# Stud Hi 101

- Other
- Other
- other gametypes

(46 Votes)
9781
## Description

In his first Stud Hi strategy video RainmanTrail focuses on playing style, starting hands, game selection and does an in-depth analysis of bankroll management.

## Comments (48)

newest first#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

I have a question about the AQJ hand. Wouldn't it make more sens to raise or fold there? If you fold you obviously don't have a problem. If you raise it's unlikely that one of the K will reraise you, since two of them are showing so in most cases non of them has a par of kings, and you also have an A blocker for the A behind you, and if he reraises you you pretty much know where you stand. So by raiseing you basically make your high card value live by forcing out other high cards and you get info if you get reraised.

And also I don't understand the point of limping, since if you get raised when you limp it's not necessary that one of the K or the A has a pair and if you hit a pair of Q or J you don't really know where you are at. On top of that with 2xK and one T out your straight is pretty much dead.

#6

#7

@Dippy19: It's actually more likely that somebody has split Kings when there are two of them out then if only one of them is showing.

#8

#9

#10

Btw., great to see the increased coverage of Stud here. Hope you cover more advanced stuff soon. Keep up the good work.

#11

I really liked the math/theory behind BR managment.

Looking forward to your next video :)

#12

#13

#14

#15

RE: 57:00. I went with my read here that the 333 only had 333 and not a full house at this point. The 5 pairing didn't scare me at all, I was fairly certain that he just had a straight draw and was trying to get his hand HU against the 333s all in bet.

The real question is whether or not wee had the pot odds to draw at a Q or J given our opponents don't improve. The answer is probably no, I didn't calculate it though. I would guess it's pretty close. I can calculate it for you if you'd like to see the math on it.

#16

#17

Remember that on 6th street, the 333 was all in for less than half a big bet. It's a no brainer to call here if we are only up against the all in's bet. If we then look at the 5845 as a side pot, I would snap call this player with something as weak as Queens up. I didn't give him much credit at all. In retrospect, I like our call much better than a fold.

#18

thx

#19

#20

#21

#22

#23

7:20 how do you get the formula for ror?

if you have from first hitting time of brownian motion with respect to a boundary at zero then i would to ask you how good of an approximation the assumption of normal distribution is.

secondly, i would like to know if it would a better idea to calculate the risk of having to go down a limit instead of this risk of ruin.

#24

#25

Some constructive criticism on the maths, speaking as someone who has to explain this stuff for a living, you gave too much detail for someone who knows very little maths, and too little for someone who knows enough to understand it. Where does the formula you rearrange come from? A normal distribution presumably. This is the hard bit, not the rearranging the equation stuff. The risk of ruin analysis is interesting, but doesn't take into account the ability to move up and down levels. Don't you have to include some sort of analysis of Kelly betting?

Looking forward to the next Razz video.

#26

I was curious and attempted a calculation myself:

We get 1:10.85 to call 6th, that means we need 8.44% equity to break even.

If we run our hand against two random pairs of holecards in PPT we end up with 9.64% equity. We fare even better when against a straightdraw (A2, 23, 36, 37, 69, 79) and trips with 11%. But these straightdraws are quite unlikely: two 9s, three 3s and an A are dead. Also all these draws are very weak gutshots, I mean how braindead do you have to be to isolate yourself with that kind of a hand against trips? We are also showing four to a straight... This makes me think his range is heavily weighted towards big hands, ie *5, 45, 44, 67. Note that these cards are completely live.

So if we run PPT again vs [**] and [*5] we get 7.26%, vs [**] and [44, 45, *5, 67] it's 7.02%. When we throw all the draws in there [A2, 23, 36, 69, 79, 45, 44, 67, *5] we have 8.24%.

So you're right, it's pretty close, but it seems to be -EV.

Does this look about right? What do you think?

Glad to see you employ an analytical, math-based approach to the game. Hope to learn a lot.

#27

#28

Part 1 of 2:

RE: DonTabamsey

#29

I stole the ROR formula from a friend of mine (another math nerd). I do assume Normal Distribution of data. I've read some arguments against using Normal Distribution with regard to aspects of poker, but I can't seem to lend those theories much credit. Afterall, that's what the central limit theorem is all about. (well, somewhat).

#30

#31

I like your analysis. Thanks for breaking this hand down. I figured it would be really close. Your analysis confirms my intuition. When I was playing the hand, I remember thinking to myself that the guy with the 5845 had to have a straight draw or two pairs (5s and 4s specifically, NOT 8855). The way he played the hand was really weak no matter what he had. A straight draw on 4th street for him is the only hand that makes sense for him to call on 4th. But as we all know, players don't make much sense at these limits to begin with. Perhaps we are giving him too much credit to begin with.

#32

I agree with your constructive criticism. I just wanted people to somewhat understand why there is no set answer for the far too commonly asked question of "How big should my bankroll be?" Perhaps I should dedicate an entire video to Bankroll sizing and ROR. That probably would have made more sense. I apologize for leaving the mathematically literate in the dark on the ROR formula I used. The Kelly betting approach is often debated with regard to bankroll sizing. Though I do find it relevant. Also, yes, the formula I use assumes a Normal Dist.

#33

#34

#35

#36

#37

In this model you can simply split your roll for the calculation. Just leave aside the amount you plan to step down at and image the rest as the roll you take a shot at a higher limit with. All you want to know is how high the risk is to go broke with that roll.

If you also take into account that winrates normally are lower on a higher limit, you might get surprised by the numbers you get for ROR.

The shots many people take are almost bound to fail (take the SD of PLO into account and you quit poker, for sure).

#38

#39

#40

Can't wait for your new video)

#41

#42

It really helped me to play profitable on low stake stud hi!

#43

#44

Thank you

#45

Would you check more on lower limts where you almost never see a raise, only checks, bets and calls? Check to see where you're at that is.

#46

#47

#48