# MATH QUESTION

San FranciscoRed Chipper Posts: 108 ✭✭
I have the standard 1/2p 1/3p 2/3p etc. pots odds ingrained to a point so what about re-raises? Is there a quick trick to get the pots odds laid in The example below ? THANKS

• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
I multiply the bet (.95) x2 = 1.90
Add pot 1.90 + .37 = 2.27
To call .68 / 2.27 = 29.95%

When I do this at the table I use round numbers and estimations to make it easier. Close is good enough.
• Posts: 3,399 -
It always worries me when I hear people asking about tricks. It suggests they may have lost sight of what they are actually calculating and why it is important. Typically in poker what we are interested in is how much money we are contributing to the total pot. We're interested in this number because whether it is bigger or smaller than the probability we win this pot (notwithstanding further betting) determines our action. Despite having an amateur interest in NFL handicapping, I find the use of odds in poker an abomination and the use of %s as only slightly better. Probabilities are most naturally presented as a number between 0 and 1. Honestly, it's no wonder so many people "hate math" when they're given these damn tricks for converting one stupid number into another stupid number.

/endrant
Moderation In Moderation
• NetherlandsRed Chipper Posts: 641 ✭✭✭
edited October 2019
It's really like you always do. You compare what your contribution to the pot will be and compare that to what the pot will be.

In this case you have to call 13.6BB to win a total pot of 7.4 + 19 + 19 = 45.4.
So you need 13.6/45.4 = roughly 30% equity.

@MrFuss said the same but he applied a trick to calculate the new pot.

That's just the way I would do it, but some people like to say that it's a "x pot-sized raise" and go from there but that just confuses me.
• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
LeChiffre wrote: »
@MrFuss said the same but he applied a trick to calculate the new pot.
Im not sure it qualifies as a "trick". It's just the order in which I do the math to make it easiest for me to calculate. Repeat the same method long enough and eventually it becomes automatic. I dont think there are any tricks in poker, only practice.
• Posts: 3,399 -
I guess go with whatever works, but let me suggest something else.

If someone doesn't know why the 4/2 rule works, they've skipped understanding for convenience, and at some point that caps their ability to get better at poker, particularly at the "unconscious competence" level.
Moderation In Moderation
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭✭✭
The real answer to this thread is you should be checking Q10 on Q108.
• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
edited October 2019
TheGameKat wrote: »
I guess go with whatever works, but let me suggest something else.

If someone doesn't know why the 4/2 rule works, they've skipped understanding for convenience, and at some point that caps their ability to get better at poker, particularly at the "unconscious competence" level.
Are you assuming op doesn't know what pot odds are used for? Is this why you will often answer questions with questions? I understand that knowing some poker math is useless unless you can implement it but how can we get around this problem of second guessing what everyone knows and just answer a question?
The real answer to this thread is you should be checking Q10 on Q108.
LOL

This nails BTN flatting range and there are plenty of hands QT can extract value from. The REAL answer to this thread is that you should flat the raise, check the turn and see what develops.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭✭✭
This nails BTN flatting range and there are plenty of hands QT can extract value from. The REAL answer to this thread is that you should flat the raise, check the turn and see what develops.

Just think about how weak a strategy it is to evaluate your options on what is weak in your opponents' range versus the top of your range for a second, then... go back to doing it and keeping the games good.
• Posts: 3,399 -
MrFuss wrote: »
TheGameKat wrote: »
I guess go with whatever works, but let me suggest something else.

If someone doesn't know why the 4/2 rule works, they've skipped understanding for convenience, and at some point that caps their ability to get better at poker, particularly at the "unconscious competence" level.
Are you assuming op doesn't know what pot odds are used for? Is this why you will often answer questions with questions? I understand that knowing some poker math is useless unless you can implement it but how can we get around this problem of second guessing what everyone knows and just answer a question?
The real answer to this thread is you should be checking Q10 on Q108.
LOL

This nails BTN flatting range and there are plenty of hands QT can extract value from. The REAL answer to this thread is that you should flat the raise, check the turn and see what develops.

I frequently respond to a question with a question because I believe it to be sound pedagogy. And I'm making no assumptions here about what OP knows or does not know, I was making a general point that "why" is frequently more powerful than "how."
Moderation In Moderation
• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
edited October 2019
TheGameKat wrote: »
I frequently respond to a question with a question because I believe it to be sound pedagogy. And I'm making no assumptions here about what OP knows or does not know, I was making a general point that "why" is frequently more powerful than "how."
@oblivius once you calculate the odds, what are you going to do with that number?

• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
Just think about how weak a strategy it is to evaluate your options on what is weak in your opponents' range versus the top of your range for a second, then... go back to doing it and keeping the games good.
Maybe you misunderstood my "LOL". I was honestly laughing at your left wing comment, not your opinion on strategy. Not really sure what to make of this. I honestly don't understand the point you're trying to make but I think you call me a fish. Honestly I'm getting tired of the pedantic, conceited circle jerk that goes on here at RCP.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,296 ✭✭✭✭✭
I did misunderstand your LOL, sorry.
• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
I did misunderstand your LOL, sorry.
I had a feeling that may be what set you off. Honest mistake. Communication via text is often too ambiguous.
• Red Chipper Posts: 4,998 ✭✭✭✭✭
MrFuss wrote: »
Honestly I'm getting tired of the pedantic, conceited circle jerk that goes on here at RCP.

Try 2+2. LOL

• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
jeffnc wrote: »
MrFuss wrote: »
Honestly I'm getting tired of the pedantic, conceited circle jerk that goes on here at RCP.

Try 2+2. LOL
haha. no
• San FranciscoRed Chipper Posts: 108 ✭✭
Thanks everyone ! (i think)... The question was answered the first couple posts... IF anyone cares... I agree that in a vacuum it's probably a bet/raise/call... However this villain is super aggro spewy and will call raise/shoves with most draws and pairs... You know the type... When he raises it's time to get it in....
• Red Chipper Posts: 530 ✭✭✭
Pedagogy and circle jerk in the same thread. Exceedingly entertaining.
• Red Chipper Posts: 142 ✭✭
oblivius wrote: »
Thanks everyone ! (i think)... The question was answered the first couple posts... IF anyone cares... I agree that in a vacuum it's probably a bet/raise/call... However this villain is super aggro spewy and will call raise/shoves with most draws and pairs... You know the type... When he raises it's time to get it in....
ok but...?
MrFuss wrote: »
@oblivius once you calculate the odds, what are you going to do with that number?