How'd you work that out?

It's the standard baseline assumption when calculating relative EVs.

"EV is the sum of all probable outcomes weighted by their payoff. Probability is about the likelihood of future events. Anything that has already happened is by definition not probable- It either happened or did not.

If you fold nothing happens in the rest of the hand. You don't win anything or put anything more in the pot. There is no future in that hand for you if you fold. So the EV of folding is zero."

I believe in this hand the EV of folding is > than the EV of calling, because rake and because of underdog of our hand vs. a fairly wide, hard to define range.

ok, let me word this clearer:

r/f pre leads to the EV of -350bb/100, where as r/c does better than that imo.

of course folding in a vacuum is always EV neutral. that doesn't make up for the 3.5bb we already invested though. or would you say your winrate is 0 in the bb when you fold every hand pre?

folding preflop, yeah right

This is still not true, unless you are assuming that villain is 3betting 100% of the time you open.

how can you r/fold pre if your open is not gonna get 3bet?

I like folding to the 3-bet unless I want to take a punt he's not got AA, in which case I'd shove.

The 3.5bb is a sunken cost. You only calculate EV based on 'expectation.' If you fold, there is zero expectation, hence EVfold=0.

The blinds are also a sunken cost, so the ev of folding to a raise from the bb is also 0.

EDIT: I agree that the EVcalling > EVfolding based on raw equity alone, that is simple to see. My argument is that beginner/average players cannot play this hand profitably postflop in a high rake environment vs. a 14% range.

AND that you're folding to 100% of 3bets, in which case indeed the EV of opening would be -350bb/100, but if we knew both, we would not open this hand at all.

Just re-read some of the thread. Find it a bizarre thread. So when I play A*** nice hands - which this is possibly not good enough to be one - but if I decided to play it, I'd play it like this.

When I get 3-bet, I think does villain have AA? If he's a wide 3-betting range and I don't think he has I'd 4-bet, representing AA - flops an Ace bam - full pot it. He'll fold all his A*** hands - how many times have we lost like that until we stopped doing it. Flops 22** etc. Bam full pot, then fold if he shoves. Flop top pair, similarly shove. Flop the flush draw, sometimes bam, sometimes, check to induce him to bet then shove - depends on villain, also depends if we have a pair which increases hand strength massively. Board comes 79T with a different flush draw to me - ah well.

I didn't know there was another way to play it. And it's because OP didn't play it like this that makes post-flop play basically impossible.

I agree 4bet is much better than call. I also think folding is better than 4betting

I'd generally fold, but the decision to call doesn't even happen.

but you do realize that there's also an EV of compound actions, i.e raise/fold, and that the expectation of that ain't 0?
if you decide to r/f, you have to make up for 0.14 * 350bb/100 = 49bb/100 those times you don't get 3bet to make r/f better than folding pre the first time round (thanks for pointing my silly mistake out, illiterat).

once again, of course the EV of folding in a vacuum will be 0 till the end of time, but we're interested in the EV of our whole line. and I'm still confident that calling the 3bet does better than folding to it those 14% of the time we indeed get 3bet.


different example: are you guys arguing that once you get 4bet pre vs likely AAxx, that you fold because the EV of folding in a vacuum is 0 and the EV of calling is slightly negative? highly doubt it. would guess you realize that calling is the best option as long as it doesn't lose as much as folding to the 4bet when looking at the hand as a whole.

this thread...
OP, preflop open is good, calling the 3bet is good, flop is good, turn is good, river is always tricky against some buttonclickers who might even bluff with better hands here, I don´t think we got enough equity to call, but this seems to be a pretty nice spot to yolo it in his face...

hand is wp.

Hard to follow this overthinking, but if folding is 0ev, then calling or raising ev is relatively worse or better than 0, always. The reason you attach 0 to folding is for simplicity sake, and then you evaluate your other decisions relative to 0. As I said before based on raw equity alone calling is > 0. This is trivial. We have 42% vs. his range and need 33% to call. Like all complicated decisions, evaluating ev comes down here subjective opinion somewhat. I gave some reasons why, but all people were saying on the opposite corner was "pffffft you can't fold you have 42% hurdur" when really raw preflop equity is pretty much the only reason I can see to ever call. Much prefer folding and making a tiny mistake preflop than making a big one postflop or breaking even and getting raked.

As far as compound decisions having their own ev well lol ranges change as our opponents decisions change, our decisions change as our opponents decisions change, and thus ev does as well. Stealing itself might be profitable. Folding after being 3bet still has an ev of zero, and calling and 4betting of course would be evaluated relative to 0----some parts of our range it's +ev to call vs. the 3bet range, some parts it's +ev to 4bet (relative to 0) and some parts are -ve blah blah blah

Any cent you put in the middle is gone, it's a sunken cost. You do not calculate it into your ev of previous or future actions. Raise/folding is never one decision. It is two separate decisions and has two separate evs based on opponents range, tendencies blah blah

pffft we can´t fold man we got 45% hurdur

?

People trolling ITT