Met strategie naar blijvend succes in online poker – meld je nu gratis aan!
|
De beste strategieën Met de juiste strategie wordt poker een kinderspel. Onze auteurs tonen jou stap voor stap hoe het moet. |
De knapste koppen Leer van en samen met internationaal succesvolle pokerpro's, in onze live coachings en op het forum. |
$50 Startkapitaal PokerStrategy.com kost je niets. Er ligt zelfs een $50 gratis startkapitaal op je te wachten. |
Beschrijving
In the first part of a Double or Nothing series from Jaroz007, we are initially brought into the DoN mindset with some theory, followed up by some practical examples of ICM calculations.
Tags
#1
EuanM, 24/01/12 11.27
Enjoy the Double or Nothing video from Jaroz007!Stay tuned for more DoN videos and leave any feedback or questions about the gametype, below, for the coach.
#2
osmium, 29/01/12 02.01
Hi whats your sample and ROI on these?What do you do against Regs that keep calling way too loose?
#3
Spinosa, 29/01/12 04.00
SH Don + Ongame#4
GrooveSolo, 29/01/12 05.26
Nice video!#5
erkyl, 29/01/12 10.04
Hi,at 7:30 you did not give the name and adress of the ICM calculator you used. I think this is something that must be done each time as:
1) it allows viewers to use it
2) this is a free service
#6
DannyJQ, 29/01/12 10.34
Thank you very much for this video. Im trying to beat the 6max DoNs on Everest and this video helped me a lot. Especially the part when you mentioned the fact that some players dont understand the game and are willing to gamble which i believe is very important to keep in mind. Looking forward to your next videos.#7
Jaroz007, 29/01/12 11.29
#5: Yes you are right, I probably just thought most people know how & where to use it.The adress for the ICM tool is:
http://www.icmpoker.com/Calculator.aspx
and the Nash calculator is:
http://www.holdemresources.net/hr/sngs/icmcalculator.html
#8
Jaroz007, 29/01/12 11.35
#2 I have played a couple k (5-6k) 11$ buyins with positive roi. the 22+33s I have a 0% roi over 2k gamesI just push tighter vs. loose regs, thats pretty much it. Not much you can do if they call -EV other than leave out some often dominated hands (small Ax type hands) and trap them with good raise/calling hands.
#9
Jaroz007, 29/01/12 11.39
# Thank you for the feedback DannyJQ#10
smokinnurse, 29/01/12 17.03
18:00maths around the BF
i think ur not right with 75% equity necessary at the bubble
it is right, that we need 25% more for $EV as for chipEV
but we dont need 75% - just if the odds are 1 : 1 - if this is the case, the 75% equity for be $EV ist correct
but normally this should never be the case and we need less then 75%
example
even stacks with 4bb
the BB has to pay 1bb and the SB 1/2
CO pushes with 4bb
so BB has 3 bb left, the pot ist 4 + 0.5 + 1 bb (+ maybe antes, but let's say no antes)
BB is getting odds ~1,8 : 1 and needs for chipEV ~36% equity
in my opinion we have to take these 36% and have to add the 25% more for $EV
result: 61% for be $EV
#11
smokinnurse, 29/01/12 17.09
*if BF = 3#12
HariRadovan, 29/01/12 18.29
I liked the video but also want to point out 3 things:1.) 10% Rake for a DON is obscene because is almost impossible to achieve a reasonable winrate playing with such a high rake. You have to get into the money 55% just to brake even.
2.) Min. 12: The needed Equity for a profitable allin in a 10-man DON is actually 64,3%, not 67%, so there is a difference between 10 and 6-max-DONs, but the difference is relatively small.
3.) Min. 25: This is a classic example where you should deviate from Nash. As the big blind in this example you should call 100% of your hands, whereas Nash suggests calling "only" 65%. The problem is that by folding your BB to a push you loose all of your foldequity (a concept that ICM-based-programs don't take into account). As a result of that the SB should push a lot tighter than nash suggests and also the other 2 players should push a little tighter.
#13
Rolo23, 30/01/12 14.48
Good content, maybe work a little bit on your english to make it even better!#14
Jeniman, 30/01/12 15.01
Dons are fun to play but the rake will get you 10% is to much.However fish dont care about the rake so it should be fishy.
#15
LongAgo, 30/01/12 17.59
Very good part one and looking forward for the next ones. I have also tried to find a 6max hyper satellite(2seats) video as the high blind effect is remarkable factor at those. Does anybody know is there any available?#16
Jaroz007, 31/01/12 17.24
#10 You are of course right that 75% Equity is only correct for deep stack allins with >10bb where odds don't matter much.But it is definitely not true that you should add 25% to your needed Equity after calculating odds. With 4bb Stacks if the CO shoves 100% we can only call 6,6% from Nash (77+, ATs+, AQo+) which has a total EQ of 71% vs an any2 range.
Now this is the mathematical solution, of course you can call a little wider considering what was mentioned in comment #12 - that we loose Foldequity when giving up our BB. So with 4bb stacks you have to move away from Nash/ICM to a certain degree.
Nut still you should never consider calling a range that has 61% EQ vs any2 in this situation that would be terribly -EV.
#17
smokinnurse, 31/01/12 23.31
@"But it is definitely not true that you should add 25% to your needed Equity after calculating odds ..."depends on the BF
if BF = 3 then +25%
if BF > 3 then >+25%
it was just an example for BF = 3
i think nomally the BF on the bubble is much higher than 3
and of course the nash range for calling much tighter
#18
Jaroz007, 01/02/12 10.11
#12 I do appreciate the comment and agree with all your points but just want to answer:1) On Pokerstrategy there are some sites with pretty good Rakeback deals available, which is esssential for these games.
2) You are right of course the Equity is 64,3% for FR DoNs. I don't know why I used the wrong number.
3) I do agree that you have to deviate from Nash. But I disagree that calling 100% in the BB is correct, especially because the CO, BU and SB are usually tighter than Nash. I think there are better EV spots with the bottom 20-25% of or range.
And thx @ all for the positive feedback
#19
strannikspb, 23/03/12 18.50
# 13, no, no! Maybe the author's English is not very good for an Englishman, but for others it's very very understandable!Thanks!