as that is what the current pot is at. Making my PSR $2.32.
Should've left this part of the discussion right here. This is the max amount you can bet in a pot limit game.
02-17-2013, 09:04 PM
rpm
easy shove on the river. the section quoted by MMM above is correct in calculating what a pot-sized bet is here
02-17-2013, 09:06 PM
rpm
btw i think your estimates of villain's range are giving him far too much credit for being able to fold. and that's probably why you get to this river unsure of whether you should value bet or not
02-17-2013, 09:18 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I'm not sure I want to commit to the pot without further information. If I have half my stack in and I get 3bet shoved, I can't really fold.
Surely you're joking. Your plan from the flop should be BET BET BET RAISE BET RAISE RAISE RERAISE RAISE SHOVE.
02-17-2013, 09:22 PM
spoonitnow
And since when is 1/2 of your stack the magical number for being "committed"?
02-17-2013, 10:39 PM
daviddem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
How do you work that out? I thought it was pot ($1.27) + villain's bet (0.35) + my call (0.35).
$1.27 + 0.35 + 0.35 = $1.97? Or am I missing something?
Unless I have to raise $1.97 on top of my 0.35 call?
ImSavy is right.
In short, without equations:
- take the total pot just before your play - 1.62
- add your call (0.35) - 1.62+0.35 = 1.97
- multiply by the fraction of the pot you want to raise (1) - 1.97*1 =1.97
- add the amount your opponent bet or raised to (0.35) - 1.97+0.35 = 2.32
All the numbers above are readily available at the table:
- total pot before your play is displayed in the middle of the table
- your call amount is displayed on your call button
- your opponent's bet or raise is displayed in front of him
note: do not mix up your call and villain's bet/raise size as these numbers will be different is some cases, for example when you bet, he raises and you want to reraise.
If you wanted to make a 2/3 pot sized raise, you would multiply 1.97 by 2/3 in step 3 to get the result. Change the last two lines to:
- multiply by the fraction of the pot you want to raise (2/3) - 1.97*2/3 =1.31
- add the amount your opponent bet or raised to (0.35) - 1.31+0.35 = 1.66
By making a PSR, you lay 33% pot odds for your opponent
By making a 2/3 PSR, you lay 28.6% pot odds for your opponent.
Your raise to 1.10 was a 0.38 pot sized raise (you lay the same odds as if you were betting 38% of the pot in an unopened pot, so you lay only 21.5% pot odds for him).
Yes there are some letters in the equations but there are also examples to help you work it out. And get used to letters in the equations, this is useful for any basic poker math. It's easy: the letters really are just representing numbers.
If you are on Stars or FTP you can program the bet buttons to do the calculations for you for some common bet/raise sizes.
And +1 to what ImSavy said: take the time to go through the mathematics of EV thread, this is a great starting point for your poker math. Spoon has gone to great lengths to make it as simple as possible for the non mathematically inclined.
02-18-2013, 03:51 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
And since when is 1/2 of your stack the magical number for being "committed"?
What? Are you saying you regularly get half your stack in a pot and then fold?
If I am raising and I raise to over half my stack, I can't then fold to a shove can I? It's obviously different if the money goes in over 3 streets but in the first example I think once half my stack is in, I can't fold.
If this is wrong, please tell me why.
EDIT - @ the algebra thing, me & algebra don't get on. I really don't think algebra is needed to play poker. (Waits for backlash and abuse)
02-18-2013, 04:21 AM
daviddem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
EDIT - @ the algebra thing, me & algebra don't get on. I really don't think algebra is needed to play poker. (Waits for backlash and abuse)
You're not going to find a lot of successful players who can't make basic calculations (that does not mean that being able to perform these calculations automatically makes for a successful player though).
02-18-2013, 04:23 AM
Cobra_1878
I can make basic calculations. I just don't use algebra.
02-18-2013, 04:28 AM
daviddem
The required level of algebra is exactly that: basic calculations. If you can add, subtract, multiply and divide, then you can do it.
If you take the time to read the mathematics of EV thread, you will realize it's that easy.
And then it's much more fun and rewarding than abstract math because you actually use the math to model a real life situation.
02-18-2013, 07:12 AM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
What? Are you saying you regularly get half your stack in a pot and then fold?
If I am raising and I raise to over half my stack, I can't then fold to a shove can I? It's obviously different if the money goes in over 3 streets but in the first example I think once half my stack is in, I can't fold.
If this is wrong, please tell me why.
EDIT - @ the algebra thing, me & algebra don't get on. I really don't think algebra is needed to play poker. (Waits for backlash and abuse)
Quick example of why that line of thinking is unnecessary: Suppose you get half of your stack in, and you find yourself in a situation where you need 20% equity to call, and you think you have less than 5% equity. Then you should fold.
Your flop raise size is terrible because of the odds it gives your opponent to call.
Your excuse for not learning basic algebra is also weak and sounds like a woman, and it will definitely impact your ability to learn poker. The required amount of algebra is relatively low, and it has some enormous payoffs.
02-18-2013, 07:47 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quick example of why that line of thinking is unnecessary: Suppose you get half of your stack in, and you find yourself in a situation where you need 20% equity to call, and you think you have less than 5% equity. Then you should fold.
Your flop raise size is terrible because of the odds it gives your opponent to call.
Your excuse for not learning basic algebra is also weak and sounds like a woman, and it will definitely impact your ability to learn poker. The required amount of algebra is relatively low, and it has some enormous payoffs.
I am struggling to get my head around the PSR idea. When he bets 0.35, if I raise to $2.32, that is a massive raise, over 6x his bet. I just think by raising that amount I could possibly lose out on value as it's so big. Maybe $1.10 is a little small, what do you suggest I should have raised to?
Some people can't get the hang of algebra. Seeing letters in equations annoys me and I don't see the need for it. For e.g, in your Mathematics of EV thread, I am fine until "Poker Example 6, Part 8". I can just about understand what you're doing there. Then I am fine again until "Part 13" where it absolutely blows my mind and hurts my head and I can't read anymore.
02-18-2013, 08:06 AM
daviddem
2/3 to 3/4 pot sized bet or raise is generally a good default bet size, enough to charge draws and not so much that you will fold most worse hands. As usual, this is a guideline and situation dependent, if you think villain will call more you should bet more, also more on very wet boards, etc. Also you should keep an eye on stack sizes so that you do not end up with stupid SPR's. This is one of the reasons, along with the ranges (normally) being better defined, that 1/2 pot is kinda standard in 3b pots.
Stop thinking in terms of how many times his bet you are raising to, this is irrelevant. If he bet 0.05 into 1.25, would it make any sense for you to raise only to 0.30, even though this is 6 times his bet? Look at how much you bet/raise in relation to the pot, this is the proper way.
edit: I will let Spoon help you with Poker example 6 because he is better than me at explaining these things. If he doesn't do it I'll try.
02-18-2013, 08:12 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
2/3 to 3/4 pot sized bet or raise is generally a good default bet size, enough to charge draws and not so much that you will fold most worse hands. As usual, this is a guideline and situation dependent, if you think villain will call more you should bet more, also more on very wet boards, etc. Also you should keep an eye on stack sizes so that you do not end up with stupid SPR's. This is one of the reasons, along with the ranges (normally) being better defined, that 1/2 pot is kinda standard in 3b pots.
Stop thinking in terms of how many times his bet you are raising to, this is irrelevant. If he bet 0.05 into 1.25, would it make any sense for you to raise only to 0.30, even though this is 6 times his bet? Look at how much you bet/raise in relation to the pot, this is the proper way.
You're right, it's so fucking dumb and I don't know why I do it. Thanks for the advice.
Talking about raises in relation to the pot, will the typical 2NL/5NL player not be thinking that it's just a massive raise, showing pure strength and fold out hands that may have called a smaller raise? I'm not sure how many 2/5NL players know about raising in relation to pot size and even working out what a PSR is?
02-18-2013, 08:19 AM
daviddem
Actually let me try. Here is an example that is similar.
You are a winning poker player at 5nl, and your average winrate is 6bb/100 hands. How many hands will you need to play to earn $150?
Let's call H the number of hands we are looking for.
We know that we earn 6bb when we play 100 hands. One bb is 0.05, so 6bb is 0.30.
We win 0.30 for each 100 hands, this means we earn 0.30/100 for each 1 hand. That is 0.003 for each hand.
So after we play H hands, we will have won an amount 0.003*H.
We want to know for which H we win $150:
0.003*H=150
Divide both sides of the above equation by 0.003:
H=150/0.003
H=50000
So you need to play 50000 hands to earn $150.
Same story with the FPP.
02-18-2013, 08:28 AM
Cobra_1878
OK, that seems to be overcomplicated to me?
We win 0.30/100 hands. To get to $150 we have to multiply 0.30 by 500. Then if we multiply the amount of hands by the same number, 100*500 this gives us 50,000.
So we need 50,000 hands to win $150.
No need for algebra or inserting letters of any kind.
02-18-2013, 08:29 AM
rpm
Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
Stop thinking in terms of how many times his bet you are raising to, this is irrelevant. If he bet 0.05 into 1.25, would it make any sense for you to raise only to 0.30, even though this is 6 times his bet? Look at how much you bet/raise in relation to the pot, this is the proper way.
.
this is flawed imo. your example definitely highlights an important point (not focussing solely on how many multiples of an opponents bet we are raising), but i think a far better way to think about bet/raise sizes is to consider firstly ranges. that is, what will villain call/raise/fold with when we make it this size? what about this one? second we need to consider the EV of different sizes, which is obviously determined by what our opponents C/R/F ranges are. which size makes us the most money? against which bet/raise size will villain make the most mistakes (in $ terms)?
knowing how to calculate what the pot is and knowing what odds certain sizes give our opponents to call is definitely useful. but i think an understanding of the above will make a far better poker player
02-18-2013, 08:29 AM
daviddem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
You're right, it's so fucking dumb and I don't know why I do it. Thanks for the advice.
Talking about raises in relation to the pot, will the typical 2NL/5NL player not be thinking that it's just a massive raise, showing pure strength and fold out hands that may have called a smaller raise? I'm not sure how many 2/5NL players know about raising in relation to pot size and even working out what a PSR is?
Yes a PSB/PSR in a 3b pot is enormous. As I said usually in 3b pots +/- half the pot is the standard, one of the reasons being that people can't rely on implied odds to call with draws because the SPR are too small.
However this does not necessarily apply here against a clueless aggro monkey on a wet board. I'd still raise to at least 60% pot (leave it to you to calculate how much that is).
People learn fast what a pot sized raise looks like because they just have to hit the pot button to make one.
Also this "raise to x times his bet" is something that villains sometimes rely on to make you commit sizing mistakes. If you raise their small bet only 3x or 4x, it will give them superb odds to call and they know it.
02-18-2013, 08:36 AM
daviddem
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpm
this is flawed imo. your example definitely highlights an important point (not focussing solely on how many multiples of an opponents bet we are raising), but i think a far better way to think about bet/raise sizes is to consider firstly ranges. that is, what will villain call/raise/fold with when we make it this size? what about this one? second we need to consider the EV of different sizes, which is obviously determined by what our opponents C/R/F ranges are. which size makes us the most money? against which bet/raise size will villain make the most mistakes (in $ terms)?
knowing how to calculate what the pot is and knowing what odds certain sizes give our opponents to call is definitely useful. but i think an understanding of the above will make a far better poker player
Completely agree, but as usual it's important to understand the basic math behind it to be able to make effective sizing variations. What's the point teaching how to optimize a raise size vs a range, or EV of various sizes before teaching what is the minimum that should be bet to correctly charge drawing hands and why?
In other words: read Sklansky before you read "let there be range" or "easy game".
02-18-2013, 08:39 AM
MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
What? Are you saying you regularly get half your stack in a pot and then fold?
If I am raising and I raise to over half my stack, I can't then fold to a shove can I? It's obviously different if the money goes in over 3 streets but in the first example I think once half my stack is in, I can't fold.
If this is wrong, please tell me why.
EDIT - @ the algebra thing, me & algebra don't get on. I really don't think algebra is needed to play poker. (Waits for backlash and abuse)
:lol: How in the world would you know what fraction of your chips are in the pot without algebra?
STOP TELLING YOURSELF THAT IGNORANCE IS ACCEPTABLE!!!!!
Algebra is necessary. You already use it, even in the above quote. I don't know who told you that math was not for cool kids, or that being bad at math is lolOK, but you should seriously question this assumption. You have chosen to play online poker and you simply will not excel without being good at middle-school math.
... delete delete delete ... This is enough right here...
Maybe I should add:
CHOOSING IGNORANCE IS A FOOL'S GAME.
02-18-2013, 08:46 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by daviddem
Yes a PSB/PSR in a 3b pot is enormous. As I said usually in 3b pots =/- half the pot is the standard, one of the reasons being that people can't rely on implied odds to call with draws because the SPR are too small.
However this does not necessarily apply here against a clueless aggro monkey on a wet board. I'd still raise to at least 60% pot (leave it to you to calculate how much that is).
People learn fast what a pot sized raise looks like because they just have to hit the pot button to make one.
Also this "raise to x times his bet" is something that villains sometimes rely on to make you commit sizing mistakes. If you raise their small bet only 3x or 4x, it will give them superb odds to call and they know it.
If I am doing it correctly, a 60% pot raise would be ~$1.55?
Also, I don't always raise 3x or 4x, if villain's make small bets, I raise them fairly big religiously. Probably a leak and I obviously adjust if I think villain has caught on to what I am doing and min bets to induce a raise from me so he can 3bet me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
:lol: How in the world would you know what fraction of your chips are in the pot without algebra?
STOP TELLING YOURSELF THAT IGNORANCE IS ACCEPTABLE!!!!!
Algebra is necessary. You already use it, even in the above quote. I don't know who told you that math was not for cool kids, or that being bad at math is lolOK, but you should seriously question this assumption. You have chosen to play online poker and you simply will not excel without being good at middle-school math.
... delete delete delete ... This is enough right here...
Maybe I should add:
CHOOSING IGNORANCE IS A FOOL'S GAME.
Woah, what the fuck? Firstly, you don't need algebra for fractions.
Secondly, I am not being ignorant. I made it fairly clear that not everyone excels at algebra, or even Maths for that matter, I am one of those people. I can write a quality 5000 word essay, I can play sports etc etc but I am not very good with Maths.
Also, I am studying to be a primary school teacher, so talking about subjects being "cool" doesn't even enter the equation.
02-18-2013, 08:49 AM
spoonitnow
There's a term called "uncoachable" to describe someone who isn't willing to listen or take advice because they always have some excuse why they should keep doing things the way that they are doing them now. It's not possible to help people who are uncoachable until, for whatever reason, they stop being scared of improving. The typical approach to overcoming this is to figure out what it is that is causing the uncoachable person to be afraid and choosing a tactical solution that bypasses that source of fear. Unfortunately, there's no way to overcome the need for basic algebra, so there's not much hope.
02-18-2013, 08:56 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
There's a term called "uncoachable" to describe someone who isn't willing to listen or take advice because they always have some excuse why they should keep doing things the way that they are doing them now. It's not possible to help people who are uncoachable until, for whatever reason, they stop being scared of improving.
What a ridiculous statement to make.
I have taken away and learned so, so much from this forum. I was a losing 2NL player ffs and now I know I am a winning 2NL player on the verge of becoming a break-even 5NL player.
Some people who find certain things in life easy, have trouble understanding how some people just don't find the same things as easy as you do. People are so quick to put it down to ignorance, I find that quite ironic.
Why would anyone be scared of improving? That doesn't make sense.
02-18-2013, 09:00 AM
daviddem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
If I am doing it correctly, a 60% pot raise would be ~$1.55?
Yeah more or less, same story. 0.6 is 60% so:
- take the total pot just before your play - 1.62
- add your call (0.35) - 1.62+0.35 = 1.97
- multiply by the fraction of the pot you want to raise (0.6) - 1.97*0.6 =1.18
- add the amount your opponent bet or raised to (0.35) - 1.18+0.35 = 1.53
02-18-2013, 09:06 AM
daviddem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
What a ridiculous statement to make.
I have taken away and learned so, so much from this forum. I was a losing 2NL player ffs and now I know I am a winning 2NL player on the verge of becoming a break-even 5NL player.
Some people who find certain things in life easy, have trouble understanding how some people just don't find the same things as easy as you do. People are so quick to put it down to ignorance, I find that quite ironic.
Why would anyone be scared of improving? That doesn't make sense.
Come on bro, if you are capable of writing a proper essay or being a school teacher, then you can do the algebra bit if you put some effort in it.
I was horrible at and hated math until I was 17 and I took interest and tried. I ended up becoming an applied math engineer.
02-18-2013, 09:32 AM
Icanhastreebet
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Why would anyone be scared of improving? That doesn't make sense.
It makes sense especially in the situation you are in playing for real money. You are probably scared to move up to 10/25NL because in the back of your head you are scared that losing money at these stakes would be a disaster or something.
You already stated in the earlier 65s you purposely make errors at 2NL to avoid future losses but you probably know that by purposely committing errors you actually never have to move up to have these future losses.
It could also be related to the fact that you are winning atm and think that changing anything is a mistake when this line of thinking is terrible and I see it in tonnes of kids coming out of high school trying to do math in university but who know if you refuse to learn how to do something pretty simple you will never succeed at anything let alone beating 2/5NL. It may sound harsh but it's true. If you cannot take the time to learn a skill that is basically a requirement you are pretty screwed for pretty much the rest of your life.
Also you are not the first person to try to learn poker with who has weak math. The good thing is the you should already have nearly all the mathematical skills you need to advance to where you need to be.
02-18-2013, 09:33 AM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Some people who find certain things in life easy, have trouble understanding how some people just don't find the same things as easy as you do.
You're demonstrating what Carol Dweck would call a fixed mindset.
02-18-2013, 09:48 AM
Luco
Can I add that if something goes right over your head the first time you read it, you can often find the same information but written in a different way somewhere. Keep looking and learning and eventually you'll get a breakthrough.
So don't despair just look elsewhere
02-18-2013, 11:58 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icanhastreebet
It makes sense especially in the situation you are in playing for real money. You are probably scared to move up to 10/25NL because in the back of your head you are scared that losing money at these stakes would be a disaster or something.
You already stated in the earlier 65s you purposely make errors at 2NL to avoid future losses but you probably know that by purposely committing errors you actually never have to move up to have these future losses.
It could also be related to the fact that you are winning atm and think that changing anything is a mistake when this line of thinking is terrible and I see it in tonnes of kids coming out of high school trying to do math in university but who know if you refuse to learn how to do something pretty simple you will never succeed at anything let alone beating 2/5NL. It may sound harsh but it's true. If you cannot take the time to learn a skill that is basically a requirement you are pretty screwed for pretty much the rest of your life.
Also you are not the first person to try to learn poker with who has weak math. The good thing is the you should already have nearly all the mathematical skills you need to advance to where you need to be.
I would love to move up the stakes, that's why I am playing poker.
I also understand that I have to develop my game in order to progress. I know I still have a lot to learn and that I need to learn in order to progress.
Everyone keeps referring to algebra as simple. It's simple if you know/understand how to use it. That's the same with every method/question in the world, if you know the answer it's easy, if you don't, it's not so easy.
I am screwed for the rest of my life if I don't learn algebra? I hope that's not what you're referring to as that could be a slight overstatement. I am 26 years old and have gotten this far without it.
02-18-2013, 12:07 PM
Savy
When people say it's easy they don't mean it's easy because they can do it, trust me what we are doing is as simple as adding and multiplying.
The point is if you wanted to learn how to use algebra it is really easy to do.
It's just a few basic rules and as soon as you know them you're away!
02-18-2013, 12:32 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
When people say it's easy they don't mean it's easy because they can do it, trust me what we are doing is as simple as adding and multiplying.
The point is if you wanted to learn how to use algebra it is really easy to do.
It's just a few basic rules and as soon as you know them you're away!
Again, this annoys me. It's simple to you and anyone else that can do it. I am a fully qualified mechanic, it's "easy" to take a full engine apart piece by piece, from the rockers to the crankshaft, it's as easy as changing a tyre. To other people, this might not be so easy, some people might not be able to do it at all.
I understand that maths is all about rules and formulas but for some people it just isn't that simple.
If it was that easy, nobody would ever fail maths or any other subject for that matter.
02-18-2013, 12:38 PM
spoonitnow
More of the fixed mindset bullshit.
02-18-2013, 12:44 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
More of the fixed mindset bullshit.
Why are you persisting with this? If I had a fixed mindset I wouldn't be willing to develop and learn would I, which I clearly have done in my time here. I have changed my thoughts/opinions on many a topic since I have been on this forum, I don't have a fixed mindset whatsoever.
Or is it just the fact that I don't blindly agree to anything you say without questioning it or investigating it further?
I would like you to show me where algebra is absolutely essential in poker.
02-18-2013, 12:53 PM
Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Again, this annoys me. It's simple to you and anyone else that can do it. I am a fully qualified mechanic, it's "easy" to take a full engine apart piece by piece, from the rockers to the crankshaft, it's as easy as changing a tyre. To other people, this might not be so easy, some people might not be able to do it at all.
I understand that maths is all about rules and formulas but for some people it just isn't that simple.
If it was that easy, nobody would ever fail maths or any other subject for that matter.
That's not the case though.
The effort you put into learning how to take an engine apart piece by piece will definitely far outway the effort it takes to learn very basic algebra.
This is the type of stuff kids are doing in y7-9.
If you'd like I'll make a thread telling you all the rules you need to know to have a basic grasp of Algebra with lots of examples. Will take a while though.
02-18-2013, 01:02 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
That's not the case though.
The effort you put into learning how to take an engine apart piece by piece will definitely far outway the effort it takes to learn very basic algebra.
This is the type of stuff kids are doing in y7-9.
If you'd like I'll make a thread telling you all the rules you need to know to have a basic grasp of Algebra with lots of examples. Will take a while though.
That would make sense, it would mean I haven't done anything like this in nearly 13 years, I don't remember algebra from secondary school. I haven't done any maths at all ( except primary school level on my course obviously ) in over 10 years.
I would hate to let you waste your time making that thread if it didn't help me but I would definitely give it my best shot at picking algebra up again.
02-18-2013, 01:08 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I would like you to show me where algebra is absolutely essential in poker.
Balance a river shoving range HU IP, aka the simplest spot to balance a range in poker.
Figure out how much you need to bet on a turn to avoid giving your opponent implied odds on a flush draw.
Figure out how much more likely your opponent is to have AA if it folds to you in the SB pre-flop in full ring as opposed to 6-max.
Use ICM to find a shoving range on the bubble in an SNG.
Balance a river shoving range HU IP, aka the simplest spot to balance a range in poker.
Figure out how much you need to bet on a turn to avoid giving your opponent implied odds on a flush draw.
Figure out how much more likely your opponent is to have AA if it folds to you in the SB pre-flop in full ring as opposed to 6-max.
Use ICM to find a shoving range on the bubble in an SNG.
I have no idea how to do any of that.
My best shot would be at the flush draw question.
If somebody has a FD, they have 9 outs. There are 46 unseen cards, so they have a 37:9 shot of making their draw, which is 4.1:1. So I have to bet just over a quarter of my stack to stop him getting the implied odds to call?
That could be a pile of shit but it's my best shot.
02-18-2013, 01:36 PM
spoonitnow
I think you're drastically overestimating how hard it is to learn basic algebra. If you can add, subtract, multiply and divide, then you're already like 90% there. Just learn how to use variables and you're good.
02-18-2013, 01:38 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
I think you're drastically overestimating how hard it is to learn basic algebra. If you can add, subtract, multiply and divide, then you're already like 90% there. Just learn how to use variables and you're good.
Can you answer the FD question for me please.
I just had a look at the link that DoubleJ posted and I was so far off from the right answer in the first example it was unbelievable.
02-18-2013, 01:48 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Can you answer the FD question for me please.
I just had a look at the link that DoubleJ posted and I was so far off from the right answer in the first example it was unbelievable.
Yeah you're pretty far off. It depends on the pot size and everything as far as exact numbers go, but you've got to take into account how much you'll pay them off on average and what kind of odds you're giving them. Quick example to show you what I mean, but say the pot is $3 with $4 stacks. If you bet $1, then they're getting 4:1 right away (they're calling $1 with a pot that's now $4). The basic thing that algebra does is allow you to take all of these unknowns into account without making things too complicated.
02-18-2013, 01:53 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yeah you're pretty far off. It depends on the pot size and everything as far as exact numbers go, but you've got to take into account how much you'll pay them off on average and what kind of odds you're giving them. Quick example to show you what I mean, but say the pot is $3 with $4 stacks. If you bet $1, then they're getting 4:1 right away (they're calling $1 with a pot that's now $4). The basic thing that algebra does is allow you to take all of these unknowns into account without making things too complicated.
I figured I was wrong but thought I would give it a shot.
I meant could you show me how to answer that question in full, using a specific made up example.
There doesn't have to be unknowns though. If you used a specific example then you would have all the info you needed and there would be no need for algebra right?
02-18-2013, 01:55 PM
daviddem
Quote:
Everyone keeps referring to algebra as simple. It's simple if you know/understand how to use it. That's the same with every method/question in the world, if you know the answer it's easy, if you don't, it's not so easy.
No, it's simple for those people who made the effort of learning it. People are not born knowing algebra (or how to speak, read and write). Same as the engine for the mechanic: it's simple for him now because he put some effort into learning how to do it.
It's not a formidable task, 13-15 y/o kids learn that in school, so you can too if you want to.
If you don't have basic algebra you can't even pick up a poker book and understand it, so you can't even start learning poker other than by trial and error. That's why it's an essential skill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I have no idea how to do any of that.
My best shot would be at the flush draw question.
If somebody has a FD, they have 9 outs. There are 46 unseen cards, so they have a 37:9 shot of making their draw, which is 4.1:1. So I have to bet just over a quarter of my stack to stop him getting the implied odds to call?
That could be a pile of shit but it's my best shot.
You can do better. You have to take into account that there is a pot also.
Start with:
P is the pot size - this is known
S is the stack size (assume villain's and yours are the same) - this is known
B is your bet size - this is unknown because that is what we are looking for
Assume that when you bet, he always calls. Assume a rather pessimistic case scenario where if he misses his flush draw, you always win the pot but you never win more money. If the flush card comes, you will always stack off and loose the rest of your stack.
Now just like in the mathematics of EV thread:
1) list the possible outcomes
2) list the probability of each outcome
3) list what is your profit (or loss) for each outcome
4) from the above, produce the EV equation
5) now you are looking for the bet size B for which you break even, that is the bet size B for which EV=0. So set the equation equal to zero, and solve for B.
edit: answering that if he always calls when you bet, then you should always shove makes sense, but that is not what we are looking for. We are looking for the minimum amount you have to bet to avoid loosing money.
02-18-2013, 02:05 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I figured I was wrong but thought I would give it a shot.
I meant could you show me how to answer that question in full, using a specific made up example.
There doesn't have to be unknowns though. If you used a specific example then you would have all the info you needed and there would be no need for algebra right?
This example is going to take a lot longer to do because I'm going to try to break down the thought process. If you were given this situation and had to solve it, you could do so in about 30-45 seconds with a very basic understanding of algebra.
Say the pot is $2 with $4 left behind on the turn. We're heads-up with a hand like top pair, top kicker. Villain has 9 outs, so 9/46 chance to hit on the river. We're betting X on the turn with the assumption that he's calling. Say that we're always going to pay off a river shove no matter what for the sake of this example. Then on the river, we're going to be calling $4 - X since that's how much he'll have left in his stack ($4 stack on the turn minus the X turn bet).
A total of 9/46 of the time, Villain is going to win the $2 pot on the turn, the X bet on the turn that he called, and the $4 - X bet on the river that we call. However, the other 37/46 of the time, he just loses his X bet on the turn that he called. We can say that our EV of the turn bet with these assumptions is defined with this equation:
EV = (9/46)(2 + X + (4 - X)) + (37/46)(-X)
We want to know what bet size (X) will make our EV zero. We want to know this because it tells us the smallest amount that we can bet:
(9/46)(2 + X + (4 - X)) + (37/46)(-X) = 0
Now we'll use basic rules of algebra to rearrange the equation so that we have X = some number.
(9/46)(2 + X + (4 - X)) + (37/46)(-X) = 0
I'll skip what those steps are for now, but we find out the X = $1.46 in this particular scenario.
To give another quick example to put this into perspective: If the original pot was $3 instead of $2, then X would be $1.70. That makes sense because we have to bet more to give our opponent worse odds.
Edit: Most people are intimidated by algebra because letters (variables) are used in equations. All you need to know about them is that they are placeholders for numbers that we don't know yet. You go ahead and write out the equations that you need with the variables in them, and then you can manipulate things to figure out what the variables are. That's all that there is to algebra, and it just requires addition, subtraction, multiplication and division along with a few basic ideas that show you how to move stuff around in a productive way to get what you want.
Edit #2: If you don't understand 100% where the EV equation came from, that's fine. I show how to do that in my thread called something like the mathematics of EV.
02-18-2013, 02:32 PM
bigspenda73
flop raise $2, shove turn
this thread is long
02-18-2013, 04:33 PM
MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Cobra: Woah, what the fuck? Firstly, you don't need algebra for fractions.
You can not have fractions without algebra. BAM.
Algebra is the use of operators on mathematical objects.
An operator is like: { +,-,x,/,... }. It's the verb of mathematics.
A mathematical object is a number (or group of numbers, or variable, or group of variables,...) It's the noun of mathematics.
So a fraction is 2 objects (numerator and denominator) connected by an operator (division). It is algebraic.
You've been learning algebra since you learned to add and subtract. Call that fundamentals. Now learn the basics. Learn to solve simple, linear equations. We call it "basic" algebra because we're not trying to convince you to learn anything beyond a middle-school level of applications.
The use of the word basic does not mean "easy", it means "there is a crapload more complicated stuff under the banner of algebra and this is barely scraping the surface." We are not saying "Learn algebra, it's easy." We are saying, "Learn a tiny bit more algebra than you already know."
Quote:
Cobra: Secondly, I am not being ignorant. I made it fairly clear that not everyone excels at algebra, or even Maths for that matter, I am one of those people. I can write a quality 5000 word essay, I can play sports etc etc but I am not very good with Maths.
You have chosen to believe that learning more math than you already know is not worth the effort. You are choosing to be ignorant about this subject. Ignorant in the sense of the root word, ignore. I'm not judging you.
Also, no one is suggesting you should excel in algebra, just learn what you need to learn to be excellent at poker.
02-18-2013, 04:48 PM
spoonitnow
Hey Cobra, just ignore everything but the last four sentences of what MadMojoMonkey said and you'll be good.
02-18-2013, 04:54 PM
seven-deuce
Does anyone know any websites that will teach you how to move stuff around/manipulate the equation to find what you want? I'm comfortable mixing numbers and letters but i don't know what you can or cannot do to an equation and how to break it down, all i remember from school is if something crosses the equals sign it does the opposite but when iv been trying to figure out some of spoons algebra before this didn't even apply, example of where i get stuck;
B/(B+F) = 0.27
B = 0.27(B+F) so to get this far we take the (B+F) over the '=' sign and it comes multiply as it was divide the other side? Is that right?
B = 0.27B + 0.27F then we multiply out the brackets to get this line
0.73B = 0.27F Now i'm stuck, i just tried squaring it there because i thought theres two B's BxB is Bsquared so we have to square 0.27 as well but i comes out at 0.073 not 0.73? This example is from this thread http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...rd-192649.html
B = 0.27F/0.73
B = 0.37F
Does anyone know anywhere where i can learn these rules, i think i could learn this pretty easily only i don't know the rules.
02-18-2013, 04:58 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You can not have fractions without algebra. BAM.
Algebra is the use of operators on mathematical objects.
An operator is like: { +,-,x,/,... }. It's the verb of mathematics.
A mathematical object is a number (or group of numbers, or variable, or group of variables,...) It's the noun of mathematics.
So a fraction is 2 objects (numerator and denominator) connected by an operator (division). It is algebraic.
You've been learning algebra since you learned to add and subtract. Call that fundamentals. Now learn the basics. Learn to solve simple, linear equations. We call it "basic" algebra because we're not trying to convince you to learn anything beyond a middle-school level of applications.
The use of the word basic does not mean "easy", it means "there is a crapload more complicated stuff under the banner of algebra and this is barely scraping the surface." We are not saying "Learn algebra, it's easy." We are saying, "Learn a tiny bit more algebra than you already know."
You have chosen to believe that learning more math than you already know is not worth the effort. You are choosing to be ignorant about this subject. Ignorant in the sense of the root word, ignore. I'm not judging you.
Also, no one is suggesting you should excel in algebra, just learn what you need to learn to be excellent at poker.
You know that's not what I meant by algebra.
I await Savy's post and hopefully that will help me out a lot. If I learn it, it better come in handy.
02-18-2013, 05:05 PM
Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
Does anyone know any websites that will teach you how to move stuff around/manipulate the equation to find what you want? I'm comfortable mixing numbers and letters but i don't know what you can or cannot do to an equation and how to break it down, all i remember from school is if something crosses the equals sign it does the opposite but when iv been trying to figure out some of spoons algebra before this didn't even apply, example of where i get stuck;
B/(B+F) = 0.27
B = 0.27(B+F) so to get this far we take the (B+F) over the '=' sign and it comes multiply as it was divide the other side? Is that right?
B = 0.27B + 0.27F then we multiply out the brackets to get this line
0.73B = 0.27F Now i'm stuck, i just tried squaring it there because i thought theres two B's BxB is Bsquared so we have to square 0.27 as well but i comes out at 0.073 not 0.73? This example is from this thread http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...rd-192649.html
B = 0.27F/0.73
B = 0.37F
Does anyone know anywhere where i can learn these rules, i think i could learn this pretty easily only i don't know the rules.
Any number divided by itself = 1
so if we have 0.73B and we divide it by 0.73 we get B as we would have
0.73B/0.73 = (0.73/0.73)B = 1 * B = 1
B = (0.27F)/0.73.
The rule you are thinking of doesn't work exactly unless it is a *, /, + or - you are doing to both side.
What you've said is jibberish and you didn't do it to teh equation anyway.
Do you know BODMAS?
Do you know a(b+c) = ab + ac?
Do you know a+b = b+a and ab = ba
02-18-2013, 05:17 PM
seven-deuce
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
Any number divided by itself = 1
so if we have 0.73B and we divide it by 0.73 we get B as we would have
0.73B/0.73 = (0.73/0.73)B = 1 * B = 1
B = (0.27F)/0.73.
The rule you are thinking of doesn't work exactly unless it is a *, /, + or - you are doing to both side.
What you've said is jibberish and you didn't do it to teh equation anyway.
Do you know BODMAS?
Do you know a(b+c) = ab + ac?
Do you know a+b = b+a and ab = ba
From BODMAS down i know, i know how to expand brackets, bodmas = brackets,of,divide,multiply,add,subtract the order which you do things. and i know ab=ba etc.
Also any number divided by itself is 1 i know, 0.73B/0.73 = B because 0.73/0.73 equals 1 and 1B = 1*B which is just B.
But i still can't do them equations.
02-18-2013, 05:31 PM
MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
Does anyone know any websites that will teach you how to move stuff around/manipulate the equation to find what you want? I'm comfortable mixing numbers and letters but i don't know what you can or cannot do to an equation and how to break it down
all i remember from school is if something crosses the equals sign it does the opposite but when iv been trying to figure out some of spoons algebra before this didn't even apply
Better to think of it as: anything you do to one side of the equals sign, you do to the other side as well.
E.g. 2x + 1 = 5
subtract 1 from both sides
2x + 1 - 1 = 5 - 1
simplify
2x = 4
divide both sides by 2
2x/2 = 4/2
simplify
(2/2)x = 2
(1)x = 2
x =2
Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
example of where i get stuck;
B/(B+F) = 0.27
B = 0.27(B+F) so to get this far we take the (B+F) over the '=' sign and it comes multiply as it was divide the other side? Is that right?
Use my prior method.
B/(B+F) = 0.27
multiply both sides by (B+F)
B/(B+F) x (B+F) = 0.27(B+F)
simplify
B x (B+F)/(B+F) = 0.27(B+F)
B x (1) = 0.27(B+F)
B = 0.27(B+F)
Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
B = 0.27B + 0.27F then we multiply out the brackets to get this line
Yes, you applied the distributive property, which is the next step.
B = 0.27B + 0.27F
Then, we're solving for B, so we want all of the B's by themselves on one side of the equation... so we subtract 0.27B from both sides.
B - 0.27B = 0.27B + 0.27F - 0.27B
simplify
B - 0.27B = (0.27B - 0.27B) + 0.27F
B - 0.27B = 0.27F
now use the distributive property in reverse
(1)B - 0.27B = 0.27F <-- just showing the hidden 1 that multiplies, well everything.
(1 - 0.27)B = 0.27F
simplify
0.73B = 0.27F
Now, if we solve for B, we divide both sides by 0.73
0.73B/0.73 = 0.27F/0.73
simplify
(0.73/0.73)B = (0.27/0.73)F
(1)B = (0.37)F
B = 0.37F
EDIT link to hyperphysics
02-18-2013, 05:42 PM
MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
You know that's not what I meant by algebra.
I await Savy's post and hopefully that will help me out a lot. If I learn it, it better come in handy.
It's not clear to me what you mean by algebra. I wouldn't waste our time here like that.
I was only trying to point out that you already know and use algebra. You may not know of it under that title, but there it is. So be relieved that you already know a lot more than you thought you did a second ago about algebra.
If you can follow my prior post, that's really the extent of the algebra involved in poker and a direct example of how it applies.
02-18-2013, 05:47 PM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by seven-deuce
Does anyone know any websites that will teach you how to move stuff around/manipulate the equation to find what you want? I'm comfortable mixing numbers and letters but i don't know what you can or cannot do to an equation and how to break it down, all i remember from school is if something crosses the equals sign it does the opposite but when iv been trying to figure out some of spoons algebra before this didn't even apply, example of where i get stuck;
B/(B+F) = 0.27
B = 0.27(B+F) so to get this far we take the (B+F) over the '=' sign and it comes multiply as it was divide the other side? Is that right?
B = 0.27B + 0.27F then we multiply out the brackets to get this line
0.73B = 0.27F Now i'm stuck, i just tried squaring it there because i thought theres two B's BxB is Bsquared so we have to square 0.27 as well but i comes out at 0.073 not 0.73? This example is from this thread http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...rd-192649.html
B = 0.27F/0.73
B = 0.37F
Does anyone know anywhere where i can learn these rules, i think i could learn this pretty easily only i don't know the rules.
You can do anything you want as long as you do the exact same thing to both sides of the equation. That's pretty much all you need to know.
B/(B+F) = 0.27
B = 0.27(B+F)
^ Here we just multiply both sides by (B+F). It appears to "move" to the other side. Here's another example that's a bit more practical:
2x + 5 = 13
The objective is to have x = "a number" so that we just know what x is. Note that 2x just means 2 times x. We can subtract 5 from both sides and get this:
2x = 8
Now we can divide by 2 on both sides and get this:
x = 4
Bingo.
02-18-2013, 05:54 PM
seven-deuce
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
now use the distributive property in reverse
(1)B - 0.27B = 0.27F <-- just showing the hidden 1 that multiplies, well everything.
(1 - 0.27)B = 0.27F
simplify
0.73B = 0.27F
Thanks a million MMM, top drawer stuff.
So if we're solving for B we want to isolate all B's and find the value of one single B? and the reverse of removing brackets is adding brackets, so do we just add the brackets to the multiplication things (terminology fail)
So if we get to the stage in an equation when we have all the B's on one side we have to use the reverse distributive property (add in brackets to breakdown that side of the equation to get us a solvable equation for a single B?
I'm aware the letters change, like if we were solving for x when we get to the stage of having all X's on one side of the equal sign we use reverse distributive proerty to enable us to actually solve for x?
Am i on the right track here?
10/10 post btw all us algebra noobs will learn from this, very instructive.
02-18-2013, 06:30 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's not clear to me what you mean by algebra. I wouldn't waste our time here like that.
I was only trying to point out that you already know and use algebra. You may not know of it under that title, but there it is. So be relieved that you already know a lot more than you thought you did a second ago about algebra.
If you can follow my prior post, that's really the extent of the algebra involved in poker and a direct example of how it applies.
Jesus Christ, how the fuck are you doing that. It just makes no sense whatsoever. I fucking hate algebra.
02-18-2013, 06:32 PM
MadMojoMonkey
Yes. You are on the right track. Your terminology is close enough for the benefit of the doubt.
Using the distributive property in reverse is called factoring. (I could have mentioned this earlier).
Quote:
So if we get to the stage in an equation when we have all the B's on one side we have to factor out the B.
FYP
02-18-2013, 06:34 PM
Savy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Jesus Christ, how the fuck are you doing that. It just makes no sense whatsoever. I fucking hate algebra.
You are expecting to look at something which you can't read and expect to understand it?
If I wrote all this in Russian you wouldn't understand it either, you wouldn't say you hate Russian as you've never made an attempt to learn it.
And try to go through the examples. It'll take you a while to get comfortable with it, you aren't going to be able to go through the whole thing in an hour it'll take a few hours worth of effort to get through it.
If you get stuck feel free to PM me.
I did start writing a thread on algebra, but it'd be all over the place.
Getting comfortable with it takes most people doing a lot of examples and you will eventually get the hang of it.
02-18-2013, 06:45 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImSavy
You are expecting to look at something which you can't read and expect to understand it?
If I wrote all this in Russian you wouldn't understand it either, you wouldn't say you hate Russian as you've never made an attempt to learn it.
And try to go through the examples. It'll take you a while to get comfortable with it, you aren't going to be able to go through the whole thing in an hour it'll take a few hours worth of effort to get through it.
If you get stuck feel free to PM me.
I did start writing a thread on algebra, but it'd be all over the place.
Getting comfortable with it takes most people doing a lot of examples and you will eventually get the hang of it.
I'm working on it. I don't care what anybody says, that website is not basic algebra, it's hard. Basic algebra is 2a + 3b = 5ab. ( I hope I got that right haha )
MMM's post explains it very well imo. As long as you do whatever to both sides you should be ok and the most of it is add/subtract/multiply/divide.
Also spoons; 2x+5=13 example is a good starting point to understand the objective of algebra; turning 'x' (or whatever variable for that matter) into a number.
Just take your time and work through it line by line.
MMM's post explains it very well imo. As long as you do whatever to both sides you should be ok and the most of it is add/subtract/multiply/divide.
Also spoons; 2x+5=13 example is a good starting point to understand the objective of algebra; turning 'x' (or whatever variable for that matter) into a number.
Just take your time and work through it line by line.
I understood Spoon's post so I have to be happy with that haha
02-18-2013, 06:57 PM
MadMojoMonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
Jesus Christ, how the fuck are you doing that. It just makes no sense whatsoever. I fucking hate algebra.
It's just a method of taking one true statement and making other true statements come out of it by doing identical processes to equal things.
Let's start with the simple example from earlier:
2x + 1 = 5
I just made this up, it comes from nowhere, it represents only an example to illustrate some concepts.
We want to solve for x.
Definition:
"solve for x" means we want a single x on the left hand side of the equals sign and no x's on the right hand side of the equals sign.
Here we go.
2x + 1 = 5
We're not too interested in the 5, since it is both not an x and already on the right hand side.
There's that 2 in front of the x. However, if we try to divide by 2 now, it will complicate things. I'll do it later, just to show that the steps don't have to be in a certain order.
For now, let's focus on the + 1.
I want to make the +1 go away, and the best way to do that is to make it +0.
Useful info:
I can add or subtract any number I want to as long as I do it to both sides.
I don't want to pick just any number, though. I want to pick the number that turns +1 into +0, which is - 1.
So I want to subtract 1 from both sides of the equation.
2x + 1 - 1 = 5 - 1
Do you follow so far?
02-18-2013, 07:00 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
It's just a method of taking one true statement and making other true statements come out of it by doing identical processes to equal things.
Let's start with the simple example from earlier:
2x + 1 = 5
I just made this up, it comes from nowhere, it represents only an example to illustrate some concepts.
We want to solve for x.
Definition:
"solve for x" means we want a single x on the left hand side of the equals sign and no x's on the right hand side of the equals sign.
Here we go.
2x + 1 = 5
We're not too interested in the 5, since it is both not an x and already on the right hand side.
There's that 2 in front of the x. However, if we try to divide by 2 now, it will complicate things. I'll do it later, just to show that the steps don't have to be in a certain order.
For now, let's focus on the + 1.
I want to make the +1 go away, and the best way to do that is to make it +0.
Useful info:
I can add or subtract any number I want to as long as I do it to both sides.
I don't want to pick just any number, though. I want to pick the number that turns +1 into +0, which is - 1.
So I want to subtract 1 from both sides of the equation.
2x + 1 - 1 = 5 - 1
Do you follow so far?
I understand that x is 2 in this equation but this is a super simple one.
2*2 + 1 = 5
02-18-2013, 07:09 PM
MadMojoMonkey
Your intuitive understanding of algebra is getting in the way of your intellectual understanding.
If the solution of this equation is clear to you, but the B/(B+F) = 0.27 equation is not, then just re-read that post until it makes sense. The methods and concepts are the same, except for the distributive property, which I can more clearly explain if you don't like the web sites' explanations.
02-18-2013, 09:18 PM
rpm
i seriously cannot be assed reading the wall of text above. but i once found myself in a similar position to cobra. hated maths. reluctantly realised maths could help me get better at poker. tried to make excuses as to why i didn't need said maths. started learning. i'm still fucking attrocious at all but the simplest of maths. but i found these two resources spoonitnow gave me the most helpful.
good luck if you bother with it. it's certainly beneficial. it's also less boring learning it the second time around when you actually have a purpose for it.
02-19-2013, 07:23 AM
spoonitnow
The following is the easiest way I know how to explain the basics of solving equations. Please let me know if these examples help or not so that I can make better ones in the future.
We'll have to use examples with larger numbers that you can't just do in your head for this to work. In all of these examples, we're going to solve for x. (That just means figuring out what number x is.) I used some color to make it easier to see what's happening in these three examples.
The Rule You Need to Know: You can do something to one side of the equation as long as you do it to the opposite side of the equation. (The two sides are the left and right of the equals sign.)
Example 1: 372x = 36456
Remember that 372x just means 372 times x. We would like to have x = "a number," but the multiplication by 372 is keeping us from having that. We can get rid of this problem by dividing the left side of the equation by 372. To keep the equation balanced, we also have to divide the right side of the equation by 372.
372x/372 = 36456/372
x = 98
Example 2: x + 14.68 = 43.93
We would like to have x by itself on the left side of the equation. Obviously, the addition by 14.68 is keeping us from having that. We can get rid of it by subtracting 14.68 from the left side of the equation. Since we're going to do it to the left side, we also have to do it to the right side. Here's what we get:
x + 14.68 - 14.68 = 43.93 - 14.68
x = 29.25
Example 3: 2.2x + 5.467 = 25.091
This example is just barely more complicated than the first two. Again, we'll want to get x by itself. To do so, we'll need to get rid of the addition by 5.467 and the multiplication by 2.2. We can only get rid of one at a time, so we'll start with getting rid of the addition by subtracting 5.467 from both sides.
We're now one step closer to having x by itself, so we have made progress. Now we'll divide both sides by 2.2 to get rid of the multiplication.
2.2x/2.2 = 19.624/2.2
x = 8.92
If you can understand the thought process and the strategy used to get x by itself in examples like these, then you're only a couple of rules away from having a decent enough understanding of basic algebra to do things like solve for balanced strategies.
02-19-2013, 07:51 AM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
The following is the easiest way I know how to explain the basics of solving equations. Please let me know if these examples help or not so that I can make better ones in the future.
We'll have to use examples with larger numbers that you can't just do in your head for this to work. In all of these examples, we're going to solve for x. (That just means figuring out what number x is.) I used some color to make it easier to see what's happening in these three examples.
The Rule You Need to Know: You can do something to one side of the equation as long as you do it to the opposite side of the equation. (The two sides are the left and right of the equals sign.)
Example 1: 372x = 36456
Remember that 372x just means 372 times x. We would like to have x = "a number," but the multiplication by 372 is keeping us from having that. We can get rid of this problem by dividing the left side of the equation by 372. To keep the equation balanced, we also have to divide the right side of the equation by 372.
372x/372 = 36456/372
x = 98
Example 2: x + 14.68 = 43.93
We would like to have x by itself on the left side of the equation. Obviously, the addition by 14.68 is keeping us from having that. We can get rid of it by subtracting 14.68 from the left side of the equation. Since we're going to do it to the left side, we also have to do it to the right side. Here's what we get:
x + 14.68 - 14.68 = 43.93 - 14.68
x = 29.25
Example 3: 2.2x + 5.467 = 25.091
This example is just barely more complicated than the first two. Again, we'll want to get x by itself. To do so, we'll need to get rid of the addition by 5.467 and the multiplication by 2.2. We can only get rid of one at a time, so we'll start with getting rid of the addition by subtracting 5.467 from both sides.
We're now one step closer to having x by itself, so we have made progress. Now we'll divide both sides by 2.2 to get rid of the multiplication.
2.2x/2.2 = 19.624/2.2
x = 8.92
If you can understand the thought process and the strategy used to get x by itself in examples like these, then you're only a couple of rules away from having a decent enough understanding of basic algebra to do things like solve for balanced strategies.
YES! YES! YES! I actually understand everything you just wrote.
Let me try;
3.8x + 7.975 = 54.698
OK, so first we have to get x by itself. First thing is to get rid of the 7.975, we do this by subtracting 7.975 and we have to do this from both sides.
3.8x + 7.975 - 7.975 = 54.698 - 7.975
3.8x = 46.723
Now to get x by itself, we can divide both sides by 3.8.
3.8x/3.8 = 46.723/3.8
x = 12.30
I hope I have got that right.
02-19-2013, 07:56 AM
daviddem
^^ algebraic epiphany itt :)
Congrats
Now that you got that, the only thing you need to do to solve more complicated ones is to be orderly and take it one step at a time (in the beginning).
try solving for x: 5x + 3 = 9x - 7
Spoon, do him some distribution and factoring next.
02-19-2013, 08:37 AM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
YES! YES! YES! I actually understand everything you just wrote.
Let me try;
3.8x + 7.975 = 54.698
OK, so first we have to get x by itself. First thing is to get rid of the 7.975, we do this by subtracting 7.975 and we have to do this from both sides.
3.8x + 7.975 - 7.975 = 54.698 - 7.975
3.8x = 46.723
Now to get x by itself, we can divide both sides by 3.8.
3.8x/3.8 = 46.723/3.8
x = 12.30
I hope I have got that right.
Congrats man. Next you need to learn how to add and subtract things that have variables in them.
2a + 3a = 5a
7x - 4x = 3x
4x + 3y you can't combine, the variables have to be the same. It's like trying to add apples and oranges.
Keep in mind that x is the same thing as 1x. So x + 3x = 4x.
Example: 3x = 2x + 7
Here you can subtract 2x from both sides.
3x - 2x = 2x + 7 - 2x
x = 7
Ta da. I'll come back and play with you guys later.
02-19-2013, 09:57 AM
Cobra_1878
I understand everything you wrote spoon.
@Daviddem - I can't do that sum because I don't know how to get rid of the x from the right hand side.
02-19-2013, 10:00 AM
Luco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I understand everything you wrote spoon.
@Daviddem - I can't do that sum because I don't know how to get rid of the x from the right hand side.
Take away 5x from each side to leave 4x on the right...
5x + 3 - 5x = 9x - 7 -5x
Can you solve from there?
02-19-2013, 10:23 AM
spoonitnow
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I understand everything you wrote spoon.
@Daviddem - I can't do that sum because I don't know how to get rid of the x from the right hand side.
@bold, I just showed you how to do this. Give it a shot.
02-19-2013, 12:02 PM
Cobra_1878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luco
Take away 5x from each side to leave 4x on the right...
We can't subtract 4 from the left side....but it looks like x=0?
I really don't know how to do this one
02-19-2013, 12:21 PM
spoonitnow
At any point, you can flip what's on the left and the right. For example:
2x + 3 = 7
is the same as
7 = 2x + 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
I did that but it left x on the right?
5x + 3 = 9x - 7
We can take 4x from each side.
Taking 4x from each side doesn't really accomplish much. See how you're still left with an x on both sides? What if you subtract 5x from each side instead? That would get rid of the 5x on the left side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
5x + 3 = 9x - 7
We can - 5x from each side.
5x + 3 - 5x = 9x - 7 - 5x
3 = 4x - 7
Just like you did here. So far so good!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra_1878
If we subtract 3 from each side?
3 - 3 = 4x - 7 - 3
0 = 4x - 4?
I really don't know how to do this one
One mistake is that -7 - 3 isn't -4, it's -10.
However, if you're trying to isolate the x so that you get "a number" = x, why don't you add 7 to both sides instead?
3 = 4x - 7
3 + 7 = 4x - 7 + 7
10 = 4x
Now you can divide both sides by 4 to find x.
02-19-2013, 12:28 PM
Cobra_1878
Ahh, I wasn't sure about the -7 -3, earlier on I had it as -10 but decided to change my mind second time round.
Adding 7 makes much more sense. So x = 2.5
Let me have a second go;
2x + 6 = 7x - 9
We can take away 2x from each side.
2x + 6 - 2x = 7x - 9 - 2x
6 = 5x - 9
Now we can add 9 to each side
6 + 9 = 5x - 9 + 9
15 = 5x
Now we divide both sides by 5
x = 3 ( That worked out well haha )
02-19-2013, 12:34 PM
Savy
Congrats man.
Make sure you try and find some more examples to practice though as you want to iron out any mistakes you have.
PS - So you feel good about it, I had a chemistry teacher who had a phd in chemistry who I had to explain you could collect like variables together in an equation.
