Trying to understand this...

U

UncleConRon

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 8, 2015
Total posts
880
Chips
0
My Opinion

He is at his point where the dealer button is at where he wins. Another thing, he was do to hit his hand. You hit 40 percent of the time.
 
vinnie

vinnie

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Total posts
1,208
Awards
1
US
Chips
50
https://gyazo.com/eafdbfdeea31a1cf4bf5bce697e98b38


So, if the guy makes $1.05 in the long run pushing with that hand... his opponent is 52.55% I think so if you ran that calculation he would make more than $1.05 in long run...right ?


So, how could this be ?

Yes, the other guy will make more.

0.5255 * ( $10.07 ) - $3.73 = ~$1.56

The reason for this is because of the dead money ($2.61) in the pot already. Technically, each additional dollar we put in reduces our net profits, and if we could guarantee that this could check down to the river (and we're right about his exact hand) we make ~$1.24 by avoiding putting more money in the pot. But, we can't be sure that it will check down and shoving does provide a small but non-zero chance that he folds incorrectly and we win the whole thing.

The worst decision here would be to fold. Because we make nothing from that action. Shoving all in is probably better than trying to call or check it down, because you increase the risk of getting bluffed off your hand on bad turn/river cards and you also give yourself a chance to win from him folding. So, you might profit most if you could stop all betting right on the flop and just deal the turn and river, but that's not how the game is played. So, we shove it all in to maximize our equity against all possible turn and river cards and actions.
 
jacknstax

jacknstax

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 3, 2016
Total posts
43
Chips
0
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 :)
 
TimovieMan

TimovieMan

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Total posts
2,264
Chips
0
How could both of us make money in long run ?
Because of the dead money already in the pot. We only need to look at the current decision - everything we put into the pot on previous decisions are "sunk costs". Even if his equity is higher than ours, the amount in the pot compensates for that, so our decision is +EV for us AND +EV for him. He stands to win MORE in the long run, but that's irrelevant as we're winning as well...
 
vinnie

vinnie

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Total posts
1,208
Awards
1
US
Chips
50
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.

********************************************
 
BogdanStark

BogdanStark

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
May 3, 2015
Total posts
514
Chips
0
it was his day maybe, luck was on his side, you know how it can be
 
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
In this case, we have one hand that is really only one hand, and the other hand which is at least 3 decent drawing hand--2 flushes, and a great shot at str8's.

I wonder about those state odds, I would love to pick apart the methodology used to come up with those numbers.

Personally, I would very very much want to see a flop with that non AA hand. Hopefully this thread will show me it is better to pot or shove with it. As it sits now I would call most modest raises. But I can be persuaded otherwise.
 
vinnie

vinnie

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Total posts
1,208
Awards
1
US
Chips
50
In this case, we have one hand that is really only one hand, and the other hand which is at least 3 decent drawing hand--2 flushes, and a great shot at str8's.

I wonder about those state odds, I would love to pick apart the methodology used to come up with those numbers.

Personally, I would very very much want to see a flop with that non AA hand. Hopefully this thread will show me it is better to pot or shove with it. As it sits now I would call most modest raises. But I can be persuaded otherwise.

We actually have one hand that is a range (AA**). The AA** hand includes stuff like Ah-As-Jh-Ts, which has two flush draws, straight draws, and top set. We don't know if the player holds quality Aces with other draws, or crappy Aces without them. So, we have to include the possibility of both. The 9-8-7-6 double suited hand is a great hand to hold against AA** because it tends to flop well against it. This isn't even the best flop we can have, and we're basically a coin-flip. We only need 37% equity on this flop to commit, and 9-8-7-6 double suited will flop that much equity or more over 60% of the time. Heck, we'll have greater than 50% equity nearly 40% of the time.

The tool to get the odds is the one found here (http://propokertools.com/simulations). The odds given in the original sample are using 600,000 random trials. The current tool is able to do an exhaustive rundown. That is, it goes through every combination of A-A-x-x that exists and every possible turn and river card. Then it counts how many win/lose/tie. It uses those results to give you the stats. The exhaustive solution gives similar numbers (47.42% instead of 47.45%... but it takes 4,169,700 trials to calculate every possible combination).

You definitely want to see a flop with this hand, and not get it in pre-flop. You're behind pre-flop and the stack to pot ratio is likely not good enough to compensate. It is also good to see a flop so we can abandon ship if things come horrible for us. A flop of Ac-Kd-Qd, for example, is just so horrible that we never continue with our hand. We have 0.72% equity against AA** there. So, we can save the rest of our stack.

On the flop, your play is going to be determined by the SPR. The example given above is with a low SPR (~1.4) and with a low SPR like that you just commit to the hand. There's no point in calling a pot-sized-bet (or even a half-pot-sized-bet), because you are committed for the rest of your stack on even the ugliest of turns. Basically, small SPRs mean you're playing solidly in pot-odds territory. If you have the direct pot-odds to get the stacks in, you get the stacks in.

If, on the other hand, you had an SPR of 8 or 9, you might be inclined to call the flop bet and play more turns/rivers. That will be more profitable for you, because you'll be able to save money when you don't improve and put more in when you do. You'll also be able to increase the odds of bluffing the other player off his hand. The higher the SPR, the more you're into implied odds territory and the more potential fold equity comes into play.
 
Last edited:
dj11

dj11

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 9, 2006
Total posts
23,189
Awards
9
Chips
0
I'm missing something...what flop? If a whole hand shows there I am out, I don't want to clutter up my system.

FWIW, in any version of Omaha, NL,PL, HiLo, w/e, the only thing about AAxx for me is seeing a flop. IF, IF, there is more than just the AA, like suited or some other connecting cards, then I feel better, else AAxx in OMAHA is a spec hand, and I can let it go easy to a bad flop.

It is generally easy to spot a villain holding AAxx, and for me, it is those connecting hands that keep me involved.
 
vinnie

vinnie

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Total posts
1,208
Awards
1
US
Chips
50
I'm missing something...what flop? If a whole hand shows there I am out, I don't want to clutter up my system.

FWIW, in any version of Omaha, NL,PL, HiLo, w/e, the only thing about AAxx for me is seeing a flop. IF, IF, there is more than just the AA, like suited or some other connecting cards, then I feel better, else AAxx in OMAHA is a spec hand, and I can let it go easy to a bad flop.

It is generally easy to spot a villain holding AAxx, and for me, it is those connecting hands that keep me involved.

Yeah, you're missing something.

The OP is discussing the following scenario.

Flop: [Pot: $2.61] :3d4: :10c4: :6s4:

Hero holds: :9s4: :8s4: :7h4: :6h4:
Villian holds: AA**
Effective stacks are $3.73

Should we get all-in on this flop. The answer is, yes. We show a profit from getting all-in here.

Of course, how you play AA** on a flop depends on your side cards, the other player's range, and the SPR. Of course, if you know someone is likely holding AA**, you are going to see a flop with connecting cards and then play properly according to stack sizes and your expected equity. But, this thread is about the specific scenario and flop given.
 
Top