Genera Concept Behind My "What's Wrong...." Question.

[David Sklansky]

Is that you must never make a play merely because it has a positive EV. You must always compare it with its alternatives. In the example given, we must stray from the usually right idea that if a pure bluff with no outs shows a profit, than if you add in outs a bet is the best play since it will show an even greater profit. In spite of the truth of that, it is important to realize that a non bet may still be the best play of all.

[Leavenfish]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that you must never make a play merely because it has a positive EV. You must always compare it with its alternatives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Makes sense.

I still think there is a lot to be said for taking that final $10, going to the bar for a nice drink and pondering what it was about the session that led to your being in such a dire situation to begin with. I do not know if it’s my insatiable need for self-reflection or my love of a good drink that makes me think that though…

---Leavenfish

[CrisBrown]

Hi David,

A simpler mathematical answer uses equity:risk ratio. The net equity for this bet is $0. That is, the steal equity is +$8 (20% chance at $40), while made and draw equities total -$8 (80% chance of losing $10). (I'm ignoring the negative equity -- that you may bluff off more money in future betting rounds -- because the problem implies that this is a "one-and-done" bluff.)

The bet, and thus the risk, is $10. The equity:risk ratio is 0:10. You are risking $10 on a bet that stands to make zero long-term profit. For that reason, you should pass.

Cris

[donger]

So does this basically boil down to the concept that you should not bluff in close situations when checking still has a possibility to win you the pot? Am I understanding this correctly?

[CrisBrown]

Hi donger,

My answer (not David's) comes down to: don't risk money on break-even propositions.

Let's say I make a pitch to a CEO for a new business activity. The start-up cost is $100,000 and I show that, over the long term, this new business will simply break even, repaying the start-up cost but showing no profit at all. Do you think any rational CEO will back my idea? Of course not. If he's going to risk $100,000, he'd like to know there's some profit in it.

The same applies at the poker table. If you're going to put chips out there, you want a +EV situation, not a zero-EV situation. If the best you can hope for is a zero-EV situation, you shouldn't risk the chips.

Cris

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi donger,

My answer (not David's) comes down to: don't risk money on break-even propositions.


[/ QUOTE ]

My question was regarding Sklanksy's explanation of the problem. (just so it still gets attention)

[donger]

BTW, I think you're missing the point. The question wasn't "should I make a 0 EV bet?" It was "i need a bit more than barely positive EV to make this bet.. why?"

[BamaGambler]

While I understand your point, your logic is flawed. See the orginal topic for my response.

[Rusty266]

That many people tend to think too much about some things, trying to interject a variety of values that have no bearing on the original question.

Or possibility one more, maybe some people have trouble reading what is written, as evidenced by the number of responses that were still off the mark even after the author mentioned that the question had already been answered.

[Louie Landale]

That's why you should bluff with your worst hands and NOT with your marginal ones.

Yup, I think we've all been in a situation where we hope to improve to a hand good enough to check.

- Louie