Operation: Ms. Spoonitnow the Guinea Pig

[spoonitnow]

I'm using my girlfriend as a bit of a guinea pig lately, and I thought I would share some progress and results here. I've always wondered how quickly I could take someone from knowing nothing about poker to beating 25nl, and now I have the chance. I know what date I'm aiming for, but I'm not going to let anyone know what it is so she doesn't find out because I don't want any pressure on her. We're following the basic process and structure that I follow when I coach someone, except we only work on poker maybe 30-45 minutes each day. I'm going to document her progress here.

November 5 - Michelle doesn't know that a flush beats a straight.
November 6 - Michelle learns what EV and equity mean.
November 7 - Michelle learns about pot odds and outs as relates to equity and how to determine calls with draws in terms of EV.
November 8 - Michelle reviews pot odds and outs, and learns about ranges.
November 9 - Michelle learns concepts of analysis based on ranges and pot odds.
November 10 - Michelle learns how ranges are distributed based on hand combinations.
November 11 - Michelle reviews hand combinations and practices analysis based on what she's learned so far.

So I asked Michelle the following question today:

Suppose we have AK on A897K in position against a range of {88-99, JT, AQ-AJ}, and Villain bets $10 into a pot of $15, can we call profitably? Note: She can also figure out that raising is -EV there but that's beside the point. She lists the pot odds and the odds against us winning based on the distribution of our opponent's range and answers.

Edit: She's currently playing play money. Once she gets up to 100k play money chips, she's going to make her first deposit at PokerStars and play 2nl.

[ProZachNation]

Anyone can go from dead money to winning with a constant coach....

[flomo]

does it really take knowing all those concepts to beat 25NL?

is she only getting poker help during the 30-45 minute session?

[BankItDrew]

Michelle knew more about poker by Nov. 6th, than I did by the time I reached 200nl. So to answer flomo's question: no.

[Monty3038]

I'm actually very interested in this process and the results it entails. I have considered having someone coach me and though I can't verify the results per se, it would be interesting to know if this is possible, might make me lean more towards being coached.

[Sup3rM4N]

i wonder if half way thru the operation if the title will have changed to:
Operation: Mrs. Spoonitnow the Guinea Pig


sounds like a fun operation.

[Chelle]

i wonder if half way thru the operation if the title will have changed to:
Operation: Mrs. Spoonitnow the Guinea Pig


sounds like a fun operation.

I like the way you think.

[bikes]

SOAP!

[TonyB73]

i wonder if half way thru the operation if the title will have changed to:
Operation: Mrs. Spoonitnow the Guinea Pig


sounds like a fun operation.

I like the way you think.

ROFLMAO.

This is either the lady in question herself or someone having a laugh.

If the former ... no pressure Spoon!

[flomo]

i think a really better sample would be the aunt

[Stacks]

Sweet. So when I move in with you guys we can all grind together (Just poker that is).

GoGo Chelle!

[Chelle]

i wonder if half way thru the operation if the title will have changed to:
Operation: Mrs. Spoonitnow the Guinea Pig


sounds like a fun operation.

I like the way you think.

ROFLMAO.

This is either the lady in question herself or someone having a laugh.

If the former ... no pressure Spoon!

It is I, Ms.Spoonitnow. Don't worry, my family pressures him enough.

[Chelle]

Sweet. So when I move in with you guys we can all grind together (Just poker that is).

GoGo Chelle!

Pft, I don't think I have the attention span to grind.

[Thunder]

Suppose we have AK on A897K in position against a range of {88-99, JT, AQ-AJ}, and Villain bets $10 into a pot of $15, can we call profitably?

Would like to know how this is done without pokerstove? It's not as simple as calculating simple odds/outs.

[a500lbgorilla]

Number of hand combos which you're ahead of vrs number of hand combos which beat you, then consult available pot odds.

[Thunder]

Walk through pls?

[Stacks]

Walk through pls?

Ummm.. Do it yourself and get corrected if wrong?

First, using the range Spoon gave, list the possible combos for each hand.

[Stacks]

Just because I suck at life, and want to go ahead and know that Chelle knows more poker math than I do (so there is no anticipation), I'm gonna do this really fast to see how I somehow fucked something up myself.

AK on A897K board, facing a bet of $10 into a currently $15 pot. Villain has a range of 88-99, JT, AQ-AJ.

Combos
88 = 3
99 = 3
JT = 16
AQ = 8
AJ = 8

We lose to 88-99, JT or 22 combos.
We win against AQ, AJ, or 16 combos.
We are ahead 16/38 or 42%.

We must call a $10 bet to win a $25 pot so our pot odds are 2.5:1 or 28.5%.

So we have 42% equity against that range, and are only putting in 40% of the pot, therefore a call is profitable.

[Stacks]

Oh yeah, and GO CHELLE!!!

[spoonitnow]

Suppose we have AK on A897K in position against a range of {88-99, JT, AQ-AJ}, and Villain bets $10 into a pot of $15, can we call profitably?

Would like to know how this is done without pokerstove? It's not as simple as calculating simple odds/outs.

Yes it is.

She lists the pot odds and the odds against us winning based on the distribution of our opponent's range and answers.

<spoonitnow> pot odds are 2.5:1
<spoonitnow> odds against us winning are 22:16
<spoonitnow> pot odds > odds against us winning, obvious call

[Thunder]

What stumps me is that the way I see the pot odds is that to call the $10 to win a pot of $25 means the pot odds - as a percentage - is 10/25 x 100 = 40%.

I only get 28.5% (which Stacks & Spoon get) when I work it out by including your own $10 - ie: $10 to win $25 + your $10 you just put in (10/35 x 100 = 28.5%).

BUT one of the first thing I learnt about calculating pot odds is that you NEVER include your own bet. And that is why I see it as calling $10 to win $25, thus 40% and thus my confusion.

[spoonitnow]

What stumps me is that the way I see the pot odds is that to call the $10 to win a pot of $25 means the pot odds - as a percentage - is 10/25 x 100 = 40%.

I only get 28.5% (which Stacks & Spoon get) when I work it out by including your own $10 - ie: $10 to win $25 + your $10 you just put in (10/35 x 100 = 28.5%).

BUT one of the first thing I learnt about calculating pot odds is that you NEVER include your own bet. And that is why I see it as calling $10 to win $25, thus 40% and thus my confusion.

Here's an example that will clear this up. I'm going to list a sample of seven letters here: AAAABBB. The ratio of A's to B's is 4:3. The percent of A's in the sample is 4/7 = 57.1%. See the difference?

Now in the original problem: 25:10 = 2.5:1 = 1/3.5 = 28.5%

[Thunder]

Spoon,

Thx for your explanation. I read what you wrote and though it makes sense in the context of your post, it doesn’t make sense in relation to mine and the maths I am using. Now, I have gone over my workings out numerous times, with differing examples, and it always adds up! I will detail various maths examples so hopefully you can spot the mistake I am making – because I cannot.

Just to cover the obvious and where I am coming from: 1 IN 10 is written as 1/10 and equals 9 TO 1 (which is written as 9:1).

The simple way to remember is that "IN" is always one more than the "OUT".
So 1/10 is 9: 1
1/20 is 19:1
1/7 is 6:1
1/4 is 3:1

So far so good. I don't think anyone will disagree so far.

And if this is true then 10/25 (or 1/2.5) equals 1.5:1 and not 2.5:1.


Example 1
So calling $10 to win $40 is 10/40 or 1/4 (1 IN 4). We know this is 3 TO 1. And if we do the calculation 1/4 x100 we get 25%. Out of 100 percent, the ratio to 25/75 and that is 3:1 – which is what I said at the start of this example. And so, as you can see, my maths is correct as this example proves that 1 in 4 is 3 to 1.


Now, if this example is true then by the same token, the OP setup of calling $10 to win $25 means that it is 10/25 (10 "IN" 25) or 1 in 2.5 And this, by the maths above, is 1.5: 1 not 2.5:1 as has been written. So first off, why do you say it is 2.5: 1 when the maths here shows that it’s 1 IN 2.5 and that this equates to 1.5:1?

Secondly, by my working out, the bet is 40% of the pot (as Stacks already said). We know it’s about that anyway without doing any maths because it’s just short of half the pot – and thus just short of 50%. So again, I cannot see how it works out that a near 50% bet equates to 28.5%. And if we show as a ratio then 40% is 40/60. 40 fits into 60 exactly one and a half times and is thus, as said, 1.5 to 1.


And just to test my maths once more, here is an even more obvious example. Let’s make the villain bet $10 into a $20 pot, exactly half the pot. This is 10/20 or 1/2. 1 in 2 is 1:1. And if we do the actual working out we get 10/20 x 100 = 50%. And 50% is 1/2 because you have a 1 in 2 chance of winning. A 1/2 chance means you win one and lose one, and this is, as already mentioned, 1:1.

Can you see where I am apparently going wrong here? I have no idea and every test I run works out exactly.

Help mucho appreciated.

[Kijjo]

I got lost in all your math, I just know to calculate it the way everyone speaks about it and uses it, you have to add your own. Sorry, I know that's not much help.

[Kijjo]

Oh, BTW, good luck guinea pig.
Hilarious that she sees this post so fast - 4 hours after it's begun? spoon, you can't hide nothing from this chick!

[spoonitnow]

And if this is true then 10/25 (or 1/2.5) equals 1.5:1 and not 2.5:1.

The bold is where you're fucking up and explains your confusion.

Suppose we have AK on A897K in position against a range of {88-99, JT, AQ-AJ}, and Villain bets $10 into a pot of $15, can we call profitably? Note: She can also figure out that raising is -EV there but that's beside the point.

The fraction 10/25 would assume we were calling 10 to win 15, but we're really calling 10 to win 25. After Villain bets 10 into a pot of 15, the pot is 25 with us calling 10. This gives us 2.5:1 pot odds which equals 1/3.5, etc.

[Monty3038]

And if this is true then 10/25 (or 1/2.5) equals 1.5:1 and not 2.5:1.

The bold is where you're fucking up and explains your confusion.

Suppose we have AK on A897K in position against a range of {88-99, JT, AQ-AJ}, and Villain bets $10 into a pot of $15, can we call profitably? Note: She can also figure out that raising is -EV there but that's beside the point.

The fraction 10/25 would assume we were calling 10 to win 15, but we're really calling 10 to win 25. After Villain bets 10 into a pot of 15, the pot is 25 with us calling 10. This gives us 2.5:1 pot odds which equals 1/3.5, etc.

I struggled with this too, but the part I think is missing in the explanation is you are calling 10 to win not only the 25 but also the 10 you are calling with, making it truly putting in 10 to win a total of 35, thus the 1/3.5

If you don't call you get 0... if you call, you get hte pot PLUS your call.

[TonyB73]

Spoon,

Thx for your explanation. I read what you wrote and though it makes sense in the context of your post, it doesn’t make sense in relation to mine and the maths I am using. Now, I have gone over my workings out numerous times, with differing examples, and it always adds up! I will detail various maths examples so hopefully you can spot the mistake I am making – because I cannot.

Just to cover the obvious and where I am coming from: 1 IN 10 is written as 1/10 and equals 9 TO 1 (which is written as 9:1).

The simple way to remember is that "IN" is always one more than the "OUT".
So 1/10 is 9: 1
1/20 is 19:1
1/7 is 6:1
1/4 is 3:1

So far so good. I don't think anyone will disagree so far.

And if this is true then 10/25 (or 1/2.5) equals 1.5:1 and not 2.5:1.


Example 1
So calling $10 to win $40 is 10/40 or 1/4 (1 IN 4). We know this is 3 TO 1. And if we do the calculation 1/4 x100 we get 25%. Out of 100 percent, the ratio to 25/75 and that is 3:1 – which is what I said at the start of this example. And so, as you can see, my maths is correct as this example proves that 1 in 4 is 3 to 1.


Now, if this example is true then by the same token, the OP setup of calling $10 to win $25 means that it is 10/25 (10 "IN" 25) or 1 in 2.5 And this, by the maths above, is 1.5: 1 not 2.5:1 as has been written. So first off, why do you say it is 2.5: 1 when the maths here shows that it’s 1 IN 2.5 and that this equates to 1.5:1?

Secondly, by my working out, the bet is 40% of the pot (as Stacks already said). We know it’s about that anyway without doing any maths because it’s just short of half the pot – and thus just short of 50%. So again, I cannot see how it works out that a near 50% bet equates to 28.5%. And if we show as a ratio then 40% is 40/60. 40 fits into 60 exactly one and a half times and is thus, as said, 1.5 to 1.


And just to test my maths once more, here is an even more obvious example. Let’s make the villain bet $10 into a $20 pot, exactly half the pot. This is 10/20 or 1/2. 1 in 2 is 1:1. And if we do the actual working out we get 10/20 x 100 = 50%. And 50% is 1/2 because you have a 1 in 2 chance of winning. A 1/2 chance means you win one and lose one, and this is, as already mentioned, 1:1.

Can you see where I am apparently going wrong here? I have no idea and every test I run works out exactly.

Help mucho appreciated.

Thunder, there's nothing wrong with your calculations, your problem is your starting assumptions. Calling $10 in a pot that already has $40 in it is 10 in 50, or 1 in 5, or 4:1. It is NOT 1 in 4.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate this is your last example. Lets say you have a $10 pot on the river, and villain bets pot. So you the option to call $10 into a $20 pot. If you call and lose, you're down $10. If you call and win, you're up $20 (the pot not including your call). So therefore you only have to win more than 33% of the time for this to be profitable or 1 in 3 times. Or put another way, your pot odds are 2:1.

Does that help?

[Chelle]

Oh yeah, and GO CHELLE!!!

Thank you Stacks.

[spoonitnow]

Oh, BTW, good luck guinea pig.
Hilarious that she sees this post so fast - 4 hours after it's begun? spoon, you can't hide nothing from this chick!

I don't have to hide anything from her. Even the porn.

[Chelle]

Oh, BTW, good luck guinea pig.
Hilarious that she sees this post so fast - 4 hours after it's begun? spoon, you can't hide nothing from this chick!

I don't have to hide anything from her. Even the porn.

[flomo]

good luck Chelle!!!!!


even though i don't think you need it

[spoonitnow]

November 12 - Practiced some analysis

I think she had an "ohhh" moment that broke down a mental barrier with the math. Suppose in some river spot we're last to act and are getting 3:1 pot odds on a call but think we're 2:1 against winning. She could explain the math in terms of why a call was +EV (because on average we'll win 3 units once for every 2 times we lose 1 unit, etc.), but I don't think she felt quite right about it. So I gave the example that we were given pot odds of 1 billion:1 and were 100:1 against winning. I think that made things click pretty well.

I've also noticed that in life she's probably never had an opportunity to really challenge herself analytically and I can see her start to panic sometimes when she doesn't immediately understand something or know where to begin in some situation I give her to think about. In other words, this is becoming more life +EV as well.

[kmind]

This is really interesting and I am really hoping for a successful story. Good stuff spoon/chelle!

[Monty3038]

November 12 - Practiced some analysis

I think she had an "ohhh" moment that broke down a mental barrier with the math. Suppose in some river spot we're last to act and are getting 3:1 pot odds on a call but think we're 2:1 against winning. She could explain the math in terms of why a call was +EV (because on average we'll win 3 units once for every 2 times we lose 1 unit, etc.), but I don't think she felt quite right about it. So I gave the example that we were given pot odds of 1 billion:1 and were 100:1 against winning. I think that made things click pretty well.

I've also noticed that in life she's probably never had an opportunity to really challenge herself analytically and I can see her start to panic sometimes when she doesn't immediately understand something or know where to begin in some situation I give her to think about. In other words, this is becoming more life +EV as well.

I can sympathize, the analytics are killing me apparently too, as I am struggling with a number of the same concepts.

[spoonitnow]

She's got a pretty decent idea of the basic concepts that make the poker world go 'round, so now we're getting into actual playing. Basic strategy, basic hand-reading, and basic psychological points. She's up to like 11k in play money. At 100k we start 2nl.

[Chelle]

Well, almost 12K, now. Wooohoo.

[Chelle]

SOAP!

It's on it's way, calm yourself!

[Thunder]

I am still stuck. Below shows my working out – and confusion - in detail. Spoon, if this is derailing then please ask a mod to split this into a new topic in the BC.

Quick recap:

The way I was taught to calculate post odds:
to call / pot x 100. So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/25 x 100 = 40%.
10/25 is 10 in 25 (1 in 2.5). And "IN" is always 1 more than "TO".

In regards to Spoon’s dilemma in the OP, I calculated that if we have 42% equity then calling a bet of 40% is just about EV+.

The next post covers this situation as well as calling a $10 pot sized bet and calling a $10 bet into a $40 pot – examples discussed above.

[Thunder]

Tony, You’re right about the fact I was forgetting to add villain’s $10 bet into the existing $40 pot – creating a pot of $50 and thus odds of 1 in 5 or 4:1 as you said. This indicates that my maths was correct, which you mentioned.

However, with Spoon’s original situation of facing a $10 bet into a $15 pot and in this example I DID include villain’s bet as I commented that you are having to call $10 to win $25.

And so the plot thickens. My workings out are detailed so hopefully the breakdown in my thinking can be pinpointed. As you will see A & B work within themselves. C & D work within themselves but when I try to cross reference, the maths behind A & B do not work with C & D!


A) With your $10 pot bet example, it would appear that rather than calling 10 to win 20 being 1 IN 2 it is actually reverses, 2 TO 1. So 1/2 is not 1 IN 2 but 2 TO 1. Out of 3 attempts you win 1 and lose 2. Which equals 1 in 3.


B) This would also hold true for Spoon’s example & explanation that calling $10 to win $25 is not 1 IN 2.5 but 2.5 to 1. So again, 1/2.5 says you win 1 and lose 2.5 and so have odds of 1 in 3.5.

In these examples, the fractions indicate “TO”.
1/2 is 2 TO 1 (1 in 3)
1/2.5 is 2.5 TO 1 (1 in 3.5).

If this is so then the mystery is solved.


However…………


C) Let’s go back to the $40 pot and villain bets $10 – which you already mention is 1 in 5 (4 to 1).
Villain is betting 10 into 40 thus making a pot of 50. You are then being required to call 10 to win 50 or 1/5. In this instance, the fraction indicates “IN”. You have a 1 in 5 chance and so equals 4 to 1.

This is the way I learnt, the way I illustrated in my "recap" and the way I described in my other post. However, how can this be correct when in A) & B), the fraction indicates “TO” - meaning that 1/5 here should be 5 TO 1 (which is 1 in 6).

See the problem? Either a fraction indicates “IN” or “TO”.

D) Another way of looking at villain betting $10 into a $40 pot is to see his bet as 10 into 40 (10/40). This shows he is giving odds of 4 TO 1. Which is 1 in 5. And this is vindicated by the maths in C). You just don’t add them his bet to the pot as you did in C) but the maths still works out the same.

If we look at A) and B) in the same manner we get the same answers as I gave in my other post –contrary to what everyone else is saying and contrary to what has been worked out in this post.

In A) villain is betting 10 into a pot of 10. Thus odds of 1:1 or 1 in 2.In B) villain is betting 10 into 15, thus odds of 1.5 to 1 or 1 in 2.5.

So using the maths of C) and D) gives me the answers I came to in my above post which you say is wrong yet when I use them for facing a $10 bet into a $40 pot I am told that the maths is correct!

So which is true?

[Thunder]

And.......

1) Rregardless of whether it is “IN” or “TO”, if you have to call a $10 bet to win a pot of $25 then you are calling a bet that is 40% of the pot, not 28.5%, yes?


2) Even if I am wrong, how come I get the same answer as Stacks - that we are calling a 40% bet when we have 42% equity and that the call is EV+?

[spoonitnow]

And.......

1) Rregardless of whether it is “IN” or “TO”, if you have to call a $10 bet to win a pot of $25 then you are calling a bet that is 40% of the pot, not 28.5%, yes?


2) Even if I am wrong, how come I get the same answer as Stacks - that we are calling a 40% bet when we have 42% equity and that the call is EV+?

Because he messed it up and didn't go back to fix it, though I showed him he messed up in IRC.

<@spoonitnow> Okay seriously
<@spoonitnow> Do we all agree that if the pot is $25 and you're calling $10 that your pot odds are 2.5:1, and your break even point for calling is when you have 1/3.5 equity?

[Muzzard]

We have to call $10 to win $25 therefore 10:25.

To work this out as a percentage we take both sides of the ratio and add them together 25+10 and divide the left hand side by the result, then multiply by 100. Which makes 10/35*100=28%.

THAT IS HOW YOU CONVERT A RATIO INTO A PERCENTAGE

RATIO A:B = A/(A+B)*100

GCSE maths fail.

[spoonitnow]

The way I was taught to calculate post odds:
to call / pot x 100. So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/25 x 100 = 40%.
10/25 is 10 in 25 (1 in 2.5). And "IN" is always 1 more than "TO".

This is wrong in too many places to count. This is how it should read, with the corrections in bold:

The way to calculate post odds:
to call / (call + pot) So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/35 = 0.286 = 28.6%
10/25 is 10 in 25 (1 in 2.5). And "IN" is always 1 more than "TO" if the ratio is of the form x:1.

In all sincerity, this could explain why you've not made it farther in poker.

Edit: Edited to change IN and TO around in the bold part because I retyped it by hand and am a total retard.

[spoonitnow]

Okay let's simplify like as much as humanly possible so that we don't have any more 5000-word posts searching for enlightenment in the area of pot odds. Tommy picks a marble from the bag. The odds against him picking a blue marble are 5:2 = 2.5:1. The chance of him picking a blue marble are 2/7 = 1/3.5 = 0.286 = 28.6%. In this example, we see that 2.5:1 = 1/3.5.

[Stacks]

Yeah I screwed up on the pot odds math and it was incredibly retarded of me not to catch it tbh. $10 into an aread $15 pot. That means there is now $25 into the pot and you must call $10 which means you are being given 2.5:1 pot odds. To convert that into a percentage you simply add both sides together, and divide that number into 1. That is 1/3.5 or 28.6%.

[Thunder]

To work this out as a percentage we take both sides of the ratio and add them together 25+10 and divide the left hand side by the result, then multiply by 100. Which makes 10/35*100=28%.

THAT IS HOW YOU CONVERT A RATIO INTO A PERCENTAGE

RATIO A:B = A/(A+B)*100

Muzz, I understand that this is for a ratio but I was working with fractions and under the impression that any pot to bet situation is a fraction and thus indicative of IN and not TO. Eg: 25% is a quarter. One quarter is written as 1/4 and by my maths 1/4 x 100 = 25%. So you see my method is correct in this instance.

And that has caused the confusion because when I saw a bet of $10 into a $90 pot, I saw it as 10/100, multiplied by 100 and came up with 10%.

[Thunder]

The way to calculate post odds:
to call / (call + pot) So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/35 = 0.286 = 28.6%

Like Muzzard said, you're adding the 2 together and so all your previous maths makes sense. Though I am still confused how 1/4 works out as 25% by doing it my way and NOT by adding the 2 sides together.

10/25 is 10 in 25 (1 in 2.5). And "TO" is always 1 more than "IN" if the ratio is of the form x:1.

Not sure what you mean by this. I understand IN/TO as such:
1 in 10 means 9:1 as out of 10 you win 1 and lose 9. And that 1 in 5 is 4:1; 1 in 20 is 19:1 etc.

Thunder, there's nothing wrong with your calculations, your problem is your starting assumptions. Calling $10 in a pot that already has $40 in it is 10 in 50, or 1 in 5, or 4:1.

Spoon/Muzz, as you have stated I am wrong and that bet/pot is a TO ratio and not an IN ratio - then Tony - who confirmed my maths is correct - is actually wrong also, yes?

We both saw calling $10 to win $50 as 1 in 5 (4:1) but by your reckoning of call / (call + pot) it's 10/(10+50) x 100 = 16.67%???

In all sincerity, this could explain why you've not made it farther in poker.

I only play SNGs and am quite happy with my progress. Up to a week ago I had taken my last $20 deposit to $500. Am not making tens of thousands but after one year how many are? As you know, SNGs are far more simplistic than cash and my main issues have been tilt and optimum play on the bubble onwards (ICM). Just these 2 alone can set a +ROI.

FWIW, reading/ranging opps and acting accordingly is what I believe will take me to the next level. And it's the one aspect I haven't a clue on and desperately want. That is when I will stop seeing myself as a beginner and can see definite "skill" in practice. And then I'll feel more confident to tackle cash.

[spoonitnow]

We both saw calling $10 to win $50 as 1 in 5 (4:1) but by your reckoning of call / (call + pot) it's 10/(10+50) x 100 = 16.67%???

If you are calling $10 to win $50 then your pot odds are 5:1. The break even point for a call is 1/6 which is 16.67%. Refer to the bag of marbles if you don't get it yet (if that's even possible).

In all sincerity, this could explain why you've not made it farther in poker.

I only play SNGs and am quite happy with my progress. Up to a week ago I had taken my last $20 deposit to $500. Am not making tens of thousands but after one year how many are?

The level of your discussion is rather low for someone who has been talking/playing poker for that long, and it's likely seeded in a misunderstanding of something really basic like pot odds. You should probably be like extremely happy someone is pointing this out to you because it's something uber-simple to fix that has to be costing you money.

[spoonitnow]

Ragnar thought this might help:

<@spoonitnow> So I ask her
<@spoonitnow> HONEY WHAT IS POT ODDS
<@spoonitnow> Keep in mind that she had a seizure a couple of hours ago and can't really speak English exactly right now
<@spoonitnow> She's like
<@spoonitnow> HOW MUCH IN THE POT
<@spoonitnow> TO
<@spoonitnow> HOW MUCH YOU CALL
<Triptizzles>
<ragnar4> that seems like the simplest explanation ever.. quick, post it in the thunder thread

[OhBollocks]

Sorry Thunder but I dont see how this can be explained any better than it has been.

{locked}

Oh wait, Im not a mod :P

[Muzzard]

The way to calculate post odds:
to call / (call + pot) So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/35 = 0.286 = 28.6%

Like Muzzard said, you're adding the 2 together and so all your previous maths makes sense. Though I am still confused how 1/4 works out as 25% by doing it my way and NOT by adding the 2 sides together.

Wat

1/4 is a quarter which is a fraction, not a ratio or a percentage, which = 25% ldo.

4:1, is a ratio = 20% ldo

[spoonitnow]

November 15 - Today we did an hour-long session of 2nl with me playing and her telling me what she thinks the right play is along with analysis.

The way to calculate post odds:
to call / (call + pot) So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/35 = 0.286 = 28.6%

Like Muzzard said, you're adding the 2 together and so all your previous maths makes sense. Though I am still confused how 1/4 works out as 25% by doing it my way and NOT by adding the 2 sides together.

Wat

1/4 is a quarter which is a fraction, not a ratio or a percentage, which = 25% ldo.

4:1, is a ratio = 20% ldo

1/4 actually is a ratio, in fact 0.25 is a RATIONAL number
4:1 is not, it's using the odds notation

[spoonitnow]

The way to calculate post odds:
to call / (call + pot) So to call $10 to win a pot of $25 is 10/35 = 0.286 = 28.6%

Like Muzzard said, you're adding the 2 together and so all your previous maths makes sense. Though I am still confused how 1/4 works out as 25% by doing it my way and NOT by adding the 2 sides together.

Wat

1/4 is a quarter which is a fraction, not a ratio or a percentage, which = 25% ldo.

4:1, is a ratio = 20% ldo

1/4 actually is a ratio, in fact 0.25 is a RATIONAL number
4:1 is not, it's using the odds notation

Typically we refer to something of the form a/b as a proportion, and something of the form c:d as a ratio to denote a difference in the expressions. Odds notation is an example of a ratio, and probability notation is an example of a proportion.

[swiggidy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratio

[Robb]

Okay let's simplify like as much as humanly possible so that we don't have any more 5000-word posts searching for enlightenment in the area of pot odds. Tommy picks a marble from the bag. The odds against him picking a blue marble are 5:2 = 2.5:1. The chance of him picking a blue marble are 2/7 = 1/3.5 = 0.286 = 28.6%. In this example, we see that 2.5:1 = 1/3.5.

I've been reading this thread with wonder, amazement and consternation. Wonder that Chelle is doing so well so quickly, amazement at how simple Spoon has made the pot odds (with a sack of balls, ldo), and consternation that this topic confuses the hell out of so many people.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. My math majors got angry with me when I refused to give them a formula for converting odds to probabilities and back again. I told them the idea, and they learned it just well (long) enough to derive their own formulas, then memorized the formulas and promptly forgot every freakin' helpful thing they'd learned.

[swiggidy]

a:b <=> a/(a+b)

nothing wrong with that IMO

It's even easier if you formulate your ratio's 1:n
(as in ok I'm calling 5 to win 10, that's 1:2)

1:n <=> 1/(n+1)

[bigspenda73]

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

[Robb]

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

^^^ lol this, but yeah

[Chelle]

I think that since my view on Poker isn't tainted with other information, and I'm learning all the math stuff first, it makes it easier for me to understand.

Though -completely- understanding it takes a bit of time, and I still get confused over simple things because I seem to jump into things before thinking.

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

^^^ lol this, but yeah

:P

[spoonitnow]

I think that since my view on Poker isn't tainted with reason since I'm a woman, and I'm learning all the basic ideas first, it makes it easier for me to understand.

Though -completely- understanding it takes a bit of time, and I still get confused over simple things because I seem to jump into things before thinking.

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

^^^ lol this, but yeah

:P

[Robb]

I think that since my view on Poker isn't tainted with reason since I'm a woman, and I'm learning all the basic ideas first, it makes it easier for me to understand.

Though -completely- understanding it takes a bit of time, and I still get confused over simple things because I seem to jump into things before thinking.

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

^^^ lol this, but yeah

:P

Being right is cool. Getting laid is way cooler. So being right can be - - -EV.

[Sup3rM4N]

Being right is cool. Getting laid is way cooler. So being right can be - - -EV.

lolllllllllll ++++++++1

I kno how that goes

[spoonitnow]

It's worth noting that instead of doing the 100k play money thing, Chelle is going to be telling me what to do at 2nl until we end up with $50 profit which will be her initial stake.

[Thunder]

If you are calling $10 to win $50 then your pot odds are 5:1. The break even point for a call is 1/6 which is 16.67%. Refer to the bag of marbles if you don't get it yet (if that's even possible)

Which is what I said so at least I am back on track now.

You should probably be like extremely happy someone is pointing this out to you because it's something uber-simple to fix that has to be costing you money.

I am very pleased. Also, majorly shocked that I got so fucked up. Contrary to what I said earlier, I was taught the right way but my arse backwards way of making sense of it all meant it became corrupted.

This is one of the best threads I've read in a long time and don't mind being fodder for the forum as long as I get revelations like this.

[kevster]

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

+1 This thread has bags of potential, so no more pot odds please.

[kevster]

MORE CHELLE LESS THUNDER

+1 This thread has bags of potential, so no more pot odds please.

[spoonitnow]

Since the last update we've been busy with other things, but have done a bit of work with playing draws and implied odds and relevant subtopics.

[sarbox68]

amazement at how simple Spoon has made the pot odds (with a sack of balls, ldo)

lol at pot odds being a sack of balls

okay, carry on....

[spoonitnow]

Yesterday's topic was relative hand strength which we're going to follow up on today.

[Warpe]

Yesterday's topic was relative pole length which we're going to follow up on today.

fyp

[mrhappy333]

more chelle less thunder, ok?

[spoonitnow]

Yeah so we sort of stopped working on poker almost entirely because I'm sick and it's the holidays and crap but we're getting back to it some. She's clearly able to beat 2nl and we'll be making her first deposit soon.

[a500lbgorilla]

it's amazing that a woman with 1/3rd the size of a man's brain can be learning at a rate ~3 times faster than all of you slackers!