Awful Roy Cooke article - what am I missing?

[Clarkmeister]

You are wrong. So is Tom McEvoy in his numerous articles about the subject.

The idea that you need 25-1 is ridiculous. Once you flop the flush draw, either with top pair or with the ace overcard, your pot equity goes from slightly more than fair share to nearly 45% on the flop. You don't mind a cap on the flop as you are making money from everyone, in fact you want it capped. And in a game where 4-5 people are seeing the river, you don't even mind a cap on the turn!

Your mistake is using effective odds for your calculation. This is not an appropriate spot. Say it is capped 4 ways (3 raise cap) on the flop and turn and he is only called in two spots on the river after making the flush on the river. Your way of looking at things would suggest that he only got about 4.75-1 on his money for the hand, but it neglects the fact that his preflop call is +EV, his flop capping is hugely +EV, his turn cap was EV neutral or slightly +EV depending on his opponents holdings, and his river bet with the nut flush was also +EV. In fact, once he flops the nut flush draw, rarely if ever will he be able to make a -EV postflop decision, unless it involves calling or folding rather than raising.

The ghastly preflop error is folding, not calling when getting 10.5-1.

[rockoon]

>> You are wrong. So is Tom McEvoy in his numerous
>> articles about the subject.

You keep teaching your voodoo. You qualified your justification with a *LOT* of ifs.. so IF it doesnt turn out your ideal way, what then??? Suppose its 3 way in the turn card? THATS -EV on the cap. You failed to mention that didnt you? IF this and IF that.. thats the PROBLEM.

"IF I get 10:1 before the flop and then IF it goes IDEAL after that its +EV"

Thats basically what you are saying.

>> Your way of looking at things would suggest that he only got about 4.75-1 on his money for the hand, but it neglects the fact that his preflop call is +EV

No thats not correct. My way of looking at things does not give him 4.7:1 on his money. Hes getting no worse than 10:1

10:1 isnt enough! 25:1 is enough. Yes the play of the hand may go down such that he does get his 25:1 in implied odds. Will he get 25:1 if its heads up after the flop? That seems almost impossible. How about if its 3 way after the flop? Will he get it then? Still seems almost impossible.

You still have not shown its +EV, and you cant.

Yes after the flop its hard for a flush draw to make a mistake - its +EV, but we arent talking about after the flop.

He is going to make a flush 4% of the time. 4%. Thats it. No voodoo makes it more than that. Hes paying 2 more bets to see the flop, is that pot (minus his money) going to be 50 bets? You cant garantee it. Infact you have to find ideal situations just to get it that big. And this of course (as usual) assumes it costs him no more. He could easily be sucking huge wind on the turn card. Just as easily as he could be making money on the turn card.

"All he needs is hope"

[brad]

well if youre gonna be that way add in the times by flop or turn he makes three Sevens (assuming he had A7s i dont remember exactly what Ace he had).

or flop 568 whatever (lets make it one of his suit).

or even flop A7x hes gonna hold up pretty well here against AK.

456 turn 2.

345 turn 2 river 6.

you see what i mean.

having said that i didnt really understand his (cookes logic) point but i didnt try very hard and hey what am i judge of everything?

[bernie]

"10:1 isnt enough! 25:1 is enough. Yes the play of the hand may go down such that he does get his 25:1 in implied odds. Will he get 25:1 if its heads up after the flop? That seems almost impossible. How about if its 3 way after the flop? Will he get it then? Still seems almost impossible."

so you need 25-1 to call preflop with an Axs hand? THAT's a good one. i had to read it a few times to make sure...

and it's wrong...on many levels....

basically, youre saying on a passive table with 6 limpers youd fold Axs in LP, because you 'may' not collect 25-1 on youre preflop call if you hit your flush....just an example...

10-1 is more than enough to call this. there's no voodoo to a solid call...

if you think you need 25-1, youre playing waaay to tight. so what 2 hands do you enter the pot with?

b

[rockoon]

Bernie we are talking about a particular situation where it is reasonable to assume only trip 7's or a flush will win the pot. That the ace is dominated by an opponent and there may even be pocket aces out. You can read about the hand in card player or way back at the beginning of the thread.

OK THANKS

[Graham]

Rick: "If I’m right and calling $60 more has a positive expectation of $3, then Roy figures to win an average of $3 in this pot in the long run FROM THE POINT OF HIS DECISION to call two more bets. If he folds, he forgoes that $3 of positive expectation. To my way of thinking, forgoing a play that has positive expectation is a decision with negative expectation."


Rick, you need to sort this out (...if only to make it more straightforward for me to follow your posts... [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] ).

You're implying that calling has +$3 EV and folding has -$3 EV, while there is still only $3 EV difference between the two plays!

If you see a quarter on the ground, then picking it up has +$0.25 EV, while walking on by has $0 EV (NOT -$0.25 EV).

Calling is +$3 EV. Folding is $0 EV.

G

[Rick Nebiolo]

I’m glad this forum has email notification of replies to posts; otherwise, I would have missed this one.

You wrote quoting me: ”Rick: "If I’m right and calling $60 more has a positive expectation of $3, then Roy figures to win an average of $3 in this pot in the long run FROM THE POINT OF HIS DECISION to call two more bets. If he folds, he forgoes that $3 of positive expectation. To my way of thinking, forgoing a play that has positive expectation is a decision with negative expectation."

You wrote above: ”Rick, you need to sort this out (...if only to make it more straightforward for me to follow your posts... ).

You're implying that calling has +$3 EV and folding has -$3 EV, while there is still only $3 EV difference between the two plays!

Me now: Somehow this thread got into a discussion of the hand rather than a discussion of how we look at expectation (and I don’t claim to be an expert so help me out).

I’m not sure I ever implied that the difference in expectation between folding and calling is $6. If we agree that calling has a positive expectation of X, (and to keep it simple raising has an expectation that is less than X), then if you fold you forgo (I can’t think of a better word) the positive expectation of amount X. But the average amount “X” is not taken from your stack (if you made this mistake an infinite number of times). Your stack stays the same. But your stack should have been $3 larger (on average) if you made the right play.

You wrote: ”If you see a quarter on the ground, then picking it up has +$0.25 EV, while walking on by has $0 EV (NOT -$0.25 EV).

Maybe this is a bad example. You bend over, you are stiff because you are now middle age, you pull a muscle in your back, and spend $5000 on chiropractors in order to help with the pain. Anyway, my 75 year old Mom (today is her birthday – I better call her) routinely picks up a penny is she sees on the ground. This drives me crazy from an EV standpoint.

You wrote in conclusion:" for you Calling is +$3 EV. Folding is $0 EV.”

I look at it this way. Calling has a positive expectation of $3. If you fold, you forgo $3 in positive expectation. So folding cost you $3 you could have won (on average of course).

Let’s try another poker example. I'm going to post this on the probability forum. The pot is $100. Your lone opponent bets $40 on the river. He either has a big hand that won’t fold to a raise or a total bluff. You have a hand that can beat a total bluff (let’s say ace high). A personal omnipotent poker genie that is always right and never lies (but won’t do math for you) tells you that there is a 50% chance your opponent is bluffing.

If you call, what is your expectation?

If you fold, what is your expectation?

What is the difference in expectation between calling and folding?

Regards,

Rick

[Ulysses]

The pot is $100. Your lone opponent bets $40 on the river. ... there is a 50% chance your opponent is bluffing.

If you call, what is your expectation?

You lose $40 1/2 of the time and win $140 1/2 of the time, so your expectation is ($140-40)/2 = $50.

If you fold, what is your expectation?

$0, since that's how much you win/lose every time you fold.

What is the difference in expectation between calling and folding?

$50, so folding is a very bad decision, in fact, a decision that cost you $50, which is where your confusion around terminology is coming from. I understand what you're saying in this thread, but folding is a $0 EV decision - but it's a big mistake because you had another decision that was +$50 EV.

Perhaps this example will make the distinction clearer for you.

You have the nuts. Your opponent has the second nuts. The pot is $100. He bets $20. If you raise, he will always call and never re-raise.

Your EV if you call is $120. Your EV if you raise is $140.

Not raising here is definitely a mistake, but calling is still a +$120 EV decision, not a -$20 EV decision. Any clearer?

[Graham]

Yeah, I. like the eamil thing too

Rick (in an earlier post): To my way of thinking, forgoing a play that has positive expectation is a decision with negative expectation."


Rick, this is where the confusion arises. You obviously know what you mean and are talking about; you just have your own way of thinking about it. However, your expressing it in the same way you think of it just lends to confusion for an outsider reading in.

When you say calling has +$3 EV and then that folding has -$3 EV, well you are - by irrefutable mathematical necessity - implying a $6 EV difference between the two to our reader. Unless you want to pull some funky Einsteinian mathematical ju-jitsu on me. But I am a black belt myself at occasional pig-headedness...

EV is all about getting chips into your stack or losing chips from your stack. The only way to have negative EV involves putting chips in the pot. Hence folding always has EV of $0 at any juncture. Please. please, please, Rick, use the majority terminology...we will brainwash you [img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/ooo.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]

btw, i think my analogy was correct. Tell your mum to get one of those little picker-upper things with jaws that park keepers sometimes use to pick up small bits of trash. She'll get the pennies with less EV loss to your sanity.

G

[Rick Nebiolo]

Uylsses,

Thanks for the post, great examples, and explanations. I finally see the light.

BTW, I’ve scheduled an appointment with a Vulcan mind-melder in order to correct the ability of my mind to use the correct phraseology on this. I also assume that you agree that Roy Cooke looked at the problem incorrectly, but in a different manner.

Regards,

Rick