[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Situational equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds about right, but I've never heard this term before. Could you define it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way Gus Hansen looks at it:

1) Made hand equity

2) Draw equity

3) Steal (fold/bluffing) equity

4) Stack equity (for tourneys where the question is does your stack size allow you to wait for a better hand)

When you evaluate your position regarding your hand versus a certain board with more cards to come, you evaluate the equity of your hand from the above perspectives to see whether it is strong enough to bet, to call, to raise, to perhaps just check/call, or whether it should be folded, depending on what hands you put your opponents on (the more players in a pot, the more mathematically correct you should just play). A lot of this depends on stack sizes in big bet games which is all I play.

Pot-limit omaha gives the best example of these things to my mind. You can have a weak made hand that is currently beating a draw, such as an overpair, but really is not strong enough to bet. And you can have draws that are so weak they should be folded or should just take a free card if given, and other draws that are strong enough to call even if you were sure you were up against a set. And there are rare draws so strong that they are favorites over a set and thus should raise even knowing you are currently behind. With most good but not great draws, you should just call, unless you put your opponent on a hand he could fold in which case raising can generate fold equity for your hand.

And whether you should call with a good but not great draw depends upon having the ability to make a full pot size bet if you hit (implied odds), which in the case of a small stack held by either player would not be so, nor in the case of drawing against a tight enough player who will not pay you off on the river, or even on the turn to fill when he is getting inadequate odds to do so. And in the case of multiway action, or even headsup, your draw equity could be a lot less than what you might think if you are up against another draw, particularly if you don't have a pair to go with it (but if you were against a set then you would rather have an additional drawing card rather than a pair).

pzhon's comments about the doubling cube in backgammon thus apply very well to big bet poker where you can be correct in calling even as a current dog. Of critical importance also is that you and your opponents have to not just consider the size of the current bet being faced, but that of future bets where the action is effectively being multiplied by the action on every street. And regarding chess, you should be able to analyze your position to see if you have a reasonable chance to win or draw against a capable opponent or whether you should just resign. Chess of course is different in that it is a game of perfect information and there is no doubling. With backgammon, even though it is a game of perfect information, the dice introduce a certain element of luck, which may or may not often be able to turn a currently unfavorable position into a winner with good playing ability.

With poker obviously, a lot depends on knowing your opponents and being able to read their range of hands well in order to be able to as accurately as possible assess the equities involved when there is an element of doubt from not knowing their holdings with certainty.