PDA

View Full Version : Goats new theorem.(craziness inside)


goat_beard
06-25-2007, 04:04 PM
Hi I hope this hasnt been covered already but in case it hasnt here is a little something I wrote up in my freetime.

Goat's Theorem.

Can you make a -eV move but it end up being +eV over the longrun? My quick response would be yes, thats how you become a great player. Good players can calculate the math in their head and make correct decisions every time which yields them great profits over time, but the best players in the world can make higher level mathematic decisions by placing their opponents on a range of hands. I haven't thought too much about what I am about to right but I have a lot of ideas swirling throughout my head and just wanted to try and get them out. Any math in this post is probably wrong but if I could get a good mathematician to verify/correct it we can work out a new theorem name :-D.

I want to first bring up a hand to illustrate what point I am trying make. The scenario is as follows: You are playing a 6max game .10/.25 blinds and the table is full. Everyone at the table has 150BBs and you are on the button(OTB) with KJss. Middle position(MP) limps, Cut off(CO) folds, and you raise to 1.25, the small blind folds and the big blind re raises to 3.75, MP who limps cold calls this and you with decent odds complete the call as well. So we are three way to the flop and it comes out Qs2s7c. A pretty dry flop but you picked up the flush draw with an over pair and a backdoor straight draw. The BB leads out for 8$ into the 11.5$ pot. You have played one million hands with the BB and know that when he leads he has TP or better, we also know that he doesnt like to lead overpairs and that he would rather c/r them, overall he likes to lead overpairs about 33% of the time. MP folds, and it gets to you. The pot is now 19.5$ and its 8$ to you. The BB has committed 11.75 of his 37.50$ stack. You still have 33.75 behind you and you are faced with a dilemna. You are 100% sure that BB has TP or better here and therefor you are statistically behind no matter what. You also know that the BB is afraid to get AI with just TPTK and will often fold that to a lot of resistance. The way this certain pot has played out Hero can easily represent a low pocker pair such as 22 or 77, but he may also represent big ones such as AA,KK, and even TPTP AQ. If the BB holds AQ here we are 45% to win and if we shove and get called the pot will be 78.75 and we will have 45.455% equity against AQ. So therefor our EV would be 45.455%x78.75=35.80$. Yet if the BB has KK/AA we know he is calling for sure and against those hands we have an EV of 30.07$ and 27.72$ respectivly. Obvisouly these are very bad hands to run into but if AQ is 33% of his range and he will fold it 100% of the time would this make a shove +EV?

Now into math that I am sure to screwup.

If villian folds to us 67%(representing he only leads overpairs 33% of the time and leads TPTK the other times, but then folds to a reraise 100% of the time)of the time than we for sure win a pot of net profit worth 15.5$. So our EV from our shove would then increase 15.5x.67=+10.39 everytime we shove.

So the other 33% of the time that we run into AA or KK do we have enough EV to validate our shove? As stated before if villian has KK we would have 30.07$ EV. That in itself is not profitable enough to validate a shove it would be -6.43$ EV. But if we now add on our extra 10.39$ EV from above we find that it would be +3.96$ EV. This would warrant a shove everytime we run into this situation.

What about AA? As stated above we would have EV of 27.72$ against AA which would be -9.78$ EV. But again we add our extra 10.39$ and find that we actually have an EV of +0.61$.

So each time we have a positive EV in this situation according to my (hopefully correct) calculations. The play was very read dependent and certainly only makes sense to villians that we have history with. I hope what I wrote makes sense and I hope even more that it checks out even though I could be calculating the EV wrong etc. I do hope that what was swirling through my brain makes sense now that its typed up somewhat comprehensibly. If I could get someone to go over the math again that would be nice.

Thanks,
Goat

mugatu668
06-25-2007, 04:09 PM
I think this is called fold equity.

Jouster777
06-25-2007, 04:51 PM
I think the math is a bit messy.

Are you saying villain's range is AA/KK/AQ only? Assuming that, he will have AA/KK for 9 combos and AQ for 12 combos. But then villain only leads AA/KK 33% of the time...effectively 3 combos. So we are up against AQ 4x as often as AA/KK here.

I'm not doing the full math but given the assumptions above (a very special villain indeed!) its a very EV+ push.

Vyse
06-25-2007, 05:01 PM
I have no idea what this hopes to prove.

Bowlboy
06-25-2007, 05:23 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea what this hopes to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
(craziness inside)

[/ QUOTE ]

NSchandler
06-25-2007, 05:42 PM
Some of your math is off, but whatever.

The point of your post remains valid, but all you're really describing is fold equity. Your push may be -EV against most or even all the hands in his range (if he were to call 100% of the time), but it is +EV overall because he folds a better hand (or a worse hand that is nonetheless getting proper odds to call) some non-zero percentage of the time.

This is why draws are good hands. Even when you flop a good draw like the nut flush or an OESD, you are behind to your opponent(s) the majority of the time. Their value comes from the fact that you can play the hand aggressively and take advantage of your fold equity because even when he has a monster you still have ~25-30% equity.

It's nice to work through the math because in doing so you sometimes think you're discovering something new, when in fact you are only discovering for the first time something which you thought you already understood.

derosnec
06-25-2007, 05:49 PM
in rr pots, you can kiss FE goodbye

kolotoure
06-25-2007, 05:50 PM
Derosnec, I have an awful image and still have a decent amount of FE in 3-bet pots

calmB4storm
06-25-2007, 09:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Derosnec, I have an awful image and still have a decent amount of FE in 3-bet pots

[/ QUOTE ]
You also made out with a guy once /images/graemlins/ooo.gif

kolotoure
06-25-2007, 09:41 PM
How is that relevent?

Rollos
06-25-2007, 09:48 PM
Isn't this pretty much just the Gigabet dilemma? Also, a -EV move can never turn into a +EV move over time. However, I believe a -EV move can turn raise the EV of other moves, ie raising the EV of your whole range.
I think what your "theorem" is describing is pretty much metagame.