What is the difference between break even points for bluffs so risk/(risk*reward) to tailor your bet sizing based on how often you think an opponent will fold. And a fold equity calculator in which you write bet size, pot size stack and equity and you get a % result....
Shouldn't the two be the same or is one for certain raises or for certain situations? I do not understand at all.
Essentially Im asking what the difference between these two concepts are

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umMnLLnUIcI

&

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QDTCIodjaI

If you watch them, the way he describes them is for the same task and Im confused??

My problem with those tools is that they don't compare the value of bluffing to the value of checking and or calling, which is the important part.

What your suggesting is not quantifiable at the tables, when you decide to make an action it is because you think it is the most +EV play so my question is that when you do think it is best to bluff, what are the differences between these tools, why do they overlap etc?

In the first case, he's assuming he has zero equity when called. It's like betting with total air. (In reality, 66 does have a small chance of winning when villain calls on K97, but it's a pretty remote chance, as you'd need to hit a 2-outer to beat any higher pair).

In the second case, he has a flush draw and an overcard, so even when villain stacks off (with a set in this case), hero will still have some equity. In short, hero makes money when villain folds (the bluff component), but hero also makes some money when he gets called and sucks out.

Let's say you're last to act on the river. If you check, everyone will turn their cards up.

Questions:
1. Will you ever be able to win without betting?
2. Do the fold calculators assume that you can't win without betting?
3. Since the answer to question no. 2 is yes, does that mean the fold equity calculators are, at best, misleading?
4. If the calculators are misleading, does Bob148's answer explain why?
5. Are the answers to all these questions, including this one, yes?

But the fold equity calculator uses your hand equity meaning the answer to no 2 and 5 are no.

This is really important. Work through an example by hand, and prove to yourself that the fold equity calculators are saying that something is +EV that loses money.

What the fold equity calculators are missing is that the EV of checking is always positive.

They assume the EV of checking is the same as the EV of folding.

But the EV of checking is always positive, and it's often more positive than bluffing, which means bluffing is burning money.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...9&postcount=63

But this is only true if opponents also check. If at least one bets then a fold by you is zero EV and a call or raise could be -EV.

If you have the option to bet (bluff), check or fold with a very poor hand, checking is often better than a bluff but to say it has positive (>0) EV is a stretch.

Hard to write a response laughing so hard. Have you ever played a hand of poker?

Do you often fold when you have the option to check?

How can you check if someone else has bet?

I'm trying to help the original poster. What are you doing?

To the OP, to understand Bob148's post, and to understand why something that a fold equity calculator say is +EV can cost you money you need to understand that checking is +EV. The fold equity calculators assume it is zero EV which is the same as folding.

Correcting your misstatement that checking is always +EV

Youre missing the point of the fold equity calculator. All it does is tell you your fold equity, you then use this information intuitively to decide whether to bluff or not. If the fold equity calculator tells you a bluff is profitable, you can then decide whether to bluff or if checking is EVEN more profitable. Its not supposed to tell you what to do, just calculate something.

No, that's not it.

Why did you create a thread to argue with everyone who is (apparently) wasting their time trying to help you?

Go to this fold equity calculator: http://redchippoker.com/fold-equity-calculator/

Enter 200, 0, 100, 25. It says that that is a breakeven bet. Do you agree or not? Is betting with the worst hand, and never getting any folds, a breakeven situation?

If you think that's a bad bet, and it's not breakeven, my posts will have explained why.

Can you reiterate because Im very confused... why does it give this result?

With respect, I think you're just confusing him further.

Bob's first comment was correct, but I think OP just wants to know how fold equity calculators work.
They can help you work out your EV when you bet with a low equity hand (e.g. a bluff), but they can't tell you whether making that bluff will have a higher EV than taking another line.
e.g. There are some spots where bluffing is slightly +EV, but it's even more profitable (but usually unwise in the micros) to check-raise bluff. (Because you get villain to put more money in the pot, and then you make him fold. This can be more +EV than just betting out.)

The fact remains, if you bet half pot and you have zero equity when called, you need villain to fold at least 33% of the time for you to break even. If villain calls 67% of the time or more, your "zero equity bluff" is a bad bet, as it loses money, so you'd be better off checking. If you have a hand that either wins sometimes, or can suck out on a future street, you don't need quite as many folds.

For OP, the basic fold equity calculation is very simple:


When you bet as a semi-bluff, you don't need as many folds, because you still have a chance to win when you get called.

It's because EV is always calculated in relation to folding.

But in real life, when you have the choice to check or bet, you need to compare the EV of checking and betting.

Just because the EV of betting is greater than zero doesn't mean it's a good idea, that it makes you money, that it's an okay option.

Here's something I wrote earlier:

I think what you're misunderstanding is that just because a bet is +EV, doesn't mean it's profitable or correct. You always have to compare it to the EV of checking. It's incredible how many people, software programs, fold equity calculators, etc. get this wrong.

If you bet 100 dollars into a pot of X dollars with 30% equity you lose 40 ( 200 * .30 - 100) dollars. But you can make the EV of the bet a very large positive number by making the pot large.

The profitability of a bet, without fold equity, doesn't depend on the pot size.

If the board reads A, K, Q, J, T, no flush draw, and you bet 50 dollars into a pot of 100, the bet has an EV of 50 dollars. But betting makes you no money. That's because the EV of checking is also 50 dollars.

It's profitable. +EV literally means "your expected value is positive". It might not be the most profitable option, but an action with an EV greater than zero is profitable by definition.
I guess my brain has shut down for the week, because this makes no sense to me. The size of the pot has to be factored into the EV equation, along with the chance that villain folds.

You have to understand the EV yardstick. Zero represents folding.

The pot is 1000 dollars and you're last to act on the river. You have 20% equity. You're always getting called. If you check you'll get 200 dollars. Checking has an EV of 200.

You bet 100 dollars. Your EV is 1200 * .20 - 100 or 140. A plus EV bet cost you 60 dollars compared to checking. To tie this into the OP, just because a fold equity calculator says something is +EV doesn't mean you can make more money than checking. But you're better off betting/bluffing than folding. I question whether most people know that that's what an EV calculation is telling them.

I think a lot of people think +EV means okay to do. As long as you understand the definition of profitable or plus EV means better than open-folding your cards. Watching SplitSuit's video it doesn't appear to me that he knows that.

If the OP can't tell whether someone is giving good advice, and it appears he can't, then I wouldn't recommend a subscription to a site that gives questionable advice.

After all, this is really simple -- deciding whether betting makes sense.

I see what you mean with this example. I was completely thrown by the earlier example where you said the pot was X, but then didn't include X in the calculation.

I think I'm right in saying that betting is always "profitable" if there is any chance that you win, but I can confirm that in many cases more money is made (or saved) if you check. We should always strive to make the play that has the highest EV, not just a play that is +EV.