A quick question about equity

[cartman]

Assume I am heads up in the big blind against a preflop raiser. I check the flop and he autobets. For a moment let's ignore folding equity--assuming villain will always call the a flop checkraise and a turn bet.

1) Approximately what equity do you think I need against his estimated hand range to warrant a checkraise?


Now to factor in folding equity. Let's say he will fold to our checkraise or our subsequent turn bet 20% of the time.

2) Now approximately what equity do you think I need against his estimated hand range to warrant a checkraise?

[witeknite]

Will he always only call our turn bet?

WiteKnite

[Catt]

I think there's a better way to think about it than primarily pot equity. You're HU, and you should be raising to either: (1) get more money in the pot with a strong hand; (2) manipulate your opponent or the pot size into making tough (and incorrect) decisions. Because you're in the BB, and you'll be OOP for the rest of the hand, there are some high equity hands that you don't necessarily want to C/R with. Similarly, there are some lower equity hands that you want to C/R with and apply as much pressure on your opponent as possible early in the hand. Add in the playing characteristics of your opponent, and you may divert even further from a pure equity analysis in your raise decision.

[wackjob]

Questions like this make my head hurt and I don't really think I ever need think about this to play really good poker. Perhaps I'm just a weenie for the "big math"

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
Now to factor in folding equity. Let's say he will fold to our checkraise or our subsequent turn bet 20% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption is absurdly optimistic. If you do not immediately see why, I suggest you spend less time on fuzzy equity considerations and more time playing poker.

[Fabian]

Disclaimer: This post doesn't contain direct answers to your questions. Reasons are stated near the end.

For 1), if I understand correctly the assumption is we either checkraise/bet or checkcall/checkcall. In that case 50% equity is the cutoff between the two lines since we simply put as much money in as possible when we're a favourite to win and as little as possible when villain is a favourite to win. If neither one of us is ever folding that's all that matters.

For 2), if we use the same assumptions, the answer is 20.83% equity ASSUMING villan folds a random 20% of his hands, which is obviously not the case. Here is the math:

x is pot equity in %

EV for checkcalling both streets: (in small bets)
(7x - 3(100-x)) / 100

EV for checkraising + betting turn: (in small bets)
(0.8x*8 - 0.8(100-x)*4 + 20*6) / 100 =
(6.4x - 320 + 3.2x + 120) / 100 =
(9.6x - 200) / 100

(9.6x - 200) / 100 = 0 (checkfolding)
200/9.6 = 20.83

Note: The ev for checkcalling is always lower than for checkraising in this case.

I think the results are quite interesting here, even though they aren't directly applicable to actual play. The trouble of course is it's more likely villan will fold the 20% of hands with the lowest equity, not a random 20%.

Hopefully this will at least be a discussion starter. That's still a very low equity needed to checkraise here.

Edit: Oh, and I misread your original post and assumed he always (of the 20%) folded to the turn bet.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now to factor in folding equity. Let's say he will fold to our checkraise or our subsequent turn bet 20% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumption is absurdly optimistic. If you do not immediately see why, I suggest you spend less time on fuzzy equity considerations and more time playing poker.

[/ QUOTE ]


I am quite aware of the likelihood the typical opponent will fold in a scenario like this. My question was intended to stimulate a discussion of the magnitude of the impact of folding equity on the original question and the parameter of 20% is intended to be optimistic. I appreciate your suggestion and I will try to up the amount of poker that I play. Averaging only 50K hands per month has clearly failed to equip me to post properly.

Cartman