COTM: Reasons For Betting - Page 3 - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

Two Plus Two Forums Poker Strategy Live No-Limit Hold’em Cash

COTM: Reasons For Betting

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

05-23-2015 , 03:42 PM

#51

Richard Parker

banned

Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 13,949

Sure, whatever.

Not sure how these labels help, but you can call it a "woof" if you want.

Quote

05-25-2015 , 11:09 PM

#52

CallMeVernon

COTM Crusher

Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 4,089

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZuneIt

[/B]

So, if I go all-in with 6

vs. Q

on a flop of
7

and QQ's call will be 40% of the money in the pot.

It is not a bluff, because, although QQ is currently the best hand he only has a 34.4% chance of having the best hand on the river.

If QQ has to put $40 into a $60 pot, he'll win $60*.344 = $20.64
He'll lose $40*.656 = $26.24

So sometimes, a bet with what is currently NOT the best hand, is not even a semi-bluff. It is a bet for equity.

Actually in that situation it's a value bet because his best decision is to fold. Do not get crossed up here--QQ is NOT the best hand on the flop. 6d5d is.

Quote

08-20-2018 , 07:00 AM

#53

Vancouver

journeyman

Join Date: Jul 2016 Posts: 227

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallMeVernon

Value and Equity

Let’s go back to an example from before (slightly tweaked for simplicity): we have KK, top set, the board is K84rb, and the pot is $100 with $475 left to bet. Let’s say that if we bet $25, our opponent will call with a range of all no-gap connectors that have one pair or a gutshot, meaning 98/87/76/65/54. (I’m narrowing it down to this because we’re going to assume this is the part of his overall range that wouldn’t also call a bigger bet.) We are making this bet intending to string our opponent along so that he can “get there” on the turn, when we will make a bigger bet that will price out all hands that have not improved. (Ignore things like improving to a pair plus gutshot—pretend we’re going to price that out too.)

First, let’s count combos. There are 12 combos each of 98, 87, and 54, for 36 combos of 1 pair hands that have 5 outs to improve (and for simplicity we’ll assume they’re actually drawing dead and ignore runner-runner quads). There are 16 combos each of 76 and 65, for a total of 32 combos of hands that have live equity against us. So 32/68 of the time, our opponent is drawing profitably against us, and 36/68 of the time, our opponent is drawing dead against us.

Next let’s figure out, using our opponent’s perspective, what his EV is by calling with the part of his range he is correct to call with—the gutshots. A gutshot will have 4 outs to beat us, with 45 unseen cards. So 41/45 of the time, he loses 25. (4/45)(34/44) of the time, he hits on the turn and stacks us (and gets the $100 pot). (4/45)(10/44) of the time, he hits on the turn and gets stacked when we hit our boat redraw. Villain’s EV is

(451/495)(-25) + (10/495)(-475) + (34/495)(575) ~ 7.12

Now let’s figure out Villain’s EV from drawing dead against us. He has 5 outs to get stacked, and if he misses, he gets away only losing $25. So his EV is

(1/9)(-475) + (8/9)(-25) = -675/9 = -75

Finally, Villain will have the gutshot only 32/68 of the time, and he is drawing dead 36/68 of the time. So Villain’s overall EV is

(8/17)(7.12) + (9/17)(-75) ~ -36.35]

Can someone ELI5 and help me understand how we arrived at the numbers in the parentheses?

Quote

08-20-2018 , 09:32 AM

#54

Garick

Oberbiergenießer

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 26,516

ELI5? The numbers are the number of times X happens, multiplied by the result when it happens.

So the first one is for 451 of 495 possible combos, V loses $25.

Quote

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 3 of 3

First

1 2 3

Last