Can someone define Fold Equity, Pot Equity and Hand Equity

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
In MBE's AA example, the $30 pot equity is against two random cards, since the AA doesn't know what his opponent holds.

[/ QUOTE ]
I edited my post changing the reference from "$30" to "$55 to $60". Notionally, this is an estimate of your pot equity against your opponent's distribution of hands based on the information you have at that time. That is not the same as "two random cards", because you do have some information about your opponent's hand: namely he called your raise from the big blind rather than folding or reraising.

[M.B.E.]

The term "hand equity" is rarely used and has no accepted definition as far as I know. I propose defining it as how much your hand is currently worth, on average, taking into account the money currently in the pot as well as bets you will gain from your opponents on future streets and bets you will lose on future streets.

To put it another way, suppose your hand were accidentally mucked. How much EV have you thereby lost, based on the information available to you at the time? Let's call that hand equity.

Depending on the circumstances, hand equity might be greater than or less than pot equity. If you have a weak made hand, then generally your hand equity would be less than your pot equity (since you are unlikely to get calls from worse hands on future streets, but might be forced to pay off bets from better hands). If you have a strong made hand, your hand equity would often be greater than pot equity.

[Goodnews]

If your definition of Pot equity is correct, how would one apply it?

For example, you have a nut flush draw, involving 9 other people, that wont make anyone a boat. A clean 35% chance to win a pot of 100 dollars. From your definition, my pot equity is 35 dollars.

So how would you use this information?

While in the 'incorrect' definition, with a similar case, the reason I would bet out in this situation (assuming everyone calls) is because my hand equity of 35% is greater than my 10% pot equity and therefore gives me a 25% edge. But isn't this example just a more proactive version of implied odds?

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
While in the 'incorrect' definition, with a similar case, the reason I would bet out in this situation (assuming everyone calls) is because my hand equity of 35% is greater than my 10% pot equity and therefore gives me a 25% edge. But isn't this example just a more proactive version of implied odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason why this is an incorrect way to calculate pot equity is because it ignores the size of the pot.

For example, lets say that you have a 5% make a winning hand on the river and there are ten players in the hand. Should you call a bet? Using this incorrect definition, you should fold, because your "hand equity" is 5% but your "pot equity" is 10%. But the truth is that if the pot is larger than 20x the size of the bet, then of course you should call. Since this definition ignores the size of the pot, it is an incorrect calculation.

Implied odds are totally different. Implied odds are bets that you will win on future streets if you make your hand.

[elmitchbo]

i think you're on the right track. i stand corrected as to my 'incorrect definition' of pot equity, but the basis of my statement on equity advantage is still true. the equity advantage is what really matters.

like goodnews said, the 'right' definition doesn't seem to have many useful applications. i also thinks he's right to compare what i was trying to say to implied odds. basically, if you have a pot equity edge(using the correct def.) then you want to see money go into the pot because you have a profitable claim to all bets for there on out.