James 1% video

tfaziotfazio Red Chipper Posts: 819 ✭✭✭
James, Great job. Glad to see someone is finally taking this book seriously. Ed has done the heavy lifting, time to focus our attention on the secrets he has uncovered. This IMHO is a much overlooked book that needs to get into the light. thanks for doing this.

Comments

  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2017
    Great timing, I was thinking I had better explain my earlier riddle about the best Red Chip Tool for HU play, but now someone else will do it for me. #easylife
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    Thanks guys!

    I'm thinking it will be an 8-10 video series by the time it's all said and done.

    @persuadeo I really didn't expect a book to be the tool lol.
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper, Table Captain Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭✭✭
  • Joseph FJoseph F Red Chipper Posts: 837 ✭✭✭
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    Thanks guys!

    I'm thinking it will be an 8-10 video series by the time it's all said and done.

    This post alone pretty much confirms that the sub here is worth it for the next 2 months. I got a lot out of this video. Of course, @ 10NL now, I violated the rules many times on the turn and didn't double barrel when I should have, but overall my double and triple barrel % is up.
  • WayneWayne Red Chipper Posts: 22 ✭✭
    @SplitSuit thanks for doing the series James. I've gone thru the book taking notes and just finished watching the first video. Very excited about the rest of the series!!!
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Maybe this is why you guys want to burn books so much.

    I have never said anything about burning books lol.
    Joseph F wrote: »
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    Thanks guys!

    I'm thinking it will be an 8-10 video series by the time it's all said and done.

    This post alone pretty much confirms that the sub here is worth it for the next 2 months. I got a lot out of this video. Of course, @ 10NL now, I violated the rules many times on the turn and didn't double barrel when I should have, but overall my double and triple barrel % is up.

    You may want to extend that to at least 4 or 5 months because parts 4 and 5 are intense and the REALLY important parts of the series
    Wayne wrote: »
    @SplitSuit thanks for doing the series James. I've gone thru the book taking notes and just finished watching the first video. Very excited about the rest of the series!!!

    You're very welcome Wayne!
  • golfer0110golfer0110 Red Chipper Posts: 12 ✭✭
    James I love the fact you are breaking 1% down. I love this book and have read it twice.
    Finding it frustrating though that there is now 3 weeks since you released part 1 and no part 2 yet. Is there any way you can release a part each week so we can have some continuity, rather than spreading it over months
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    persuadeo wrote: »
    Maybe this is why you guys want to burn books so much.

    Sup
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    golfer0110 wrote: »
    James I love the fact you are breaking 1% down. I love this book and have read it twice.
    Finding it frustrating though that there is now 3 weeks since you released part 1 and no part 2 yet. Is there any way you can release a part each week so we can have some continuity, rather than spreading it over months

    Woot!

    I don't want to dominate the schedule by releasing weekly when there are tons of other great videos that y'all need to see as well =) 2 things though:

    1. Part 2 will be released on Nov 2nd (next week)
    2. I will also be selling the whole course shortly bundled with homework & extras. That will get you downloads of everything and you'll get it well before it's all been released on here. More information on that coming in the upcoming weeks.
  • YowzaYowza Red Chipper Posts: 10 ✭✭
    Working through a hand last night, and I have a question about the 70% rule. I guess the question boils down to the meaning of 'continuance' percentage. A buddy and I analyzed the hand using James' google sheets approach, and we ran into a confusion spot.

    Preflop: 1/3 table with $400 effective stacks. Folds around to CO who limps, Hero is on the BTN with AcKh, raises to $20, BB and Limper call.

    Flop (($61) Jd, 8d, 8h action isX, X, X

    So this is where the question comes in. In the 1%, 'if you bet you should usually bet again', with the 'usually' meaning the 70% hands in your range that are 1/3 value, and 2/3 semibluffs or air. This leaves your checking range effectively a pure give up range. However, I checked this hand (even though it is in my continuance range) because AKo has equity, and my buddy (non redchipper, and has been exposed to the 70/30 model only by me) argues that betting this hand turns a weak holding that nevertheless has equity, needlessly into a bluff.

    Sooo, the question is 'does checking behind here constitute a legitimate continuance, since I have absolute position'?

    When we got to the turn, the question then became, since there was no action on the flop, does that mean that 100% of our range is still with us on the turn? Basically, I felt that I had made a mistake by not betting the flop, yet he argued convincingly that a check was not an 'auto error'.

    The rest of the hand played out: 10h on turn, 9c on river, action was:
    BB bets 35, limper folds, Hero calls on turn, BB bets $50, hero folds on river. The river fold is a bit questionable, given the pot odds, but I felt that even a blocker bet from an underpair was thin value against my exact hand, and the line taken did not support a bluff raise on the river.

    Thoughts?
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    1. Unless you checked the flop behind with EVERY combo in your PF range, you won't have 100% of your PF combos with you on the turn
    2. Pretty much every hand has some equity, so that's not a great reason to check the flop behind
    3. Is your friend trying to check behind the flop in an effort to get to SD with ace-high and win? Or just trying to improve for free?
    4. Is folding out V's equity on the flop more valuable than trying to navigate a bluff induction line?
    5. Is a paired board + multi-way a good, bad, or non event? If bad, it's natural that your flop betting frequency drops on average.

    Just a stream of thoughts that came as I read your post =)
  • MailmanMailman Red Chipper Posts: 44 ✭✭
    Just caught up on parts 2, 3 and 4. Fantastic series that everyone needs to watch at some point. I've never been one to put much work in off the felt in terms of working thru a hand like you did in part 4 but the way you broke that hand down it didn't feel to complicated and made me want to start doing that. Anyway to get that spreadsheet you used in that video? I'm not nearly good enough to recreate that on my own.
  • Charles PCharles P Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    The real answer is found in Ryan Harrington's book 'No Limits Hold em' page 5.
    He has won over $6,000,000 playing poker. The basis of his book is Game Theory Optimal. One of 2 books on the subject that is understandable. The other is Alexander Fitzgerald's book 'The myth of Poker Talent' page 25. $3,300,000 winner. Also Game Theory Optimal. Check their credentials. Ed Millers book is also great but not as specific or with easy math.

    Thank you SplitSuit for the tip on copyright.
  • Charles PCharles P Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    One of the basic principals of Game Theory Optimal is that your opponent never be able to exploit you. Your range must comtain enough randomness that your opponent can not know your real strategy.

    Also look up Minimum Defense Frequency, another great concept based entirely on verifyable math. The formula to calculate MDF is pot size divided by the pot size plus the bet. Simple.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    Mailman wrote: »
    Just caught up on parts 2, 3 and 4. Fantastic series that everyone needs to watch at some point. I've never been one to put much work in off the felt in terms of working thru a hand like you did in part 4 but the way you broke that hand down it didn't feel to complicated and made me want to start doing that. Anyway to get that spreadsheet you used in that video? I'm not nearly good enough to recreate that on my own.

    Thank you!

    As for the spreadsheet: https://forum.redchippoker.com/discussion/comment/70014/#Comment_70014
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    Charles P wrote: »
    The real answer is found in Ryan Harrington's book 'No Limits Hold em' page 5.
    He has won over $6,000,000 playing poker. The basis of his book is Game Theory Optimal. One of 2 books on the subject that is understandable. The other is Alexander Fitzgerald's book 'The myth of Poker Talent' page 25. $3,300,000 winner. Also Game Theory Optimal. Check their credentials. Ed Millers book is also great but not as specific or with easy math.

    Thank you SplitSuit for the tip on copyright.

    What made those books easier with the math?

    And what tip on copyright?
  • Charles PCharles P Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    The math is simple. Anyone with high school algebra can learn it. I am an engineer, a good programmer, a poor poker player, and can't understand any other books. These three books, in combination finally allowed me to understand. Mathematicians are VERY bad at explaining simple things. Big problem with GTO.

    Look and feel can't be copyrighted.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    Charles P wrote: »
    The math is simple. Anyone with high school algebra can learn it. I am an engineer, a good programmer, a poor poker player, and can't understand any other books. These three books, in combination finally allowed me to understand. Mathematicians are VERY bad at explaining simple things. Big problem with GTO.

    Look and feel can't be copyrighted.

    Fair. And look/feel cannot be copyrighted, but I believe they can be trademarked fwiw.
  • Charles PCharles P Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    Thanks. I will look into it. Don't want any problems.
  • Charles PCharles P Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    SplitSuit wrote: »
    Charles P wrote: »
    The math is simple. Anyone with high school algebra can learn it. I am an engineer, a good programmer, a poor poker player, and can't understand any other books. These three books, in combination finally allowed me to understand. Mathematicians are VERY bad at explaining simple things. Big problem with GTO.

    Look and feel can't be copyrighted.

    Fair. And look/feel cannot be copyrighted, but I believe they can be trademarked fwiw.

    I was turned down by the people that I asked for help on this. Any suggestions?
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    Charles P wrote: »
    I was turned down by the people that I asked for help on this. Any suggestions?

    I don't understand what you are asking for suggestions for.
  • Charles PCharles P Red Chipper Posts: 26 ✭✭
    I need help with sales and marketing. Be very happy if you would help. I don't want to compete.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    Charles P wrote: »
    I need help with sales and marketing. Be very happy if you would help. I don't want to compete.

    I'm not looking for another project at this time - too busy with other things =(
  • dorthmaxdorthmax Red Chipper Posts: 2 ✭✭
    I've just started reading this book, and watching Splitsuit's videos as I go along. I really like the videos, and wonder if I could understand the book without them. I've just finished video 2, so I'm wondering how all this new stuff (to me anyway) is going to work at the £1/£1 table at the casino. I'd love to hear other peoples comments on the 70% concept.
  • SplitSuitSplitSuit RCP Coach Posts: 4,010 -
    dorthmax wrote: »
    I've just started reading this book, and watching Splitsuit's videos as I go along. I really like the videos, and wonder if I could understand the book without them. I've just finished video 2, so I'm wondering how all this new stuff (to me anyway) is going to work at the £1/£1 table at the casino. I'd love to hear other peoples comments on the 70% concept.

    I've gotten quite a few questions on things like that and have it on my todo list to make some videos answering this. Likely won't be until March though.
  • ChipDonaterChipDonater Red Chipper Posts: 20 ✭✭
    I open UTG with 77+, suited Broadway, A2s-A5s, A9s, AQo, AKo, and KQo for 11% and 144 combos. The cutoff calls.
    Flop is 3c 5d Js leaving me with 135 combos. 70% of 135 is 94. With 1:2 ratio of value bets to bluffs I need 31 value bets to 63 bluffs.
    I choose AA, KK, QQ as shoe in value bets along with suited Broadway cards containing a Jack, giving me 33 value combos. For bluffs, I go with 77-TT, remaining suited Broadways, and suited Aces for 64 bluff combos. I keep JJ, AKo, AQo, and KQo in my checking range.
    Turn is 9C and brings up two questions. First, if the flop checks through, do I take 70% of my opening range to the turn or do I pretend I bet and use 70% of my betting range.
    Second, if I had bet the flop, this turn card leaves me 65 combos. 70% is 46 combos. At a 1:1 ratio, I need 23 value bets to 23 bluffs. But I have 36 shoe in value combos to start with. That is more than I needed for the flop bets.
    Am I doing something wrong?
  • PUPPYPUPPY Red Chipper Posts: 10 ✭✭
    Does anyone have some pro videos using a frequency based approach to our calling ranges. These ranges should be depolarized so I’ve gotten muddled in play. Any suggestions are appropriated.
  • TheGameKatTheGameKat Posts: 2,124 -
    PUPPY wrote: »
    Does anyone have some pro videos using a frequency based approach to our calling ranges. These ranges should be depolarized so I’ve gotten muddled in play. Any suggestions are appropriated.

    This isn't quite what I think you're asking for but touches on some important points that may help: https://www.splitsuit.com/folding-correctly-in-poker
    Moderation In Moderation

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file