[JKDStudent]

[ QUOTE ]
Can people really be this dim? Yes, you get $10 if he calls and doesn't make his draw but you lose $110 if he does make it. I can see that a career in professional poker was a +EV move if people are really this bad at math.

OK, last time - with all the math

100 in the pot plus 10 from you

If he folds, you get $110 on average

If he calls, you get 120 80% of the time and nothing 20% of the time. Therefore on average you get (120x4)/5 = $96

Therefore, if he calls, you lose $14.

How can this not be any clearer???

Please explain, with the supporting math rather than the usual, 'just because it is', how you gain money if he calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

$100 in the pot, you win 80% of the time. We're going to make the following assumptions:

1) He calls every time.
2) If the third heart comes, you will check, he will bet, you will call, because he MAY be bluffing. However, for the purposes of simplified calculuations, he has the flush every single time (which illustrates that even with this worst-case scenario, our bet STILL has positive EV)
3) The third heart will come 20% of the time (it will actually happen slightly less, but 20% is fine for this example)
4) He will fold when the third heart doesn't come.

Not betting:
$100*.8 - $10*.2 = $78 EV. (The $10*.2 means we call his river bet)

Betting:
$120*.8 - $20*.2 = $92 EV

I never said that folding isn't MORE +EV for us. Of course it is. But betting is in NO WAY -EV. Sure, it's a reduction from the absolute best-case scenario, which is him folding, but that's not how EV is determined to be positive or negative. Positive means that you gain money from a decision, negative means that you lose money. Negative does NOT mean that it's not as good as an alternative.

Can people really be this dim? I can see that playing poker is a +EV move if people are this bad at math.

Love,
Kevin