Originally Posted by duggs
this is wrong somewhere, pumping it into stove gives us 49.1% equity against AQ+ 1010+
Also you never need more than 50% equity to make a call, and the pot odds offered approach a limit of 50%.
for example only AA has more than 83% equity (and only just) KK has 67.4% equity.
I’m not trying to be a dick but if it’s wrong we’re going to have to figure out where!
Step 1 - Make Accurate Assumptions
So the one thing I will say right off the bat is that this is what happens when we over-estimate our opponent’s range. OP didn’t really give us an idea of what kind of player we were dealing with, so with an all-in raise OOP I have to assume the default – which is the stone cold premium range.
Originally Posted by rrph3rtbkr
hello ssbn743 , i got confused on one thing bro the way u calculate ur pot odds .
pot odds should be 1800 to 1500 i.e 1.2 : 1 as the pot is 1800 and u have to call 1500 to win the pot ,because pot odds is defined as ratio of current size bet to cost of contemplated call i.e how mutch can i win with what stake ..
We’re not thinking about the math right here.
Remember that 2:1 pot odds is 1/3 in fractional form. This is something that is often confused. So 1:1 would be 1/2. Or in this case, we’re getting 5/6 on our money, or 5:1. We’re getting 1 in 5, or damn close to 83% pot odds. That means you need to be good better than 5 times out of 6 to make this +EV.
Remember the first number is the number of times something will not
happen and the second number is the times that it will
. We will lose 5 times and win 1 time, 5:1. You’ll also notice that adding the two numbers together will result in the denominator from our 5/6 fraction. Using your 1.2:1 example, we can make the fraction 1.2/1, multiply by 10 (10/12), and reduce to 5/6, which will come out to 5:1.
We all should know that there is no hand poker that will be good 5 times out of 6, so this is a fold. Assuming we have calculated our opponent’s range correctly, which we did not in this case.
Originally Posted by ssbn743
Sorry I didn’t see the A7s part of the post until after I posted, but…
Let’s add Ax suited into his range here. There are 13 suited ace combos in the deck, we have already accounted for 2 of them with our AQ and AK estimations. That leaves 11 possible Ax suited combos; just for kicks let’s assume he will 3-bet shove with all of them (not too far off target since he did do it with an A7).
That’s adds 11 more combos that we have about 67% equity against. This gives us 7.37% equity versus this range of hands.
Adding our new range into our equation results in the following:
17.49% + 7.37% = 24.86%
There are now 60 hands in his overall range so we take 24.86%/60 and come up with 41% equity – this is still a fold – we need more than double that to make this a +EV call.
Now this is wrong – and I don’t know what I was thinking when I posted it. There are 12 suited ace combos from each suit, not 13. He could not have the same suit as the ace we have and we have already accounted for the AK and AQ suited with the other king on our hand, so…
He could have 0 combos of suit A (because we have the Ace)
He could have 10 combos of suit B (minus 1 combo because we have the King of this suit)
He could have 12 combos of both suits C and D
This means he could have 34 combos of Ax suited. We do still have 67% equity against all hands in the range which will give us 22.78% against that range, 17.49% + 22.78% = 40.27%.
Now there are 83 hands in his range, so 40.27%/83= 48.51% - which is still long ways off from the 83% we need.
Now let’s assume differently:
With an all-in raise OOP we have to assume at least some premium combos are in his range, but let’s say that he could only do this with AA KK or any suited Ace:
AA – 3 combos, we have .21% equity versus this range
KK – 3 combos, we have .9% equity versus this range
AXs – 34 combos, we have 21.44% equity versus this range.
.9% + .21% + 21.44% = 22.55% equity versus his range.
Then we take 22.55% divided by the total number of hands in his range (38)
22.55%/38 = 59% equity - Still an easy fold because of the ratio of the pot! Although I admit I would have called at the table as well, but the math does not support it!
If this is wrong – someone is going to have to tell me where!
Originally Posted by Bomysp
Nice example of math! I would like to see poker mostly by this side, can you please suggest some sources, how and where can i take a bigger grasp on this subject? thanks a lot.
Check out “Poker Math That Matters” by Owen Gaines. It’s excellent; I read it many years ago and continue to revisit it. In fact, since everyone is telling my numbers are wrong I pulled it off the shelf again and can’t figure out where I’m wrong. Maybe I am, but I don’t think I am.