Book Discussion: Theory of Poker, chapters 1-3.

One more on Expectation. Is it a positive EV to raise on a flush draw with only the river to come?

Say there are 3 in the pot and your are second to act. You have AD 10D and have been check/calling the flop and turn. Now with 7.5BB in the pot and the first players raises making the pot 8.5BB.

Would raising here on the draw be a positive EV situation, given that the flush is the best possible hand?
Or would it be better to call and raise the river if the flush comes?

No, it would not be positive EV.

You have 9 outs, giving you about 20% chance to hit your flush on the river. I'm presuming here that you will not win if you bluff, of course, so the only chance for you to take down this pot is to get your flush.

You could then say that your equity in this pot is 20%. For every dollar that goes in at this point, you get to keep 20% of it. However, since there are only three of you in the pot, for every dollar that goes in, you pay 33 cents, but only get to keep 20. It's a losing proposition.

Of course, your pot odds definitely warrant staying in, but you should try to get to the river as cheaply as possible.

ToP Just arrived in the mail, ill do a little reading and i can jump into this discussion this evening.

Thanks, that clears it up. The math is what was tripping up. It's kind of funny that the pot odds warrant staying in by calling and a sightly better line for ev would be to call and raise the river if you hit.

Good thing there were lots of examples for mathemetical expectation, hourly rate and the fundamental theorem as the first time they were explained it made my eyes cross.

I think I got a handle on the theory now, but actually applying it will be more difficult. I am not sure I am experienced enough to know what all the "right" ways to play are to say anything about trying to get the other players to make the wrong ones, but as I gain experience I am sure it will make more sense.

This is defintely a book I will be able to get more out of each time I read it as I learn more about poker. Right now, it seems like the more I learn the more I discover I have yet to learn. I hope that is a good thing!

A thought just popped into my head, figured I'd add it to this discussion:

Given that no-limit is a more complex game than limit (there are many more options on how to play a hand, specifically in regards to how much to bet), does that mean that an expert is less or more likely to win money against beginning players according to the fundamental theorem?

This was just a pit stop, moving on to chapters 8-10 in a new thread tomorrow.

I think that since beginners could lose a big part of or their whole stack on one hand which they would have played differently if they had seen their oponents cards, the expert is more likely to win in NL. Just the simple fact that their are more options gives weaker players more oppurtunities to make mistakes.