Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]


Now i forget the terms used but im putting in 20% of the money, My cards will come in what % of the time? My "Edge" is?



[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, good, this is how I do this.

I have a four-flush after the flop and that flush is going to come in by the river about one time in three, giving me about 2:1 odds against my flush coming.

Now, I have to decide whether to pump this pot with 4 other players in the hand or not. For every five bets in the pot, I'm putting in one of those. I'm betting one to win four, if you will, which is 4:1. As long as that ratio is highter than my effective odds, then I should be trying to get as much money in as possible.

Let's say I bet and all call. The turn misses me. There are still 5 players in, I still get 4:1 for my money and the odds are now about 4:1 to make my flush. So, a check or a call on the turn is pretty much a toss-up.

I'd often bet it because of the fold equity and the possibilty that my ace might be good if one comes on the river.

That's how I figure it. I could be totally off my rocker, but that seems intuitive anyway.

Regards,

T

Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of how equity would be used in the way you mention? I only ask because I think one can do the same thing more accurately using odds and outs, but I could be totally wrong and would like to understand what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I checked out your next post and it looks like you've done an excellent job of giving a pot equity example.

[ QUOTE ]
I have a four-flush after the flop and that flush is going to come in by the river about one time in three, giving me about 2:1 odds against my flush coming.

Now, I have to decide whether to pump this pot with 4 other players in the hand or not. For every five bets in the pot, I'm putting in one of those. I'm betting one to win four, if you will, which is 4:1. As long as that ratio is highter than my effective odds, then I should be trying to get as much money in as possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we're talking about the same thing and just differing on terminology here. I bolded a line in your example because "effective odds" are usually taken to mean something other than what you're referring to.

In short, pot odds include the dead money in the pot and dictate when you should call when you think your hand is behind. Pot equity counts only the new bets going into the pot, and tells you if you're making money on new bets being put in. Beginners often confuse the two and think just because you have pot odds to call, you should be raising.

It's perfectly possible for you to have bad pot equity (dictating that you should not raise) and yet have good pot odds (telling you that you can't fold). A good example is when you don't make your flush on the turn, someone bets, and you get heads-up with the bettor. Usually the pot is big enough to call, but you no longer have enough equity to raise.

Re: Equity
 

Thanks for your example, I understand this now. So is this basically the same as all these equalitys(Dont know what you call them) but in odds form?

Thanks.

topspin
I mix them up ALL THE TIME.

For example If the pots offering say 9:1 and i can call with few players in the pot (Be it 3 or 9 any occasion) Ill think "I can raise and i get 9 bets to my 2 + Others as i hit my flush 4:1 i profit?"

This is why i want to know how to find all these equalitys and when to Raise/Call/Fold.

Pot odds/implied/Odds to improve dont tell me this?!

Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is why i want to know how to find all these equalitys and when to Raise/Call/Fold.

Pot odds/implied/Odds to improve dont tell me this?!

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, pot odds and implied odds tell you when to fold or not to fold. Pot equity tells you when to raise or not to raise.

Here's an example. You flop the nut flush draw. You will win approximately 33% of the time by the river. (We assume that the only way you win is by hitting your flush, and not pairing one of your cards. This is usually not true, but for simplicity let's say it is.) Let's assume all your opponents are loose passive calling stations who will always call your bets, and never raise themsleves.

If you have 1 opponent, and you bet, 2 bets go into the pot. You win 33% of the time, so your "equity" is 0.33*2 = 0.67SB. You paid 1SB to make this raise. Your EV is therefore 0.67-1 = -0.33SB. Clearly raising here was bad, since your EV on this move is negative.

Now suppose you have 3 opponents, and you raise. A total of 4 bets go into the pot, of which your share is 0.33*4 = 1.33SB. Again, you paid 1SB to make this raise. Your EV is 1.33-1 = +0.33SB. Now raising was a +EV move for you.

Make sense?

Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]

Now suppose you have 3 opponents, and you raise. A total of 4 bets go into the pot, of which your share is 0.33*4 = 1.33SB. Again, you paid 1SB to make this raise. Your EV is 1.33-1 = +0.33SB. Now raising was a +EV move for you.

Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what i was looking for, so we multiply our chance of winning (Odds converted to %) by the ammount of bets going into the pot(In this case 4) and if its over 1BB/SB we can raise?

However you said 4bets go into the pot, but we raised.. did you mean 4BB or 4SB? because if we raise surely its 8bets going into the pot (Us + 3 calling stations)

Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think we're talking about the same thing and just differing on terminology here. I bolded a line in your example because "effective odds" are usually taken to mean something other than what you're referring to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right that we're talking about the same thing. I was just wondering how you were getting to it.

When I say "effective odds" in this example, I'm referring to the odds against making my hand with more than one card to come - in this example, 2:1 or thereabouts.

[ QUOTE ]

In short, pot odds include the dead money in the pot and dictate when you should call when you think your hand is behind. Pot equity counts only the new bets going into the pot, and tells you if you're making money on new bets being put in. Beginners often confuse the two and think just because you have pot odds to call, you should be raising.


[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and I was using the wrong term. I think my example bore out that I wasn't using pot odds but rather the odds against making my hand versus the numbers of players in the hand. I should never have used the phrase "pot odds" in these discussions. My mistake.

I agree with everything else you said here. Sorry for causing confusion.

Regards,

T

Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Now suppose you have 3 opponents, and you raise. A total of 4 bets go into the pot, of which your share is 0.33*4 = 1.33SB. Again, you paid 1SB to make this raise. Your EV is 1.33-1 = +0.33SB. Now raising was a +EV move for you.

Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what i was looking for, so we multiply our chance of winning (Odds converted to %) by the ammount of bets going into the pot(In this case 4) and if its over 1BB/SB we can raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's about right. Another way to use the same concept is to use the odds form of making your hand, and compare it to the number of opponents you have. (This is what SheridanCat was getting at, I think.)

For example, in the flush draw example, on the flop the odds of making your flush by the river are slightly better than 1:2. If you have at 2 or more opponents, you should bet. A little bit of algebra should convince you that this is equivalent to the "percentage" method of calculating that we used above.

[ QUOTE ]
However you said 4bets go into the pot, but we raised.. did you mean 4BB or 4SB? because if we raise surely its 8bets going into the pot (Us + 3 calling stations)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I meant to say "bet" rather than "raise". In the example, for simplicity I assumed that no one else besides you will bet or raise.

Re: Equity
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we're talking about the same thing and just differing on terminology here. I bolded a line in your example because "effective odds" are usually taken to mean something other than what you're referring to.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right that we're talking about the same thing. I was just wondering how you were getting to it.

When I say "effective odds" in this example, I'm referring to the odds against making my hand with more than one card to come - in this example, 2:1 or thereabouts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool, glad we're on the same page! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

By the way, to elaborate on my earlier confusion, as far as I know "effective odds" usually refers to pot odds including future bets. (There's a nice section on it in both TOP and HPFAP, where they discuss the difference between pot odds, effective odds, and implied odds.)

For example, suppose you're considering the odds the pot is offering you for making the best hand by the river. Suppose you're heads-up and villain bets. The pot size is 4SB. Your (immediate) pot odds are 1:4. However, if villain will bet again on the turn, your effective (pot) odds are only 2:5 or 1:2.5 since you will have to call another bet on the turn to see the river.

Re: Equity
 

Confirming the mathsmatics.

If your on a flush draw(Nuts) and you have 5callers your equity is: 16.7% of the pot (you own)

9 outs to flush x 2 = For the turn = 9*2 = 18%

You have a 1.3% edge, Raising would be profitable?

For the river and turn 9*4 = 36% and your chane to hit by river = 35%

1% edge?

God im quite confused, Thanks in advanced - Correct+Explanation if you can

Thanks,
POKhER.

Re: Equity
 

bumo