Playing like a maniac (or continuing with the semi-bluff)

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to know what your stance is on a numerical approach to poker. It is fairly easy to reduce almost every decision in poker to probabilities (that he has a certain hand or will choose a specific action). However, it's not always easy to estimate what these numbers will be, and we could end up with fairly convoluted equations when isolating variables, especially with multiple people involved in a pot. As it stands, though, maybe such numerical analysis is best used for illustrating broad concepts, such as your book's explanation of the EV of a semi-bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I only like to do EV analysis on situations that come up often and I think it is most interesting when the EV can be negative or positive based on the opponent's style of play. Since it is impossible for most (me included) to do EV analysis at the table, it is useful to think about situations that occur over and over while not at the table. A common example of this is using a shortcut method to figure out pot odds at the table.

I think it is most useful to look at EV analysis when the EV of a play differs based on the opponent. Maybe the same play would be positive EV against one type of player while negative EV against another type of player. In shorthanded games, the donkbet situation comes up fairly frequently, so it seems worthwhile to do the EV analysis and think about it. Assuming 25% is the breakeven point, it is possible for us to say that raising against some players is correct, while others it is incorrect. To me, that's what makes the EV analysis interesting - when it can be applied to real game situations that come up often, and when the EV varies from negative to positive based on the opponent.