Hello guys.
Situation is like this: nl100. dead money is 50$ with 3bet/4 bet. and I 5bet push with ATo extra 75$. Pot is 125$. Is it a correct call 75$ with 97s in a long run if he exactly knows that I got ATo?

Thanks

yes, if he folds, he ends up with $75, and if he calls, he has a bit less than 40% equity in a $200 pot, so he ends up with a bit less than $80 on average. so calling is better by 4 or 5 $.

To show the EV calcs,

EVcall = 0.395*125 - 0.605*75 = 4

EVfold = 0

Did he hit the turn or river?

It makes sense to risk it because of the big pot, but its not a professional play and just a donk move.

+EV is +EV, doesn't matter if it's a donk call or what you call it.

The first 3 replies are bang on the money. I especially liked the third one.

You are treating this like an all-in problem. 97s has additional equity (especially if he knows exactly what the other player has).

If 97s doesn't know what the other player has, he knows he has the pot equity to call anything but TT or higher pair (ignoring some minor possibilities like A9). Even against AA, he has 21% pot equity, so the call costs $33 in immediate value. He could easily make that up if the stacks are deep, because he is holding unusual cards, with straight and flush possibilities, and any pairs he gets are going to be unexpected. Moreover, the hands he's afraid of are pretty limited which makes his post-flop play relatively easy. This makes a call a viable option in most games.

You would need a large bankroll to call since the edge is very low compared to the variance. Since your payoff odds are 5:3, and your odds of winning are 0.395, the Kelly criterion says you would like to bet 3.2% of your bankroll, and your indifference point is roughly twice that or 6.4%. Since your cost is a fixed $75, your indifference bankroll is about $4687.50; you would prefer to have twice that, more if you're more risk-averse.

But if you fold, you'll need an infinite bankroll.

Are you trying to be glib, or do you honestly not understand how the Kelly criterion works?

The Kelly criterion is completely irrelevant because choosing a non optimal decision to avoid variance is exploitable.

If you care that much about minimizing variance, you do not 4-bet with 97s.

I suspect you think that "optimal" and "max EV" are the same thing. If that's the case, let me try to dissuade you. (If not, forget the rest of this post and tell me what it means to you. It's hard to have a constructive debate if you can't even agree what the words mean.)

Have you ever bought insurance, or a warranty? Then you've chosen a non-optimal decision to avoid variance. (Insurance is necessarily -EV. Warranties are even worse, generally.) Your life is exploitable.

Here's another question for you, with my favourite pet problem: Suppose you get the chance to bet on a fair coin flip that pays 2:1 if it lands heads. How much of your bankroll do you bet?

If your answer is, "all of it", then half the time you wind up broke and you fail Econ 101. (Also, you have a very different definition of "optimal" from me if you find it optimal to go broke on a single bet.)

If your answer is anything else (the Kelly criterion recommends 1/4 of your bankroll, but you'd bet anything up to 1/2 if necessary), then you're giving up free EV! You've made a "non optimal" decision to avoid variance, and by your own definition your strategy is exploitable.

So, let's try again. Why is the Kelly criterion "irrelevant", to those of us who don't like going broke?

+1!

Its irrelevant because its none of your concern; OP's bankroll is in the range that he's fine with the frequency he goes bust.

Thank you for being patronizing, again, but of course it's my concern - I'm a poker player, and I'm interested in making the best decisions I can! When I read a post, I'm putting myself in OP's position. And the frequency I want to go bust is zero, thank you very much.

One more time, no sarcasm, no hand waving, no goalpost moving. Why do you feel you are able to ignore the Kelly criterion?

Well the only way to have 0 chance to go bust playing games with element of luck is to have an infinite bankroll. I'm sorry if that's how I came across, but your application of the Kelly criterion is both irrelevant and wrong.

It is wrong because it influences the OP to make a move that will lose him money (gain less than opponent in the same situation).

It is irrelevant, because the Kelly Criterion is about the bankroll. If OP wanted to know about his bankroll surely he'll ask.

Also, every single hand you play in poker is not a freeroll, and he is "pot committed" to an extent in every single decision pre or post flop (you can't just fold anything but AA when not in the blinds).

What exactly is your issue with the Kelly criterion anyway? Did it beat you up as a child? If you simply don't know enough about the concept, the Wikipedia page is excellent and I recommend you go give it a read.

It takes money to make money; the Kelly criterion gives us one way (far from the only way) of quantifying that. If I have a $1000 bankroll - sadly, too close to the truth - I may make different decisions than if I had a $1000000 bankroll. Shockingly, I might even make less money. How is this even not obvious, much less "wrong"?

OP didn't specifically say "EV" either; does that mean that EV is irrelevant in making the decision? If OP wanted to know about EV surely he'll ask.

I don't even understand what your point is here. My point, back when I made my first post in this thread, was simply that there were externalities that would affect my decision to call or fold, including (a) my bankroll size and (b) my outlook on risk. It doesn't matter how I got to where I am; if the probability of success, the potential risk, potential reward and bet size are fixed, those two things would further affect my decision. I am still unable to figure out why you think this is so, so wrong.