I still don't get it

[kurosh]

3 opponents and you have the nut flush draw on the flop. Those 9 outs are your only outs. Are bets on the flop for value? You are going to put money in on the turn too though and it's 4:1 to hit. People keep saying it's for value, but I think they're wrong. Someone clear this up please?

[Shilly]

I think you have to disregard the later streets and treat it like an all-in situation where you have a certain % of equity on the flop. I don't quite understand why you should disregard the later streets...

[n.s.]

Well, unlike a weaker draw, you know that you will definately have odds to see the river if you don't catch your flush on the turn. Because of this, your odds of making your flush truly are 1.86:1. Thus you can bet for value.

The money that you put in on the turn is going in either way (assuming you can't buy a free card), so it doesn't really affect the value that you are getting on your flop bets.

[kurosh]

I don't see how both this can be true and also have it be incorrect to pump the pot with neutral equity to give yourself correct pot odds on later streets.

Ok ill try to explain. If you know none of the opponents can beat a flush by the river then you got 9 clean outs and your bet will be +EV if both call. Your chances of hitting the flush by the river is 35% and you are only putting in 33% of the money. So you got a small edge.

If you miss the turn, then you only got 20% chance to hit the flush and are still laying 33% of the money, so a bet here will not be for value.

But you can also hit on the turn, thats why 35>20 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[nooob]

[ QUOTE ]
Your chances of hitting the flush by the river is 35% and you are only putting in 33% of the money. So you got a small edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

you got 3 opponents. that means you're putting in 25% of the money when ur 35% favorite. that's a HUGE edge. it doesn't matter whether there's a raise. as long as there are 3 opponents (4 way action including you) you got nice pot equity to pump the pot.

[kurosh]

pumping
1.72 hit on turn (9/47) * (3*3)
2.37 hit on river (38/47) * (9/46) * ((3*3) + (2*3))
-3.33 miss -(38/47) * (38/46) * (3 + 2)

not pumping
.57 hit on turn (9/47) * (1*3)
1.42 hit on river (38/47) * (9/46) * ((1*3) + (2*3))
-2.00 miss -(38/47) * (38/46) * (1 + 2)

oh, there are 3.. yeah, the edge is big now if all outs are clean.

[kurosh]

You guys are not understanding my point. I understand equity. But equity is for 2 cards to come and you are putting in more bets after one card. You're not all-in on the flop. That is why I'm confused.

[WalkAmongUs]

if you bet and get 2 callers then your bet will be anywhere from -EV to a little +EV. Ths depends on what flush cards you hold and what flop cards are out.

For GENERAL flush draw rule, for a bet to be CLEARLY +EV you need a bet and 3 callers.

a lot of people get confused and think they can bet or raise any flush draw as long as they get 2 callers. this is incorrect.

yes with 2 opponents you need to win more than 94% of the times you hit the flush for it to be for value.

[nooob]

if it's still 4 way after the flop, you'd still have pot odds to draw...

4 limpers (4 sb) pf

you bet, 3 calls (8 sb/4bb)

the least you'd have is 4:1, which is borderline.
----------
or are you saying since you expect to put in 1 sb + 2 bb (turn, river) you're actually putting in 2.5 bb for a pot that's 4 sbb size? this doesn't matter as long as you have 3 opponents who are willing to put in 2.5 bb as well (provided that you're drawing to the nuts).

[fishyak]

After the flop if all 3 players follow you have a huge edge. His 35% figure for hitting the flush is accurate, but you could still lose to:

a) a higher flush, or
b) a full house (especially if the board is paired.

So your odds of winning are less than 35%

On the plus side, if your suits cards are high you could win without hitting your flush by getting:

1) running pair to trips,
2) hitting two pairs, or even a full house if you already had a working pair.

These possibilities increase your odds of winning but not as much as the above decrease your odds of winning below 35% after the flop.

Even so, you MUST make the flop bet/raise with 3 other players because of your edge. If you miss on the turn, your flush odds have dropped to 20% and your winning odds are even less because of what I listed above. You no longer able to bet because your forward looking odds are NOT sufficient to back that bet. You would need at least 4 if not 5 followers to make that bet.

Get it now?

[fizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
3 opponents and you have the nut flush draw on the flop. Those 9 outs are your only outs. Are bets on the flop for value? You are going to put money in on the turn too though and it's 4:1 to hit. People keep saying it's for value, but I think they're wrong. Someone clear this up please?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't for value. As people have mentioned your chances of hitting by the river is about 35%. Now you don't always win so it's probably around 30-33% or so.

You can still argue a raise if you're on the button because you might get a chance to take a free card. You don't really lose anything on the flop because it's ~neutral EV.

However if you have some overcards or a gut shot or something, then raising the flop is for value because of your additional outs.

[The Funky Llama]

if you assume you have 35% equity in the pot (there are no better flush draws out and nobody has a set), you are making money if 2 or more people call. You are entitled to 35% of each bet that goes in to the pot. You will usually be able to make +EV calls on the turn as well so you don't need to consider this (folding has 0 EV so you will never willingly make a -EV turn call).

If you think sometimes you will be forced to fold on the turn, however, you are not able to realize the 35% equity you had on the flop. If you expect this to happen, your flop bet loses value. Does that make any sense?

As long as you will have the option to make a neutral or +EV call on the turn to see the river, you need not consider turn action when determining the value of a flop bet. Of course, implied odds on the turn affects your flop decision as well. Implied odds are basically never negative with a flush draw, so this adds value to your bet.

[fishyak]

The free card play is yet another reason to bet or raise. I recently capped a hand PF out of the BB w/ just 84s because there were 5 other players. Even out of position, I was likely to have everyone stay in because they already had 3 bets in. Sure enough everyone followed. And my 1 in 3 chance of winning delivered 6 to 1 in terms of my money into the pot. I MUST make that bet/raise every time even though I will lose the pot 2 out of 3 times. In fact, in the long run, I should earn $2 for every $1 I put in the pot in that situation. After the flop, but before the turn my flush draw against...

5 other players = King Kong super sized "edge"
4 other players = BIG edge
3 other players = good solid edge
2 other players = I better have an extra reason to push it, like Axs and certainly nothing lower than Qxs to believe I still have the edge.

AND ALL BETS ARE OFF IF THE BOARD IS PAIRED ON THE FLOP.

[The Funky Llama]

wait, I think I see what you're saying. The bets you put in on the turn (usually) will not be for immediate value. So you are wondering why you don't take this fact into account when determining whether a flop bet is for value?

If this is indeed what you are asking, my answer would be that you are losing value by calling a bet on the turn usually, but it is a +EV call when you take into account the pot size and your odds of hitting on the river. The fact that you lose immediate value on the bets you put into the pot on the turn has no bearing on whether a flop bet is for value.

Are you thinking of an example where, if you didn't bet the flop, you wouldn't have odds to call the turn? If this were the case (and you had no fold equity and the flop would always be checked around if you didn't bet), not betting the flop might be correct even if you expect 2 or more people to call. I would have to do the math. It depends how much value you are losing by putting in a turn bet and how much equity you are forfeiting by folding.

[fishyak]

Wow, either you are a lot smarter than me or you are really messed up in your thinking Lmn55d. I'll start by answering your question. "It" (your question) does not make any sense (at least to me). The EV on the flop bet does not lose value simply because you were forced to fold after the bad outcome on the turn. That is classic "result oriented" hindsight. In fact, you will lose 2 out of 3 times you make that EV+ flop bet. If things "turn" against you on the turn, then should try to get out of those as cheaply as possible. But that bad but expected outcome has NOTHING to do with the decision to bet or raise after the flop. Your flop bet can be strongly EV+ and your turn bet can become EV- after a bad turn card. That bad outcome on the turn is expected 2/3's of the time and it does NOTHING to make the flop bet anything but EV+. You gotta bet/raise ALL your EV+ situations, right?

[dynamite]

This article deals with a similar situation that I think you might enjoy:

http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/archives/showarticle.php?a_id=15219&m_id=65580

[The Funky Llama]

i think you're missing the point.

You are losing immediate value on bets you put in on the turn. Let's say 2 guys will call your flop bet, but would check if you checked. Let's also say that, because of the pot size, if no money goes in on the flop, you are forced to fold the turn. You have the option of putting bets in with neutral value on the flop (we are talking immediate value, not EV) to bloat the pot enough to create a +EV turn call. You should not bet here because the lost value in the turn bet offsets the small +EV that you have created. Does this make any sense? It is a very confusing topic. Maybe kurosh can link to his older post on this topic where TSTONEMBD makes a great post about it.

[nooob]

[ QUOTE ]
i think you're missing the point.

You are losing immediate value on bets you put in on the turn. Let's say 2 guys will call your flop bet, but would check if you checked. If no money goes in on the flop, you are forced to fold the turn. You have the option of putting bets in with neutral value on the flop to bloat the pot enough to create a +EV turn call. You should not bet here because the lost value in the turn bet offsets the small +EV that you have created. Does this make any sense? It is a very confusing topic. Maybe kurosh can link to his older post on this topic where TSTONEMBD makes a great post about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's with 2 opponents. i thought we're talking about 3 opponents. in this case you're giving up a pretty big edge (conservatively 5%) if you check IMO...

[fishyak]

You're right. I do not get your points at all.

1) If I have a live flush draw and NO ONE bets the flop as you indicated, why would I "be forced to fold" when I get a free turn card?
2) Also, you are changing our initial assumption of 3 players following in Kurosh's basic question- when you reduce it to two players, we are not answering his question.

Having many players helping me to "bloat" the pot is EXACTLY what you MUST do on this flush draw flop bet. I was VERY specific in my commentary to not make the same analysis on the turn where the odds of hitting my flush my dropped essentially in half. I believe that you have misunderstood my position.

Flush draw bets with 3+ other players are WAY EV+ AFTER THE FLOP and before the Turn. You are making the analysis way too complicated by mixing hindsight analysis of pot odds and forward analysis of pot equity. Your lack of clarity on these topics is why if you re-read your own commentary you find that you have to re-explain what you did not explain correctly the first time.

[Our House]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, either you are a lot smarter than me or you are really messed up in your thinking Lmn55d.

[/ QUOTE ]
I vote the former.

Maybe Tstone's explanation in This Thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=3408905&an=&page=&vc=1) will help explain.

That's also the thread that led kurosh to this one. Read the whole thing and you will understand what Lmn55d is saying.

[The Funky Llama]

[/ QUOTE ] If I have a live flush draw and NO ONE bets the flop as you indicated, why would I "be forced to fold" when I get a free turn card?
2) Also, you are changing our initial assumption of 3 players following in Kurosh's basic question- when you reduce it to two players, we are not answering his question.

[/ QUOTE ]

say button limps, sb completes, i check in bb with 54s and flop a flush draw.

If i check, let's assume it gets checked around. If i bet let's assume I always get 2 callers.

On the turn, let's assume I will always have to call 1 bet and one person will fold.

If I check the flop, on the turn I will getting 2.25:1 on a 4:1 shot and should fold. If I had bet the flop, I will be getting 3.75:1 on a 4:1 shot and should call.

Is betting the flop good here?

[fishyak]

I went through the other thread quickly and I question an initial assumption in it. It says that you have zero implied odds, everyone will c/f if the flush hits. That sort of limitation changes odds calculations because now you are working with just a subset of all the possible outcomes of the turn card and following bets.

This assumption in the thread you refer to was a) not present IN THIS thread and b) is not realistic because how could you possibly know that in advance? Are you saying that someone with two pairs or a set is going to fold every time if you hit your flush on the turn? Shouldn't we be basing our analysis on all possible outcomes looking forward?

So as far as the other thread goes, I agree to it with its limitations. But so far, no one has provided a clear explanation of why this flush bet ON THE CONDITIONS STATED IN THE ORIGINAL QUESTION is, on the flop, anything other than EV+. I would like them to do so WITHOUT changing the facts, creating "selective subsets" of facts, or talking about what happens after the turn. Talk to the EV+ nature of the flop bet point ALONE, please.

If you can't do that, maybe I get it after all. If you can do that, I can learn something new. Good luck.

[The Funky Llama]

I just pointed that out because that is the concept Kurosh is getting at I think. Sometimes bloating the pot with a neutral or very small edge is not optimal.

[fishyak]

Go back to and re-look at Noob's answer that I supported in my first post. On the facts presented, you have a much bigger edge than you suspect for the flop bet only. Sometimes, in fact two out of three times, "bloating" the pot will not work out. But to maximize your overall winnings, you need to bloat that pot in this kind of situation every time.

The reality remains; this situation is EV+ on these assumed facts and we must bet/raise EV+ situations to maximize our winnings. (Unless you want to play weak/tight.) TAP or TAG, you choose. Or at least explain how this flop bet is NOT EV+. EV+ considers ALL POSSIBLE FUTURE OUTCOMES, not just a selected (i.e. non-random and artificial) subset where the outcomes are, of course, less favorable.

Getting (close to) 4:1 when you are (close to) 3:1 (in winning odds) is a big edge on the flop bet. That edge is an EV+ that needs to be exploited.

[The Funky Llama]

DId you read TSTONE MBDS post here:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3414248

This is what I am trying to say. I am not saying that you should pass up significant EV anywhere. But, if you take TSTONES example and give us 35% equity on the flop (thus an EV edge), checking the flop is still correct.

If you expect to get 3 callers with 33% equity, you should clearly bet.

[mterry]

The reason there are so many threads on this concept is because the authors have frequently explained expected value and equity in different contexts, so here’s my take:

Putting money in the pot is always -ev, unless you have the nuts on the river (then it’s neutral, 0).

Let me explain myself further.

When we say “betting is +ev”, we mean betting in combination with the resulting actions of our opponents is +ev.

Every action, whether taken by you or by your opponents, has some +/- ev for everyone in the hand because poker is a zero sum game. We do our best to estimate the results of our actions to determine a net ev of our actions in combination with our opponents’ actions.

I claim that we estimate net ev by the sum of ev of your action (never positive) and the all your expected value gained by your opponents actions, until it is your turn to act again.

The goal is generally to take the choice that is legally allowed at the time(c/b/f/r) that maximizes our best estimate of net ev, compared to our other legal options. (We understand that sometimes we take a less optimal play if it allows us to make up for that loss in the future, but I’m not covering that here). Many times, calling is less negative than our other two options, so we take it.

Folding is always equal to:
-[pot size * %equity]

Calling net ev is estimated by your bet, your opponents’ future bets, and your opponents equity sacrificed(future folds):
-[size of bet * (1 - %equity)] + sum(%equity * every other $ put in pot) + (%equity * folding players’ %equity * pot size)
The concept of seat equity, described in another thread (link?) helps us estimate part 2 of this calculation by estimating what happens when everyone calls.

Raising ev can be calculated in a similar way.

Getting back to the OP example:

Betting on the flop with the nut flush draw is usually +ev when we get 2-3 callers, since our opponents’ calls and folds outweigh the money we lost when we bet. Getting net +ev on your bet is what we refer to as betting for value.

Your bet or call on the turn is not for value. You are usually choosing between three –ev options, so you call because it is the closest to +ev. Tiny pot means you are sacrificing the least by folding, so you fold when your pot odds aren’t favorable. If you can guarantee enough callers, you’d bet or raise for value here too. It just doesn’t happen much.

That is all.

-Mike

[TRD23]

I posted recently on this topic, it may help clarify this point for some of you.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...e=0#Post4335511 (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4335511&an=0&page=0#Post 4335511)

Firstly, I think its important that people understand there is a significant difference between acting on having the odds for the number of outs in the hand and betting for value when you have an equity edge. These are COMPLETELY different things, sometimes a bet/call is correct for both reasons but they should be examined seperately.

At all times in every hand we are looking for the best way to maximise EV, betting for value and odds (implied or otherwise) are the first (but by no means the only) tools we use in assisting us in this decision.

In response to the situation the OP poses, if you know that your 3 opponents are going to stay in the hand then getting as much money in the pot as possible should be a priority as we are getting a profitable return. With the nut flush draw our pot equity is in the region of 35%, for every bet we put in the pot, our 3 opponents are also contributing one bet. This means 4 bets go in and we can expect to win this hand 35% of the time, so our share is 1.4 bets (35% x 4).

From this I hope it is clear that a bet/raise here is for value AS LONG AS WE CAN ASSURE OURSELVES THAT EVERYONE WILL REMAIN IN THE HAND.

[NSchandler]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you thinking of an example where, if you didn't bet the flop, you wouldn't have odds to call the turn? If this were the case (and you had no fold equity and the flop would always be checked around if you didn't bet), not betting the flop might be correct even if you expect 2 or more people to call. I would have to do the math. It depends how much value you are losing by putting in a turn bet and how much equity you are forfeiting by folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very clearly what the OP is talking about. The point is that if you wouldn't have the odds to continue on the turn if you didn't pump the pot, but after pumping the pot you do, there is some loss associated with bloating the pot that results from changing your turn decision from fold to call. Whether this loss offsets the "value" coming from your edge on the flop depends on the situation.

If you would call on the turn regardless, then it's irrelevant.

Put another way: if betting or raising the pot on the flop changes your turn decision, you must account for the different turn action when calculating the value of the flop action. If you'd have the odds to continue regardless, your turn decision does not change and this effect can be ignored.

[Harv72b]

I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this or not, but I didn't see it in the first 10 replies or so.

You're not really betting for value here--you're semibluffing. Yes, with a 4-flush on the flop you are going to improve to a flush by the river 37% of the time. Yes, a flush will usually win the pot. And yes, you will drop to a 25% chance of hitting your flush if you miss on the turn.

The trick here is, betting the flop can cause better hands to fold, or can cause hands which would have drawn out on your high card strength to fold immediately. For example, let's say you hold A/images/graemlins/heart.gif 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif in the SB on a flop of T/images/graemlins/heart.gif 8/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif. The pot was not raised preflop. If you bet, you might cause someone holding 44 to fold. You might cause someone holding A/images/graemlins/spade.gif 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif to fold. The BB might even decide that it's not worth continuing with his 6/images/graemlins/club.gif 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and fold right there, buying you 2 outs against a hand like 44 or a better ace. This is why it is normally good to bet your flush draws, especially when the field is large enough that, even if you are called in every spot, you still have an equity advantage.

[mterry]

Pumping the pot on the flop changes a lot of things, but not the ev of a call of a missed draw on the turn. The main thing it does is make the ev of folding more negative (bigger pot), making the call a more correct play.

EDIT:To be complete, it does make calling more +ev when it encourages your opponents end up calling without the equity.

[The Funky Llama]

you are actually betting for value if you expect 3 people to call. The distinction between a draw and a made hand is somewhat arbitrary. You are betting for value if your pot equity is greater than what a previous poster called "seat equity."

In other words, if you have 33% pot equity and know you will be called in 3 places, your "seat equity" is 25%. The fact that 33% is greater than 25% means your bet is for VALUE.

I think you are referring to the Sklansky/Malmuth definition of semibluff which I believe states that you are semibluffing if your hand is not currently best but has the potential to improve to the best hand. They don't really talk much about pumping draws until Small Stakes Holdem. But really, you don't need a made hand to bet for value.

[The Funky Llama]

I agree completely with your summary. Well said.

[The Funky Llama]

[ QUOTE ]
Pumping the pot on the flop changes a lot of things, but not the ev of a call of a missed draw on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? You're saying if the pot is 1000 big bets calling the turn with a flush draw has the same EV as if the pot were 5 big bets?

[NSchandler]

I still disagree. Consider this:

3 players to the flop for 1 SB each. It's checked to you, and you can bet or check behind.

If you bet, you gain approximately .05 SB on the flop if both players call. The pot is 3 BB to the turn. Turn brings a blank, opener leads out, 2nd player calls, you call getting 5:1.

If you had checked behind on the flop instead of making your thin value bet, it is instead 1.5 BB to the turn. Now it is 3.5:1 when action is on you and you instead fold.

What are the results in each case?

Your draw comes in on the turn 9/47 of the time. It comes in on the river 38/47*9/46 of the time. It does not come in at all 38/47*37/46 of the time.

Let's suppose that your bet does not change your opponents turn or river decisions (not because this is true, but because it's not what we're talking about - we're analyzing a stylized situation, neglecting implied odds, free cards, etc.)

Suppose the above action - checked to you on the flop, bet and call to you on the turn, opponents check/fold river if draw comes in.

When we bet the flop:
9/47 of the time our draw comes in on the turn - pot is 3 SBs on the flop + 2 SBs we gain on the flop. +5 SBs

38/47*9/46 it comes in on the river - 3 SBs from preflop + 2 SBs we gain on the flop + 2 BBs we gain on the turn = +9 SBs

38/47*37/46 it doesn't come in - -1 SB on flop - 1 BB on turn = -3 SBs.

Result: adding the 3 results multiplied by their respective probabilities, we get +0.44 SBs.


If we check the flop, we don't have to call turn:

Therefore, 9/47 of the time our draw comes in on the turn, and we gain 3 SBs.

38/47 of the time our draw does not come in on the turn and we fold the turn. +0 SBs

Here, we gain +0.57 SBs.

Note that I neglected all implied odds for both cases. This includes both turn and river action when draw comes in on the turn and river action in all cases.

We gain more (0.57 SBs rather than 0.44 SBs) when checking behind rather than betting because we turn an unprofitable turn call into a profitable turn call when we bet. Part of the profit of the hand comes from the fact that we can fold the turn unimproved. When we bloat the pot, we lose this. The profitability of the flop bet by itself must be weighed against the lost profitability of not being able to fold the turn unimproved.

Btw, you may want to check my math since I did it without a calculator. But I'm sure that even if my math is wrong, you will get checking the flop and folding the turn UI as being better than betting flop and calling turn UI.

[Harv72b]

Understand that I'm not disputing that the bet/raise is for value when the circumstances you mention occur; I'm just saying that's not just for value. When the semibluff works immediately, or when you win the pot without hitting your flush and it forces out a hand that would've beaten you, that value needs to be factored into the equation as well. This is why it is often correct to bet or raise your draw when you are looking at a neutral or near-neutral EV....for example, on the flop vs. 2 opponents. That bet or raise will sometimes win you the pot by itself, whether immediately or on a future street.

[TRD23]

You are 100% correct, the example you are talking about was covered perfectly by TStoneMBD in his reply mentioned in an earlier post.

If there are only 2 opponents and you have the option to check behind it is definately the optimal play compared to calling.

When there are 3 opponents, as in the OP example, then from a PURELY value betting perspective if you know that all 3 players are going to stay in the hand, ramming and jamming is the optimal play.

[Harv72b]

Schandler, you're failing to consider a few other factors.

For one, you are assuming that you don't in fact already have the best hand on the flop. In the scenario you laid out, you would have overlimped behind one limper (which in itself is bad if you're holding a suited ace), and it would then have been folded to the BB. Or, you would have openlimped, the SB completed, and the BB checked his option. In either case, the odds are pretty decent that your high card hand is already best (unless you did something kooky like openlimp or limp behind one person with 45s). In those cases, betting the flop is hand protection.

And, as I pointed out above, you're disregarding your folding equity. If you know for a fact that neither player will ever fold any kind of a made hand, that's fine. But that's not often going to be the case (although it may be when it's 3-handed to the flop and checked to you on the button). Or, as I said, even if you just cause a slightly better ace to fold, that's buying you additional outs.

And, of course, the implied odds and free card potential do weigh heavily in the decision. It's fine to try to look at it in simplest terms, but we're talking about a real world situation which will come up fairly frequently...and picking up the extra BB on the river or getting to the river for 1 SB less should be things you consider.

[The Funky Llama]

ok cool, we agree!

[The Funky Llama]

he knows he is disregarding those factors. We are trying to show that such a situation is possible. It is a very important concept imo. Yes, implied odds, folding equity, and all that good stuff need to be taken into account when we are actually playing. But we are constructing a scenario where the result is quite surprising to many players.

As he said in his great post:

[ QUOTE ]
we're analyzing a stylized situation, neglecting implied odds, free cards, etc

[/ QUOTE ]

[mterry]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Some fraction of 1000BB you already own. That is your equity. You sacrifice this if you fold(-ev). The same amount of new money is going into the pot on the turn, so where would the additional +ev come from with a bigger pot? When you gain, your opponents lose. So are you saying that your opponents' bets are more -ev when they bet into a bigger pot? I don't think so.

[The Funky Llama]

folding always has an EV of 0. EV is calculated by doing (percentage of time you win)(amount you win) - (percentage you lose)(amount you lose) , which clearly is affected by pot size. Calling a bet in a pot of one million bets has a much higher EV than calling a bet in a pot of 5 bets because you lose the same, but win much more.

[mterry]

Every $1 that goes into the pot on flop or any other street gets split up based upon equity %. When three of you put in money on the flop, you usually do slightly better than break even. When board cards hit or people fold, equity gets shuffled around and you take or give previously earned money away. Your equity%, gives a good indication of how that money will be shuffled around in the long run by the river, so go ahead and value bet the flop with high equity(draw or made hand) regardless of what turn cards will hit.

By the end of the hand, the amount of money people win/lose is the sum of the ev of every move made and every board card hit.

When I get some time I'll go ahead and do out a hand and show the exact ev of every action, and show how it sums to the win/loss total for each player.

[mterry]

If I raise the flop for value with the nut flush draw and get called by 8 players(+ev!), I just made a bunch of money but if I fold to a 3-bet back around I lose all the money I just made(-ev). Where else would that money go? Folding is not 0 ev. How can I make one +ev play and one 0 ev play, and end up losing 2sb out of my bankroll every time? If I repeat this experiment 10 billion times, it will not converge to the average of all my ev, it will converge to a negative number because folding ev = - (equity% * pot size)

[The Funky Llama]

If you fold you don't "lose" anything. The money you have put in the pot is already in the pot so folding has an EV of 0. This is how it has been defined by authors such as Ed Miller, Sklansky, Malmuth, King Yao, etc. etc. Do you have a new definition?

[ QUOTE ]
If I raise the flop for value with the nut flush draw and get called by 8 players(+ev!), I just made a bunch of money but if I fold to a 3-bet back around I lose all the money I just made(-ev). Where else would that money go? Folding is not 0 ev. How can I make one +ev play and one 0 ev play, and end up losing 2sb out of my bankroll every time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your initial flop raise is -EV if you are intending to fold to a 3bet. It is only +EV if you stay till showdown. If you have no intention of "realizing" your equity edge by staying in till showdown, you can not win anything and therefore your EV is, in fact, negative. That is how those 2 decisions can result in a monetary loss.

[NSchandler]

I agree with you. Perhaps I'm just being pedantic, but all Lmn55d and myself are arguing is that from the perspective of equity alone, it's not all that clear that betting/raising is superior to checking or calling if the pot is small. When the pot is small enough, there is a "turn loss" that may wholly offset the "flop gain."

You're right though - folding equity, the chance you already have the best hand, possibility of a free card, implied odds, and many other factors all move us toward betting in any plausible real world situation. I'd bet/raise here regardless of the size of the pot.

I'm just being narrow and pedantic I suppose, but I'm just trying to argue (much like you are, but from a different perspective) that my aggression where the pot is so tiny comes not from the slight flop equity but from the factors you are pointing out.

In any case, I agree with Lmn55d that it is still useful to think about all of this. I mean, it's not really all that intuitive that a bet where you have an equity edge over your opponents could still theoretically be -EV. If not helpful, at least it's interesting perhaps, I dunno...

[NSchandler]

Good link - I should have just posted that link rather than stumbling through my own example.

[TRD23]

I think knowing that betting with a slight equity edge can lead to a -EV turn decision with draws is very useful. At the very least it reminds us that draws differ to made hands in that we need to take into account both the flop and turn possiblities when making our flop decisions with draws (or facing them).

[James.]

thank you for bringing this to small stakes. i read it in MidHighSH or HUSH, whichever it was posted in and i got quite a bit out of it. as previously mentioned, TStone's post in your original thread, combined with your OP put it all into perspective and it is like a light came on. very nice. there are reasons other than value to put an extra small bet in on the flop now and again with a 4 flush, but from a pure VALUE standpoint it addresses a gray area that people were commonly misunderstanding on alot of the limit forums.