|
|
#1
10-25-2004, 11:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Sklansky and Expected Value
I'm not looking to hear from people about what they think about Mr. Sklansky's desire to base many fundamental poker decisions on a mathematical basis as I do agree with him on a conceptual level, though I must admit I am too much the foolish college student to be able to consider all of the factors for determining the overall expected value. My question for the theory forum viewers (as well, I guess, for Mr. Sklansky though I wouldn't presume he would have the time for a relative village idiot)is what factors are taken into account and quantified when determining expected value. I've seen Mr. Sklansky (and others) mention the percentage of possible hands that would make a given, 'x', play (call, raise, fold, check), size of the pot, 'real' chances to win the hand (number of outs), and the odds that an opponent will fold if you bet (percentage chance that bluff will succeed, mentioned in HEFAP). Are there other factors to take into account here? Whenever I see Mr. S' explanation of an expected value play, I end up being very confused. Any help is appreciated.
PS: How do I mathematically determine the number of possible hands? It's something like 52!*51! right? PS #2: I'm sorry for being dumb. It's all so very new. 
|
|
#2
10-25-2004, 11:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky and Expected Value
There are 52 * 51 strictly unique hands in Hold'em, and 169 when you consider 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] the same as 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
52 * 51 because there are 52 ways to get dealt your first card, and 51 ways to get dealt your second.
|
|
#3
10-25-2004, 12:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky and Expected Value
Divide the 52*51 by two if you consider T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] the same as 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
|
|
#4
10-25-2004, 12:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky and Expected Value
[ QUOTE ]
Are there other factors to take into account here? Whenever I see Mr. S' explanation of an expected value play, I end up being very confused. [/ QUOTE ] A major factor you left out is implied odds. If you make your hand on the next street, is it strong enough to bet or raise? Usually it is, and you can expect to get paid off. This is very important in NL. This is not the only other consideration, but if you are confused, why are you looking for additional complications? Take the simplest situations and try to understand them.
|
|
#5
10-25-2004, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky and Expected Value
I'm not so sure I'm looking to get myself more complicated. But it's better to approach a theory holistically from my own learning experience, so I'm looking to determine the entire range of factors that are involved so that at any given moment, I may not be able to apply the theory readily but I will be able to review the hands I play against all the information that exists.
And as I understand 52*51/2 sounds mathematically logical.
|
|
#6
10-25-2004, 01:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sklansky and Expected Value
When I started, I ran a spreadsheet to ingrain all the hand combinations. 16 ways to make an unpaired Hand, 12 unsuited and 4 suited. 6 ways to make a paired hand. There are 1,326 total combinations. You can't practically use the 169 hands number because the pairs and unpaired hands have different probabilities. AA is not 1 out of 169 and AK is not 1 out of 169.
AK = 16/1326 AA = 6/1326 so you see that AK is about 2.7x more likely to be in opponents hand than AA. But (QQ or KK or AA) is slightly more likely than AK. just play around with the numbers for a while and you can then get a feel for the basic building blocks of the logic (the math) of the game. then the real fun begins... btw, the 169 number is useful to rank hands...
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
