[JKDStudent]

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure what you were replying to but it wasn't the above. Go back and trying reading my posts instead of replying to what you assume I was saying.

The original poster to whom I was replying stated that he wanted a call because it improved his EV over not being called. I pointed out that being called reduced his EV - i.e. his EV FOR THE CALL was negative. Everyone seems to be jumped in and replying to a claim I never made which is why I called them (and you it would seem) dim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's review, shall we?

[ QUOTE ]
Fuchida:
I play NL cash games. For some reason I tend to do worse at limit and it frustrates the hell out of me when I can't blow someone off their obvious draw or at least make them pay far too much for it. I also have to take small bites out of a fish rather than sucking him in to losing his stack in one go and making room for the next victim, I mean player Probably frustration = tilt and explains why I don't do as well at limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
evans075:
Why wouldn't you want someone to pay you off with a drawing hand with your made hand. If someone is drawing to their flush he has a 35% chance of hitting it, that means 65% of the time you win. This is especially nice when the drawer isn't getting the odds to call. So for every 3 times I'm against someone drawing to the flush, they pay me off twice to me paying them off once. Thats +EV bro.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fuchida:
In the rather strange example you give above, you may win 65% of the time compared to 35% but that is completely irrelevant. What is important is the odds the chaser has in relation to his bet. If there is $100 in the pot on the turn and you bet $10, he is getting 11-1 to call with his flush draw. He will only hit 1 in 5 times but he is getting 11-1 on his bet. A very good investment for him. If you have the made hand, the $110 in the pot is currently yours and you are laying odds like a bookmaker to someone with only a 20% shot at it but you are giving him 11-1

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
JKDStudent:
This is wrong.

There is $100 in the pot, and on the turn it is heads up. We have the best hand, our opponent is on a flush draw that will come in less than 20% of the time. If the hand goes to showdown with no further betting, our EV is $80, opponent's is $20.

We bet $10. Opponent is getting 11:1 odds on his call. He only needs roughly 4:1, so he calls. As he should. Does this mean our bet is wrong? NO! We're still winning this 80% of the time. That means of the $20 that just went into the pot (our bet and his call), $16 of it belongs to us. The call is +EV for the flush draw because of the size of the pot, but it's MORE +EV for us.

Also, let's say you put your opponent on a flush draw in that same pot. We bet $10, he calls. The third of a suit comes on the river. We check, he bets $10. We are getting 13:1 to call. That means that we only have to have the best hand less than 8% of the time for the call to be +EV. Can you say with 92% certainty that he was on a flush draw? But in no-limit, he can bluff you off the pot much more easily.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fuchida:
OMG! I am starting to understand why some people like limit if this is how they think.

$100 in the pot. If you bet $10 in the turn and he calls, then 20% of the time he will lose $10 and 80% of the time he will win $120. On average his call has a +EV of $16 (120 - 4x10)/5. Therefore you have negative EV. I hope you don't think you both have +EV.

I agree that in limit you still have to bet because even bad odds are better than infinite odds. You are effectively reducing the size of your negative EV. However, in NL, you can control the bet and give yourself a +EV situation regardless of the drawing player's actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
bobbyi:
Due to the $100 already in the pot, you do both have +EV. If there is $100 in the pot and his EV is $16, where do you think the rest of the money is going? Do the magical equity fairies come down and take it away?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fuchida:
For some reason I am struggling to get this simple concept through

The previous poster was suggesting his EV increases if the chaser calls the bet. That isn't the case. The player with the made hand has negative EV on the chasers call compared to a fold. In Limit the bettor wants a fold, not a call.

If the caller calls the $10 he improves his chance of gaining the pot and therefore reduces the chance of the made hand. If the chaser folds, the made hand gets 100% of the pot

In NL, you can set the bet so that you either get the pot or the chaser makes a -EV call. I don't think I can spell this out any more simply so if it still doesn't get through the limited limit brain, I will just give up.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
JKDStudent:
...are... are you serious? A little piece of me just died inside reading this.

There's $100 in the pot. He has a flush draw, which means he will LOSE 80% of the time. Not win. WE are making the $16 on the bet and call.

Yes, two people can have positive EV. Because of money already in the pot.

Just... wow. Wow.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Fuchida:
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 ]

[ QUOTE ]
JKDStudent:
$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

[/ QUOTE ]

Which brings us up to date.

A) You have been antagonistic, belligerent, and condescending throughout the discussion.

B) You obviously do not remember your own statements. You very clearly stated that the opponent's call gains him $16 in EV. I have shown that to be untrue. You claimed that a bet is -EV and that we cannot both have positive expectation. That has been shown to be untrue. You then stated that if he calls the bet, we lose $14. This is not only untrue, but it contradicts your own statements.

C) You backtracked to say that you were saying a called bet simply reduced EV in comparison to the opponent folding. However, you very clearly made the argument that in No-Limit, you can make a bet that is a +EV situation for you regardless of whether the opponent calls or folds. That implies that the limit bet is NOT +EV if he calls. We have shown THAT is not the case.

D) Even if you had any credibility after all that, you would have ruined it by stating that limit hold 'em does not exist in Europe. Such a declaration only continues your tradition of stating things as fact when you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

F) Your grade in this thread.