this faster and easier than the general formula (win%x$w)-(lose%-$lost)
example:
pot is 100 your villain shoves for 100 all in you call and you have 34% equity.
pot would be 300 of which you win 34% back on avg= 102
if you folded your stack would be 100
so its +2 bucks to always call and gamble compared to folding
but the general formula is (win%*$w)-(lose%-$lost)
so that would be .34x200=68 - .66x100= 66 which is + 2 also so its equal
is their anyway i could get wrong numbers for other calculation/scenarios like doing a reshove spot that now involves fold equity.
doing it my way which is much faster and simpler version
example :
effective stacks 50bb villain opens 100% of buttons 3bb, sb calls(he never calls the jam lets say) 3bb, and you jam
when called you have 45% equity v btn villain but he will fold out 90% of hands.
your current stack pre flop is 49bb
total pot when called 103bb x .45%= 46.3bb so you lose -2.7bb on avg when called but only called .10% of time so thats -.27bb
villain will fold .90% in a pot of 7bb so thats +6.3bb.
so on avg you make 6.03bb(+6.3bb on avg when fold too - -.27bb on avg when called) per hand with this scenario when you jam correct(is that 600bb/100?) given the stipulations i made.
this is always how i have done and but just making sure it checks out
pot is 100 your villain shoves for 100 all in you call and you have 34% equity.
villain will fold .90% in a pot of 7bb so thats +6.3bb.
Your system depends on the exactness of the numbers above such as your exact equity in the first line and villains fold percentage in the second.
Assuming those numbers are correct then I see no problems. However, I would caution you to beware of making decisions based on simplified assumptions rather than a more broad in-depth analysis.
As long as you understand the math there are a lot of different ways to calculate the same thing.
I usually calculate EV the same way you do. I do not study formulas and I don't recommend anyone who wants to excel in math to study formulas. You can and should use them, but not without understanding how they are derived.
