![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I've been reading about mathematical expectation. It advocates calling when you have a positive value(coin flip example). I haven't seen or heard anyone address the amount of money that is won or lost though. What I mean is if a play is a positive value and you call all in and lose $200. Then the next three times you have the same situation you call all in for $40 each you won three times but only $120, when you lost $200 on the first hand. Does anyone address the different values of specific pots in positive expected value situations?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
coinflips are barely +ev.. poker is all about choosing your best +ev play.. personally i hate coinflips bc. im not a casino and im not gonna plya a million hands so that law of large #'s is correct. i can put my money in better spots than a 5% edge.. but thats my personal theory..
pot odds tell u if ur decision is +ev.. maybe i misunderstood ur post |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for your input but I think you did misunderstand my question. What I meant is has anyone addressed the difference in pot size when it comes positive expected value. The coin flip example is from "The theory of Poker". It is an example about flipping on an actual coin flip, not poker.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The law of large number on EV pretty much assumes many SIMILIAR trials.
Say you have a 51% / 49% edge on a 10 million dollar bet and lose, but every remaining 51 / 49 decicion the rest of your life is worth $1. Should you lose the big one you will never be able to make it up because of the low wager amounts. However if you can repeat the process, you should take the 51/49 edge bet EVERY SINGLE TIME, because if you do over the long haul you will finish ahead. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't quite understand your point. You say if you lose the big one you can never make it up, but then you say if you take the bet every single time you will win over the long haul. Can you explain, if you lose a million then you have to win $1 one million times to break even.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
When the stakes are so high that losing will cause your children to die of starvation, you should look at the real value of winning vs the real cost of losing and you would probably need to be a huge favorite to make the bet. How huge is largely different for everyone of course. Starting your own bussiness often is such kind of a bet. Many people don't dare to make it, some do, some succeeed, some fail.
In poker, you are supposed to play at stakes you can afford to lose. In those stakes, the statement is simply true. In tournaments there have been things written on this issue. In tournaments it is indeed a bit different, and it is still deferent depending if there are rebuys and probably also depending on what the buyin $ means to your own financial situation. a 25k buyin is of course something different than when you play 10+1 sng's all day long and might start to look more like the previous example of the starving children. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You mean the difference between betting 10 on an 11% of winning 100 and betting 10 on a 55% of winning 20 ?
In cash games i'd say that doesn't make a difference at all, as long as both investments are not huge to you. In big one time bets like the example i gave in my other post of starting a business, it does matter a lot and in you probably prefer a large chance to win not too much. 10 million dollars does not have 10 times the importance to your life as 1 million dollars. In a tournament i am not really sure about this and it probably depends on many factors, but i am not a tournament player so i can't tell. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
You are supposed to make the +EV play in each situation in which you encounter it. Sometimes the +EV play that works out will be in a small pot, sometimes it will be in a large pot. But as long as you stick to making the most +EV play, you are playing correctly.
Consider the 51-49% example. You are facing 10 bets in this scenario $1 $10 $100 $1000 $10,000 $100,000 $1,000,000 $10,000,000 $5 $7948 Is it correct in ANY of those scenarios to take the 49% option? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As long as your bankroll is sufficient to continue taking bets, any situation you find yourself in where you have a net positive expected value provides you an opportunity to show a lifetime net profit. In other words, take any et that is +EV so long as you can continue to take additional bets. Pretty simple.
Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks for all your input, but I still have questions. I understand you are supposed to take every +EV bet. I really just want to know has anything been written on or does anyone have a theory on the difference in pot sizes on any one hand. Basically if you play the exact hand over ten times(I know the EXACT hand doesn't come up very often) where you are getting a +EV. Everything is the same suits and all. The only thing that changes is the pot size. If you win 7 out of 10 and each pot you win is $40, you win $280. But if the 3 that you lose were pots of $100, $150 and $90 you lose $340. Your total Value is -$60. You won more pots but lost money.
Is there any theories on this or is it that it just evens out over time? Is it OK to fold a +EV when you haven't invested anything yet? No win, no loss. Wacken-I'm not refering to bets outside one's bankroll just bets that are larger than other bets you would win to make up the losses. |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|