Implied value and draws

[colehard]

Didn't you forget the:

0.037 * 58.5 loss when he gets outdrawn after hitting. This makes the expectation: 0.22?

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't you forget the:

0.037 * 58.5 loss when he gets outdrawn after hitting. This makes the expectation: 0.22?

[/ QUOTE ]

I included that in the calculations - the probability of his hitting the straight on the turn is .1702, but the probability of his winning with the straight is .1332 (.1702 to hit the straight minus the .037 probability he's going to get outdrawn on the river anyway)

so his true winning probability is .1332, not .1702, which I took into account in the EV equation.

[Jordan Olsommer]

Oh whoops, you're correct - I totally overlooked that.

Yes, I made the mistake of completely forgetting about the EV consequences of when he hits but gets outdrawn on anyway

so the actual EV would be

(.1332)(115.50) + (.037)(-83.50) + (.8668)(-15) = -.7039

by my calculations at least

Thank you for pointing that out, Good Sir: it was a grievous error on my part, and I apologize.

[colehard]

Right, I spotted that, but he loses an extra 58.50 those 0.037 times?

Edit: I'm not trying to be a Smart A - just wanted to make sure I was thinking correctly - I have only just started doing these calculations....and its really hard in the heat of the moment... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Jordan Olsommer]

So colehard is correct and with his correction, it seems that the EV is actually negative with this play, given the assumptions that we made (youll always tap on the turn, youll never fold, etc)

So if you've still got the wager going with that marine fellow, I predict that your EV will be +$100. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, I spotted that, but he loses an extra 58.50 those 0.037 times?

[/ QUOTE ]

.1332 of the time he wins the entire pot ($115.50)
.8668 he fails to hit on fourth street, folds, and loses his pot-sized bet (-$15)
.037 of the time he hits on fourth street, goes all-in, but then gets out-drawn anyway (so he loses his original $15 investment plus the extra $68.50 he put into the pot on fourth street, having made his straight = -$83.50)

[Jordan Olsommer]

...aaaand it turns out that I screwed it up yet again - I counted the .037 of the time he will hit but still be outdrawn twice:

OK, here's the real, no-foolin, actual, honest-to-god, correct EV equation for this play :P:

(.1332)(115.50)+(.037)(-83.50)+(.8298)(-15) ~= -0.15

So it's not nearly as grievous as an error as the one colehard pointed out (which showed that the EV was not +$2.38 but rather negative), but it does point out that the EV is a bit better than I originally thought, although in the long run he will still lose 15 cents every time he makes this play.

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, I spotted that, but he loses an extra 58.50 those 0.037 times?

Edit: I'm not trying to be a Smart A - just wanted to make sure I was thinking correctly - I have only just started doing these calculations....and its really hard in the heat of the moment... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't think youre being a smartass at all - if you hadnt pointed it out, I wouldnt have seen it, and would have gone thinking that his play was actuallty mathematically correct.

I dont know much about what world-class players do, but I don't think anyone can do calculations like that in the heat of the moment - not to mention the fact that in this situation, the calculations were actually a bit easier, because we knew what both players have. At an actual game, you'd have to go up one level higher (something like "well, I think its 60% that he has a set and 40% that he has an overpair...If he has a set, its 17% that Ill hit my straight , but...," etc etc) - not to mention the fact that you need to know your opponent to know if hes capable of making tough laydowns, if hes going to tap on the turn no matter what, et c.

I think in the heat of the moment in a live game (certainly not online, where youve only got about 20 seconds to figure all this crap out), you just use rough estimates really to get a decent idea of what to do.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. No
2. No

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fairly certain you're wrong. Maybe not in this exact situation, but calling pot bets with OESDs or double gutters with deep stacks isn't wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 5:1 to hit your OESD. You are getting 2:1 calling a pot-sized bet. That means, if you hit, over the course of the hand, he needs to pay you off more than 3x the bet you just called, to make your call correct.

That's it, that's all you need to know. If you're certain he will pay you off a lot, you can call a pot bet.

This is often considered a bad play, because how can you be sure?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just like to make a few points. I don't know if you can ever be 'sure' but doesn't the looseness and tenacity of your opponent factor into the equasion.

Also, another factor is having position. If there is a potential flush draw out this could add significanlty to your 'outs' (representing). You could also get in big trouble this way so the more you know your opponent the better you may be able to determine if conditions such as these will be favorable to you.

Additionally, the pot size bet may be a continuation bet. Mine often are. It is also possible that you have 1 or 2 overs (although this example doesn't seem to be a case in which this would be likely).

Is you opponent very agressive? Will he fire a second barrell as another continuation bet? So there may be times that you will get to see the river for free as well.

How able is you opponent in releasing hands (how experienced are they)?

These points may not be primary factors but I think they are factors.

[amoeba]

if he knew you had the set, calling is incorrect in this situation, stacks weren't deep enough. but he probably thought you had top pair and if he felt you would pay him off then the call is marginally ok.