Two Plus Two Poker Forums Pot odds/EV question w/ HH
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Video Directory TwoPlusTwo.com

 Notices

 Small Stakes PL Omaha Discussion of 1/2 and below pot-limit Omaha poker

 05-17-2017, 06:52 AM #1 pizdunar centurion     Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Slovenia Posts: 161 Pot odds/EV question w/ HH Hey, this is not specific to PLO but I'm giving a PLO example so I'm posting it here. MP: 136.2 BB CO: 528.6 BB Hero (BTN): 100 BB SB: 100 BB BB: 99.6 BB UTG: 158.2 BB SB posts SB 0.4 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has J A A T UTG raises to 3 BB, MP raises to 10.4 BB, fold, Hero raises to 35.6 BB, fold, fold, UTG calls 32.6 BB, MP calls 25.2 BB Flop: (108.2 BB, 3 players) 8 2 4 UTG checks, MP checks, Hero bets 64.4 BB and is all-in, fold, MP calls 64.4 BB Turn: (237 BB, 2 players) J River: (237 BB, 2 players) 3 MP shows 6 9 7 T (High Card, Jack) (Pre 32%, Flop 27%, Turn 40%) Hero shows J A A T (One Pair, Aces) (Pre 68%, Flop 73%, Turn 60%) Hero wins 225.2 BB Rake paid 11.8 BB MP is faced with my allin CB on the flop with UTG folded. He has 27% equity against my hand and in this case lets assume he knows what I have exactly. In the same time to make this a breakeven call MP only needs 27% equity as well(pt4 calculates it and we can do it ourselves like risking 64bb to win 237bb = 64/237 = 27%). So without rake this would be a breakeven call. This means EV of folding = EV of calling I assume? And here's what I don't understand. If MP folds on the flop he will lose his intial preflop investment of 35.6bb. If he calls he will: win 237bb 27% of the tim 0.27*237 lose 100bb 73% of the time 0.73*-100 (0.27*237)+(0.73*(-100))=-9bb So when he calls his EV is -9bb and this looks a lot better than -35.6bb when it should be the same? What am I missing?
 05-17-2017, 07:15 AM #2 z0mgtiltz Carpal \'Tunnel     Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: GetDatSzechuan McNuggetSauce Posts: 10,125 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH Sunk cost
 05-17-2017, 07:23 AM #3 DoOrDoNot adept   Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,168 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH The loss from calling with odds mitigates folding our equity share. It is 'less losing' to call than it is to fold. In that sense, it is 'relatively profitable' to folding.
 05-17-2017, 08:25 AM #4 pizdunar centurion     Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Slovenia Posts: 161 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH have no idea what either of you is saying
 05-17-2017, 08:47 AM #5 AveeMaria Pooh-Bah   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,714 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH I haven't checked the math but for the sake of demonstration, the only calculation you need to make is this one: (0.27*237)+(0.73*(-100))=-9bb The 35.6bb is a sunk cost; neither calling nor folding will change that. So its relative nature has no bearing on your decision. Assuming your math is correct, calling on the flop is a 9bb mistake. It has no relation to the 35.6bb already committed on a previous street. If you wanted to assess whether it's profitable for villain to call pre, you would run a different calculation.
 05-17-2017, 08:48 AM #6 AveeMaria Pooh-Bah   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 3,714 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH I haven't checked the math but for the sake of demonstration, the only calculation you need to make is this one: (0.27*237)+(0.73*(-100))=-9bb The 35.6bb is a sunk cost; neither calling nor folding will change that. So its relative nature has no bearing on your decision. Assuming your math is correct, calling on the flop is a 9bb mistake. It has no relation to the 35.6bb already committed on a previous street. If you wanted to assess whether it's profitable for villain to call pre, you would run a different calculation. tl;dr don't compare the 35bb to the 9bb
 05-17-2017, 10:26 AM #7 pizdunar centurion     Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Slovenia Posts: 161 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH I ****ed up my equation: win 237bb 27% of the tim 0.27*237 ->here it should be win 137bb not 237 because our 100bb investment is not a prize lose 100bb 73% of the time 0.73*-100 (0.27*237)+(0.73*(-100))=-9bb->so (0.27*137)+(0.73*(-100))=-36bb which is the same as folding everything makes sense now! thanks aveemaria for explaining the sunk cost term in detail and all
 05-17-2017, 11:01 AM #8 DoOrDoNot adept   Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,168 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH The mistake you are making is not factoring UTG dead money. If we have 27% equity, folding loses 27% of the current pot + 27% of villain's bet = 0.27*172.6= 46.6bb If we call the bet we now win 27% of a bigger pot = 0.27*237 = 64bb so the ev diff between calling and folding makes a call the correct play. The pot is inflated because of UTG dead money.
 05-17-2017, 12:09 PM #9 pay4ruin stranger   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 8 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH ev fold=0 mp call 64.4bb to win 160.8bb = 108.2bb (the pot) + 64.4bb (your bet) - 11.8bb (the rake) or to loose his 64.4bb ev call= 27% x 160.8bb- 73% x 64.4bb= 43.4- 47= -3.7bb. Even without rake it is slighty ev- to call.
 05-17-2017, 12:47 PM #10 pizdunar centurion     Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Slovenia Posts: 161 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH I totally agree with pay4ruin doordonot I used to think the same way but it's just insane to think of that situation that way what you're saying is that calling is +17bb better than folding which is terribly wrong. I suggest you look into that and try to understand it .. it's all explained here
 05-17-2017, 03:38 PM #11 DoOrDoNot adept   Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,168 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH I ****ed up my math. You have invested 35.6bb into the pot. If you fold, you lose it. EVfold=-35.6bb If you call you win 137bbs 27% of the time and lose 100bbs 73% of the time 0.27(137) - 0.73(100) = 36.99-73 = -36.01bb EVcall=-36.01bb Since EVfold > EVcall, it's more +ev to fold The reasons for this are interesting. The first one is that you need 27.1729957% equity to breakeven, not 27%. The second one is there is money in the pot you have not invested. The point at which a call is 'breakeven' is when EVfold=EVcall. In other words, there is no expectation difference between calling and folding. Rake makes this a fold even more.
 05-18-2017, 11:02 AM #12 pay4ruin stranger   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 8 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH dorodonot: you clearly sucks at maths lol The money you invested preflop is not your money on the flop anymore. On the flop you left 64.4bb to invest to win the pot. if you get sufficiant odds then call. ev fold is always zero because you decided to not invest more money into the pot.
 05-18-2017, 12:32 PM #13 DoOrDoNot adept   Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,168 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH Open your mind and check the math yourself and you will see its precisely the same. Who knows maybe you'll learn something you haven't seen in a video.
 05-18-2017, 05:00 PM #14 Rei Ayanami Carpal \'Tunnel     Join Date: Aug 2012 Posts: 11,248 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH DoOrDoNot's most recent calculations are correct. Treating prior investments as dead money (where folding = 0 EV) is also correct. They are two different ways of saying the same thing. In a practical sense I'd prefer setting folding at 0 EV, because it simplifies calculation. But what's wrong is insisting that only one of the two approaches is correct.
 05-18-2017, 05:03 PM #15 pizdunar centurion     Join Date: Aug 2014 Location: Slovenia Posts: 161 Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH yeah I agree with rei, now we're all saying the same thing, tho folding is actually better here due to rake which everyone pointed out already in the first place.
05-18-2017, 05:38 PM   #16
DoOrDoNot

Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,168
Re: Pot odds/EV question w/ HH

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Rei Ayanami DoOrDoNot's most recent calculations are correct. Treating prior investments as dead money (where folding = 0 EV) is also correct. They are two different ways of saying the same thing. In a practical sense I'd prefer setting folding at 0 EV, because it simplifies calculation. But what's wrong is insisting that only one of the two approaches is correct.
I find practically the way I do it is better because it reinforces for me the fact that a call still carries a negative absolute expectation. It also shows up in PT4 as a loss when you fold. Pot odds are (always?) concerning the relative expectation between calling and folding but getting it in as an underdog will rarely show anything but a negative absolute expectation. Sometimes of course calling as an underdog can show the opposite if what your opponent has invested is large enough.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules
 Forum Jump User Control Panel Private Messages Subscriptions Who's Online Search Forums Forums Home Links to Popular Forums     News, Views, and Gossip     Beginners Questions     Marketplace & Staking     Casino & Cardroom Poker     Internet Poker     NL Strategy Forums     Poker Goals & Challenges     Las Vegas Lifestyle     Sporting Events     Politics     Other Other Topics Two Plus Two     About the Forums     Two Plus Two Magazine Forum     The Two Plus Two Bonus Program     Two Plus Two Pokercast     The Best of Two Plus Two Marketplace & Staking     Commercial Marketplace     General Marketplace     Staking - Offering Stakes     Staking         Staking - Offering Stakes         Staking - Seeking Stakes         Staking - Selling Shares - Online         Staking - Selling Shares - Live         Staking Rails         Transaction Feedback & Disputes     Transaction Feedback & Disputes Coaching & Training     Coaching Advice     Cash Game Poker Coach Listings     Tournament/SNG Poker Coach Listings Poker News & Discussion     News, Views, and Gossip     Poker Goals & Challenges     Poker Beats, Brags, and Variance     That's What She Said!     Poker Legislation & PPA Discussion hosted by Rich Muny     Twitch - Watch and Discuss Live Online Poker     Televised Poker     Two Plus Two Videos General Poker Strategy     Beginners Questions     Books and Publications     Poker Tells/Behavior, hosted by: Zachary Elwood     Poker Theory     Psychology No Limit Hold'em Strategy     Medium-High Stakes PL/NL     Micro-Small Stakes PL/NL     Medium-High Stakes Full Ring     Micro-Small Stakes Full Ring     Heads Up NL     Live Low-stakes NL Limit Texas Hold'em Strategy     Mid-High Stakes Limit     Micro-Small Stakes Limit Tournament Poker Strategy     STT Strategy     Heads Up SNG and Spin and Gos     Mid-High Stakes MTT     Small Stakes MTT     MTT Community Other Poker Strategy     High Stakes PL Omaha     Small Stakes PL Omaha     Omaha/8     Stud     Draw and Other Poker Live Poker     Casino & Cardroom Poker         Venues & Communities         Regional Communities     Venues & Communities     Tournament Events         WPT.com     Home Poker     Cash Strategy     Tournament Strategy Internet Poker     Internet Poker         Winning Poker Network         nj.partypoker.com         Global Poker     Commercial Software     Software         Commercial Software         Free Software General Gambling     Backgammon Forum hosted by Bill Robertie.     Probability     Sports Betting     Other Gambling Games 2+2 Communities     Other Other Topics         OOTV         Game of Thrones     The Lounge: Discussion+Review     EDF     Las Vegas Lifestyle     BBV4Life         omg omg omg     House of Blogs Sports and Games     Sporting Events         Single-Team Season Threads         Fantasy Sports     Fantasy Sports         Sporting Events     Wrestling     Golf     Chess and Other Board Games     Video Games         League of Legends         Hearthstone     Puzzles and Other Games Other Topics     Politics     History     Business, Finance, and Investing     Science, Math, and Philosophy     Religion, God, and Theology     Travel     Health and Fitness     Laughs or Links!     Computer Technical Help     Programming International Forums     Deutsch         BBV [German]     Français     Two Plus Two en Español

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:51 PM.

 Contact Us - Two Plus Two Publishing LLC - Privacy Statement - Top