I think the camera man has a crush on the teacher

Not seeing the slides makes viewing very frustrating.

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

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

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

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

It’s actually given me confidence to go on tables

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

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

23:51 implied odds 44:55 fold equity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's awesome that you guy do all these courses, not just the poker. People crying about the slides should go pay Phil helmuth their money for the same info.

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

This is pretty good mathematical probability advice for poker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why did he change his shirt at 23:48?

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

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

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

Does this still hold up? Is it outdated?

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

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

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

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

Thks

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

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

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

What is this? The Ivey league?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thank you camera man for not filming a anything on the screen that he is pointing to. very informative.

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

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

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

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

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

why cam on him ?

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

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

Did this guy just explain how chicken is played

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

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

22:45

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

57:24

Did anyone notice his shirt change?

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

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

Wow no slides for the whole video?

Updated video with slides: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sJ2imrCQxt66oGg.html

You should call this "Polker Hands".

this is poker theory for fish!

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

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

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

Try and explain this to Tom Dwan.🤣🤣

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

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

Terrible film job!!!!!

Sammy farha guest star

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

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

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

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

Why did he change his shirt lol?

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

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

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

My boy's wicked smaaart!

Hey camera man! Duh!

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

shitiest cameraman ever

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

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

The cameraman is his bf.

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

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

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

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

This lecturer is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz