Question of expected value on the bubble in Step 5 STT

[imcastleman]

You are not looking at the situation closely enough. The button has everyone covered and the short stack is going to be all in on the next hand. In addition, Gigabet posted this and he knows his opponents VERY well. There is no doubt in my mind that the button could have ANY 2 cards(including 72o).

[schwza]

so what do you think button would do with, say, AK?

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
and how exactly does the breakdown of this interesting equation come about

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just the basic formula for EV: the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the hand multiplied by its value.

EV = probability of each outcome * value

So, there is an EV for calling and an EV for folding. If your EV is higher calling, you'd call, otherwise you'd fold.

Look at the EV for calling. There are 2 possible scenarios: call for a win, or call for a loss.

EV(calling) = EV(call and win) + EV(call and lose)

Now, calling for a win:
KQ wins 63.4% of the time against random cards, so the EV is .634 * the payout from calling for a win.
EV(call and win) = 0.634 * [(.7)($4500)+(.2)($2500)+(.1)($1800)]
Notice these probabilities are just estimates from Gigabet. If you're no good at making these estimates, then this EV equation will have little merit.

Similarily, workout EV(call and lose):
EV(call and lose) = probability of a loss with KQ * payout
= .366 * $0
= $0

So, EV(calling) = EV(call and win) + EV(call and lose)
= $2428.22 (according to someone else's calcs, I didn't actually punch out the numbers)

Essentially this is saying that everytime you find yourself in the situation outlined above, if you call, you are making $2428.22.

Is this good? Sure, it's profit, so of course it's good. But maybe folding is more profitable.

So, workout the EV for folding, exactly as I did for calling and see which is higher. If folding is higher, then every time you find yourself in that situation, you want to fold, otherwise, you call.

[ QUOTE ]
and how commonplace is it in big buy-ins?

[/ QUOTE ]
This math goes on for ALL types of gambling, be it poker, blackjack, craps, or anything. Often though, players will know what the move that yeilds the highest EV is in a certain scenaio. It obviously must be pretty important at the higher buy-ins, since Gigabet wants it worked out.

[ QUOTE ]
how valuable (if at all) is this type of math equation if it were to be used in lower buy-ins?

[/ QUOTE ]

It applies to all buy-ins. You even use it, even if you didn't work out the numbers exactly. You know that to get proper odds to call with a small pocket pair, you need to have several callers before you. In this case, you use a general rule that provides you with a positive EV situation.

[se2schul]

[ QUOTE ]
I know all the numbers by rote, i couldn't conclusively prove them to myself, I just trust that the people who do figure it our are right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll teach you all the math you want in exchange for you teaching me to play cards the way you do. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[imcastleman]

How did you figure that KQs was favored by 0.634 against any random hand??

[assron]

[ QUOTE ]
How did you figure that KQs was favored by 0.634 against any random hand??

[/ QUOTE ]

pokerstove

[Ryendal]

Only one question. From where are theses 4500$, 2500$, and 1800$ in your equation ?

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
Only one question. From where are theses 4500$, 2500$, and 1800$ in your equation ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is from the payout structure of STEP 5 STTs on party poker.

Yugoslav