Introduction and question about pot equity.

[BoxLiquid]

Hi, I'm new here to 2+2 forums. It's great to know Greg Raymer was a frequent visitor here. I guess that means there was a lot of knowledgable folks here to help him. Anyways, I am pretty new to poker it has been maybe a month and a half since i've played Texas Hold'em. I bought the book SSHE by Ed Miller and in it he talks about pot equity. Does anyone here have a very strong grasp of this concept? I just can't figure out how the hell pot equity is really relevant. Anyone with good teaching abilities please help me understand pot equity and how it's so important to poker.
Thanks in advance and nice to meet everyone here. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[TStoneMBD]

pot equity? its kind of a vague term without putting into context as it can be used in alot of different ways.

however, pot equity basically just means that if the pot is currently $300, and you have a hand that has a 10% chance of drawing out to the best hand on the river, then your pot equity is $30. ($300 x .10)

[BoxLiquid]

thanks Tstone for the very quick response. I understand how to calculate pot equity since it gives an example in the book but I just don't see how it's <font color="green"> important </font>. In the book SSHE it says you shouldn't fight for a pot if the pot equity is too small for your draw or whatever. I don't get that. Shouldn't you fight for all pots as long as your pot odds (and implied odds) are correct?

[Nicmavsfan28]

No you want to choose your battles wisely, you will note that if you are behind in the hand and dont know it you might incorrectly read pot odds in your favor, more importantly, if either of you are in an all-in (or even potentially all-in!) situation then pot odds are useless. if you can avoid a big showdown when you know you need to improve, then FOLD. If you cant get a read on your guy, then talk to him, if he doesnt answer, get away from the hand, unless you feel like going home early. /images/graemlins/spade.gif This is all my personal feelings mixed with theory i have read. Hope this might be somewhat helpful. Good luck at the tables friend.

[TStoneMBD]

again, pot equity is a very vague term. you can use it in replace of the term pot odds if you want.

the word equity is used to determine the value of your position in the current time.

if you entered a $1000 tournament and doubled up on the first hand, you could say that your equity in the tournament is now $2000.

if you flopped top pair and knew that your hand had a 63% chance of holding up against the range of everyone elses hands, your pot equity would be 63% of whatever is in the pot.

[splashpot]

SSHE is a somewhat advanced book. Well, at least it's not a beginners book. To understand concepts like pot equity and such, I believe it is better to have more experience under your belt. When you do, you will understand where the money comes from and why your opponents are losing money by playing bad hands. You will also understand that if they are losing money, it is good for you.

I also think it's near impossible to fully understand things like this without playing thousands of hands. First hand experience is the very BEST learning tool. I certainly didn't understand what he was talking about until I played thousands of hands.

Perhaps a book geared more towards beginners would help you work your way towards understanding these ideas. I haven't read it, but Ed Miller's new book is supposed to be such a book.

Edit: There is also a good discussion of pot equity in this thread (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=books&amp;Number=1316970&amp;Forum =,f19,&amp;Words=%2Bbook%20%2Bclub%20%2Bdiscussion&amp;Sea rchpage=1&amp;Limit=99&amp;Main=1316970&amp;Search=true&amp;where= sub&amp;Name=&amp;daterange=1&amp;newerval=1&amp;newertype=&amp;olderv al=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bodyprev=#Post1316970). As well as other good discussion regarding the book.

[TStoneMBD]

i really dont know if this is true. it really depends on your background. if youve never had experience with investing or logical mathematical problem solving, then all these concepts might be very new to you. i first read theory of poker when i was new to the game, and it all made perfect sense. i actually felt that i learned more from reading hfap.

[splashpot]

Point noted. But I also argue that although one may understand the math behind concepts from TOP, HPFAP, and SSH, it takes experience to know how and when to apply them at the table.

What I'm trying to say is, if you took an MIT math professor, had him read those 3 books, and put him at a poker table, he would have to gain good deal of first hand experience before he showed a consistant profit. Or so I believe.

[BoxLiquid]

Thanks TStone, Nicmavsfan and splashpot for the greatly appreciated tips. I guess I do need more hours at the table. Just to let you guys know i'm not a complete newbie to poker. Before taking poker as serious as I do now, i've read through ITH,WLLH, and even hold'em poker for advanced players. But, in none of those books does it ever talk about pot equity lol. Maybe more experience is needed before I fully understand this concept. And I just got the TOP book and hopefully Sklansky goes more in detail about this subject. There's so much that I do not know about Hold'em..... yet the game seems so primitive. /images/graemlins/grin.gif Just out of curiosity what stakes do you guys play and how long have you guys been playing poker? (specifically Hold'em)

[sknnyftn]

I like to think that i have a decent understanding of the concept of pot equity. I'm not great at explaining things, but I'll give you some examples of how I use it in my game. In the book Ed Miller gives 3 examples. The first one is how much you "lose" by folding. In my opinion, it's just a more complicated way of saying not to call with a weak draw. It's obvious you shouldn't call, so I don't get much out of it. I think in these situations just thinking about pot odds is more useful and much simpler.
The second application is a little more useful. I still have a hard time applying it though. Giving a free card to an opponent who you think has a draw to beat you is a little risky. Add to it the fact that you can't be sure how much pot equity they might have, and it gets even more confusing. How are you going to be able to tell during the heat of things that your opponents have a 10% chance of drawing out on you? The only time when I will do it is heads-up or maybe against two players with a fairly strong hand (like a straight) in a small pot, but only if I am almost positive they won't call then, but might try to catch me bluffing on the end. This is where it also helps to have an aggressive image so they will assume you are trying to buy the pot. I think that with more than two opponents, in today’s small stakes games, that I will get called by at least one anyway, so I'd rather not take the risk of giving them a chance to take my pot for free. I'll make them pay to draw and take the extra bet now. I know that is confusing, but like I said, I still have a hard time applying this aspect. I am still having a hard time figuring out how much equity they might have.
The part I find the most useful is the final example he gives. Using pot equity to decide to bet or raise. The most common example I can think of that comes up in my game is the nut-flush draw. It happens at least four times a session for me. There are usually 5-6 people seeing the flop with me in my game. The nut flush draw comes out to about 35% pot equity. Using pot odds alone you know you should call, but the whole point of this book is to show you how to get the most out of your opponents. So if you have a 35% chance of making the nuts against 5 or 6 people, why not push your edge? Your 35% chance is much greater than the 14-17% share you get if you just divide the pot up evenly among the remaining players. So if I'm in there i am going to do whatever I can on the flop to build the pot against many opponents. I’ll keep betting or raising all the way until my pot equity drops below the point where it’s greater than if you just divide up the pot equally between all the remaining players. Heads up in this situation, since your 35% with the flush draw is less than the 50% if you just split it. But with 2 callers still, your 35% is still greater than the 33% you’d get if you just spit the pot. It applies to more than just flush draws, but this is the easiest to understand. The rest will come with time on the tables, but in the mean time I hope this helps a little.

[BoxLiquid]

Nicely written Sknnyftn. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[elmitchbo]

the previous post was good, but i thought i'd drop in a quick summation. pot odds help you decide to call a bet or not. pot equity helps you decide if you should bet out or raise for value. if you think you have a pot equity advatage then you want to see money going into the pot, thus raising and forcing others to call your bet is profitable for you.

[Wrecker]

Here is a hand I played last night which I believe dramatically illustrates Pot Equity Edge and its powerful effect on your bottom line when applied in the right situation.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls.

Flop: (13.50 SB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif
<font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>

At this point I'm working w/approx. 11 outs and 3 callers. My Equity = 42% Edge = 42% - 25% = 17%. Its time to Max my EV.

UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 bets</font>, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 3-bets</font>, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero caps</font>, MP2 calls, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (13.25 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 raises</font>, UTG+1 folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 caps</font>, Hero calls.

River: (21.25 BB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
YES !
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 caps</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 29.25 BB

Now I watch my chat window for the "nh" "nice river" comments comming from the TC's.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Turn: (13.25 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 raises</font>, UTG+1 folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 caps</font>, Hero calls.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like the 3-bet. You are heads-up with about 11 outs (you can't expect aces to be outs, and you have to worry about the clubs that pair the board) and have almost no folding equity.

[Wrecker]

Thank you( I mean it) for the critque of my play at the turn. Fold equity is one of the items on my list to come to an understanding with. However at this stage of the hand the last concern I had was fold equity. It's correct that I couldn't count on all the "A" outs nor was I. For my particular temperment and tolerance to risk I felt due to the size of the pot folding to save one or two additional BB's was not an option. Aside from that my immediate goal was to maximize my EV. I can't think of a better spot to be in than heads up with 11 outs and that kind of risk/reward choice. That said I'm not professing that my poker education is anywhere near so complete that I feel I've demonstrated something profound here. My post was only meant to provide an easily understood practical illustration of how opportunities will present themselves to those who have taken the time and trouble to do more than just punch the call button and curse the jerk who just relieved them of a considerable portion of their stack.javascript:void(0)
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[biscuitman]

[ QUOTE ]
However at this stage of the hand the last concern I had was fold equity. It's correct that I couldn't count on all the "A" outs nor was I. For my particular temperment and tolerance to risk I felt due to the size of the pot folding to save one or two additional BB's was not an option. Aside from that my immediate goal was to maximize my EV. I can't think of a better spot to be in than heads up with 11 outs and that kind of risk/reward choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points -

o I think you misunderstand what is meant by fold equity here. The term is refering to the extra equity you get from occasions when villain folds - not you. In this case there is virtually no chance of villain folding hence you have little or no fold equity

o Secondly, my understanding of pot equity is that you applied it correctly on the flop as you're pot equity was larger then the pot split between all those still in the hand (ie 25%). However on the turn you have to consider your pot equity against 50% as there are only two of you left in the hand. As you're equity is less than 50% you should not raise. You then move on to consider calling/folding. Do you have pot odds to call the raise ? Obviously you do so calling is correct. You hit you're flush on the river and /images/graemlins/grin.gif all round.

I've only just got my head around these equity concepts so I am happy to be corrected.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
However at this stage of the hand the last concern I had was fold equity. It's correct that I couldn't count on all the "A" outs nor was I. For my particular temperment and tolerance to risk I felt due to the size of the pot folding to save one or two additional BB's was not an option. Aside from that my immediate goal was to maximize my EV. I can't think of a better spot to be in than heads up with 11 outs and that kind of risk/reward choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two points -

o I think you misunderstand what is meant by fold equity here. The term is refering to the extra equity you get from occasions when villain folds - not you. In this case there is virtually no chance of villain folding hence you have little or no fold equity

o Secondly, my understanding of pot equity is that you applied it correctly on the flop as you're pot equity was larger then the pot split between all those still in the hand (ie 25%). However on the turn you have to consider your pot equity against 50% as there are only two of you left in the hand. As you're equity is less than 50% you should not raise. You then move on to consider calling/folding. Do you have pot odds to call the raise ? Obviously you do so calling is correct. You hit you're flush on the river and /images/graemlins/grin.gif all round.

I've only just got my head around these equity concepts so I am happy to be corrected.

[/ QUOTE ]

Biscuitman is correct. Wrecker had 10 nut outs, plus maybe a couple more if the foe did not have a set, plus maybe a couple more if the Ace was live. Heads up on the turn, Wrecker had ~25% chance to win the hand, but is contributing 50% of the money on that round. Every extra dollar that goes in on the turn is a loser for Wrecker. He should not have 3 bet for value/EV reasons.

On the other hand, his check-raise on the flop was correct, as was his analysis for why he raised. He was putting in 25% of the money, but had 40+% chance to win.

[Wrecker]

Thanks guys. Having just cleared the starting gate so to speak in an effort to get a more complete understanding on what the hell I'm doing and why, I consider myself to be fortunate to receive such seasoned and thoughtful critques. Of course there dead on accurate. I've gained the equivalent of at least a week of focused study on these subjects and I'm encouraged to know expert help is so readily available on this forum. Being a bit senior in the age department absorbing and applying new concepts does not come as easy as it used to, so I'm really surprised and grateful when I stumbled into help such as this. To borrow from "Dirty Harry" - You folks have made my day.http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/icons/smile.gif
smile

Thanks Wrecker

[Rosencrantz1]

I definitely recommend Ed Miller's new book GSIH. He does a very good job of explaining pot equity. He also discusses pot odds.

Since I'm very new to these concepts as well, I welcome any corrections/additions to the explanation I will now (try to) give:

Pot Equity refers to the amount of the pot ON AVERAGE that you will win under the given circumstances. In other words, if you are drawing to the nut flush and no other hand is out that would beat the nut flush (or, to be fair, ALMOST no other hand), you can say that ON AVERAGE you will win 1 in 3 times. That means that, ON AVERAGE, you are winning 1/3 of the pot in each of these situations. If you are out against four players then the three of them will win 2/3 of the time, while you win a third. Since the three of them are 'sharing' the 2/3 of the time they win, you have better-than-average pot equity. If two of those four fold on the next betting round, your pot equity is now lower than average because while you will still win about 1/3 of the time, the lone other player will now win 2/3 of the time (this assuming that you missing the flush means you will lose the hand. In practice, you may win a few of the hands even when you miss the flush -- e.g., your opponent also missed the flush but shows you down -- so the numbers are only approximate)

Pot odds are used to specifically make judgements about draws, in particular WEAK draws (so says Ed). If you have 5 outs to the probable best hand, you should be getting at least break-even odds from the pot in order to call. To rephrase, you don't want to chase small pots with long shots, only big pots.

You would use pot odds to help you figure out your pot equity, but they are not really the same thing.

If anyone has corrections/additions, please post. (if this seems right-on, though, let me know too because I need some feedback on my learning!)