this gap concept is absolutely KEY to being a winning player. 95% of players don't bother to learn it so if you do you'll have the edge and James has explained it perfectly here.

Thank you for the video, this has helped me massively with this section of the workbook. Was really struggling with the concept

Quick pause to say, Oh yeah being able to write directly into the digital version of this workbook is super helpful! Thanks to everyone whose efforts went towards this! One reason I like using the ratio version of pot odds WITH percentages, at least off the table, is it helps you to really see why the percentage is what is is. The whole picture. Say you're getting 4.6:1 on a call in any spot, knowing that your equity requirement is the answer to the question 100/5.6 provides a wonderful bridge for these different lenses onto the exact same situation. The more lenses you can use, the fuller your perspective so to speak. I also have a question I hope someone can give me some clarity on. Say your facing a call on the flop without correct odds and you use implied odds correctly to calculate you can proceed, you don't hit on the turn, and again face a bet without the correct odds to continue, does your calculation of implied odds on the turn intrinsically account for the outputs from the flop? I guess I'm just wondering what relationship they have with each other mathematically, if any. I'm fairly certain that the answer will be treat each calculation in a vacuum, however part of me feels certain that if this is the case that there must be a way that the turn calculation inherently accounts for the flop calculations future requirements, because implied odds is about something that has to happen in the future, where all other calculations are what is happening right now, so to speak. Thoughts anyone?

Splitsuit vids have been a staple for me as well, as I endeavor to transition into the final stage of Nash's equilibrium. I'm older now and it's been a lot of work. I love it though and can see measurable successes from the things I've learned from James and through Red Chip Poker. Kudos sir and I'll see you in the next "goooooooood morning" :)

I have been watching your videos in the background for a long time. Than a few days ago I found these amazing website that helped me take a lot of notes. Than today I finally look at the YT account name and was blown away that your the same guy

Lovve your content James. thank you for it

Harrington says one should be very conservative with implied odds. Often outs that helps you helps villain much better -> reverse implied odds. One must bear in mind 56s and a FD gets you to a weak flush.

guess I better study more flunked your math test yesterday at 60 % man I thought I was at at least 70% that was a good-fun test I liked it. thanks James

Strange being the first to see a video. Writing to say I appreciate your work. You have helped me quite a lot. I used to rely only on exploitative play and your work has helped me improve my game. Though I will say math does get you into trouble sometimes. I strictly play live and I will just say that I ran into 4 of a kind 6 times in 10 days when i have the second nuts because, you know, they can't always have it, right? 😄 Last hand I played wasn't one of those but KK over QQ. I have a huge number advantage especially considering we share suits. But he hit broadway after I flop a set... So I guess the run down of this long winded comment is that I would like to ask what to do in situations when you have the second nuts dealing with the "can't always have it" mentality? Do I stick to the numbers and just call it off? Do I trust my reads(which is a problem I have now. Not trusting my reads) and fold or stick to the numbers? My play is starting to get "confused." If you know what I mean. Thank you.

Great video !! One question though. Within making “x” more on the river, are we saying that when we hit, we need to ensure that an addition amount “x” is added to the pot? Or is “x” the pot size on the river?

So, in your last example, if you call the turn raise, the pot will be 64k. This call makes only then sense if an aditional 106k will be added on the river, that leads to a total of 170k pot or if the 64k turn pot will increase to a total of 106k on the river?

I think the first raises example is wrong. hero bets 40 into 60 pot = 100 equity req - 23% (3.3:1 pot odds) Our equity 20% (4:1 pot odds) Difference = 0.7 Call amount = 60 0.7 x 60 = 42 The answer key says 40. Am I misunderstanding this??

Would you ever concider doing a virtual hands on training or instructions … I appreciate the content being a feel player for years and learning all of this is kind of hard … been playing years Iv never recorded a hand had a few great live sessions a lot of losing my roo has to be - 200 I have a great feel and horrible luck but want to start full time …

Amazing video, thanks! One question in the Page 115 2nd example: why the % of pot is 91%? Since hero bets 10K into 14K, villain raises to 40K, isn't the % of Pot is calculated like: 40K/(10K+14K)?

So Implied Odds is the money that we need to make in future streets so we can make a profit call right?

Thanks for the video but i have a question about the 2nd example : i believe the pot amount is 74k and not 64k since we've already put 10k before getting raised. Those 10k belong to the pot now right ? Am i missing something ?

at 7:30, you have said 19% equity but for some reason i'm getting 23%. 30/130. it's just under 1/3 so that would make it under 25%. what did i miss?

where does the 8% estimate come from?

can anyone tell me the formula of the gap ratio method as i cant really understand what he is saying without it being written down. You calculate pot odds and then subtract what from what and multiply by call amount??

does it mean that after calling with 25% pot odds and having 8% chances of making the best hand in a $160 POT, you should get called a bet of $215, 100% of the time?

I understand implied odds but implied odds facing a raise calculations in the workbook, I really struggle with. You bet 40 into a 60 pot is 100 in the pot and if they raise 100 total is that not 100% pot bet and 2/1 odds 33%? Why the need for 3x40 plus original pot? I don't get it and had to skip that section, frazzled what brain cells I had left. If 3x40 is 120 + original pot is 180 and a 100 bet is 56% I still can't get to the pot odds equity required to be 23%.....

What about reverse implied odds?

I didn't get it

My last hand, I had jj on utg i raise 3x and 4 opponent calls the board comes 8 6 2 monotone I went all in with jj and sb call with 99 and river comes 9 and I lost the pot 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

gto beard

Why make poker too complicated???😜😝🤪

I think your 1st maths equation was too difficult as a 1st example, and the speed you are doing It is too hard to follow and needing to use an app doesn't help matters. Not very helpful or too complicated to new players.

this was so confusing very difficult to understand

manyou talk way too fast

I don't use anything else than pot odds, you guys are giving yourselves analysis paralysis and wasting mental energy doing completely useless math... Poker is not an exact science.

You need to slow down my man. Talk eat too fast

In the first example, where are you getting the 11:1 ratio needed. I am starting to understand finding the gap between ratios and multiplying that by what is needed to call, but I am struggling to find the actual ratio needed vs the ratio I am currently getting