Genera Concept Behind My "What's Wrong...." Question.

[Louie Landale]

Yes. If your hand CAN win a show-down without bluffing, then you need to be able to get away with the bluff MORE often with such a hand before the bluff is the better play. Bluff more with 32 than with QJ.

- Louie

[CrisBrown]

Hi Louie,

[ QUOTE ]
If your hand CAN win a show-down without bluffing, then you need to be able to get away with the bluff MORE often with such a hand before the bluff is the better play. Bluff more with 32 than with QJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with what I think you're saying.

A semi-bluff doesn't need as much steal equity as a pure bluff. The semi-bluff also has some amount of made equity (it might be the best hand), and some amount of draw equity (it could draw to the best hand), to augment the steal equity. The pure bluff relies solely on steal equity; it has no made or draw equity, because it can only win if the opponents fold.

On the other hand ... a semi-bluff early in a pot does have some negative equity that a pure bluff does not. That is, when you semi-bluff early in the pot, get a call, and miss your draw, now you may end up bluffing off more chips if you continue to play the hand aggressively. With a pure bluff, it's usually a "one-and-done" bet. If you're called on the bluff, you get away from the hand without wondering "what might have been...."

In some types of games (especially big bet), against some kinds of opponents (very tough ones), the negative equity of a semi-bluff might overshadow the made and draw equity, and in that case I agree with what you're saying. But in most situations, the semi-bluff has more ways to win, and thus the bluff doesn't have to work quite as often for you to have a positive equity play.

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David,

A simpler mathematical answer uses equity:risk ratio. The net equity for this bet is $0. That is, the steal equity is +$8 (20% chance at $40), while made and draw equities total -$8 (80% chance of losing $10). (I'm ignoring the negative equity -- that you may bluff off more money in future betting rounds -- because the problem implies that this is a "one-and-done" bluff.)

The bet, and thus the risk, is $10. The equity:risk ratio is 0:10. You are risking $10 on a bet that stands to make zero long-term profit. For that reason, you should pass.

Cris

[/ QUOTE ]

for those keeping score at home, this is of course another way-offbase-but-almost-sounds-reasonable post by CB.

the original question said GREATER than 20%. so the bet is not 0 EV. it is in fact POSITIVE EV. and, given the choice between betting here, or not being in the hand at all, YOU SHOULD BET.

david's point is that it may be the case that checking has a GREATER EV than betting here. and, in fact, it does, assuming you will steal the pot (20+epsilon)% of the time, where epsilon is infinitesimally small. so, the EV of betting will be infinitesimally small, where clearly checking has a finite positive EV.

[CrisBrown]

Hi AJ,

Why not keep the personal insults in the WPT forum. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

That having been said, I was responding to why 20% was not the "magic number." That is, at 20%, your steal equity is zero, so at some tiny amount above that "magic number," your steal equity doesn't justify the risk. Instead, as David said, your "magic number" must be a bit higher than 20% to make bluffing-with-a-marginally-greater-than-X% clearly better than checking.

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
so at some tiny amount above [20%] your steal equity doesn't justify the risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

read my post again. this is precisely where you are wrong. at some tiny amount above 20%, given that your only options are betting, or not being in this hand:

The bet is +EV.
It is a good bet.
You should bet.
Bet.
Kindly bet.

any of these will do.

[CrisBrown]

Hi A.J.

[ QUOTE ]
given that your only options are betting, or not being in this hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, if it were a bet-or-fold situation, betting is the better play. But the point of the question was that there was another alternative (checking) that had better equity than the minimal-equity bet. In order for betting to be a better alternative to checking, the magic number has to be more than the zero-equity 20%.

The point of the question was that you need to look for the play which offers the best equity and/or equity:risk ratio. (There are situations when the better play is based on the equity:risk ratio, but those tend to be risk-of-ruin situations.)

Cris

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, if it were a bet-or-fold situation, betting is the better play. But the point of the question was that there was another alternative (checking) that had better equity than the minimal-equity bet. In order for betting to be a better alternative to checking, the magic number has to be more than the zero-equity 20%.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know what the point of the question was. i was explaining it to you. your original explanation had to do with the fact that betting is 0 EV, and so it doesn't make sense to risk money if you don't expect to win anything.

[ QUOTE ]
The point of the question was that you need to look for the play which offers the best equity and/or equity:risk ratio. (There are situations when the better play is based on the equity:risk ratio, but those tend to be risk-of-ruin situations.)

[/ QUOTE ]

no. the risk doesn't matter. all that matters is the EV. if the EV of a bet is $.01 and you have to risk $100, you still take it rather than doing nothing. we don't give a [censored] about risk. we are gamblers.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that you must never make a play merely because it has a positive EV. You must always compare it with its alternatives. In the example given, we must stray from the usually right idea that if a pure bluff with no outs shows a profit, than if you add in outs a bet is the best play since it will show an even greater profit. In spite of the truth of that, it is important to realize that a non bet may still be the best play of all.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a non-bet has +EV and it's alternative (a bet) has even greater +EV, then sometimes a non-bet is the best play of all?

Psychologically, I can see why, but not mathematically.

Anyone know the reasons?

[CrisBrown]

Hi AJ,

[ QUOTE ]
no. the risk doesn't matter. all that matters is the EV. if the EV of a bet is $.01 and you have to risk $100, you still take it rather than doing nothing. we don't give a [censored] about risk. we are gamblers.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

David's "An Interesting NL Question" on the WPT forum was an example where the equity:risk ratio played a significant role in the correct answer. While raising may have had a marginally greater equity than calling (depending on one's assumptions), it put your entire stack at risk for only a tiny increase (if any at all) in equity. Equity:risk ratio is a useful concept when you have two or more alternative plays, one of which forces you to risk significantly more than the other(s), but yields only a marginal increase in equity. In some cases, it may be better to give up the minute additional equity of the more risky alternative.

That having been said, such situations are comparatively rare. I agree that, in the vast majority of cases, the play with the greatest equity (regardless of equity:risk ratio) will be the better play.

Cris

[ACW]

[ QUOTE ]
The same applies at the poker table. If you're going to put chips out there, you want a +EV situation, not a zero-EV situation. If the best you can hope for is a zero-EV situation, you shouldn't risk the chips.


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course this is correct....most of the time. But there are situations when in is correct to risk all your chips on a zero EV outcome - when the alternative has negative EV.
A good example would be if I fluked an online qualifier to the WSOP main event, and amazingly reached the last two, exactly even in chips with <Top Player> (insert your choice of pro's name!). We both see the flop for the amount of the big blind, and I catch a glimpse of his cards. He now goes all in, and I calculate that it's exactly 50-50 with no chance of a tie. The pot size is insignificant compared with the size of the all-in bet. The correct action is for me to call.

The reason is obvious - if I don't take this 50-50 shot at winning, I'll be a big underdog to win, because I'm the weaker player.