Question from SSH

[schmoe]

I've just started reading Small Stakes Hold'em. I'm a little confused on the concept of pot equity, first mentioned on pages 35 and 36. Initially, it appears that pot equity is the number of bets in the pot * % chance of winning. Thats the way its used in the first two examples. But in the third and last example, it appears to simply mean % chance of winning. Can someone help clarify what is pot equity and pot equity edge?

Thanks,

John

[Wright Patterson]

Go back and reread it. It's extremely clearly worded, so the problem is not in the wording. Number 3 still involves money, so don't think it's talking about winning percentage only.

Another thing you could do is actually set up the example using chips for each player to get a physical grasp of what he means. Or try rephrasing what he's saying in your own words.

[BradleyT]

I'll let you answer it yourself by answering this question.

Six people in the pot and you're on the button with A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

The flop is 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

BB bets and everyone calls. Should you raise? Why?

[whiskeytown]

no....I fold

because I only have A high and we all know internet poker is rigged so I never hit my draws. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

RB

[schmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Go back and reread it. It's extremely clearly worded, so the problem is not in the wording. Number 3 still involves money, so don't think it's talking about winning percentage only.

Another thing you could do is actually set up the example using chips for each player to get a physical grasp of what he means. Or try rephrasing what he's saying in your own words.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its still not clear to me, the first two examples use a different formula for pot equity than the last. Let me go through my thinking on the 3rd example, perhaps somebody can point out the flaw in my thinking...

"You have flushed the nut flush draw against four opponents".

This tells me we've already completed the first round of betting with 5 players calling. Lets assume no raises, so there should be 5 bets in the pot.

"You have a 35 % chance to make your hand by the river"

This is my % chance of hitting my hand (and most likely winning) over the turn and the river. By going calculating the odds on both the turn and the river, the example is much more complex. I now I have to determine the number of bets in the pot over the next 3 betting rounds. I don't have much information to determine this.

"and therefore, also about a 35% pot equity".

This is where I get totally confused. How did this value get determined? In the previous examples, pot equity was defined in terms of betting units ("if the pot contains 10 bets, and you have a draw that will come 20% of the time, your pot equity is two bets"). This example simply says 35% pot equity. Is pot equity a unit onto itself?

If pot equity is number of bets * % chance of winning, then I need to determine number of bets over the next 3 rounds. Lets assume one bet per round and everybody calls. By the end, the pot will have 20 bets, and I have 35% chance of winning, my pot equity then is 7 bets. However, the text claims my pot equity is 35% pot equity.

Then only possible explanation I can think of, is that the author is using pot equity as simply % chance of winning. But this conflicts with how it was used in the prior two examples.

[BradleyT]

I'll make this really simple. You're making this way too complicated for your own good.

You're entitled to 35% of the pot (because your flush will win 35% of the time - ok a little less if a full house is out there but we don't care).
You're only putting in 20% of all bets going into the pot (5 players putting chips in your example).

Please put as many bets as humanly possible into the pot BECAUSE YOU GET BACK $.35 FOR EVERY $.20 YOU PUT INTO THE POT.

[schmoe]

This is very similar to the 3rd example. I would presume you would want to raise. You contribute 17% of the pot, yet have a 35% chance of winning.

The formula I parse from this is... Raise if:

% chance of winning - (# of your bets)/(# of total bets) > 0.

My question is, what is the pot equity in this example?
Question #2, if you had K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (king instead of the ace), would you still raise?

[maryfield48]

[ QUOTE ]
Its still not clear to me, the first two examples use a different formula for pot equity than the last. Let me go through my thinking on the 3rd example, perhaps somebody can point out the flaw in my thinking...

"You have flushed the nut flush draw against four opponents".

This tells me we've already completed the first round of betting with 5 players calling. Lets assume no raises, so there should be 5 bets in the pot.

"You have a 35 % chance to make your hand by the river"

This is my % chance of hitting my hand (and most likely winning) over the turn and the river. By going calculating the odds on both the turn and the river, the example is much more complex. I now I have to determine the number of bets in the pot over the next 3 betting rounds. I don't have much information to determine this.

"and therefore, also about a 35% pot equity".

This is where I get totally confused. How did this value get determined? In the previous examples, pot equity was defined in terms of betting units ("if the pot contains 10 bets, and you have a draw that will come 20% of the time, your pot equity is two bets"). This example simply says 35% pot equity. Is pot equity a unit onto itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

The size of the pot is unknown, but your chance of winning is 35%, so your pot equity is 35%. 35% of the pot "belongs" to you.

[ QUOTE ]
If pot equity is number of bets * % chance of winning, then I need to determine number of bets over the next 3 rounds. Lets assume one bet per round and everybody calls. By the end, the pot will have 20 bets, and I have 35% chance of winning, my pot equity then is 7 bets. However, the text claims my pot equity is 35% pot equity.


Then only possible explanation I can think of, is that the author is using pot equity as simply % chance of winning. But this conflicts with how it was used in the prior two examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the size of the pot is not known, Pot equity must be expressed as a %. When the size of the pot is known, it can be expressed either as a % or as a # of bets or as an amount of $$.

It's like saying the sales tax that I pay is 7%. If the size of the purchase is known (say $100), you can say the sales tax is 7% or you can say it is $7.

[schmoe]

[ QUOTE ]
If the size of the pot is not known, Pot equity must be expressed as a %. When the size of the pot is known, it can be expressed either as a % or as a # of bets or as an amount of $$.

It's like saying the sales tax that I pay is 7%. If the size of the purchase is known (say $100), you can say the sales tax is 7% or you can say it is $7.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your sales tax example. Perhaps we can draw parallels with the pot equity.

The sale tax formula is:
PurchaseAmount * TaxRate = Tax
Using your example: $100 * .07 = $7

To be proper and anal, 7% is not the tax, its the tax rate.
$7 is the tax. $100 is the tax amount.

I'm allowed to be anal and detailed here cause these are math related concepts. Math is all about precision.

Now, back to poker
# bets in the pot * % chance of winning = potequity
(take example 1 from page 36) 15 bets * 10% = .5 bets
(take example 2 from page 36) 6 bets * 10% = .6 bets
(take example 3 from page 36) ? bets * 35% = 35%

I think the author is freely changing the definition between the first two examples and example 3. Sometimes pot equity is % win * # bets in pot, other times its % win. I guess I need to accept that, but it confusing...

Thanks all for your help, I'm not trying to be a troll.