PDA

View Full Version : UTG Ev


10-27-2001, 12:27 AM
Let us begin to answer the question I posed regarding your EV in various positions in a typical 15-30 game with a 10 and 15 blind. I stipulated that you are a very good player against mediocrities and asked what your Ev would be in first position (UTG), on the button, and two to the right of the button.


Lately I have been criticized for merely using my judgement for questions such as these when simulators and documentators are available. I responded that I am not using merely judgement but also logic and math. I will now demonstrate what I meant by examining the EV of a good player when he is under the gun.


First notice that this player's TOTAL Ev will be about $30 per hour. That is about $7 per round. Or about 80 cents per hand. Clearly however, he doesn't average 80 cents in each position. He must do way better than this on the button and way worse in the blinds. But the sum of his Evs in each position should be about $7.

Now common sense tells you that even world champions could not beat even easy games if they were always in the blind positions. In other words, these positions must have negative Ev. On the other hand, that negative Ev must be less than the dollar amounts of the blinds. Since you could fold every single hand and lose that much. Without elaborating, it should be clear that the blind positions lose (Ev wise) something in the neighborhood of half of what they put in to start with. Let's call it $13 between the two of them. Add that to the $7 a good player expects to make overall per round, and that means that the other eight positions in a ten handed game will make about $20 total or an average of about $2.50 per hand.


This 2.50 per hand does not take into account the difference in positions. The button should gobble up lots more of this $20 than UTG will. In fact will UTG show a positive expectation at all? Some posters postulated that it wouldn't. Is that reasonable? Actually no. Simple logic disproves that notion, for a good player, because if it was true, then it would become correct to bring the EV up to zero by folding every hand. Since that is obviously wrong it is easy to see that UTG has to have a positive expectation, even if only because you play nothing but aces, kings, queens and AK suited.


Now suppose you played, (and raised with) only those four hands. What would that do to your EV? Lets look at aces. Mike M. made the ridiculous comment that I was implying that no hand has an EV higher than the total of the blinds. The comment shows an ignorance of the FTOP. Because with rare exceptions, any hand that will get calls from players who wouldn't call if they knew what you had, adds that much more to your profits over and above the size of the blinds. Aces are the ultimate example. Everyone should fold if they saw your hand, thus giving you an automatic profit of $25. Their incorrect calls of your raise merely add to that. It is difficult to say exacxtly how much aces are worth under the gun since it depends a lot on what hands you will get called with, but it is clear that it is at least fifty bucks in almost all games.


Kings are almost as good. It is rare that another player will have a hand that will eat into the kings EV. So it gains from almost all calls. It is true that kings can get outrun by lone aces but they don't lose a lot when that happens. Let's say their EV is $40, Queens are a bit more likely to get called by hands that they don't like. Still, I don't think they would opt to steal the blinds without a fight. Say their Ev is $30.


We are now conservatively estimating that the three big pairs gives us an average Ev of $40 UTG. It may be more like $60 in some games. And you get this $40 average three times in 221 hands. That is 55 cents right there. Jacks are at least fifteen bucks one in 221 or seven cents more. AK suited is at least fifteen bucks every 330 hands for another nickel. These big hands alone give UTG an EV of at least 67 cents. Throw in my estimate of $8 for AK offsuit once every 110 hands and we are up to 75 cents. Add in a little for two suited high cards, medium pairs and AQ and we are right around a buck. (Keep in mind that the worst of the hands we play UTG may be break even or lose a few pennies but are still right to play to maximize what we make from the other hands.)

Bottom line is that the final answer must certainly be between $.75 and $1.50. It can't be less than that because just the big pairs are worth at least that much, and it can't be better then that because that $20 is skewed to the later positions. Common sense says the last three are worth more than ten bucks. (More on this later) Thus, the first five are worth an average of two bucks with UTG probably being least of all. I'd say $1.25.

10-27-2001, 01:44 PM
David writes:


[Kings are almost as good.]


This is certainly false. Kings are not almost as good as Aces. Nearly every good hold'em player knows this, and most bad hold'em players know this. As for your estimate that the three big pairs average 2.66 small bets under the gun -- in a 15/30 CA game -- is clearly false. I'd point you to www.posev.com (http://www.posev.com), but that uses computer simulations so you might be disinclined to believe it. I'd point you to my own online data, but that is for a game which is much tighter than the 15/30 CA games.


Suffice it to say, that the only way those three hands would be worth so little UTG is if the other 9 players were clones of Mason Malmuth.


- Andrew

10-27-2001, 05:48 PM
I already stated that the three big pairs might be worth as much as an average of four big bets. In games where an UTG raise is rarely called by lone aces, kings ARE almost as good. Though I slightly underestimated what the blinds lose, the fact remains that UTG can't be worth more than $1.50 given the last three positions are worth more than $10. And the fact that they can play more hands as well as make more money with the better hands, makes this almost a certainty. As for Mason, would you care to crossbook with him?

10-28-2001, 12:06 AM
** Mike M. made the ridiculous comment that I was implying that no hand has an EV higher than the total of the blinds. The comment shows an ignorance of the FTOP. Because with rare exceptions, any hand that will get calls from players who wouldn't call if they knew what you had, adds that much more to your profits over and above the size of the blinds. Aces are the ultimate example. Everyone should fold if they saw your hand, thus giving you an automatic profit of $25. Their incorrect calls of your raise merely add to that.**


Umm, Mike actually made no such comment. He just asked you to clarify your logic regarding AK. Specifically, the exchange went:


> Against tough players, AK must be worth less than half

> of the total of the blinds. This is obvious once we notice

> two things:

>

> A. The EV IS the blinds when everyone folds.

>

> B. Given tough opponents (who are putting you on a hand

> that is on average about what you have) almost every call

> or reraise reduces your EV from that of a blind steal. In

> other words if a tough opponnent offered to fold without

> looking, you should jump at the offer.


Are you claiming that, against very skilled opponents, there should be no hand in which the value is greater than the blinds, since those players always have the option of simply giving up the blinds?


----------------------------


My read on this is that your answer to Mike's question is that these "skilled opponents" are putting you on a hand roughly equal to AK, so the hands that are playable under this criteria give extra value to AA. Fine, question answered. It wasn't an unreasonable question, since upon first reading it sounded like you said these skilled opponents will always put you on whatever hand you have, and will never make a FTOP mistake (making the blinds the maximum ev attainable). That is, your final sentence above does not make it clear you shouldn't "jump at the offer" for all your raising hands.


BTW, you never did answer Mike's point that by using AK as the "average strength" of your utg raising hand, these "skilled opponents" are actually highly exploitable for playing too tightly.


Tom Weideman

10-28-2001, 03:45 AM
The problem here might be that Mike M. misunderstood my statement "Given tough opponnents (who are putting you on a hand that is, on average, about what you have)" I meant that only when you have AK, not all hands. But he should have realized that.


As for being highly exploitable for playing this tightly, I don't agree. As long as the blinds still call a lot, there is only a small exta amount to be gained by raising with other hands that you don't usually raise with UTG.

10-28-2001, 03:57 AM
> Lately I have been criticized for merely using my judgement

> for questions such as these when simulators and documentators

> are available. I responded that I am not using merely

> judgement but also logic and math.


My criticism of you in this department is not that you are not using sims and 'documentators', but that you are not giving the proper respect to those that do. I already know MM's and your stance on sims... you keep repeating it. But how can you not respect the documented results of playing AK utg a significant number of times? Some people have hinted that they have such data at their disposal, and your response is that such data does not compare to your ability to estimate your results of playing such a hand, combined with that of your logic and math.


My criticism is the fact that you are criticizing, when in fact, you should be welcoming the opportunity to share ideas and results with these people, since they have something that you should want to know about. I think the only reason you have done so is because you refuse to publically show that you might be able to learn from others.


Two news flashes for you: Trying to estimate what your results have been with AK utg without documenting it in any way is virtually impossible. Your logical and mathematical abilities are not unmatched, not even in the small world of poker.


Will you not admit that if you actually had the results of AK utg every single time in your life that you had been dealt that situation, you would be able to better estimate the ev of that situation?


If such information were available to you, and this information seemed to disagree with some of your theories, would you claim that these results were insignificant, because logic and math are far stronger tools than the results of a lifetime?


If these results happened to indicate that maybe some of the sims that others did held more merit than you previously thought, would you claim that the results were hogwash?


> Mike M. made the ridiculous comment that I was implying

> that no hand has an EV higher than the total of the

> blinds. The comment shows an ignorance of the FTOP.


Hmmm... my comment (actually, it was a question) regarding what you were implying shows an ignorance of FTOP?! Is this an example of the advanced logic skills that you are bringing to the table? Do you understand the difference between my stating something, and simply asking if this is what your statement indicated?


You are bringing out the worst in me.

10-28-2001, 10:01 AM
"..it should be clear that the blind positions lose (Ev wise) something in the neighborhood of half of what they put in to start with."


How about a posted blind when you enter a game, one to the right of the button? A little less than half?

10-28-2001, 11:44 AM
"As for Mason, would you care to crossbook with him?"


I don't know how Mason feels about you making wagers with his money. But sure, I'll cross book my UTG action with AA/KK/QQ in the Paradise 15/30, with his UTG action with AA/KK/QQ in the Pardise 15/30.


/images/wink.gif


- Andrew

10-28-2001, 05:43 PM
Addressing a side issue here and assuming all skilled opponents . . .


The ev will be less than the total of the blinds (from the point of view of the other player). Not for any given hand, but for the range of hands the UTG would play. The astute opponent will only call or raise with hands which will show a positive ev against the UTG's possible range of hands. I would think this is obvious.


Good backgammon players see this concept immediately. When offered the cube, the equity can never increase above the current value of the game, as a drop would be in order, limiting the equity to the current value. But in backgammon, the point of view is the same for everybody--there are no hidden cards.


However, given an exact hand in a given situation (and from the point of view of the person holding the hand!!!--UTG in this problem), the equity can of course be higher than the money in the pot. An example would be flopping a royal flush. From then on the size of the pot may very well increase, can't decrease, and you can't lose.


By the way, if UTG raised with AA and showed it, his equity could be less than the blinds in the pot against a skilled player, especially if the skill of the other player was unknown to UTG. Who can tell us why? ;-)

10-28-2001, 07:29 PM
> The problem here might be that Mike M. misunderstood my

> statement "Given tough opponnents (who are putting you on

> a hand that is, on average, about what you have)" I meant

> that only when you have AK, not all hands. But he should

> have realized that.


Yes, I misunderstood your statement. I'm not sure why I am at fault for this, but no point in discussing it further. You clarified it with your reply to me, and then I moved onto discussing that I didn't feel that you were taking into account the overall utg strategies, as well as the overall vs-utg-raises strategies.


I still claim that with the postflop strategy that you outlined for the latter, the utg player would have positive ev for raising with all hands.


I understand that it is difficult to completely define the postflop strategy of these players, and that you have taken the liberty to make simplifying assumptions. However, I think that those assumptions were too extreme, and dealt too harsh of a blow to the value of AK in the hands of the utg raiser.


Without simplifying assumptions, it is difficult to use logic and math to make these estimates. One might look for other tools to help in this endeavor.


Then again, one might not.

10-29-2001, 01:07 PM
"First notice that this player's TOTAL Ev will be about $30 per hour. That is about $7 per round. Or about 80 cents per hand."


Isn't the better approach to solving this problem to first assume that everyone at the table is similar or about the same abilities. After solving this simpler question, we then add the assumption of a good player against others. Same with the starting hands. We first determine each hands value and guidelines for starting hands in a typical table or as I prefer in a tough table. Then we add the assumption of each players abilities and adjust.

10-29-2001, 03:13 PM

10-31-2001, 07:35 AM
**As for being highly exploitable for playing this tightly, I don't agree. As long as the blinds still call a lot, there is only a small exta amount to be gained by raising with other hands that you don't usually raise with UTG. **


Okay, now I know you are just joking, because no way could you actually believe this.


Tom Weideman

10-31-2001, 07:39 AM
**As for being highly exploitable for playing this tightly, I don't agree. As long as the blinds still call a lot, there is only a small exta amount to be gained by raising with other hands that you don't usually raise with UTG. **


Okay, now I know you are just joking, because no way could you actually believe this.


Tom Weideman