Originally Posted by jacknstax
I just don't all the way understand how we make money in the long run because his equity is stronger so if we same calculation for our villain then it would surely come out he makes more than us in the long run.
So, how could that be true vinnie ? How could both of us make money in long run ? I also, understand the concept of having fold equity but that is not in the calculating formula
Thanks in advance vinnie


The first thing to understand is that the money already in the pot doesn't belong to anyone and we don't care about who put the money into the pot before this point. Think of the existing pot as added money to the problem. If it helps, pretend that all the money in the pot was put in by a third player who then folds to the raise. We don't care who put the money in before this point, because it isn't "our" money once it is bet.
So, you have 47.45% equity in three different groups of money.
 Your effective stack: $3.73 (Equity $1.769885)
 His effective stack: $3.73 (Equity $1.769885)
 The existing pot: $2.61 (Equity $1.238445)
Your total equity in all three combined groups is $4.778215. Since this is more than the $3.73 you already have and would end up with if you fold, you benefit from playing. You should note that you are getting less than half of each of these groups of money, but the fact that there is a third pile of money makes up for it. Without the existing pot, your equity (adding your equity from both stacks) would be $3.53977  which is less than you already have. So, it would be a fold if there wasn't an existing incentive (the pot) to playing.
Your opponent has 52.55% equity in the same three different groups of money.
 Your effective stack: $3.73 (Equity $1.960115)
 His effective stack: $3.73 (Equity $1.960115)
 The existing pot: $2.61 (Equity $1.371555)
His total combined equity in all three groups is $5.291785. Since this is more than the $3.73 he already has, he benefits from getting the money in. Actually, he benefits more from getting the money in because he is entitled to more than half of each stack, so the more money he gets into play the more he benefits. He doesn't need the existing pot to show a profit. He has $3.92023 equity from both your stacks alone, which is more than he started with. So, he makes a profit even without the money already in there.
I hope this makes sense. It is a weird topic. There are times when it is correct for both players to get the money in the middle when playing poker. Neither player is making a mistake because both benefit more from the money going in. This is especially common in omaha.
********************************************
** Now, fold equity isn't needed to show a profit. I only brought that up because if the other players fold as often as 12.2% of the time, we show more profit than we would if we could force the other player to not bet and get to showdown. You can freely ignore that point and the math plays out the same. You show a profit from getting stacks in, so does the other guy.
The fold equity could play a role if we have the player on the wrong hand, say they are playing KK** (which you actually do worse against) and they figure they're up against AA**, two pair, a set, or a big draw... so they wrongly give up. It is a reason to remain aggressive with a hand that's not the favorite even when it has the right amount of equity to continue playing.
Sure, we get $1.05 when stacks go in and $1.24 when we check it all the way down to showdown. But, there are more benefits from betting than trying to check it down. Either way we profit.
********************************************