Introduction and question about pot equity.

[BoxLiquid]

Hi, I'm new here to 2+2 forums. It's great to know Greg Raymer was a frequent visitor here. I guess that means there was a lot of knowledgable folks here to help him. Anyways, I am pretty new to poker it has been maybe a month and a half since i've played Texas Hold'em. I bought the book SSHE by Ed Miller and in it he talks about pot equity. Does anyone here have a very strong grasp of this concept? I just can't figure out how the hell pot equity is really relevant. Anyone with good teaching abilities please help me understand pot equity and how it's so important to poker.
Thanks in advance and nice to meet everyone here. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[TStoneMBD]

pot equity? its kind of a vague term without putting into context as it can be used in alot of different ways.

however, pot equity basically just means that if the pot is currently $300, and you have a hand that has a 10% chance of drawing out to the best hand on the river, then your pot equity is $30. ($300 x .10)

[BoxLiquid]

thanks Tstone for the very quick response. I understand how to calculate pot equity since it gives an example in the book but I just don't see how it's <font color="green"> important </font>. In the book SSHE it says you shouldn't fight for a pot if the pot equity is too small for your draw or whatever. I don't get that. Shouldn't you fight for all pots as long as your pot odds (and implied odds) are correct?

[Nicmavsfan28]

No you want to choose your battles wisely, you will note that if you are behind in the hand and dont know it you might incorrectly read pot odds in your favor, more importantly, if either of you are in an all-in (or even potentially all-in!) situation then pot odds are useless. if you can avoid a big showdown when you know you need to improve, then FOLD. If you cant get a read on your guy, then talk to him, if he doesnt answer, get away from the hand, unless you feel like going home early. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] This is all my personal feelings mixed with theory i have read. Hope this might be somewhat helpful. Good luck at the tables friend.

[TStoneMBD]

again, pot equity is a very vague term. you can use it in replace of the term pot odds if you want.

the word equity is used to determine the value of your position in the current time.

if you entered a $1000 tournament and doubled up on the first hand, you could say that your equity in the tournament is now $2000.

if you flopped top pair and knew that your hand had a 63% chance of holding up against the range of everyone elses hands, your pot equity would be 63% of whatever is in the pot.

[splashpot]

SSHE is a somewhat advanced book. Well, at least it's not a beginners book. To understand concepts like pot equity and such, I believe it is better to have more experience under your belt. When you do, you will understand where the money comes from and why your opponents are losing money by playing bad hands. You will also understand that if they are losing money, it is good for you.

I also think it's near impossible to fully understand things like this without playing thousands of hands. First hand experience is the very BEST learning tool. I certainly didn't understand what he was talking about until I played thousands of hands.

Perhaps a book geared more towards beginners would help you work your way towards understanding these ideas. I haven't read it, but Ed Miller's new book is supposed to be such a book.

Edit: There is also a good discussion of pot equity in this thread. As well as other good discussion regarding the book.

[TStoneMBD]

i really dont know if this is true. it really depends on your background. if youve never had experience with investing or logical mathematical problem solving, then all these concepts might be very new to you. i first read theory of poker when i was new to the game, and it all made perfect sense. i actually felt that i learned more from reading hfap.

[splashpot]

Point noted. But I also argue that although one may understand the math behind concepts from TOP, HPFAP, and SSH, it takes experience to know how and when to apply them at the table.

What I'm trying to say is, if you took an MIT math professor, had him read those 3 books, and put him at a poker table, he would have to gain good deal of first hand experience before he showed a consistant profit. Or so I believe.

[BoxLiquid]

Thanks TStone, Nicmavsfan and splashpot for the greatly appreciated tips. I guess I do need more hours at the table. Just to let you guys know i'm not a complete newbie to poker. Before taking poker as serious as I do now, i've read through ITH,WLLH, and even hold'em poker for advanced players. But, in none of those books does it ever talk about pot equity lol. Maybe more experience is needed before I fully understand this concept. And I just got the TOP book and hopefully Sklansky goes more in detail about this subject. There's so much that I do not know about Hold'em..... yet the game seems so primitive. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Just out of curiosity what stakes do you guys play and how long have you guys been playing poker? (specifically Hold'em)

[sknnyftn]

I like to think that i have a decent understanding of the concept of pot equity. I'm not great at explaining things, but I'll give you some examples of how I use it in my game. In the book Ed Miller gives 3 examples. The first one is how much you "lose" by folding. In my opinion, it's just a more complicated way of saying not to call with a weak draw. It's obvious you shouldn't call, so I don't get much out of it. I think in these situations just thinking about pot odds is more useful and much simpler.
The second application is a little more useful. I still have a hard time applying it though. Giving a free card to an opponent who you think has a draw to beat you is a little risky. Add to it the fact that you can't be sure how much pot equity they might have, and it gets even more confusing. How are you going to be able to tell during the heat of things that your opponents have a 10% chance of drawing out on you? The only time when I will do it is heads-up or maybe against two players with a fairly strong hand (like a straight) in a small pot, but only if I am almost positive they won't call then, but might try to catch me bluffing on the end. This is where it also helps to have an aggressive image so they will assume you are trying to buy the pot. I think that with more than two opponents, in today’s small stakes games, that I will get called by at least one anyway, so I'd rather not take the risk of giving them a chance to take my pot for free. I'll make them pay to draw and take the extra bet now. I know that is confusing, but like I said, I still have a hard time applying this aspect. I am still having a hard time figuring out how much equity they might have.
The part I find the most useful is the final example he gives. Using pot equity to decide to bet or raise. The most common example I can think of that comes up in my game is the nut-flush draw. It happens at least four times a session for me. There are usually 5-6 people seeing the flop with me in my game. The nut flush draw comes out to about 35% pot equity. Using pot odds alone you know you should call, but the whole point of this book is to show you how to get the most out of your opponents. So if you have a 35% chance of making the nuts against 5 or 6 people, why not push your edge? Your 35% chance is much greater than the 14-17% share you get if you just divide the pot up evenly among the remaining players. So if I'm in there i am going to do whatever I can on the flop to build the pot against many opponents. I’ll keep betting or raising all the way until my pot equity drops below the point where it’s greater than if you just divide up the pot equally between all the remaining players. Heads up in this situation, since your 35% with the flush draw is less than the 50% if you just split it. But with 2 callers still, your 35% is still greater than the 33% you’d get if you just spit the pot. It applies to more than just flush draws, but this is the easiest to understand. The rest will come with time on the tables, but in the mean time I hope this helps a little.