Not true, sometimes it is meaningless / impossible to answer.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15...s-0-ev-186358/

Don't understand what your quote is supposed to prove. The EV of folding is always zero, _when it is an option_. The EV of checking is also always zero, _when it is an option_.

Ok then, when isn't the ev of folding zero?

I already answered this several times: when folding is not an option.

Folding is always an option, it's well within the rules of the game.

Please show me an ev calculation that doesn't start with fold = 0ev.

No, folding is not always an option. It is impossible to fold to no bet. Mucking your hand to no bet is a possibility, but in most places it is technically against the rules, and it is always against the spirit of the game.

I had this clarified for me in a live game once. 3 people saw the flop. I was in the small blind and said "check". The big blind said "fold" (but did not release his hand). The 3rd guy bet, I raised. The BB then said "reraise". I called the floor and explained what happened. Floor said everything was fine; BB's verbal "fold" meant nothing, because it was not an option, it being impossible to fold to no bet. I was unhappy with the angleshooting opponent, but the ruling was correct.

In a stud game, if someone "folds" to no bet (throws in his down cards), the dealer KEEPS DEALING HIM CARDS UNTIL THERE HAS BEEN A BET MADE! Because he is not allowed to fold!

What if the guy left the table? What do you think would've happened to his cards? What is his ev?

If he let go of his cards and walked away, he has mucked out of turn, which is against the rules in most places, but not normally penalized (I think it should be). He is now no longer in the hand. Someone not in the hand has no defined EV.

Well if he's not winning money, and he's not losing money, then his ev is zero. I bumped that thread in the theory forum if you wanna discuss it there.

Then the EV of someone railing the game is also 0 EV to you I suppose. However, that is non-standard usage.

I disagree. On the river, it's the chance you're ahead (given villain's range) times the pot. Before the river, it's your equity of the pot plus whatever implied odds you have.

Edit: nvm it can be defined as 0. As always, it's only the difference in EV's that matters.

To me it's a little weird to define free money as 0ev, but I suppose it makes the calcs simpler.

The EV of checking is always positive. Even with the nut low hand on the river, there's always a non-zero chance your opponent also has the nut-low hand and its a split pot. The only exceptions would be if there is absolutely no money in the pot to begin with (a game with no blinds or antes), if for some reason you were able to determine your opponents range with 100% accuracy (due to exposed cards), and there's also the super rare occurrence that 5-handed+ some players are forced to have non-nut lows due to card removal on some boards.

The relevant EV calculation occurs when its your action. If you estimate your opponents range and future actions you can calculate your EV. Previous actions are irrelevant for this calculation. With folding, your EV is always zero because the act of folding never yields any positive expectation in any scenario. With checking, you always (again except for unrealistic circumstances), have some equity when your EV calculation is made.

It might be tempting to think of checking being some sort of neutral action because it seems like you aren't doing anything (adding money to the pot). Its better to think of the decision between checking and betting being a fork in the road. One action leads to one EV and one action leads to another EV. If available, folding is another path leading you to another EV (which is always 0).

-----

Some things:

You can say checking is -EV in certain circumstances if you tie it to other actions. The EV of a check/call or a check/raise can be negative of course. But since you always have the option to check/fold or see the pot checked down from your perspective you should at least always be taking a +EV action in the future so the checking part will be +EV.

We're assuming that the estimates for you opponent's ranges aren't perfect. If you estimate that your opponent has the nuts 100% of course your EV for checking back the nut low will be zero (not positive) based on your estimate. Really when you estimate something being 100% its more like 99.99%.

All of this post assumes EV calculations are +, -, or 0 in a vacuum, not compared to other EVs. As has been said, what matters is your EV relative to other EVs.

In a sense it's a subjective philosophical matter.* The part that's objective is the difference between EV's.

*But then again, if free money isn't +EV then "plus EV" is a rather meaningless phrase.

Once it checks to you, it is illegal to fold. Checking back is free. Let's define the EV of this situation as 0EV (we get to pick reference points). I'm saying that betting vs 3 opponents with only 20% h/c equity is a money loser. I guess it is compared to the equity of checking. You could take that 5% deficit in immediate odds and subtract it from our total pot share and show it is a tiny bit smaller in positive total equity... By saying it is a money loser, it is vs checking. Overall it is hard to lose in the absolute sense because of the money in the middle. Sure.

Pot size doesn't matter at this decision point, unless betting significantly increases our chance to win (big pot --> bet) or if betting hurts our chances to win (big pot says don't bet). Nobody has argued either side of that. Until they do, betting is clearly wrong due to h/c equity being beneath our fair pot share. There are some other valid reasons for betting, but they haven't come up. If we had 25% pot equity, we could either 0EV spew or not. If we had 27% equity, we're missing clear value by not betting. All of those modified by other factors.

This is actually a simple poker spot. Recognizing it will help you play better. Getting into arguments about EV reference points doesn't seem to be making anyone play better. Maybe I'm missing where it is?

It helps to know if there was a flush draw on said flop, and if we had Ah on a Jh9h4x board.

If the flop has two hearts, and we have no hearts, this is a bad flop, really bad.


On the river, you are hoping he was calling the flop/turn with draws. Guess what, the river is an 8

on a j9xx board.

Even if you were winning, you aren't now.