Folding Equity

[PrayingMantis]

It is obvious that many posters here don't seem to accept the important value of what we call "folding equity" (FE), gained by aggressive play. I'd like, in a sense, to justify this resistance against the overall, homogeneous nature of FE, as it is often presented here.

We can argue for threads and threads about this matter, but there is one very important factor we usually miss, and I see many posters who are confused because of this: FE, for any given hand, increases *dramatically*, as the buy-in increases (For "same hands", played in different buy-in SNGs).

This could be one of the most important differences between low and high buy-ins.

So posters (and readers) who play at lower buy-ins, might not see, (and they are correct in that!) why FE is such a dominant part of a strong player's EV. They see at their tables players who insist on calling all-in, on the bubble, with A3s and KTo. Thus, only a pretty small FE can be gained from many aggressive moves, and what's more: the aggressor himself exposes himself to the dangers of consistently going to SD while behind, or only marginally ahead, and this means a lot of variance, and an increase in $EV for the REST of the players in the game.

However, when climbing up the buy-ins, playing super-strong is the weapon AGAINST variance, and AGAINST increasing other players' EV in many situations (i.e, more EV for us). Therefore, the picture here might be completely different, even contrasting, to the picture in lower buy-ins. The "gap" kicks in, and the better opponents are ready to fold more and more hands, and on the bubble and other circumstances they might fold almost anything - just so they won't risk it with going to a SD. That's where the first one to attack can win a lot, especially when with short stacks, which is pretty much ALWAYS the case in SNGs. Sng = short stacks = very little room to manouver beyond PF and flop.

That's why a hand like 64o, at the right position and timing, will be worth A LOT more at higher buy-in than in a lower one. In lower one, the hands are worth pretty much "what they worth", in terms of EV against other hands. However, In higher buy-ins, garbage hands can be worth MUCH more, as a result of high FE, gained from position, being first to attack, and certain table dynamics.

Sometimes we discuss a hand, as if it doesn't matter wheather it's played in a $6 or $215 SNG. When speaking about FE, this is a critical mistake, and a source for a lot of misunderstandings.

All thoughts and flaming are most welcome.

[Jason Strasser]

Wonderful post, I agree thoroughy and I think I may have to examine the buy in more carefully then I do when I respond to a lower buy in tournament to account for the difference in FE.

[Stoneii]

Here here PM. I've been telling my mate for a good while now that the live game we play in we have 0 (zero - I don't mean close to but absolutely zero) FE in the first 4 rounds (until rebuy is over and you're willing to put them all-in).

Someone will call with any two, which makes it a nightmare to try stay alive when you're running card dead!

Guy to my right bets all-in on flop of A86 rainbow, to me announcing Ace poor kicker in his hand (which he had and he recognised he had to push folk off hard or charge them big time to chase!!). Opponent thinks for 5 seconds, announces that he's got to run with the luck and calls nearly all-in himself with.......Q4o.

Turns a 4 and rivers a Q -- lmao /images/graemlins/grin.gif ZERO FE!

stoneii

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Good post. I've noticed now that I'm primarily playing $50's that my preflop reraises are getting called a lot less than in $10's and $20's.

[Desdia72]

although i am a winning player at the $5 + $.50 level, which i might add has so eloquently been pointed out by another poster does'nt mean much, i'm still learning different aspects of the game to become better. give a more simply explaination on FE and how it changes as you go up in limits. what is it's overrall importance?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Every time you bet or raise, your hand has two components of value (equity). The value as the best hand at showdown, and value based upon how often you win the pot right there. Fold equity is equal to the percentage of EV you gain by your opponent folding either 2) a better hand, or b) a hand with a reasonable chance to draw out.

Fold equity increases as you go up in stakes because the players get better and recognize the real value of hands, thus they tend to fold hands like KQo and AJo more often.

As blinds increase, it becomes more necessary to steal, thus you need to be able to make people fold a larger range of hands when you raise. Note that what you have when you raise is irrelevant. You just want to increase the probability that they fold.

[PrayingMantis]

Great job in explaining what's FE in a very concise manner.

However, I'd like to add one point:

[ QUOTE ]
Fold equity is equal to the percentage of EV you gain by your opponent folding either a) a better hand, or b) a hand with a reasonable chance to draw out.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is also case c). Many times in SNGs, especially PF and on later stages, you'd often want your opponent to fold a hand that is even weaker than yours (but not much weaker, of course). That's because you are *sometimes* able to win more merely by keeping putting pressure, and you want to avoid showdowns for all your stack (or big portion of it), when it will be only marginally +CEV for you.

Edit: rereading your post, I now see this point can be easily put under case b. But it is still important to make it clear, IMO.

[Desdia72]

nuetralized the lower buy-in that you play in? for example, since players at the $5 level routinely ignore the value of certain hands and will raise or call with more marginal holdings? if this is the case, this speaks toward why i started the thread, "CAN A GOOD $50-$200 PLAYER MAKE $55-$60
A DAY AT $5 + $.50 ON STARS AND $5 + $1 ON PARTY?" the thread was more about the higher limit player being able to execute his more skillful level of play through sophisticated tactics and knowledge (like the idea of FE) over lower limit players who, by and large, could care less,
in turn resulting in the target profit after recouped buy-ins.

[PrayingMantis]

Playing the $215 or the $6 is a completely different game, and strategies that work at one simply won't work at the other, and might actually be *losing* strategies at the other. Playing very loose-aggressively on the bubble at the $6 is a terrible approach, while it can be extremely +EV on the $215. Playing tight, simple ABC poker can be +EV at the low buy-ins, but pretty much negative or 0 EV on the higher ones.

It is important to see that there are many stages in between, and there could be very tight-aggressive $11 games, or some loose-passive $109. But generally, FE is worth more as you climb up the buy-ins.

[Galaxy 500]

Excellent post! I don't post much here, but I've been troubled by this issue for some time.

I've only played poker since January and am slowly working my way up the S&G buy-in ladder. I currently play $15-30 S&Gs at PS. At each level I try to adapt and improve my game to prepare for the next level. I track my performance and when I hit what I believe is a consistent acceptable ROI I move up.

Lately I felt that perhaps my game has been a bit weak around the bubble as well as when we're down to 3. I read many of your posts and decided to kick up my aggression. Bad, bad, bad, bad move. I started getting crushed. Not long ago, for example, I'm in an S&G and we're down to 4. Folded to me in the SB and I moved all-in with pocket 9s. I get called from the BB with pocket 4s. Of course I'd love to see this every tourney I play but he hit his set and I was done.

I'm thinking 90% of the time at the $200s the 4s fold. Not at the $20s my friends. This is only one example. I've had my big or all-in raise called consistently from marginal hands, i.e. my KJs going down hard to A5o.

I've had to back off the aggression.

I mostly blame you, Jason, you crazy SOB /images/graemlins/grin.gif for the temporary hit to my ROI. Looks like it will be another 100 S&Gs before I'm moving to the 50s

[Desdia72]

deals with FE a liitle more in depth?

[PrayingMantis]

FE is a very general concept, which has many faces. In some ways, it is related to "bluffing", obviously, and is of course relevant to any kind of poker (although sometimes it isn't called FE). But as to NL tournaments and specifically SNGs, these boards, combined with your own thinking and expirience, are probably the best sources, as the books on tournament play are very few, and very basic in their nature (The discussion about "the gap" in TPFAP, deals with FE in NL tournies in a general way).

[NegativeEV]

There are some dangerous posts here IMO. I am concerned that some of these responses will discourage $11-$33 tourney players from increasing their aggression as the field thins. Bubble play aggression is critical even in the $11-$33 SnG's to ensure a strong long-term ROI, and folding equity is the reason for this. I don't have a ton of experience (at least not as much as Mantis and others), but I have logged ~ 600 SnGs in the $11-$33 range, and I am confident that bubble aggession is the key to increasing ROI at these levels. For the first 400 or so tourneys I maintained an ROI of ~ 10-15% by playing only solid, straight poker from start to finish in each SnG. After reading posts by Strasser and trying to implement more aggression on the bubble, my ROI plummeted at first and I hit a losing streak. This was NOT because bubble aggression and folding equity are not important at these low levels, but because I did not have a firm grasp on how to maximize my aggression and folding equity by targeting the right players and the right situations. After spending 15-20 tourneys learning how to use folding equity and bubble aggression effectively, I saw a DRAMATIC increase in ROI at the $11 and $22 tables. I've been steadily turning out 40-50% ROI in my last ~ 100 $11 & $22 tourneys and bubble aggression/use of folding equity is the reason.

The keys that I've found which effectively work at the $11-$33 tables (maximizing folding equity and using bubble aggression effectively):

1.) Be true to the all-in or fold mantra when at 10xBB or less. Never try to steal with less than 3xBB bet.

2.) Remember that your goal is to take down the blinds (and occasionally a limper) UNCONTESTED. I used to look for callers with AK, AQ in the final 4 or 5 and got frustrated when the suckouts happened. You must realize your are only a 6:4 favortie with these hands against most other holdings- that means you only have a ~ 40% chance of winning two of these in a row if you both show down. Again, concentrate on stealing uncontested.

3.) Target the tight or passive players for your steals. Obviously don't try to take down the maniac's big blind especially if they have you outstacked.

4.) Pick on the blinds of the two short stacks when there are 4 left. Even at a loose $11 table, the two short stacks will tighten up to avoid taking 4th.

5.) Avoid KNOWN coin tosses. When trying to steal, try to recognize situations when it would make sense for your opponent to call even with mediocre cards (i.e. they have you significantly outstacked, their blind has them pot committed, etc.).

Anyhow, sorry for the long post, but I firmly believe that folding equity is very important at the lower levels, although you may have to search for opportunities to use it a little more carefully.

[Desdia72]

because you go more in-depth with how FE and aggression, particularly on the bubble can be implemented. anybody else have a similar response to add or are ther any disagreements
with what Negative's post?

[PrayingMantis]

You made some great points, IMO. Of course folding equity is very important in every level, however, it should be applied differently, and MUCH more cautiously, at lower buy-ins.

To adress some of your points:

[ QUOTE ]
There are some dangerous posts here IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please define dangarous.

[ QUOTE ]
After spending 15-20 tourneys learning how to use folding equity and bubble aggression effectively, I saw a DRAMATIC increase in ROI at the $11 and $22 tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

15-20 tourneys is a very small sample, even for only "learning" something. It's great that you found better ways to use aggression and increase ROI, though. Of course, FE is very effective against certain players, in certain circumstances, no matter what buy-in. My main point was, that the higher you get, you'll have much more chances to gain from it, and on lower buy-ins, you should sometimes play a more tight, "survival" game, and let others bust each other, and only THEN fight for the bigger prizes. There is a thin line, but it's extremely impotant to see it. In higher buy-ins the chips you gain when others fold can be very useful later on. On lower buy-ins, many times it is a matter of getting ITM, and only then outplaying your opponents. Very different strategies.

But again, I agree with the majority of the points you made, without getting into too much detail here.

[NegativeEV]

[ QUOTE ]
15-20 tourneys is a very small sample, even for only "learning" something. It's great that you found better ways to use aggression and increase ROI, though. Of course, FE is very effective against certain players, in certain circumstances, no matter what buy-in. My main point was, that the higher you get, you'll have much more chances to gain from it, and on lower buy-ins, you should sometimes play a more tight, "survival" game, and let others bust each other, and only THEN fight for the bigger prizes. There is a thin line, but it's extremely impotant to see it. In higher buy-ins the chips you gain when others fold can be very useful later on. On lower buy-ins, many times it is a matter of getting ITM, and only then outplaying your opponents. Very different strategies.


[/ QUOTE ]

First, your original post was good. Some of the responses were "dangerous" in that they could discourage use of aggression/FE at the low levels.

Second, you misread (or I was a poor communicator) on the 15-20 sample size item. I was saying that I did POORLY for 15-20 tourneys while learning how to be more aggressive and maximize use of FE. After this learning period, I've had very good success and have been at 40-50% ROI for ~ 100 tourneys (still not a great sample, but 100 is good enough to know that the bubble aggession will result in a long-term increase in ROI).

Third, you are exactly right that FE must be used differently at the high vs. low levels, however it is critical in both.

Forth, thanks for sparking this discussion, I really like this string and think it is very valuable.

later,
-EV

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Also reading anything in TOP or HPFAP regarding the semi-bluff will give insight into the concept of folding equity.

Also, on a simple note, why raise big with AKo? One reason is because any 2 unpaired cards beat you hot and cold better than 1/3 of the time, and any pair is at least a coin flip or an 11-9 favorite. therefore your big raise adds to your positive expectation by getting hands like 77 or JTs to fold most of the time. Since you're never way ahead with AK or you can't be sure you're not a coin flip with JJ, you want to slant the odds in your favor. Also., with JJ, if its late in the tourney, near the bubble, and you think your opponent is tight enough or bubble-scared enough, to lay down QQ even 15% of the time, that's a real addition to the overall equity of your hand.

[Galaxy 500]

I agree with so many of your points, but the original post was about adapting your play to the buy-in level (well actually adapting to the play at different buy-in levels).

It is almost impossible not to agree that you need to be aggressive to win regularly, it's just a matter of how aggressive. Your one point I take issue with because it is the exact problem we face at the $30 and under level:

2.) Remember that your goal is to take down the blinds (and occasionally a limper) UNCONTESTED. I used to look for callers with AK, AQ in the final 4 or 5 and got frustrated when the suckouts happened. You must realize your are only a 6:4 favortie with these hands against most other holdings- that means you only have a ~ 40% chance of winning two of these in a row if you both show down. Again, concentrate on stealing uncontested.

Problem is, at this level, you need to be prepared to be called. I don't know what the break points are but, assume equal stacks for the moment, at $200 do you see people call an all-in with 44 or A5. I got to believe the answer is usually no. At $20 it is a very real possibility. I think you can be much more aggressive on the bubble with KT at $200 than you can at $20.

I do very much agree with you on picking the players to be aggressive with. There is a wide array of maniacs and tighties at our level.

[NegativeEV]

Galaxy-
It is logical that you will get called more on the bubble at the $33/under tables than at the $110 or $215. My point on trying to take the blinds uncontested is that we need to minimize the times that we show down. In this sense, both of my points 1. & 2. go hand in hand. I used to simply call behind a limper with AK in on the bubble knowing that my hand was likely supierior to the other players holdings. I would then play heavy on the flop when my A or K fell and would find myself getting sucked out by two pair, etc on the river. Now I would much rather utilize folding equity preflop and take this pot down without seeing cards. In a SnG, time is too short to take chances on a 6:4 favorite because you are unlikely to win 2 of them in a row if you're showing down. Use that folding equity and take the pot down preflop. This will not ELIMINATE the calls (as you and I know at the low tables) but will minimize them.

[PrayingMantis]

Your new way of playing AK is, generally speaking, very good. However, AK is a HUGE hand in a low-buy SNG, where it is pretty much a "showdown poker", and it is actually always huge when SH. Pushing with AK is automatic in most of SH situations, no matter what buy-in. The problem is how to play the vast majority of hands, which are very far from AK, and are much more common, unfortunately...

[Galaxy 500]

Negative, I'm not sure we really differ that much in our opinions.

When we're down to 3-5 I would find it almost impossible for me to call a limper with AK. I hardly consider raising in this situation aggressive. In fact, near the bubble (or anytime for that matter) limpers and min-raisers can usually be taken down with an all-in bet. I'd rather have limpers and min-raisers in front of my all-in than 2-3 "undecideds" behind.......does that make sense? I assume players get a bit craftier as we move up in stakes.

My argument is the 99% of the other times we don't get AK......or AQ. How hard do you play KT at $30 vs $200?

The $10 level was easy. You simply waited for strong hands. It's trickier at $20-30 and you do need to be more aggressive, but I think you can be more patient than you can at $100-200

[Desdia72]

way of saying you can bluff or semi-bluff more at higher limits with more marginal hands like K To and players will routinely laydown hands that at lower limits players would mostly play strong with?

[NegativeEV]

[ QUOTE ]
My argument is the 99% of the other times we don't get AK......or AQ. How hard do you play KT at $30 vs $200?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree we probably see eye to eye here in general, although I'd guess I'm a little more aggressive in the final 5 than you may be. I also place 1st most often and 5th second most. As far as the K10 question- this is the type of hand that takes the most skill and discretion on the bubble at our tables. Playing this type of hand correctly and choosing when to steal with it is the key to success (high ROI) at the lower levels. Because this is such a difficult hand, there is no blanket advice here. I would say I'm probably attempting to steal the blinds and utilize FE about 60-80% of the time with this hand on the bubble, but this is extremely player/situation dependant. Again, this is at the $11-$33 tables.

[Galaxy 500]

Interesting. I come in 1st most and 6th second most. I have some thoughts on why, but they're probably wrong. I often find that I let the crazys' knock each other out and I'm dead last in chips with 6 left. I become super aggressive to try to double up and, well, failure occurs /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I will also say that I believe different sites and different formats require different strategies. Most posters here play Party. I believe Party and PS turbo format requires far more aggression than the regular structure at PS. At least far more aggression early on.

[gergery]

I think folding equity is the key to the entire game of NLHE.

A big part of the reason you play tight is to give you more folding equity on the hands you do play.

A big part of the reason you raise substantial amounts (ie. 3xbb instead of minraise) is to create fold equity.

In fact, if you take a bizarre theoretical situation, where everyone folded everytime you bet, eventually you would be down to the final two with your opponent having only his blind left by the time you saw cards. Seeing flops even with good hands you are still only 2:1 or 4:1 favorite so will still lose lots of the time.

[NegativeEV]

Good point on the difference in tactics given different sites played. I only play Party so can't comment on play at other sites although your comment seems logical.

[Galaxy 500]

I only play PS. I believe the turbos are similar to Party in that by the time you're down to ~3 the blinds are more than 10X your or your opponents stack. It really can be all-in or fold.

PS regular structure is much different. You may be down to 4, each with ~3000 in chips with blinds at 50/100. It's just a much different game.

FE still applies but opponents can wait out super aggressive all-in players much longer.

I really need to try Party. Every single person I've heard from says it's easier than PS

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
I think folding equity is the key to the entire game of NLHE.

A big part of the reason you play tight is to give you more folding equity on the hands you do play.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely true for SNGs, and it's another reason why the transition from tight to loose, as the blinds go higher, is generally the correct approach.

However, in a deep-stacks NL ring game, it is more complex. A loose image can be very profitable too in certain circumstances, if you use it correctly and get the action you want on the right spots. But this is pretty irrelevant to SNGs, and also to most on-line NL ring games, where the stacks are not deep enough for playing a smart loose game.

[naphand]

Jeeeesus Mike, I mean Des, GET OVER IT.

I did not say being a winning player at $5 SNG "does not amount to much". Please do not misquote others for effect, it shows a huge lack of integrity. What I said was, it is not necessary to be a "good" player to beat $5 SNG. You can only consider yourself "good" when you are beating "reasonable" players, typically only found at higher limits.

Consistently beating the $5 SNG means you are a better player than the majority of the players found there. This is a good start, as it must mean you built some solid elements into your game - such as understanding hand value, patience, tactics etc. This is no bad thing, though I doubt playing at $5 SNG is ever going to pay a respectable $/hr (as pointed out elsewhere). I think it's great to play and win consistently, just don't read too much into it.

You have a had a tough, but not altogether unproductive first 7-months, don't let your disappointment sour you, instead try to develop humility. When you become more successful (and you will if you use this forum regularly) you will have a better perspective on the game than most. A lot of people who start playing poker get off to a very quick start (inevitable given the variance) and they actually seem to believe they are some kind of poker God, they crash and burn horribly and publicly (seen a few times recently over on the SH forum).

When you no longer feel threatened by posts such as the one you are referring to, and when you no longer need to start your posts with "I am a winning player...", this will be because you are comfortable with your game and not overly concerned about what others may say or think. Success is not just measured by $/hr, many successful people have experience much failure. Instead of making comparisons, post some hands that you are unsure about and let the forum pick at them. This is the BEST WAY to get the most from this forum. It can be embarrassing at times, it can lead to huge face-offs with other posters, but is almost always productive.

I played a couple of $5 SNGs today, on UB, and went out 5th and 2nd, both times to horrible mistakes on my part. I don't need to post the hands as I know what I did wrong. My experience is almost exclusively in limit poker, so I have a huge amount ot learn about tournament play and this is reflected in occasional glaring blunders. My opinion is not worth the same as some of the more experienced posters in here, but I am never afraid to express it if I think I am right, I have doubts or I want to be tested.

[stupidsucker]

Great post.

I can relate this to a recent post where some people were arguing about FE after pushing 4x in a row. I can see now what buy ins people were playing is a direct result of what side they took. I was playing 20's and I felt it was a dramatic reduction in FE for the hand in question A6. However people at the higher buy ins argued tooth and nail that A6 should be pushed NO MATTER WHAT.

IMO this post is a perfect explaination for all this. FE would hardly be touched at a 215, but at a 22 the FE is already not so good. People will call you with anything if they feel you are being too aggressive with NO reguard for FE whatsoever. Ive seen middle stacks call with any2 suited cards Jhigh if they feel someone has pushed too much, and they often state the reason why.

My game is improving greatly now that I am calling less all ins myself. I was guilty of calling all ins with much weaker hands including down to A7. Glad I am fixing it.

My aggression is good, I always thought maybe I was too aggressive, but now I see that it was my bad calls that got me in trouble more then my bad pushes.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think folding equity is the key to the entire game of NLHE.

A big part of the reason you play tight is to give you more folding equity on the hands you do play.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely true for SNGs, and it's another reason why the transition from tight to loose, as the blinds go higher, is generally the correct approach.

However, in a deep-stacks NL ring game, it is more complex. A loose image can be very profitable too in certain circumstances, if you use it correctly and get the action you want on the right spots. But this is pretty irrelevant to SNGs, and also to most on-line NL ring games, where the stacks are not deep enough for playing a smart loose game.

[/ QUOTE ]


Good point, I agree this would be true when stack is say 100-500xBB.

I was referring more to SNGs (and to MTTs for that matter) which I play more frequently than ring games. And to ring games like $25 and $50 at party that have small stack sizes, which are the only ones I play.

Actually, there should be a point at which you want a loose image instead of a tight image. When blinds are high, you want tight. When blinds are low, I think you’d want loose. I wonder where the cutoff is?

--Greg

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you bet or raise, your hand has two components of value (equity). The value as the best hand at showdown, and value based upon how often you win the pot right there. Fold equity is equal to the percentage of EV you gain by your opponent folding either 2) a better hand, or b) a hand with a reasonable chance to draw out.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would enjoy seeing some math-laden examples of how this works out with various holdings. Anyone feel up to it? The Dr. G example with 55 would be a good place to start.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there should be a point at which you want a loose image instead of a tight image. When blinds are high, you want tight. When blinds are low, I think you’d want loose. I wonder where the cutoff is?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complex: when blinds are very low (i.e, deep stacks, never the case in on-line SNGs), you might play a loose PF game, if this strategy suits you and fits the conditions, since the implied odds are usually huge. And you can use this image to get action. Tight image can work good in many cases too.

When blinds are at "medium-short-size", which is pretty much the case in most on-line NL ring-games, and in early stages of SNGs, playing loose can not be usually profitable in terms of implied odds (especially if there are raises PF), and in terms of image. In certain conditions, with medium-blinds, some kind of loose-passive game PF, if the table is weak post-flop, or a specific opponent you play against is weak, can be good too. Most of the times it isn't the case, for many reasons.

However, when blinds are significantly high, a relatively loose play is usually the right way to go, since you can't allow the blinds to simply eat your stack, the pot is big to begin with, and the play of the hand can't go much beyond flop-turn. Aggressiveness is the key factor, many times all-in/fold, and that's the case in mid-late stages of SNG. If you have a tight image at that stage, your looseness is even more profitable.

[Dominic]

how do you think Party compares to PS compares to UB??

[Dominic]

As I've been playing poker for only a year now, I must say this thread has by far been the most helpful bit of poker knowledge I've read yet. Through all of the books and practice and failure and success, FE and this thread has made me realize what had been hovering around my poker-subconscious is actually the correct way to play...thank you for spelling it out in a so easy-to-understand manner.

Very helpful.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've been playing poker for only a year now, I must say this thread has by far been the most helpful bit of poker knowledge I've read yet. Through all of the books and practice and failure and success, FE and this thread has made me realize what had been hovering around my poker-subconscious is actually the correct way to play...thank you for spelling it out in a so easy-to-understand manner.

Very helpful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks a lot! It is really nice to read such a reply. /images/graemlins/blush.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I actually know exactly how you feel, and it has happened to me a few times while reading few very specific threads around these boards. There is something you *almost* know or understand, but just need the right moment, or exact words, or explanation, for it to really ring the bell.

I'm really happy that I could help you in that. I'm learning a lot here, too.

[ddubois]

I'm still pondering about how to compute and value this nebulous concept called fold equity.

Assume 1000 stacks and a single t100 big blind. If I raise my 22 and my opponent folds his 22, I've gained t100. Because the hands are tied, no matter how much money was in the pot, or makes its way into the pot, I'm pretty certain I can say I had showdown equity of +t0 EV. So do we say my fold equity was +t100? Or do we define my fold equity as equal to the size of the blind multiplied by some variable that factors in the percentage of times he will call?

If I hold 22 and my opponent has 33, and we were we both all-in, my pot equity would be -t750 EV. Assuming my opponent folds 100% of the time that I raise, is my fold equity here +t100, the size of the blinds, or +t850, the differential between the EV of the fold and the EV of the pot equity during all-in? Or is it neither, because the assumption that we are both all-in is bad leap - pot equity is equity in what's in the pot. Before I have acted, my equity in the pot should be 0; if I merely called the BB, my equity in the pot is somewhere around t40 (of t200). So my fold equity is +t60 over merely completing?

If I bet, my opponent folds a *worse* hand, and I pick up the blinds, does this mean my fold equity was negative? For instance, I hold AA, my opponent holds A2o. My pot equity (were I able to force or induce my opponent to go all-in) is roughly +t900 chipEV. If he would fold to a push 100% of the time, is my fold equity +t100, equivalent to the blinds I pick up, or is it -t800, equivalent to the differential between the blind I got and the portion of his entire stack that I should hope to get?

Of course, these are examples with specific hands and we're stating up front the opponent's hand is known. It would be more appropriate to look at the fold and pot equity for ranges of hands, which makes all of this very complicated.

My first inclination is to not to think about either fold equity or pot equity, but rather to think in terms of what are the conceivable outcomes after my action based on the likely ranges of hands my opponents will hold, and the likely responses they would make with those holdings. I.e., if I push with 77, I will pick up the blinds X% of the time, and be a Y% dog when I am called 100-Y% of the time. In this sense I am looking at the EV of the play directly, rather than what seems to be a seemingly unnecessary layer of abstraction that evaluates the fold equity of the move. I think there must be some logical flaw in this approach, but it's not immediately clear to me what the flaw is. Perhaps the flaw is that looking at the situation in these terms ignores the negative EV of doing nothing and getting blinded to death? Or perhaps the flaw is thinking only of two conceptual groups: A) people who fold, and B) people who call, where the assumption is "I will only get called when I am a big dog". Perhaps instead I should be thinking in terms of three groups: 1) the people who call and am probably behind to, 2) the people who folded worse hands, and 3) the people who folded better hands, making me money. Maybe that 3rd group gives me more value than is immediately apparent. However, group #1 is playing for my whole stack, so when I have a disadvantage it is exaggerated by an order of magnitude relative to what the 3rd group is giving up, by way of folding to my raise.

[PrayingMantis]

Good post, ddubois. I like it because it raises some difficult questions and points, that I believe many others will be very interested to read more about. And I'll be happy to think more deeply about it myself, so it's a good opportunity.

I'll try to answer some of the question, and I'll see if I can handle it. Not sure. And It's going to be long. But this is very important stuff, IMO.



[ QUOTE ]
I'm still pondering about how to compute and value this nebulous concept called fold equity.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree it is nebulous. Many aspects of poker, especially in NL and NL tournaments, are nebulous in their nature. However, trying to value it through "computing" can be very problematic. We are dealing here with human behaviour. This is not hand X vs. hand Y EV, or pot odds, or probability to hit hand Z by the river. It is about ranges of hands, held by ranges of types of opponents, acting each time in ranges of different ways. In a deep way, it is unsolvable, IMO. Others might disagree, but I see it as a psychological game, between human-beings. That's it. All you will ever have is a certain number of assumptions, which will get more and more "correct" as you gain expirence.

[ QUOTE ]
Assume 1000 stacks and a single t100 big blind. If I raise my 22 and my opponent folds his 22, I've gained t100. Because the hands are tied, no matter how much money was in the pot, or makes its way into the pot, I'm pretty certain I can say I had showdown equity of +t0 EV. So do we say my fold equity was +t100? Or do we define my fold equity as equal to the size of the blind multiplied by some variable that factors in the percentage of times he will call?


[/ QUOTE ]

The second option. There is no meaning in saying anything about the folding equity, if all you know is that your opponent simply folded this one specific hand and that's it. There is a meaning to folding equity only in relation to some assumption about how often will he fold a certain range of hands. This is quite like computing the optimal frequency to bluff a specific opponent, using game theory. However, you MUST have some read on him, some assesment of his play, to make it. If you know nothing about him, there is no meaning to FE. Nevertheless, very often you know *something* about your opponent/s, even if you've never met him/them before. That was the point of my original post here. You know how typical opponents act on a certain buy-in, in certain situations (you have past expirience). Also, you know, almost for certain, that *any* opponent, on any buy-in, will fold *some* of his hands if you bet, or raise against him, etc, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
If I hold 22 and my opponent has 33, and we were we both all-in, my pot equity would be -t750 EV. Assuming my opponent folds 100% of the time that I raise, is my fold equity here +t100, the size of the blinds, or +t850, the differential between the EV of the fold and the EV of the pot equity during all-in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Many "if's", no other choice: If you know that your opponent has 33, and you know he will fold it 100% of the time when you push now (with your 22, or ANY hand), then the folding equity is equal to the overall equity. No difference. FE=EV=100. There is no other source of equity, since there will never be a showdown, and you will win nothing more than the blinds (and you'll never lose anything). It does not matter if you push with 72o, AA, J2, or QT in this situation. If he folds his 33 now 100% of the time, your EV is equal to the blinds, which you'll ALWAYS win.

[ QUOTE ]
Or is it neither, because the assumption that we are both all-in is bad leap - pot equity is equity in what's in the pot. Before I have acted, my equity in the pot should be 0; if I merely called the BB, my equity in the pot is somewhere around t40 (of t200). So my fold equity is +t60 over merely completing?


[/ QUOTE ]

You gain 0 folding equity by completing, unless your opponent is sitting out and his hand will be auto-folded, or if he's a complete idiot and he'll fold instead of checking. FE will NEVER be a part of your EV if your move cannot make your opponent fold. i.e, if you check, or complete, or call a bet or a raise, there is 0 FE. Only the EV of the actual hands in play, as it developes. This is extremely important to understnad, and that's why a passive play is almost always a leak in ANY kind of poker. In SNGs it can be disastrous. There are, of course, many exceptions, for specific situations, but generally, agressiveness always improves your EV.

[ QUOTE ]
If I bet, my opponent folds a *worse* hand, and I pick up the blinds, does this mean my fold equity was negative?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is no meaning to speak in term of negative folding EV. It can't go lower than 0. i.e, 0 probability your opponent will fold ANY hand. That's the case when you check to him, for instance, or if you bet into a *complete* 100% calling station.

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, I hold AA, my opponent holds A2o. My pot equity (were I able to force or induce my opponent to go all-in) is roughly +t900 chipEV. If he would fold to a push 100% of the time, is my fold equity +t100, equivalent to the blinds I pick up, or is it -t800, equivalent to the differential between the blind I got and the portion of his entire stack that I should hope to get?


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, your folding equity has nothing to do with the hand you hold. It has only to do with how much of the time your opponent will fold HIS hand, whatever it is. If he'd fold his A2o 100% of the time, then it's the same case as with the 22 vs. 33. Your EV=FE=100. HOWEVER, playing your AA this way against this opponent is probebly *very much* -EV compared to other ways.

There is a very important thing to understand here: In NL ring, you DON'T want your opponent to fold worse hand, since you care much more about EV than about variance (anyway, you should). So you are very often happy if he calls you with any hand you're ahead of. However, in certain cases you can be satisfied also with a fold (especially if you're a very small favorite, in terms of pot-odds, since many times big variance on marginally +EV spots isn't something you REALLY want).

However, in tournament poker you are many times VERY happy with a fold, even if you are better than marginally +CEV, since variance, especially around the bubble (and SNGs are prertty much bubble from the begining), is bad for you, since there is always the risk of busting and gaining 0, and this might severly hurt your $EV in many situations. That's why FE is SO important in SNGs. Many times you simply prefer not to go to a SD, even when your CEV will improve if your opponent calls as a dog.

Notice, however, that if you are a significant favorite, like in the case of AA vs. A2, there is *no chance* you want a fold, no matter what circumstances. Your CEV is so huge, you should be crazy to give it up in order to keep your variance low. These are cases where you might consider moves that have relatively low FE (more passive), to make SD possible. OTOH, strong players might play AA as they play a strong steal with 84o. There are many reasons for this, deception is one of them, and also image play.

[ QUOTE ]
My first inclination is to not to think about either fold equity or pot equity, but rather to think in terms of what are the conceivable outcomes after my action based on the likely ranges of hands my opponents will hold, and the likely responses they would make with those holdings. I.e., if I push with 77, I will pick up the blinds X% of the time, and be a Y% dog when I am called 100-Y% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly the same as thinking in terms of folding equity as part of your overall EV.

[ QUOTE ]
In this sense I am looking at the EV of the play directly

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "directly" way of looking at the play of a hand. If there is a chance your opponent will fold, FE is always there.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps the flaw is that looking at the situation in these terms ignores the negative EV of doing nothing and getting blinded to death? Or perhaps the flaw is thinking only of two conceptual groups: A) people who fold, and B) people who call, where the assumption is "I will only get called when I am a big dog". Perhaps instead I should be thinking in terms of three groups: 1) the people who call and am probably behind to, 2) the people who folded worse hands, and 3) the people who folded better hands, making me money. Maybe that 3rd group gives me more value than is immediately apparent. However, group #1 is playing for my whole stack, so when I have a disadvantage it is exaggerated by an order of magnitude relative to what the 3rd group is giving up, by way of folding to my raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you are trying too hard to break all this into rigid categories. Thinking in categories can be sometimes helpful, but I think that here, it is probably better to simply try all sorts of moves, gain expirience, see when and why people call you and with what hands and at what buy-ins, work constantly on improving specific reads on players and so on.

I hope this helped. There is much more to it, of course.

[Jdanz]

i think you misunderstand praying's original post, KT is garbage to any hand that calls in a 200. therefore KT is really no better then 46o but both can be played profitably in certain situations for their folding equity.

[Jman28]

I've personally tried many times to portray a 'maniac' image short handed. I love when someone goes all in for 2x the BB and I call in the BB with 86o (because of pot odds.. only need to win 25% of these to show profit).

Then, I get agressive, and people no longer attempt to steal my blind. They just keep folding to me (free money!) until they hit a big hand, and I can safely fold.

[dethgrind]

In most cases you'd be better off using the opposite form of image manipulation, which is the one most of these posters use, when you appear to play tight to your opponents but in fact are playing quite loose/aggressive, steal-raising with hands like KTo. The reason for this is that by the time the SNG gets short-handed, the blinds are usually large enough that you need to be playing many hands to avoid being eaten up. Now, if your opponents think you are playing tight, this is great because you end up stealing many more blinds than you deserve, which is exactly what you want.

In general, your style of image manipulation is less effective in this sort of situation. By playing tight and appearing loose/aggressive, yes, you may get people to fold to your blind more often. You only have the big blind once every 4 or 5 hands (whatever you mean by short-handed), however, and thus you'll have to be folding more than you'd like to those other 3 or 4 times, in order to maintain your tight image. This includes many opportunities that you might have been able to steal, had you been appearing tight. The main advantage to this style of image manipulation is getting more action than you deserve on your powerful hands. There are at least two problems using this style in these situations: 1) you'll most likely have a short stack this late in the game, and thus many times won't survive long enough to get that powerful hand and receive your undeserved action and 2) your opponents stacks will be too small to be worth the wait.

Now, if you aren't playing tight, but are actually playing loose/aggressive while also appearing loose/aggressive, this is slightly better. You won't get your opponents to make as many mistakes, but you won't be making the crucial mistake of getting blinded to death. But the best bet of all is to convince your opponents you are playing tight while you in fact are playing loose/aggressive.

In general, you want to play the mathematically correct strategy, which is usually dictated by the stack and blind sizes, and then convince your opponents you are doing the opposite, to encourage them to make mistakes.

[Desdia72]

when you are the larger stack against a shorter stack in a hand? for example, i was reading over a comment in Kurn's thread where a poster suggested pushing all-in with A K against a shorter stack that he had covered if he was going to call the all-in anyway.

[PrayingMantis]

Yes, FE comes into play especially when you're on the/a big stack, against shorter stacks who are trying to survive (outlast) vs. other stacks. However, being aggressive against very short-stacks can be problematic many times, since there's a point in which being desperate dictates calling with many marginal hands, and this decreases your FE.

You should really watch how strong players play big stacks in STT and MTT.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, FE comes into play especially when you're on the/a big stack, against shorter stacks who are trying to survive (outlast) vs. other stacks. However, being aggressive against very short-stacks can be problematic many times, since there's a point in which being desperate dictates calling with many marginal hands, and this decreases your FE.

You should really watch how strong players play big stacks in STT and MTT.

[/ QUOTE ]

big stacks, especially in single table SNGs is a great idea. however, most of the strong players i know play on Party whereas i play on Stars. one of my biggest failing lately has been playing with the big stack early. in my last 10 SNGs, i've probably jumped out to a lead of at least 3000 in chips 4 times early with a full table with strong hands only to have the lead eroded through wasted raises where you have to muck away from a hand like A K on a ragged flop or just a cold deck of cards.

[PrayingMantis]

Just notice that playing a big stack at the $5.5 is VERY different from how you should play it on the high buy-in SNGs. But watching strong players is always good, even if you won't be able to use some of the things you learn in the low buy-ins.

As to playing only at stars, and not being able to watch Party's players: you can watch games on Party without openning a real-money account (if you don't want to, or can't), so I don't see a problem.