Theoretical question - pumping draws.

How is the turn call calculated into the equation?
Does it even factor?

I've got other questions, I'll just get the ball rolling.

[ArturiusX]

Be more specific.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
How is the turn call calculated into the equation?
Does it even factor?

I've got other questions, I'll just get the ball rolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, raising the flop to pump your draw will give you the correct pot odds to call one on the turn. For instance, 4 players (you included) see the flop for 4SB; it's bet, called and you raise your 4-flush on the flop, the player behind you folds and the two in front of you call, so it's 3 players to the turn for 5BB; your flush doesn't hit on the turn, and it goes bet, call, then you're getting 7:1 to call for your 9-out draw...no worries.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
In theory, raising the flop to pump your draw will give you the correct pot odds to call one on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with why we pump our draw on the flop! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

To the OP: Look for posts on equity. We pump the nut flush draw because of our equity. To simplify things, suppose we have the nut flush draw and we are guaranteed a win if we hit. Our flush will come in ~35% of the time by the river. If we have 2 other players calling flop bets, we are putting in 33% of the money, but winning 35% of the time. It's that difference that makes us money in the long run.

It gets even better if there are more players in the hand, since we're still going to win 35% of the time, but we're putting in a smaller % of the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is the turn call calculated into the equation?
Does it even factor?

I've got other questions, I'll just get the ball rolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, raising the flop to pump your draw will give you the correct pot odds to call one on the turn. For instance, 4 players (you included) see the flop for 4SB; it's bet, called and you raise your 4-flush on the flop, the player behind you folds and the two in front of you call, so it's 3 players to the turn for 5BB; your flush doesn't hit on the turn, and it goes bet, call, then you're getting 7:1 to call for your 9-out draw...no worries.

[/ QUOTE ]

This answers 9\10 of my questions in one foul swoop.

My problem came from trying to find a correllation between flop and turn, when they're two separate decisions entirely.
I got myself pretty tangled up in unwarranted maths.


Do you pump flush draws in a 3 handed field OOP?
(In position, obviously this has free card benifits.)

How much negative equity weighting do you give to texture of the board?...specifically, the increased likelyhood of being against 2pr. eg. JT4

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with why we pump our draw on the flop! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not.

[ QUOTE ]
To the OP: Look for posts on equity. We pump the nut flush draw because of our equity. To simplify things, suppose we have the nut flush draw and we are guaranteed a win if we hit. Our flush will come in ~35% of the time by the river. If we have 2 other players calling flop bets, we are putting in 33% of the money, but winning 35% of the time. It's that difference that makes us money in the long run.

It gets even better if there are more players in the hand, since we're still going to win 35% of the time, but we're putting in a smaller % of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason I answered the way I did is that I think Kwaz is struggling with something that took me a couple of run-throughs to dope out, namely, we have a strong flush draw which gives us 35% equity to the river, but how do we reconcile the fact that we don't always hit our draw on the turn and might have to call another bet on the river.

Another point, Kwaz, is that frequently our raise will buy us the Button, if there were players behind us to begin with, so the value-raise (our hand's equity > the percentage of the pot we're contributing) doubles as a free-card play.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you pump flush draws in a 3 handed field OOP?
(In position, obviously this has free card benifits.)

[/ QUOTE ]
I generally tread lightly. I'll put a bet in, but if it's raised after me, we need to be careful. Say it goes bet,call,raise - if we 3-bet, the player in the middle may fold, thus ruining our equity. The other thing to be careful of is a paired board or a player who might have flopped a set. In those cases, our equity is actually much less than 35%.

Because of those difficulties, and because the equity is so close to being even, I usually wait for 4+ to really pump hard. If I have 5 in with me, I'll go ahead and cap, because I'll have enough equity even if someone does have a set.

[ QUOTE ]
How much negative equity weighting do you give to texture of the board?...specifically, the increased likelyhood of being against 2pr. eg. JT4

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't worry about 2pr - it's the sets and paired boards that I'd watch out for. Something like TTx would be much more worrisome.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
My problem came from trying to find a correllation between flop and turn, when they're two separate decisions entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's what I figgered.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you pump flush draws in a 3 handed field OOP?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the betting and the players in the hand. If I'm SB and I complete with two suited cards, I flop a flush draw and bad BB bets and there are a couple of bad callers, sure I'll raise. If they're all good players, it depends on how strong my draw is.

[ QUOTE ]
How much negative equity weighting do you give to texture of the board?...specifically, the increased likelyhood of being against 2pr. eg. JT4

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on the other draws I have. For purposes of simplification, though, none. 35% equity for a flush draw is 35%...all you're worried about is somebody making a better hand than yours (a flop of AKK, two of your suit is going to have you worried, for instance).

[SlantNGo]

Let's say we just call the flop with our flush draw. We miss on the turn. Facing a bet on the turn, we will often (>90% of the time) still be getting good enough pot odds to continue. Hence, we know we will be going to the river. This allows us to pump our draw on the flop as if we are seeing two streets since we already know that we will see the river no matter what.

An added bonus is the free card possibility.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say we just call the flop with our flush draw. We miss on the turn. Facing a bet on the turn, we will often (>90% of the time) still be getting good enough pot odds to continue. Hence, we know we will be going to the river. This allows us to pump our draw on the flop as if we are seeing two streets since we already know that we will see the river no matter what.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is worded much more clearly. The reason we pump and don't worry about the turn is because the pot would have already been big enough to call, so we knew were going to the river for sure anyway. It's a rare pot (HU probably) where we can't call the turn profitably with our flush draw - even without pumping the flop.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
it's the sets and paired boards that I'd watch out for.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would you be worried about a set if you're on a flush draw and the board isn't paired?

Also keep in mind that if your opponent DOES have a strong hand you're liable to make many more bets when you hit, making up for the times when you hit and lose.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In theory, raising the flop to pump your draw will give you the correct pot odds to call one on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, that has absolutely nothing to do with why we pump our draw on the flop! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

To the OP: Look for posts on equity. We pump the nut flush draw because of our equity. To simplify things, suppose we have the nut flush draw and we are guaranteed a win if we hit. Our flush will come in ~35% of the time by the river. If we have 2 other players calling flop bets, we are putting in 33% of the money, but winning 35% of the time. It's that difference that makes us money in the long run.

It gets even better if there are more players in the hand, since we're still going to win 35% of the time, but we're putting in a smaller % of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks very much Numeri.

I understand equity and equity edge but this will definitely help a lot of people.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's the sets and paired boards that I'd watch out for.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you be worried about a set if you're on a flush draw and the board isn't paired?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't mean MUBS fear - just awareness of who we're playing against and the possibility of a set. Certainly no need to fear one right away! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Also keep in mind that if your opponent DOES have a strong hand you're liable to make many more bets when you hit, making up for the times when you hit and lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
As long as we don't go nuts if the board pairs. I remember doing that a few times when I first started. If I remember correctly, it went something like:

"Wheeeeee a FRUSH!!! raiseraiseRAISERAIASE....oh [censored]."

Ok. Here's one of the flop/turn correllations I was struggling to separate as independant decisions.

After discounting your str8 outs on a two flush board, does your intention of calling a flush turn card negatively impact your flop equity any?

Or does it only affect your turn odds?

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
After discounting your str8 outs on a two flush board, does your intention of calling a flush turn card negatively impact your flop equity any?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure - it made you discount your outs! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

BTW, we don't need to fully discount the flush outs. Again, we need to pay attention to the texture of the board, our opponents, and their betting.

Pumping a straight draw with a 2-flush on the board and then hitting your straight on the turn with the flush card is just like pumping your flush draw and then hitting your flush but pairing the board. In both cases, you made your hand, but you need to tread lightly.

And learn how to hit draws that don't make someone else's hand. That's the real key. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]

Ok. Here's one of the flop/turn correllations I was struggling to separate as independant decisions.

After discounting your str8 outs on a two flush board, does your intention of calling a flush turn card negatively impact your flop equity any?

Or does it only affect your turn odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your calculation of your equity is based on the number of outs you give yourself. Deducting flush-completing outs from your count automatically adjusts your equity to deal with them. And, if you don't have the equity to pump your draw when the bet gets to you then you don't.

On the turn, if the card that completes your straight also might complete a flush, or if a flush card falls that doesn't complete your straight, your decision to continue or muck is, as always, dependent on your estimate of the chance that you're ahead. This is just like if the board pairs on the turn, as we were talking about earlier.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
And learn how to hit draws that make someone else's second-best hand. That's the real key.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[numeri]

Hey boz, I love how we keep posting the same thing in this thread! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

It makes me feel like I really have a clue. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey boz, I love how we keep posting the same thing in this thread! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

It makes me feel like I really have a clue. /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I just keep rushing myself to try and beat you to it and then wind up screwing it up and having to fix it which makes it take longer than it would have in the first place.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
I just keep rushing myself to try and beat you to it and then wind up screwing it up and having to fix it which makes it take longer than it would have in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
The key is just to get any crap out there so your post gets in first. Then you can go back and edit it. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[detruncate]

You've usually already decided that you have enough equity to see the next street(s) -- effective/implied odds dictate that. For example, you're not going to be folding a flush draw pre-river except in the most extraordinary circumstances, so the next question you have to ask is whether you'll make more in the longterm by betting/raising rather than just calling. If you have enough callers such that the % of bets you're putting into the pot on that street is less than your equity, you basically make all the money you were going to make anyway + the extra that your opponents put in on that street.

It's not quite this simple, however. You have to consider the effect that pumping your draw will have on your implied odds. I don't mean to suggest that it'll always have a negative effect. You sometimes miss out on the opportunity to trap your opponents for multiple bets on a later (sometimes more expensive) street since they'll now slow down more quickly and/or check to you, but other times you disguise your hand and your opponents will end up giving you even more action believing that you would have played a draw more passively. You might also run up against a strong hand you're trying to draw out on and the extra bets that go into the pot when you're drawing will have essentially no effect on the action you can expect when you hit. This list isn't exhaustive of course -- you need to think about the effect that aggression will have in the context of the hand you're playing.

If you have a draw that you'll often have to give up on the next street, you need to evaluate your equity based on one card odds rather than two. This is especially so if some of your outs are backdoor. You're only able to look ahead as far as your current effective/implied odds will take you if extracting extra value is your only motivation.

In summary: You've already "bought your ticket" to the next street(s) based on effective/implied odds. In other words, you've decided that you don't lose enough value via the bet(s) you need to spend to make trying to hit your draw a losing proposition (relative to the size of the expected pot). However, if you're putting in less than your share on any street (relative to your equity), these bets actually don't decrease the value of your hand at all -- they increase it, and you should therefore try to get as much money as possible into the middle while these conditions exist.

*Edit: I was interrupted while writing this and probably should have refreshed my browser first as this is now superfluous. Oh well. Maybe someone will still get something out of it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ok. Here's one of the flop/turn correllations I was struggling to separate as independant decisions.

After discounting your str8 outs on a two flush board, does your intention of calling a flush turn card negatively impact your flop equity any?

Or does it only affect your turn odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your calculation of your equity is based on the number of outs you give yourself. Deducting flush-completing outs from your count automatically adjusts your equity to deal with them. And, if you don't have the equity to pump your draw when the bet gets to you then you don't.

On the turn, if the card that completes your straight also might complete a flush, or if a flush card falls that doesn't complete your straight, your decision to continue or muck is, as always, dependent on your estimate of the chance that you're ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bordering on what I was thinking. I was just taking it a little further.

Your turn decision to continue is based on whether or not you think you're (not behind but) drawing dead.

On the flop you give yourself 7 outs (seems to be the general consensus). This implies 3.5 outs for each card. .5 for the flush completing card. What this also implies is that you expect a flush draw to complete when you make your hand 50% of the time.

When a non str8 making flush card appears on the turn, you've already made the assumption that someone has a flush draw 50% of the time and are therefore drawing dead 50% of the time.

You must reduce outs to ~6 in 50% and 0 in 50% leaving 3 outs or roughly 14:1 odds.

Now if there is a possibility that the pot after pumping it on the flop offers these odds and you choose not to continue....this means you should have reduced your outs on the flop further than 3.5 per card.

Or if the pot doesn't offer you 14:1 but you continue anyway, you should have increased your outs on the flop from 3.5.

ie. If your inclined to continue on a flush card, you should pump the flop.
If you're inclined to fold to a flush card you should just call the flop.

By doing this you avoid making mistakes according to the FTOP.


Now do you see how I thought there was a correllation between flop and turn.

[ QUOTE ]
You've usually already decided that you have enough equity to see the next street(s) -- effective/implied odds dictate that. For example, you're not going to be folding a flush draw pre-river except in the most extraordinary circumstances, so the next question you have to ask is whether you'll make more in the longterm by betting/raising rather than just calling. If you have enough callers such that the % of bets you're putting into the pot on that street is less than your equity, you basically make all the money you were going to make anyway + the extra that your opponents put in on that street.

It's not quite this simple, however. You have to consider the effect that pumping your draw will have on your implied odds. I don't mean to suggest that it'll always have a negative effect. You sometimes miss out on the opportunity to trap your opponents for multiple bets on a later (sometimes more expensive) street since they'll now slow down more quickly and/or check to you, but other times you disguise your hand and your opponents will end up giving you even more action believing that you would have played a draw more passively. You might also run up against a strong hand you're trying to draw out on and the extra bets that go into the pot when you're drawing will have essentially no effect on the action you can expect when you hit. This list isn't exhaustive of course -- you need to think about the effect that aggression will have in the context of the hand you're playing.

If you have a draw that you'll often have to give up on the next street, you need to evaluate your equity based on one card odds rather than two. This is especially so if some of your outs are backdoor. You're only able to look ahead as far as your current effective/implied odds will take you if extracting extra value is your only motivation.

In summary: You've already "bought your ticket" to the next street(s) based on effective/implied odds. In other words, you've decided that you don't lose enough value via the bet(s) you need to spend to make trying to hit your draw a losing proposition (relative to the size of the expected pot). However, if you're putting in less than your share on any street (relative to your equity), these bets actually don't decrease the value of your hand at all -- they increase it, and you should therefore try to get as much money as possible into the middle while these conditions exist.

*Edit: I was interrupted while writing this and probably should have refreshed my browser first as this is now superfluous. Oh well. Maybe someone will still get something out of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

By no means superfluous.

I especially like the point about the effect your pumping the flop has on intended action on the turn.

This is another flop/turn correllation that I wanted to explore.

What sort of negative/positive value do you attribute to these situations.

How much does relative position on the turn offer +/- effect on flop equity/odds?

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
pump and don't worry

[/ QUOTE ]

My personal mantra.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How is the turn call calculated into the equation?
Does it even factor?

I've got other questions, I'll just get the ball rolling.

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, raising the flop to pump your draw will give you the correct pot odds to call one on the turn. For instance, 4 players (you included) see the flop for 4SB; it's bet, called and you raise your 4-flush on the flop, the player behind you folds and the two in front of you call, so it's 3 players to the turn for 5BB; your flush doesn't hit on the turn, and it goes bet, call, then you're getting 7:1 to call for your 9-out draw...no worries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey bozlax - I think you understand this but your post is confusing enough for someone who doesn't I'm going to comment on it for the lurkers.

You "pump" your string draws because you're betting / raising with a hand that is earning a percentage of the bets going into the pot that is greater than the percentage of bets you are putting into the pot. The flush draw is the easiest example and is often used -- we expect to hit our flush by the river approximately 35% of the time; if we have the nut flush draw, we're very likely to have the best hand at showdown when we hit (and we're very likely to have the best hand without the nut flush draw, too). If there are three opponents all calling on the flop, then we are contributing 25% of the total bets (our one bet versus our oppopnents collective 3 bets), yet we expect to win 35% of all the bets going into the pot, meaning we're making money on each bet that goes in in this situation.

When we miss the turn, and someone else bets and all opponents call, we're now losing money on our bets on the turn. Our flush will come in about 20% of the time, but we are putting in 25% of the bets. The call is still profitable though, because of all the dead money in the pot (the previous bets), but we would much prefer to put no bets in on the turn since each bet is losing a small portion for us. (putting aside all potential benefits of folding equity, etc.)

Pumping the pot with a draw on the flop is profitable because we're "earning" money on those bets. The size of the pot on the turn cannot change the nature of the turn bets -- i.e., that we are losing money on the bets going into the pot. We still call the bets because the dead money produces pot odds sufficient for calling, but the fact that the pot is big enough to call turn bets doesn't translate into a reason to pump the pot.

A helpful way to think about this aspect of pumping is to modify the theoretical slightly. Assume our imaginary draw will hit and be good on the river precisely 25% of the time from the flop, but hit and be good only 10% of the time when we miss the turn. We have three opponents who will let us dictate either one bet goes in on the flop or 4 bets go in on the flop. If we only put one bet in on the flop, assume we won't have the odds to call on the turn when we miss. Ignore factors like fold equity, implied odds, etc. for simplicity. Our flop bets are totally neutral -- we neither make money nor lose money whether we put in 1 or 1,000 bets on the flop because our equity is precisely equivalent to the percentage of bets we're putting in on the flop. When we miss the turn, we're either calling a bet (if the pot is big enough to jusitfy it) or folding (if the pot is not big enough to jusitfy it). Pumping the pot in this situation is actually not helpful, because it induces us to commit bets on the turn on which we lose money (in isolation) that are justified only by the dead money in the pot -- if the dead money got there without us "earning" any money from those bets. It would actually be more profitable to not pump and fold the turn when we don't hit. In other words, pumping with neutral equity to justify a turn call is bad because (1) we make no money on the flop; and (2) we lose money on the turn bets that we must commit to see the river. Pumping cannot turn an unprofitable turn bet into a profitable siutation unless the unprofitable nature of the turn call (in isolation) is sufficiently offset by profits generated by the flop bets.

Pump your draws when you're making money on the bets going into the pot on that street; never pump in order to make the pot filled with enough dead money to generate pot odds sufficient to make seeing the river the correct choice.

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
Pump your draws when you're making money on the bets going into the pot on that street; never pump in order to make the pot filled with enough dead money to generate pot odds sufficient to make seeing the river the correct choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very nice post, Catt. I've never understood why people continue to use the reasoning you point out here. Hopefully some of our newer posters will see this and avoid it like the plague!

[cold_cash]

Nice post dude.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, pumping with neutral equity to justify a turn call is bad because (1) we make no money on the flop; and (2) we lose money on the turn bets that we must commit to see the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I got bogged down in my thinking originally.

I started thinking that we should only pump draws on the flop where our equity edge*#of flop bets induced > Turn call price.

[ QUOTE ]

Pumping cannot turn an unprofitable turn bet into a profitable siutation unless the unprofitable nature of the turn call (in isolation) is sufficiently offset by profits generated by the flop bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

This still confuses me or it doesn't make sense.

By this thinking (if I understand it correctly), you can make an unprofitable call on the turn, as long as you made enough profit on the flop to cover that 'unprofit' or deficit on the turn.

You can make a -EV turn decision because you made a great +EV decision on the flop. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[bozlax]

Ok, Kwaz, I see where you're going with this. I'm giving kids baths, right now, so I can't go into depth, but here's what I think in a nutshell:

I don't reduce my outs for a draw because there's a stronger draw also on the board based on the chance that I think that a card filling the stronger draw will ruin my hand. I reduce my outs to make up for the times that I make my hand and it's ruined by the better draw. Do you see the distinction? (Incidentally, that's why some people, like me, reduce a straight draw by the full out for each flush card that might fall, rather than a half. It's not a solid number, and I choose to be more conservative.)

The reason we handle it this way is because you can't put a Villan on a hand with enough certainty to make the kind of calculation you're trying to make, rather you're trying to adjust in the long run for the times that the situation occurs. It's kind of the same justification that we use for ignoring the fact that there are cards in other people's hands when were making our pot odds calcs.

IMO

[detruncate]

[ QUOTE ]


By no means superfluous.

I especially like the point about the effect your pumping the flop has on intended action on the turn.

This is another flop/turn correllation that I wanted to explore.

What sort of negative/positive value do you attribute to these situations.

How much does relative position on the turn offer +/- effect on flop equity/odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm less inclined to pump my draw when I'm not getting much immediate value and my relative position is good vs someone who will usually bet the next street. If the immediate value seems clear, I get my chips in the middle.

It's just another thing to think about. You might forego a small profit now if you're pretty sure you're going to be able to make more later, especially if the bets double. But it's hard to make up bets, so it doesn't make sense to take it too far. And there are often other considerations in favour or aggression (the possibility of being ahead, getting a free card, cleaning up outs, etc.).

In practice, I pump my draws whenever the opportunity presents itself absent a good reason not to.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pumping cannot turn an unprofitable turn bet into a profitable siutation unless the unprofitable nature of the turn call (in isolation) is sufficiently offset by profits generated by the flop bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

This still confuses me or it doesn't make sense.

By this thinking (if I understand it correctly), you can make an unprofitable call on the turn, as long as you made enough profit on the flop to cover that 'unprofit' or deficit on the turn.

You can make a -EV turn decision because you made a great +EV decision on the flop. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn call in the context of the entire money at risk (the pot) is not -EV if the pot odds justify the call. The reason it is not -EV is because there's all this money in the pot, so even if, say, you only have a 10% chance of drawing out and are putting in 25% of the bets on the turn, the money to be won when you hit is greater than the price of 1 bet that will be lost 9 out of 10 times.

Let's say you're on the turn with a draw that will hit only 10% of the time. You're HU. Whether or not the pot contains 1 bet or 1 million bets, you'd much prefer to not have to call a bet -- you'd like to see if you hit your 10% chance for free instead of having to invest a bet to hit. Now let's assume you won't get to see the river for free - you will have to pay a bet. If the pot contains 1 bet, you fold because you'll win 2 bets when you hit but only hit 10% of the time and you have to invest 1 bet to draw out. On the other hand, if the pot contained 1,000 bets, you'd never consider folding -- but you'd still prefer to see the river for free; the distinction here might be summed up as: we never want to put bets into the pot without an equity edge, but we will do so if we must when the dead money (money already in the pot) makes calling more proftable than folding.

Turning around the hypothetical I used above. Let's say instead of holding a draw that comes in 25% of the time by the river, you hold a made hand that will not improve but will win 25% of the time because your opponents will not draw out on you 25% of the time; if their draws miss on the turn your equity jumps up higher than 25%. Once again, you are not really making any money on the flop whether you put one bet or 4 bets in on the flop. You start to make real money when when the turn misses everyone and your equity goes up past 25% -- now you want to get as many bets in as possible because you have the equity edge. Your ideal outcome is to get to the turn with a pot size that doesn't justify you opponents calling, but having them call your bets anyway (you're making money at that point). Your alternative ideal outcome (depending on the size of the pot) is having them get to the turn with proper pot odds to call but folding to your turn bet. The third best is getting to the turn with proper odds and calling your bet. (you have an equity advantage and you want bets going in, even if your opponents will be calling correctly due to the dead money).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pumping cannot turn an unprofitable turn bet into a profitable siutation unless the unprofitable nature of the turn call (in isolation) is sufficiently offset by profits generated by the flop bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

This still confuses me or it doesn't make sense.

By this thinking (if I understand it correctly), you can make an unprofitable call on the turn, as long as you made enough profit on the flop to cover that 'unprofit' or deficit on the turn.

You can make a -EV turn decision because you made a great +EV decision on the flop. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn call in the context of the entire money at risk (the pot) is not -EV if the pot odds justify the call. The reason it is not -EV is because there's all this money in the pot, so even if, say, you only have a 10% chance of drawing out and are putting in 25% of the bets on the turn, the money to be won when you hit is greater than the price of 1 bet that will be lost 9 out of 10 times.

Let's say you're on the turn with a draw that will hit only 10% of the time. You're HU. Whether or not the pot contains 1 bet or 1 million bets, you'd much prefer to not have to call a bet -- you'd like to see if you hit your 10% chance for free instead of having to invest a bet to hit. Now let's assume you won't get to see the river for free - you will have to pay a bet. If the pot contains 1 bet, you fold because you'll win 2 bets when you hit but only hit 10% of the time and you have to invest 1 bet to draw out. On the other hand, if the pot contained 1,000 bets, you'd never consider folding -- but you'd still prefer to see the river for free; the distinction here might be summed up as: we never want to put bets into the pot without an equity edge, but we will do so if we must when the dead money (money already in the pot) makes calling more proftable than folding.

Turning around the hypothetical I used above. Let's say instead of holding a draw that comes in 25% of the time by the river, you hold a made hand that will not improve but will win 25% of the time because your opponents will not draw out on you 25% of the time; if their draws miss on the turn your equity jumps up higher than 25%. Once again, you are not really making any money on the flop whether you put one bet or 4 bets in on the flop. You start to make real money when when the turn misses everyone and your equity goes up past 25% -- now you want to get as many bets in as possible because you have the equity edge. Your ideal outcome is to get to the turn with a pot size that doesn't justify you opponents calling, but having them call your bets anyway (you're making money at that point). Your alternative ideal outcome (depending on the size of the pot) is having them get to the turn with proper pot odds to call but folding to your turn bet. The third best is getting to the turn with proper odds and calling your bet. (you have an equity advantage and you want bets going in, even if your opponents will be calling correctly due to the dead money).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still confused.

[ QUOTE ]

Pumping the pot with a draw on the flop is profitable because we're "earning" money on those bets. The size of the pot on the turn cannot change the nature of the turn bets -- i.e., that we are losing money on the bets going into the pot. We still call the bets because the dead money produces pot odds sufficient for calling, but the fact that the pot is big enough to call turn bets doesn't translate into a reason to pump the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the fact that the pot is bigger, produces pot odds better for calling.

eg. your draw comes in 25% on the flop, 3 opponents.
Pumping the draw = neutral EV.
Not pumping th draw = neutral EV.

But if you are 10% to make your draw on the turn.
Not pumping = 10BB on the turn = neutral EV.
Pumping = 14BB on the turn = +EV.

Granted, the bets on the turn IN ISOLATION are equally poor and I totally agree with this statement.
[ QUOTE ]

but you'd still prefer to see the river for free;

[/ QUOTE ]

But pumping a neutral EV situation on the flop has made the turn bets have different value. As does it increase the value of your free card.


[ QUOTE ]

Now let's assume you won't get to see the river for free - you will have to pay a bet. If the pot contains 1 bet, you fold because you'll win 2 bets when you hit but only hit 10% of the time and you have to invest 1 bet to draw out. On the other hand, if the pot contained 1,000 bets, you'd never consider folding

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to contradict this statement.

[ QUOTE ]

Pumping cannot turn an unprofitable turn bet into a profitable siutation

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Shillx]

The setup: You are last to act on a 3 handed flop with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. You will make your hand by the river 33.333% of the time and 18.333% of the time by the turn. You have no implied odds if you hit your hand, but if you bet the flop you will trigger a chain reaction that will get you to put in 4 SB each. If you check the flop, the turn will always get bet if it did not help you (will always go for one bet). Note that you can't call the turn if you check the flop since you are not getting proper pot odds.

The flop is K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif and it is checked to us. The pot is 3 SB right now and there is no rake.

Should we bet the flop???

<font color="white"> No. You need to have a significant edge to bet the flop here.

EV bet = 9 SB * .1833 - 2 SB = - .35 SB

EV check = 3 SB * .1833 = + .55 SB</font>

Now assume that you are 35% by the river and 19.2% by 4th street (as it would be in a LHE game).

EV bet = 11 SB*.192 + 15 SB*.196*.808 - 6 SB*.65 = + .58 SB

EV check = 3 SB * .192 = + .576 SB

So now it is slightly better to bet, but you generally need better then just 35% equity to pump if by not pumping you can fold the turn. If the pot is already so big that you have to call the turn anyway, you should exploit that small edge on the flop. Obviously rake also plays a key roll in this as well, and probably turns thin jamming into a -EV move if it isn't already capped.

Brad

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
But the fact that the pot is bigger, produces pot odds better for calling.

eg. your draw comes in 25% on the flop, 3 opponents.
Pumping the draw = neutral EV.
Not pumping th draw = neutral EV.

But if you are 10% to make your draw on the turn.
Not pumping = 10BB on the turn = neutral EV.
Pumping = 14BB on the turn = +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is the pot 10 BBs on the turn without pumping?

The comparison I am trying to make clear is the overall EV of the following flop / turn combos: (1) pumping with an equity advantage on the flop; (2) not pumping with a neutral equity situation which will prevent a protiable call on the turn; and (3) pumping with a neutral equity situation which will enable a turn call. The tricky bit is the distinction between 2 &amp; 3.

I may not be doing a very good job of conveying the concept. Perhaps this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=3414248&amp;an=&amp;page=0&amp;v c=1) by TStoneMBD on the same point (which uses $$ figures) does a better job -- my thoughts are very similar to TStoneMBD's although we approach it from slightly different angles.

[ QUOTE ]
But pumping a neutral EV situation on the flop has made the turn bets have different value. As does it increase the value of your free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is whether pumping to make the pot big enough to call is greater +EV then not pumping the pot and consequently folding for +EV (actually 0 EV, but better than -EV of calling improperly).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now let's assume you won't get to see the river for free - you will have to pay a bet. If the pot contains 1 bet, you fold because you'll win 2 bets when you hit but only hit 10% of the time and you have to invest 1 bet to draw out. On the other hand, if the pot contained 1,000 bets, you'd never consider folding

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to contradict this statement.

[ QUOTE ]

Pumping cannot turn an unprofitable turn bet into a profitable siutation

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Same issue; different formulation. If you played a hand 1000 times in which you put in 1 million bets with no +EV on the flop, and played the same hand 1000 times in which you put in no bets on the flop, and the decision of whether to call a turn bet depends on the pot size, but you're putting in turn bets with a negative equity situation, which is better?

[ QUOTE ]


(2) not pumping with a neutral equity situation which will prevent a profitable call on the turn; and (3) pumping with a neutral equity situation which will enable a turn call. The tricky bit is the distinction between 2 &amp; 3.


[/ QUOTE ]




This distinction between the two is the tricky bit.

I read TStoneMBD's thread.

The crux of what I'm trying to establish, which is not addressed in that post is this:

He gives the hand an equity of 33.333%. Which means it will make the winning hand 1/3 of the time by the RIVER.

If you plan to, or there is a chance that you will, fold on the TURN (due to unfavourable odds, or cards), should the equity on the FLOP be reduced to reflect this possibility.

If you answer this question, you will know why I choose the 1 million bets in this example below.

[ QUOTE ]

Same issue; different formulation. If you played a hand 1000 times in which you put in 1 million bets with no +EV on the flop, and played the same hand 1000 times in which you put in no bets on the flop, and the decision of whether to call a turn bet depends on the pot size, but you're putting in turn bets with a negative equity situation, which is better?

[/ QUOTE ]


As a disclaimer - I don't want to sound like a jerk. I don't claim to be an expert on the issue by any means. This is why I posted. I merely like to explore the possibilities to further my and hopefully other's understanding.

[Catt]

Your equity cannot be reduced. Equity is a measure of the likelihood of winning the hand -- that is to say, the likelihood of having the best hand at showdown. I think you're getting really confused by the distinction between equity and outs calculations.

If you have the exact odds on the flop to draw to a backdoor straight and that is your only chance of winning the hand, but will not have the odds to call a turn bet if you don't hit one of your continuation outs on the turn, then you really can't count your BD straight outs fully -- because BD straights, BD flushes, or any draw that requires seeing two cards means that you need to anticipate putting in bets on two streets to get to the river. This fact doesn't change or lower your equity as you sit there making your decision on the flop -- it does change your effective odds (as opposed to immediate odds) when considering whether to continue.

You shouldn't be choosing the 1 million bets from among the two choices. You are effectively committing yourself to calling a turn bet where you are getting the worst of it, but need to do so because of the dead money in the pot. I'm not sure I can say much more about it. Reread Brad's post (which I didn't see last night when I cross-posted with him), because I think it illustrates the principle well.

[ QUOTE ]
The setup: You are last to act on a 3 handed flop with A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. You will make your hand by the river 33.333% of the time and 18.333% of the time by the turn. You have no implied odds if you hit your hand, but if you bet the flop you will trigger a chain reaction that will get you to put in 4 SB each. If you check the flop, the turn will always get bet if it did not help you (will always go for one bet). Note that you can't call the turn if you check the flop since you are not getting proper pot odds.

The flop is K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif and it is checked to us. The pot is 3 SB right now and there is no rake.

Should we bet the flop???

<font color="white"> No. You need to have a significant edge to bet the flop here.

EV bet = 9 SB * .1833 - 2 SB = - .35 SB

EV check = 3 SB * .1833 = + .55 SB</font>

Now assume that you are 35% by the river and 19.2% by 4th street (as it would be in a LHE game).

EV bet = 11 SB*.192 + 15 SB*.196*.808 - 6 SB*.65 = + .58 SB

EV check = 3 SB * .192 = + .576 SB

So now it is slightly better to bet, but you generally need better then just 35% equity to pump if by not pumping you can fold the turn. If the pot is already so big that you have to call the turn anyway, you should exploit that small edge on the flop. Obviously rake also plays a key roll in this as well, and probably turns thin jamming into a -EV move if it isn't already capped.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

This is great Brad.


Are EV calculations always based on a single street at a time?

If so, this answers all my questions.

What I'm asking, is do we assign the <font color="red">red</font> figure only after we've called the turn.
And should the <font color="blue">blue</font>figure be .35

EV bet = 11 SB*<font color="blue">.192</font> + 15 SB*.196*.808 - 6 SB*<font color="red">.65</font> = + .58 SB


I think if you could explain this calculation for me, the concept would be clear.