Folding is -EV on average, as you are punished with -1.5bb/round. Add antes etc.

lol I hope you are joking.

This forum is comedy gold right now.

-15bb+/100 is not a joke

Come on man, you have over 20k posts and you've been here since 2010 and your calculation is that folding is -15bb/100?

Redo the calculation and try again please.

Try this run a solve next run the same solve but node lock all the 0ev hands to fold and see how much it effects the solvers overall strategy.

Are you trying to hypothesize that your opponent's frequencies will change if you change your own frequencies? Yeah of course dude45.

That's not what we are talking about.

Yes, blinds are punishing you. Poker is actually much about overcoming our trash card blind bets. With bigger pots the relative impact of the blinds diminishes. Every hand we fold is -0.15bb+ on average because of the blinds. Often profitable because we would lose even more if playing. So when we have it, we need to play it!

Nope not correct, folding isn't -0.15bb

I need to use the Sklansky.....Do you see why?

-0.15bb+ per hand = -15bb+/100

Sklansky.

No

You can't lose something that's already lost.

Nope.

Redo calculation.

Good point, if you sit in the blinds that's true. But if you sit anywhere else, you are up for that loss when the blinds hit.

So what is the EV of folding then?

Maybe you could calculate? I'm using full ring, ten players, no ante as bottom line. With fewer players and/or an ante you lose even more on average by folding. Just a general comment, something I think is not emphasized enough.

Folding can prevent you from losing more though in many situations. And you need to play the kind of pots when you are in for overcoming the built-in loss of folding. Then you need to overcome rake and possible tipping. And suddenly you are at 0EV, great win! Tough game.

I already know this answer.... I'm helping you and ding dong dude45.

Pointlesswords can't be saved.

There's different levels of fish.

Why would I want to play solid preflop and only get to play the best hand out of the other 6-8 players instead of a bunch of droolers playing 80 percent of their hands who are all going to make massive mistakes post flop? Great in the first scenario I win a higher percentage of the time in an extremely boring game but I make way more more in the second scenario.

The only way id prefer the first scenario is if the table was one absolute boot licker and everyone else at the table was good and I was almost always HU with the boot licker.

Think about it logically - if you played 80 or 90 percent of your hands in full ring NL you'd get absolutely torched. So why wouldn't you want a table full of opponents who play that way?

It's just a math problem.

You need the EV formula.

EV = (%W*$W)-(%L*$L)

Okay now calculate the EV of folding. What do you win and what do you lose?

Then you will know the answer.

The book should be titled

How to lower your risk and play passive poker. You will win less than you could, but you’ll risk less as well (kinda)


Chapter one : how to play passively while ignoring a major part of poker


I guess I have to ask the authors

What hand do you think wins you the most money lifetime?

How is folding -x amount when the ev of folding/calling in his example is 0?

I am trying really hard to follow your thought process but i think you dont know what ev means

Ev= expected value. The expect value of your action is 0

You are right. In a specific situation 0EV is 0EV regardless of the action, if they all produce 0EV. But that's if they are equal in average outcome. Solvers use to give a few of them for example.

"0EV" (the way I used it) in a specific hand though may be worth playing instead of folding, in for example a tournament, if the blinds are about to likely hurting you. Winning the hand makes blinds matter relatively less and busting kind of protects you from the next blind. But all of this could of course be included in a formula.

Except this book and thread are about cash games, not tournaments, so your entire point is completely irrelevant.

Seems like your reason for not liking this strategy was that it was too risky - you would rather play headsup and win the maximum number of pots you enter, instead of the maximum amount of money possible.

Less relevant, not irrelevant

Your comment assumes you win the maximum amount of money by not playing heads-up. You’re wrong.

And the book is wrong too. Even if one person knows gto basics , if the other has a better understanding and execution, the less skilled player will lose heaps.

I assume you don’t have much if any experience playing heads up.

Some people just never learn.