I'm having a little trouble with a real definition of ex-showdown value. I understand the idea behind it, and I can mimic the calculations in M.O.P. which involve it (for the most part).

However, I would have no idea how to do something like the following:

Prove that the game value which is calculated using showdown equity is equivalent to the game value which is calculated using ex-showdown equity.

In other words, I see how it works and I understand that intuitively there are reasons for it, but I don't understand exactly what it is in any kind of sense which would let me calculate things without relying on my knowledge of poker. I'm guessing that "ex-showdown value" is some kind of adaptation of a more general concept of Game Theory. Can somebody tell me what that concept is or where to find a nice explanation of it in more abstract terms?

Is this ever even true? Idk I'm really asking.

Afaik ex-showdown equity is the value of your hand as a bluff...i.e. how does it improve the EV of your range by improving the likelihood villain doesn't reach showdown.

If you look at it in terms of blockers, then I guess the more hands your current holding blocks in villain's showdown range, then perhaps the higher the ex-showdon equity it posesses? Idk that's jusg my opinion.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...16&postcount=7

I assume that what Jerrod means is that:

Value = Value of strategic options which produce a showdown + value of strategic options which don't produce a showdown

So if we bet a bluff and we get called, is that included in our "showdown equity"?

I understand that the idea is to sum over all possible situations in the game tree to determine our overall equity in the game, but the way they explain this in MOP is just absolutely awful (in my opinion).

So, I see that the idea is not to show equality, but "game theoretic" equivalence (i.e. two values are equal to within a constant that is independent of strategic variables so that unilaterally improving one of the values does so for the other).

Would it be that the value of game situations where no betting takes place is somehow a constant that is independent of strategic variables?

On the one hand, I don't see how this is true, since the strategic variable of betting frequencies, for example, determine how often we have a situation where no betting takes place (but on the other hand, they do not influence the value).

If it was true that we could somehow treat "non-bet" situations as a constant, then we would have:

Value of game (for one player) = Value of game situations where betting takes place + Value of game situations where no betting takes place

==>

Value of game ~ Value of game situations where betting takes place

Where ~ denotes game theoretic equivalence (i.e. if we can unilaterally improve the right side with a different strategy, then we can unilaterally improve the right side)

From the post itt linking to another post with Ankenman's (sorry about the spelling if it's wrong) reply on ex-showdown equity it seems to me that exshowdown equity could be described as the equity villain folds multiplied by the probability that villain folds to a bet.

For example let's say villain has a draw that completes 30% of the time on the turn but if I bet with a bluff he folds it 75% of the time so my bluff has .30*.75 = .225 * 100 = 22.5% ex-showdown equity and if my bluff hand has less than that in showdown equity it is +EV for me to bluff with it.

Idk that's just my interpretation but it could be way off.

I actually don't think it is possible to do that. Calculating the game value using showdown equity would be calculating the game value assuming there is no future betting so that all the money is already in the pot. Ex-showdown equity is your equity in any future bets, or money not already in the pot. It includes future value bets and not just bluffs. You can think of it as equity in an implied pot or as the change in the game value when you add additional rounds of betting to a game where you go to showdown without additional betting.

I wasn't really familiar with the term ex_showdown equity but based on this article:

http://www.moreev.com/learn-poker/ar...e-betting.html

Oddly, my last post in reply to working out equity on the fly starting with pre-flop equity is probably appropriate here as well:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...35&postcount=3

This is interesting I did not realize ex-showdown equity applied to future value bets. Thanks for the articles TakenItEasy and the post AsianNit.