The Top Set dilemma
 

I'm confused.

Say you have KKxx. And the flop comes with 2 wheel cards. In or out of position... do you check it or bet it?
(1) ex Flop K34 (rainbow). There is a bet and a call in front of you. Do I want to be very aggressive here? Too often I bet here, everyone calls, a low card hits often making straight possibilities... all the lows go nuts and I'm unsure of where I'm at.

Same situation but now there's also 2 suits:
(2) Ex: Flop K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
How does this change flop aggression? (in and oop)


Same situation but its not 2 wheel cards?
(3) Ex Flop of K82 (rainbow)? Because the straight is less likely, do I know play it more aggressively?

(In each case, I do NOT have a low draw...or the flush draw)

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

In hand 1 and hand 3, I'm looking to put every extra bet I can on that flop. In hand 2, the board is very scary, so maybe just call.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Hand 2 scares me as well, if I can see the turn cheap I will, otherwise dump it. Hand 1 and 3 I'll play more aggressively depending on position. If I'm EP I'll tend to bet this more often than not. If I'm last to act and its checked to me, I'll check it and bet the turn if the low/straight card doesn't come. Yes, I know I just gave a free card to all the low draws, but at the low limits I typically play noone throws away the low draw on the flop anyway. Ideally I'll get a safe turn card and someone else will bet it infront of me so I can raise. Keep in mind this is very weak tight and works much better at the lower limits. In better games good players will exploit this strategy.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Hands 1 and especially 2 I wait for the turn. You can get away cheaply on a bad card and there's a very good chance you'll be able to extract more value on a good card since lows will likely continue to bet.

Hand 3 is much more situational. I play based on the action and number of players. If there are many players or it seems other players like their hands then I will fastplay it. If there are few players and nobody seems to have much more than the nut low draw then I may wait for the turn and hope to get a big raise in. There is an exception being that if I'm facing a player who tends to donk out on the turn when making the nut low regardless of previous action then I will of course fast play it. Of course if you're out of position then things get even more difficult, but you're probably doing something wrong if you routinely find yourself out of position with KKxx in O8.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hands 1 and especially 2 I wait for the turn. You can get away cheaply on a bad card and there's a very good chance you'll be able to extract more value on a good card since lows will likely continue to bet.

Hand 3 is much more situational. I play based on the action and number of players. If there are many players or it seems other players like their hands then I will fastplay it. If there are few players and nobody seems to have much more than the nut low draw then I may wait for the turn and hope to get a big raise in. There is an exception being that if I'm facing a player who tends to donk out on the turn when making the nut low regardless of previous action then I will of course fast play it. Of course if you're out of position then things get even more difficult, but you're probably doing something wrong if you routinely find yourself out of position with KKxx in O8.

[/ QUOTE ]

"but you're probably doing something wrong if you routinely find yourself out of position with KKxx in O8."

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Winner!

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hands 1 and especially 2 I wait for the turn. You can get away cheaply on a bad card and there's a very good chance you'll be able to extract more value on a good card since lows will likely continue to bet.

Hand 3 is much more situational. I play based on the action and number of players. If there are many players or it seems other players like their hands then I will fastplay it. If there are few players and nobody seems to have much more than the nut low draw then I may wait for the turn and hope to get a big raise in. There is an exception being that if I'm facing a player who tends to donk out on the turn when making the nut low regardless of previous action then I will of course fast play it. Of course if you're out of position then things get even more difficult, but you're probably doing something wrong if you routinely find yourself out of position with KKxx in O8.

[/ QUOTE ]

"but you're probably doing something wrong if you routinely find yourself out of position with KKxx in O8."

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Winner!

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess we should just leave the table when its our turn to post blinds.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

I should mention that I play PL not 08.

Also, If I have KKxx in the sb and its limped, I'll complete. And obviously free BB.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
"but you're probably doing something wrong if you routinely find yourself out of position with KKxx in O8."

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. Winner!

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this at all.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

remember when its three way you are laying two to one on your bets to win half apot. when four you are getting even money. so more players make your top set better if you have to split the pot. if you get it head up you can win it all even with low cards coming as a single opponent doesnt always make a low against you. so you tend to do better in hands where you get lots of action or headup.
try to guess what you will be playing against and change your strategy for trips to fit that.
overall in medium tight games top set with no other draws wont win much money or will lose some out of position. in small stakes enough bad callers will keep it as a money maker.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

when playing multi-way in a pot that has 2 cards to a flush, you are going to do nothing by putting in an extra bet on the flop. the best time to raise is a safe turn where you still hold the nut hi and the pot is still multi-way.

on top of this, i'd never play KKxx that didn't have a quality low possibility, with the exception of the big blind. this hand is garbage even in the SB since you are out of position and you have 1 prayer: flop a set or boat.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Mr. Zee (sounds like that new series of car commercials), have you ever considered adding a loose game section to your original Eight or Better book or even writing an entirely new book to loose, small stakes O8 games?

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

no, working on a high stakes limit holdem book now with dave fromme

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Same situation but now there's also 2 suits

[/ QUOTE ]Kurto - Let's start with this one. Suppose you hold
K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

In a full game, after a flop of 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], you figure to win mainly when the board pairs and you make kings full or quad kings. A significant problem when you play this hand/flop is you’re going to end up with (unimproved) three kings on the river approximately two times out of three. And by the time you’ve gotten that far, there’ll be enough in the pot so that you may want to see the showdown, just in case the person betting only has a low and/or nobody has a high better than trip kings. Thus you may be stuck for a bet on the fourth betting round, even when your set of kings doesn’t improve.

After a flop with two wheel cards plus a king there’s no guarantee one of your still active opponents will make a straight, but in a typical full, loose ring game, there’s a very strong chance somebody will. Two cards in the same suit increase the chances for an opponent to out-draw you by adding the flush draw. Note that with this flop
(3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]), there are only 27/990 two card combinations (for the turn and river) that do not enable a better hand than trip kings. Although trip kings is the best hand possible immediately after the flop, it’s about 97% certain trip kings won’t be the best possible hand at the showdown. Although trip kings might often win even when not still the best possible hand at the showdown, after this flop in a typical full, loose game that usually will not be the case.

Considering your cards and the flop cards, when the board does pair, low will be possible roughly 6/11 and not be possible 5/11. Thus you’ll win for high and split with low approximately 6/11 when the board pairs, while you’ll win for high and scoop approximately 5/11 when the board pairs. With this flop and your hand there’s also a slight chance that if you make kings full, you will be beaten by aces full, quads, or a straight flush. (But let’s ignore that possibility for now).

From your vantage point you can see seven cards. Considering your cards and the flop, there are 990 possible turn/river combinations. Of these, 336 pair the board, 6 make trip threes or trip fours on the board, while 648 do not pair the board. Thus the probability of the board having one or two pairs on the river is 0.339 (very close to one in three).

Whether or not you continue with your set of kings if you don’t improve, let’s think in terms of winning about one out of three and losing the other two out of three. I think that’s pretty close to what actually will happen in a typical full game. The times your set of kings will prevail is somewhat (although not quite) counter-balanced by the extra cost when you don't improve and by the times you’ll make kings full, only to lose to aces full, quads, or a straight flush.

But let’s keep things as simple as possible. In 33 tries, if you figure to lose 22 times, and win 11 times. Roughly:
<ul type="square">5 times you scoop,
6 times you win the high half
22 times you lose.[/list]That’s a reasonably good approximation, I think.

Let’s assume the betting after the turn and river has no dependence on the action before or immediately after the flop. That’s not quite true, but it’s hard to know how the second round action will affect future betting. If anything, alerting your opponents that you have a strong hand will make it more difficult to extract bets from your opponents on future betting rounds when you do get a favorable card on the turn or river. But let’s ignore this effect in the interest of simplicity.

Isolate the betting on the second betting round.
To do that, think only in terms of what happens to every bet made on the second betting round. With three opponents matching your investment on the second betting round, when you get to the showdown, just in terms of what happens to the second round bets:
<ul type="square">5 times you’ll scoop and win three bets (subtotal +15 bets),
6 times you’ll win the high half and win one bet (subtotal +6 bets), and
22 times you’ll lose one bet (subtotal -22 bets).[/list]It’s close, but the positives don’t quite make up for the negatives.

That’s with three opponents matching your investment. With less than three opponents who will call, you do even worse. In order to get favorable odds to initiate money into this pot, you need more than three opponents who will call your bet or raise.

In general, you want as many paying customers as possible when the board pairs. The more the merrier! However, at least some of your opponents probably react to heavy action on the second betting round by folding non-nut draws.

This can work to your advantage. You’d obviously like to knock out anybody who would otherwise end up beating you while keeping everybody who would lose to you in the pot as a paying customer on the river.

For example, if you knew the turn card or the river card would be a three, you’d like to knock out an opponent holding a pair of threes (and who would thus make quad threes). Similarly, if you knew that the river and the turn would both be threes, you’d like to knock out anybody holding a single three (and who would thus make quad threes). However, you don’t know what the turn or river will be.

I’m not proposing you should necessarily fold unless the board pairs, but for the sake of simplicity in this discussion, let’s assume you will fold unless the board pairs. And let’s ignore the possibility an opponent will make aces full, quads, or a straight flush.

<ul type="square">When the board pairs, anybody with a set has either made quads or a full house. Let’s assume another opponent has a hand with a pair of threes and has thus flopped a set of threes. Knowing that if the turn or river is a three this opponent will have quad threes, do we want this opponent in the pot or not?

For the purpose of this discussion, let’s give an opponent a flopped set of threes, but nothing else. In this case, if the turn or river is a three, then you’ll have kings full but this opponent will have quad threes. Let’s make this opponent’s hand:
3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Do we want this opponent staying in this pot or not?

Since we know this opponents hand (3322), we have more information. What happens in terms of times per hundred given above are different. (In this case, the board would only pair 246/903). If we’re only going to stay in the hand when the board pairs anyhow, then we beat the opponent holding 3322 about fives times more often than this opponent beats us.
It's 206/246 for Hero and 40/246 for Villain.[/list]Thus when the board pairs after the flop, unless your average share of the pot is going to be more than five times your total investment after the flop (and considering how often you’ll have to split, a five to one ratio is almost impossible and certainly unrealistic), you should want the player with 3322 staying in the hand. One time out of six you’re going to get burned by quad threes when the board pairs (with threes and no king or with running deuces), but the other five times out of six your opponent holding 3322 will be a paying customer, likely paying off with an inferior full house. Better yet, you like Villain with an inferior full house betting into you. To achieve this, you certainly don’t want to alert Villain to the possibility you have flopped top set (by raising on the second betting round).

Similarly, you want everyone who flops an inferior set or two pairs to stay in the hand as a potential customer.

Therefore.....
<ul type="square">Rule one: You want as many customers as possible in the hand with you when you make a winning hand.
Rule two: Since you’re drawing (to make a full house or quads) with only a poor chance to win when you miss, you want to draw as cheaply as possible.[/list]Thus jamming with a flopped set is not generally the thing to do on the second betting round. But in order to get a better idea of where I stand, and also because of the way I play certain other hands/flops, (and also to get rid of freeloaders who, having terrible odds on various back-door draws, would fold to a bet, but who might out-draw me if given a free ride), I like to make sure one bet goes into the pot on the second betting round. And you probably should too. That doesn’t mean you should necessarily bet yourself on the second betting round. And you certainly shouldn’t raise if by doing so you risk losing potential customers, and/or when you have fewer than four opponents who will call your raise.

Unless maybe you’re a super math genius (and maybe even if you are), I don’t think you can figure that all out during the play of a hand. You just have to remember what to do with top flopped set when the flop also has two wheel cards.

Summary: How do you play top flopped set (but nothing else) after a flop of
3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]? Call if someone else has bet in front of you. When you are reasonably certain there will be a bet behind you if you check, then check. When you think everyone will check if you check, then bet. When you don't know, then bet. But don't raise!

[ QUOTE ]
Same situation but its not 2 wheel cards?
(3) Ex Flop of K82 (rainbow)? Because the straight is less likely, do I know play it more aggressively?

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, you play it more aggressively.

In this case, nobody can have a direct flush draw or straight draw. Anyone betting or continuing probably has a low draw, and/or possibly a non-nut set or two pairs. If you can limit the field by aggressive betting, then even when a flush or straight comes in via the back door, your (non-nut) set of kings will probably prevail. Thus you want to bet very aggressively in an attempt to limit the field and reduce the chance of an opponent backing into a flush or straight. Also by betting very aggressively, you increase your chances of scooping by possibly knocking out someone with a non-nut low draw plus a back-door high chance. You should probably be staying in for the showdown regardless of whether you improve or not. Instead of wanting as many customers on the river as possible, in case you make your draw, you want the very opposite, in case you don’t make your draw.

[ QUOTE ]
(1) ex Flop K34 (rainbow). There is a bet and a call in front of you. Do I want to be very aggressive here?

[/ QUOTE ]No. This is in-between the other flops discussed above, but the three and four (two wheel cards) make it more similar to the first flop discussed than the 28K flop in terms of how you cope. You're unlikely to push someone off a straight draw plus a low draw. And though you may call on the river even when you don't improve, you'll probably have to improve in order to win.

The above discussion has not covered all the possibilities of flopped sets. The issue is very complex with lots of different cases.

I have hesitated in posting this since Ray Zee has already posted a response, and since I agree with his response. I don't want to be presumptive, but maybe my response supplements his.

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

always great to have you in a discussion buzz as you do all the hard leg work. in the end we get the point most pass by, is that when the board gets coordinated one way hands become close to junk hands unless the circumstances really go well..

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

I am trying to reconcile what Buzz wrote with the following equity calculations.

Assume you hold KcTcKsQh. In each flop, you have no backdoor flush draw or straight draw, just top set.

Simulated against 4 hands with top 20% of holdings:

1) board: 3h4sKd Pot equity 39.1%
2) board: 3h4hKd Pot equity 35.4%
2a) board: 3h7hKd Pot equity 40.9%
3) board: 3h7sKd Pot equity 45.2%

The other players have an average equity around 15% in each case. You are a huge favorite with every hand. You are even favored over Ah2h5cAd. Obviously, you don't want it checked around. According to OP: "There is a bet and a call in front of you." If I am last to act, I can't see much downside to raising in late position on any of these flops. The turn might pair the board or brick the other draws. How well are you going to get paid off in that case?

I think the hands that you fold out with a raise weren't going to pay you off anyway, and they might even hit runner-runner and scoop you.

If there is no bet in front of you, you have to bet unless there was a PF raiser yet to act who is almost certain to C-bet.

If there is a bet, I am second to act, and there are 3 to act behind me, then I call rather than make them call 2 bets cold.

The one danger is that all of the good cards are in one hand. If you end up headsup against Ah2h5cAd on a 3h4hKd board, you are in deep doo doo. If the good cards and draws are spread around, you need to make them pay to draw.

Effen

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Situation 1: I bet less than the pot, probably half the pot. I want to build the pot, and this is the same type of move I make with a decent wheel draw, so my holding should be somewhat disguised. If someone else bets, I may raise and get frisky.

Situation 2: I check this at least 50% of the time. The remaining times I bet no more than half the pot. If someone pots it to me I call.

Situation 3: 1/2 pot to full pot bet most of the time, (rarely check to mix things up, and if I think there is a good chance everyone will fold if I bet, but that 2 players would pay me off if the low card came)

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Kurto
In the 25 buyin party poker game Hand 2 should be played cautiously. Get in cheap. Possible dump on the turn.
Hand 3 should be played aggressively and hand 1 is somewhere in between.
KK and other high pairs are much more profitable at 25 level so that you can play them in any position IF you can get in cheap.
Remember many players will pay you off with lesser fullhouses which is the key.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am trying to reconcile what Buzz wrote with the following equity calculations.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Effen - What do you mean by "equity calculations."

[ QUOTE ]
Assume you hold KcTcKsQh. In each flop, you have no backdoor flush draw or straight draw, just top set.

[/ QUOTE ]This hand is a bit different from the hand I used, but fine, let's use this hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Simulated against 4 hands with top 20% of holdings:

[/ QUOTE ]What reasoning did you use to choose to simulate against four hands? How do you simulate against four hands with "top 20% of holdings"?

[ QUOTE ]
The other players have an average equity around 15% in each case. You are a huge favorite with every hand. You are even favored over Ah2h5cAd.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure where you got these numbers. (I'm assuming you somehow got them as simulation results). I'm not sure what you mean by "equity." Do you mean they have random hands such that they each win "around 15%"? If so, how are the wins being counted? (One for a scoop, one half for winning low only, etc.)?

A general problem with high/low simulations is if a hand plays 10,000 times and wins half 4,000 times (losing the other 6,000 times), assuming the pots are of equal average sizes, the hand ends up with exactly as much as if the hand plays 10,000 times and wins the whole pot 2,000 times (losing the other 8,000 times). This might lead one to falsely believe winning half a pot 4,000 times is the same as scooping 2,000 times.

But it's not - unless you play and lose with the hand that scoops more often than you play and lose with the hand that wins half the pot.

If you play and lose with each hand the same number of times, then the hand that scoops is better.

2 half pot wins = 1 scoop + 1 loss,

Keeping in mind that the 1 loss is a negative, when you take that negative away from the one side of the equation, the scoop is clearly worth more than 2 half pot wins.

I think probably what your simulator is doing (or you're doing in interpreting the results) is counting two half pot wins as equivalent to one scoop.

Instead, two half pots wins are equivalent to one scoop and one loss.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously, you don't want it checked around.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree with you on this point.

[ QUOTE ]
According to OP: "There is a bet and a call in front of you." If I am last to act, I can't see much downside to raising in late position on any of these flops.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure why you've chosen four opponents, but fine, let's say you have four opponents. If the first three opponents check and the player immediately in front of you bets, you confront the player in first position with a double bet with the possibility of a re-raise. And if he folds, then the player in second position......etc. The first downside is you may lose customers.

If the player in first position has bet and the intervening players have called, then when you raise, the player in first position may re-raise, confronting the intervening players with a double bet with the possibility of a re-raise. Again, the downside is you may lose customers.

There's another downside for you. In reading your posts, you seem like a solid player to me. When you raise the flop, rigthly or wrongly at least some of your opponents are going to suspect you possibly have top set. And that will make it more difficult for you to collect from these players later if the board pairs and you have the winning hand. I can think of ways you can (at least try to) get around your probable solid table image dilemma, but if you have that image, I think it's better for you to simply not raise the flop with top set and nothing else.

The third downside is that unless you have at least four opponents calling your raise on this round, you actually net more by not raising.

By not raising here, unless you have four opponents who match your raise, you net more for this betting round and you net more in terms of the final pot. Your sub-total gain (when you win) with less than four opponents is less than your sub-total loss (when you lose).

At any rate, you wrote, "I can't see much downside to raising in late position on any of these flops." Those are three downsides.

[ QUOTE ]
The turn might pair the board or brick the other draws. How well are you going to get paid off in that case?

[/ QUOTE ]You're obviously going to bet and raise on the fourth betting round if the turn pairs the board. If by doing so, you drive out the low draws and scoop without the river card being shown, then that's wonderful. If the low draws stay in the pot and miss, that's also wonderful. You don't have to raise the flop to be absolutely delighted when the turn pairs the board.

Hard to see how the turn bricks the other draws. Well... a high card is probably a brick for most draws after this flop (but it opens other possibilities) - and I suppose it's possible that the turn counterfeits some (maybe all) draws. After the 34K flop, anything that counterfeits the other draws is a pretty scary card for Hero. But, yes, it's possible that Hero would do better by raising after this flop. It's often possible in Omaha-8 (or any form of poker) that you can do the wrong thing, play against the odds, and it will turn out well for you. That's true if you play the slots too.

[ QUOTE ]
I think the hands that you fold out with a raise weren't going to pay you off anyway, and they might even hit runner-runner and scoop you.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. That's true for some of them. But when they do, you have missed your own draw.

Two questions are, "Will the flopped top set hold up or not?" and "Will low be enabled or not?" When the flop is 34K, usually a flopped set of kings will not hold up and usually low will be enabled. Hero can win anyhow, and Hero is probably stuck in the hand anyhow. But Hero doesn't have to make his situation worse by raising after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no bet in front of you, you have to bet unless there was a PF raiser yet to act who is almost certain to C-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree you should generally bet if there is no bet in front of you. What does "C-bet" mean?

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a bet, I am second to act, and there are 3 to act behind me, then I call rather than make them call 2 bets cold.

[/ QUOTE ]Exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
The one danger is that all of the good cards are in one hand.

[/ QUOTE ]That's a danger, but I don't think it's the only danger.

[ QUOTE ]
If the good cards and draws are spread around, you need to make them pay to draw.

[/ QUOTE ]Unless you think your set of kings is going to hold up, you're drawing yourself! By raising, you're making if more expensive for yourself when you lose!

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Buzz,

I believe the correct way to use the equity calculators is as follows: let's say you have 25% equity in a pot. Your opponent bets $25 into a $50 pot. So after this betting round the pot will be $100, and your equity is 25% of that, or $25. Thus, the play is EV neutral.

What you are saying about two half-pot wins not being as good as one scoop is true due to losing half of current and future bets, but is irrelevant in pot equity calculations because you count the sum total of all bets, including your own, and then compare it to your equity to figure out if you are in a +EV situation.

In the situation effen described, if the KK has 40% equity on the flop and the pot size is $100 on the flop and the bets are $20, then the KK can expect to return $40 from the pot on average+$8 from each bet (including its own) that goes in on the flop. Since it's equity is greater than the amount of money it is putting in with each bet, the KK is making money with each additional bet.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Unless you think your set of kings is going to hold up, you're drawing yourself! By raising, you're making if more expensive for yourself when you lose!

[/ QUOTE ]

Buzz,

This is flat out wrong. Well, technically you are correct since you are making it more expensive when you lose. But that is like arguing that one should not bet the nut flush on turn because the river will pair the board and thus you will lose more by betting/raising the nuts in that spot. Your statement is only correct when your pot equity on bets going in is less than amount you are putting in. This will only be true in rare instances for top set in the situations described.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
What you are saying about two half-pot wins not being as good as one scoop is true due to losing half of current and future bets, but is irrelevant in pot equity calculations because you count the sum total of all bets, including your own, and then compare it to your equity to figure out if you are in a +EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]Jai - I appreciate your trying to explain this to me. I really do. But it's not irrelevant in my pot equity calculations.

If you and I were playing a hand of Texas hold 'em and we decided to settle, rather than finish the hand, I'd want my fair settlement to be the amount in the pot multiplied by the probability I'd win the pot.

Thus it seems to me as though the total amount in the pot multiplied by the probability you'll win the pot is your "pot equity."

It sounds like you're thinking of "pot equity" as meaning something else or in a more contorted way than I am.

I figure "expected value" (also known as "E.V.") to be the net you expect to win (if positive) or lose (if negative). In Texas hold 'em, that's based on the probability you'll win the hand, how much will be in the pot when you win, and what it will cost you to see the showdown.

In Omaha-8 (or any split pot game) the issue is complicated by the split pot nature of the game. The plain truth, and you seem to clearly recognize it, is that <font color="red">when you scoop a pot, you actually win more than twice as much as when you win half a pot</font>. And because of this you CAN NOT simply multiply your half pot wins by two and add them to your scoop wins and use the combined total to correctly get your E.V.

One scoop win is only equivalent to two half pot wins in a simulation, where actually you are counting
one scoop win + one total loss as equal to two half pot wins (and no loss).

In Omaha-8 (or other split pot games) how much you win when you win part of the pot varies with and depends on how many players are involved in the split. (Everyone you split with can be thought of as getting part of your contribution, with you getting part of theirs).

Think of it this way, when you're playing heads-up and you split evenly for high and low, you win nothing. Two times nothing is nothing.

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz,

I believe the correct way to use the equity calculators is as follows: let's say you have 25% equity in a pot. Your opponent bets $25 into a $50 pot. So after this betting round the pot will be $100, and your equity is 25% of that, or $25. Thus, the play is EV neutral.

What you are saying about two half-pot wins not being as good as one scoop is true due to losing half of current and future bets, but is irrelevant in pot equity calculations because you count the sum total of all bets, including your own, and then compare it to your equity to figure out if you are in a +EV situation.


[/ QUOTE ]

All that is true, and well and good, as long as you recognize the limitations of twodimes-style equity calculations.

Specifically, they assume the hand is "frozen" and no more bets are going in. Another way to think about it I suppose is that the equity calcs give you tell you how much value your hand has, but don't tell you how much you are going to have to pay (in future bets) for that value.

The further you are from showdown, the less helpful EV calcs are because the inherent assumptions aren't real.

-g

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is flat out wrong. Well, technically you are correct since you are making it more expensive when you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]Jai - In a full loose game, you are going to lose here about two times out of every three. Honest. And when you win, six times out of eleven you'll only win the high half of the pot. Honest.

[ QUOTE ]
But that is like arguing that one should not bet the nut flush on turn because the river will pair the board and thus you will lose more by betting/raising the nuts in that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]Not at all the same! In one case you'll lose more often than you win and in the other case you'll win more often than you lose.
Big difference!

[ QUOTE ]
Your statement is only correct when your pot equity on bets going in is less than amount you are putting in.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm still not sure what you mean by "pot equity" (and I think I have a good enough command of the English language to understand what "pot equity" should mean). No matter. Do you mean the following statement is incorrect most of the time? [ QUOTE ]
"Unless you think your set of kings is going to hold up, you're drawing yourself! By raising, you're making if more expensive for yourself when you lose!"

[/ QUOTE ]How can that statement possibly be wrong?

And I'm not trying to be tricky about it. You obviously make it more expensive for yourself when you raise (duh) - and I truly believe you lose more often than you win (at a typical, full, limit-Omaha-8-ring table as commonly encountered in a casino) when you flop top set with nothing else on a 34K flop. There's no doubt whatsoever in my own mind about it.

I suppose you might possibly encounter a situation where things would somehow be different, but it wouldn't be in a typical Omaha-8 ring game.

[ QUOTE ]
This will only be true in rare instances for top set in the situations described.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not sure what you mean by "rare instances."

When you play a hand with a pair of kings, you're only going to see a king on approximately one flop out of eight. But when you do make a set of kings, it's not unusual at all to see two wheel cards on the flop.

With no wheel cards in the hand with the kings,
P=(20*16/2)*(1/1128) = about fourteen per cent. Approximately one time in every seven when you flop a set of kings with no wheel cards in your own hand there will be two different ranks of wheel cards on the flop. When it happens, it will be an action flop and you should know what to do.

Drawing for half the pot in Omaha-8 is, in general, the pits. You have to do it sometimes, as here, but in this case, at least, (flopped top set with nothing else and with two wheel cards on the flop at a typical full table) you don't have to make matters worse by raising after the flop with your draw.

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

buzz,

Great work as always. Keep it up.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jai - In a full loose game, you are going to lose here about two times out of every three. Honest. And when you win, six times out of eleven you'll only win the high half of the pot. Honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree. It seems like you calculated the POSSIBILITY that those things would occur. But in reality your opponents will not always have hands that fit. ie. you could be against A2JJ,A2JJ, and AQQT suited and have turn/river come 2,9 meaning low is enabled but it doesn't make anyone a low. Obviously that is somewhat rare, but it does mean your #s slightly underestimate your true win %. same idea with flushes/straights.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Unless you think your set of kings is going to hold up, you're drawing yourself! By raising, you're making if more expensive for yourself when you lose!"

[/ QUOTE ]How can that statement possibly be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you lose 2 out of 3 times here, but for every bet you put in you get 8 callers then obviously you'd be losing more than you win but still be correct to put more bets in. Similar principle here.

You don't need to be a favorite for it to be correct to put bets in. You just need to win more than your fair share of new money going in.

-g

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thus it seems to me as though the total amount in the pot multiplied by the probability you'll win the pot is your "pot equity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. But this includes all bets put in the pot, including the ones from the current betting round (this means your bet as well), which is where the confusion is arising. In a traditional EV calc, you don't include your bet in what you can "win", and this creates a lot of headaches for figuring equity in split pot games by the normal means. Which is why percent equity is much easier to work with.

[ QUOTE ]
I figure "expected value" (also known as "E.V.") to be the net you expect to win (if positive) or lose (if negative). In Texas hold 'em, that's based on the probability you'll win the hand, how much will be in the pot when you win, and what it will cost you to see the showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to make sure we're on the same page, let's see if we agree on the following analysis for HE (or any non-split pot game). On the turn, I have 20% equity (roughly equivalent to having 9 outs). You bet $25 into a $100 pot. Should I call or fold? Assume implied odds don't matter. Well, if I call there will be $150 in the pot (which is what I stand to win). My cost for playing is $25. 20% of $150 is $30, so I profit $5 by making the call. Note that we could have come up with the same answer by a tradtional EV calc (assume 45 unseen cards to make the math nice): EV= (9/45)$125-36/45($25)=$5.

[ QUOTE ]
In Omaha-8 (or any split pot game) the issue is complicated by the split pot nature of the game. The plain truth, and you seem to clearly recognize it, is that <font color="red">when you scoop a pot, you actually win more than twice as much as when you win half a pot</font>. And because of this you CAN NOT simply multiply your half pot wins by two and add them to your scoop wins and use the combined total to correctly get your E.V.

[/ QUOTE ]

EV and pot equity are different things in this context. When we say you have pot equity of x%, we do not mean this number alone will give you EV. This depends on other things, like size of the pot, humber of players in, and the amount you have call.

Let's see if this example can show you what I mean. Your are playing PLO8. On the turn, you have nut flush and nut low draw. You know your opponent has top set with no other redraws and no blockers. He bets pot all-in for $50. Can you call profitably? Well, you have 7 non-pairing flush cards to give you a scoop. 16 low cards give you nut low, but 4 of them are already counted as flush outs. So that is 12 outs for half the pot. Let's assume 40 unseen cards. So 7/40 times you win 100 (+$17.50). 12/42 times you win 1/2. Now this is the tricky part. You will win only 1/2 of $50, the times you win low, not 1/2 of $100. So your net win in that case is 12/42*25=$7.50. 21/40 times you lose your whole $50 bet and get nothing back, for a net loss of $26.25. So that means we lose about $1.25 on average in this case. So how can we use pot equity to get the same answer? Well, we 7 outs to the whole pot, 12 outs to half, so we'll count that as 6. Thus out pot equity is 7/40+6/40=13/40, which is a little bet less than 1/3. Since at exactly 1/3 we would be getting exactly right odds to call a pot sized bet (1/3 equity*$150=$50, which is the cost of playing), the simple pot equity analysis shows us that we are making a slightly losing play by calling, just like the more thorough EV calc did above.


[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way, when you're playing heads-up and you split evenly for high and low, you win nothing. Two times nothing is nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly correct. You "win" 2x half the dead money in the pot (your net is zero in the heads up case, but that is not what is important for EV calcs). You win nothing on future and current bets.

Also, Buzz, I think you are generally a good poster, so I hope you don't feel offended by me challenging you on this point.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a full loose game, you are going to lose here about two times out of every three. Honest. And when you win, six times out of eleven you'll only win the high half of the pot. Honest.

[/ QUOTE ]

This depends way too heavily on number of opponents and hand ranges to make this broad of a statement with any precision. How about we put in some reasonable hand ranges for whatever number of opponents we think is appropriate, and then see what happens in specific scenarios? And as gergery already pointed out, we may not win a hand very often, but still make money by winning a lot the times we do win.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But that is like arguing that one should not bet the nut flush on turn because the river will pair the board and thus you will lose more by betting/raising the nuts in that spot.

[/ QUOTE ]Not at all the same! In one case you'll lose more often than you win and in the other case you'll win more often than you lose.
Big difference!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think we disagree on how often the set will hold up here. I think the equity calulators agree with me given reasonable ranges for your opponents. (this may change if there are something like 8 people in the pot with implicit collusion and whatnot, I'm not sure...my feeble little mind can't analyze situations that complex.)

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not trying to be tricky about it. You obviously make it more expensive for yourself when you raise (duh) - and I truly believe you lose more often than you win (at a typical, full, limit-Omaha-8-ring table as commonly encountered in a casino) when you flop top set with nothing else on a 34K flop. There's no doubt whatsoever in my own mind about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes you will probably lose more pots than you win multiway. No one is disputing that. But that is not the same as whether you are making money by playing a certain hand. You might lose money if you never folded your sets on unfavorable turns or rivers, but I'm fairly sure you can't be doing anything wrong by jamming the flop.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
The further you are from showdown, the less helpful EV calcs are because the inherent assumptions aren't real.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But given that you have an equity edge on any round of betting, you cannot say that you are losing money on that round of betting by putting in as money bets as possible. It may be bad for other reasons, like bloating the pot to the point where you now have to put in a lot of bets at a later street with a serious equity disadvantage. i'm just not sure top set in O/8 necessarily fits this criterion for not putting in more bets when you have a current equity edge.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like you calculated the POSSIBILITY that those things would occur.

[/ QUOTE ]Hi Greg. Not exactly. But I can see why you might think so.

[ QUOTE ]
But in reality your opponents will not always have hands that fit. ie. you could be against A2JJ,A2JJ, and AQQT suited and have turn/river come 2,9 meaning low is enabled but it doesn't make anyone a low.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that’s a good possibility. You also can lose when you make kings full (to aces full, quads, or a straight flush). But these two opposite effects don’t actually compensate equally for each other. I was rounding off, trying to keep the math as simple as possible for ease in understanding. But yes, you have a very good point. I actually did the calculations and reasoning in more detail, but then tried to simplify leaving out some low probabilities and rounding off others in order to explain more clearly. And you have now nailed me for it. Mea culpa.

[ QUOTE ]
Obviously that is somewhat rare, but it does mean your #s slightly underestimate your true win %. same idea with flushes/straights.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. It’s rare in my games. And like I said, I was trying to make it simple.

[ QUOTE ]
If you lose 2 out of 3 times here, but for every bet you put in you get 8 callers then obviously you'd be losing more than you win but still be correct to put more bets in.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. I thought I covered this concept somewhere, but maybe I didn’t make it clear. Whether to raise or not depends directly on the number of opponents who will call your raise. (And also on the effect the raise will have on their betting on subsequent betting rounds).

But yes, if you have eight callers and if one of them is going to jam all the way to the showdown and the rest will chase when you end up with a winner, then by all means raise it up.

[ QUOTE ]
You don't need to be a favorite for it to be correct to put bets in. You just need to win more than your fair share of new money going in.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. This is further complicated by the effect a raise might have on your opponents on the final two betting rounds. In my humble opinion, a raise by Hero here can really cool things off when the board pairs. But maybe your experience is different than mine.

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make sure we're on the same page,…

[/ QUOTE ]Sorry, Jai. We’re not.

(1) If there’s $1000 dollars already in the pot and (2) if you have a one in three chance of scooping the pot and (3) if you only have one opponent, and (4) if all you have in front of you is a $100, (5) and if your opponent bets $100,… then I think you should call the bet. After you call the bet, your pot equity will be $400, one third of the pot, not that your pot equity matters much (IMHO) unless you’re looking for a settlement.

But if you agree to settle after the money is in the pot and the river card is still unknown, then your fair share is $400, one third of the pot, and that is your “pot equity” to my way of thinking. Before there’s that last $100 bet, your “pot equity” is $333.33, one third of the amount in the pot, since you figure to win the pot one time out of three.

Because of the size of the pot ($1000), you have favorable odds to call a $100 bet. However, you don’t have favorable odds to initiate fresh money into the pot yourself since you’re only getting one to one for fresh money while your chance to win the pot is one in three.

Seems crystal clear to me, but maybe I’m not explaining it well enough.

At any rate, I don’t think whether or not you should bet (or raise) depends on your “pot equity.”

However, it would be possible to relate whether or not you should call to your pot equity. I don’t think of it in that way, but I guess one could come up with a mathematical relationship between the two.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you don't feel offended by me challenging you on this point.

[/ QUOTE ]Not at all. Rightly or wrongly, I feel I have a very solid understanding of the principles involved in calculating poker probabilities and odds for this type of situation. I’m just sorry that I was evidently unable to communicate my understanding to you this time.

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the size of the pot ($1000), you have favorable odds to call a $100 bet. However, you don’t have favorable odds to initiate fresh money into the pot yourself since you’re only getting one to one for fresh money while your chance to win the pot is one in three.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agree 100%.

[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, I don’t think whether or not you should bet (or raise) depends on your “pot equity.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Now let's see how can we use it to help us decide whether or not to bet. Let's use a real life example from Texas Hold'Em. Let's say there are 4 hands: Th Jh, 9c 9s, As Ac, 6d 7d.

Let's say the flop is: 9h 8h 5c

Well, who would be profiting by betting and raising on this round of betting? Here is the calculation:

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2052349
pokenum -h jh th - ac as - 9c 9s - 6d 7d -- 9h 8h 5c
Holdem Hi: 820 enumerated boards containing 5c 9h 8h
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Jh Th 346 42.20 474 57.80 0 0.00 0.422
As Ac 13 1.59 807 98.41 0 0.00 0.016
9s 9c 270 32.93 550 67.07 0 0.00 0.329
7d 6d 191 23.29 629 76.71 0 0.00 0.233,

Let's the say size of the bet is $25. How much would everyone profit by putting in bets on the flop? Well, for each bet put in, the Jh Th returns on average 42%. So if everyone puts in one bet, the total would be $100, and the Jh Th would expect $42 of that on average. Thus, it is making $17 (42-25) of each bet that is put in. On the other hand, 6d7d has equity of only 23%. Thus, with each additional bet put into the pot, it is actually losing $2. So who should be betting and raising in this scenario? The big draw and the set both have greater than 25% equity, and will profit from all additional money that goes into the pot. The AA and the straight lose by putting additional money in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it would be possible to relate whether or not you should call to your pot equity. I don’t think of it in that way, but I guess one could come up with a mathematical relationship between the two.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can absolutely come up with a mathemetical realtionship between the two: EV=pot equity x total amount in pot (including your calls)-amount to call.

What I was trying to tell you before was that the top set example is exactly analagous to the hold 'em hand I just talked about above. In a four handed pot, it will be rare for top set, even on that board, to have less than 25% equity against three hands, thus it is making money by putting in bets on that round if everyone calls.

Is it just me, or isn't this all very basic?

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
i'd never play KKxx that didn't have a quality low possibility, with the exception of the big blind.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is too tight. Hands with suited Kings and coordinated cards will show a profit (e.g. KKQJ ss or ds). So will two big pair (KKQQ, KKJJ) especially if at least one of the Kings is suited up.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Man, I just love it when Buzz and Gergery get into math geek mode. I live for this sort of thing.

But, to respond to chaos, I'd play KKxx where x and x are both high. I'd play KKxx where x and x are both wheel cards, especially when one or more is suited with a king. What I doubt I'd play is KKxx where x or x is a 7/8/9, even if it's suited. The high only hands work great when no low is possible, and the high/low hands work fine when there's both possible, but having a KK and no realistic shot at low and without two backup high cards... I don't know how I'd want to play that hand.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

jai:

I'm pretty sure he's understanding the equity calcs. I think he's saying the reverse implied odds of top set negate the equity advantage present on the flop. Here's a disgusting example...

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=2052964
pokenum -o8 kc kd qh jd - ah 2h 6s 8s - ad 5d 6c 7s - 4c 4s 2s 3c -- ks 3h 4h
Omaha Hi/Low 8-or-better: 528 enumerated boards containing Ks 4h 3h
cards scoop HIwin HIlos HItie LOwin LOlos LOtie EV
Kc Kd Jd Qh 102 198 330 0 0 0 0 0.284
8s 6s Ah 2h 166 185 343 0 302 57 16 0.501
7s 6c Ad 5d 36 114 414 0 57 312 6 0.165
4s 2s 4c 3c 17 31 497 0 0 57 10 0.050

Top set has .034 more than fair share. If 8 BB go in on the flop (capped four ways,) your booking .272 BB in profit. If you are always paying off bets on later streets, then it is a losing proposition.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

limp with AA UTG 24% of the time?

lol

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

luckyharr,

That is one disgusting example. Note that even with that murderer's row set of hands, the top set still has an equity advantage. There will often be scenarios where that top set does much better on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
If you are always paying off bets on later streets, then it is a losing proposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. I think I mentioned something to that effect earlier. But we are allowed to fold when the situation becomes dire.

Buzz may or may not understand what we mean by equity. But based on these statements:

[ QUOTE ]
...not that your pot equity matters much (IMHO) unless you’re looking for a settlement.

[/ QUOTE ]

and

[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, I don’t think whether or not you should bet (or raise) depends on your “pot equity.”

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly indicate that he doesn't think pot equity plays much, if any, role in betting decisions. I strongly disagree with that assertion.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At any rate, I don’t think whether or not you should bet (or raise) depends on your “pot equity.”

[/ QUOTE ]

clearly indicate that he doesn't think pot equity plays much, if any, role in betting decisions. I strongly disagree with that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as we have an equity advantage, we should be willing to put in as many bets as we can, right? Ray Zee pointed out earlier that more customers will likely provide us a larger equity advantage, and a less aggressive approach to induce multiway action is likely the best line. That makes sense as a reason to not face the field with two cold, but if we're presented the opportunity to face the whole field with another bet, I don't see why we would pass up that opportunity.

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

Also Jai, I laughed at this part of the thread.

[ QUOTE ]
I figure "expected value" (also known as "E.V.") to be the net you expect to win (if positive) or lose (if negative).

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's use a real life example from Texas Hold'Em. Let's say there are 4 hands: Th Jh, 9c 9s, As Ac, 6d 7d.
Let's say the flop is: 9h 8h 5c

[/ QUOTE ]Jai - Very interesting simulation results. However, aren’t you using “fresh money” considerations rather than “pot equity” to decide whose advantage it is to bet? Whatever you call it, you have provided an interesting, thought provoking example. And I follow and agree with your reasoning for the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
The big draw and the set both have greater than 25% equity, and will profit from all additional money that goes into the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]I see what you’re saying, and I agree – but your reasoning is in terms of the fresh (additional) money going into the pot rather than also involving whatever was in the pot before the second betting round. I’d say you’re using “fresh money equity” rather than “pot equity.”

[ QUOTE ]
You can absolutely come up with a mathemetical realtionship between the two: EV=pot equity x total amount in pot (including your calls)-amount to call.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd like your mathematical expression better if you put “total amount in pot” minus the “amount to call” in parentheses. In other words I'd like it better if you subtracted the amount to call from the total amount in the pot before multiplying by pot equity. See the difference?

But although computing pot equity seems relatively simple without a split pot, arriving at pot equity in a split pot seems more complicated to me. And even in Texas hold ‘em your pot equity, except for a settlement, seems largely irrelevant to me. Maybe there’s some indirect way you can use pot equity, to determine if it’s correct for you to call or not, or even to determine if it’s correct to bet or raise or not – but I don’t see any direct relationship.

You seem so sure of yourself that I can’t help but wonder if some of the words we’re using have different meanings for you than for me. Indeed, in your Texas hold ‘em example, you’re not using what I would call “pot equity” to determine the advisability of betting.

What hero should do depends on how many opponents Hero has and how they play. But in a typical casino limit ring game in the $3/$6 to $6/$12 range, holding only top set and nothing else worthwhile after a flop of 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], I think Hero does better by not jamming on the second betting round. You want Hero to jam here and I don’t. I guess we'll never agree on that point. With some hands/flops, I would think jamming with top set is in order – just not this particular time.

[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to tell you before was that the top set example is exactly analagous to the hold 'em hand I just talked about above.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think so. I don’t think they're very analogous situations. There’s a big difference between the value of top set in Texas hold ‘em and Omaha-8. And there’s a substantial difference between outs for the whole pot and outs for part of the pot.

Have you considered the possibility that even if you are somehow using "pot equity," there might be more than one way to figure when it is right to bet? Have you considered the possibility it may not be necessary to compute “pot equity”?

[ QUOTE ]
Is it just me, or isn't this all very basic?

[/ QUOTE ] I don’t know. What is “very basic” to one person may not be basic to another. Maybe once you think you understand something very well it seems “basic.”

I wasn’t sure what Effen meant by "equity calculations." And then when you responded to my response to Effen, I wasn’t sure what you meant. No offense intended. Perhaps “equity” means something different to me than to you.


[ QUOTE ]
Buzz may or may not understand what we mean by equity. But …(snip)… he doesn't think pot equity plays much, if any, role in betting decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. That is correct. I’m not sure I understand what you mean by equity. No offense intended. And I don’t think pot equity plays much, if any, role in betting decisions.

When I’m drawing, I compare the odds against making my draw to the “implied pot odds” in deciding whether I have favorable odds to call or not.

There are various considerations besides just having favorable odds involved in betting or raising. But sometimes as part of my decision, I compare the odds against making my draw to “fresh money odds.”

I think of my “pot equity” as being my fair share of the pot if a settlement was to be made. (That is very different than my share of fresh money going into the pot). I’m not ever consciously using what I think of as “pot equity” in betting decisions and I don’t even see a direct relationship.

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly disagree with that assertion.

[/ QUOTE ]Then in my humble opinion you either don’t know what you’re doing or the term “pot equity” has a different meaning to you than to me.

<ul type="square">As used here:
“hand odds” = the odds against making my draw.

Read David Sklansky’s The Theory of Poker to see what implied pot odds are.

fresh money odds = the portion of the money my opponents are putting in the pot on the current betting round that I stand to win if I make my draw compared to the money I will put into the pot on the current betting round.

By “compared to,” I mean divide one by the other.[/list]
I hope this (finally) makes it clear.

Buzz

Re: The Top Set dilemma
 

[ QUOTE ]
Buzz may or may not understand what we mean by equity.

[/ QUOTE ]Luckyharr - The word “equity.” does have a certain meaning to me. It’s a word I use from time to time. The concept of “equity in a poker pot” (which I’d call “pot equity” for short) has a more specific meaning to me. However, I’m not sure if it means the same thing to you as to me. No offense intended.

If “pot equity” did have the same meaning to you as to me, then assuming you know what you’re doing, I don’t think you would involve it in the decision whether to raise or not.

There are lots of reasons to raise in poker. Having a certain pot equity, if we’re thinking of the same thing, is not involved in any of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Also Jai, I laughed at this part of the thread.
Quote:
I figure "expected value" (also known as "E.V.") to be the net you expect to win (if positive) or lose (if negative).

[/ QUOTE ]

I imagine you are aware that people sometimes have different meanings for the words or terms they use. I suppose it can be funny when they do.

However, in this case it was a matter of failing to communicate with a reader and wondering if the words and terms I was using meant the same thing to the reader as they meant to me. I don’t know why you would find such an attempt to communicate laughable, but if it has amused you, fine.

[ QUOTE ]
As long as we have an equity advantage, we should be willing to put in as many bets as we can, right?

[/ QUOTE ]I don’t know what you mean by “equity advantage.” I’m not trying to be tricky. I can interpret “an equity advantage” in more than one way.

As long as it’s to your advantage to raise, then you should (obviously) put in as many bets as you can. Whether or not it’s to your advantage to raise often depends on how many customers you will have on this and future betting rounds if you raise now as opposed to just calling at this point. (It's not exactly the same as slow playing flopped quads, but similar).

[ QUOTE ]
Ray Zee pointed out earlier that more customers will likely provide us a larger equity advantage, and a less aggressive approach to induce multiway action is likely the best line.

[/ QUOTE ]I wouldn’t say “equity” advantage. But yes, more customers are better when you make a winning hand. And yes, a less aggressive approach is the best line in this particular case (and in similar cases). Jai evidently disagrees about a less aggressive approach being better. (And from what you write below, I would guess you disagree too).

[ QUOTE ]
That makes sense as a reason to not face the field with two cold, but if we're presented the opportunity to face the whole field with another bet, I don't see why we would pass up that opportunity.

[/ QUOTE ]I’ll give you three direct reasons and I can also think of some indirect, more subtle reasons that I won’t mention: (1) When you raise to get more money in the pot, the fellow right behind you may re-raise so as to “face the field with two cold,” thus making it more difficult for opponents to continue, even though they’ve already put in one bet on the current betting round. Remember, when the action gets back to you, you can re-raise, and everybody who is not an idiot knows they might be facing more bets. (2) When you raise on the second betting round, it often will be more difficult to get in multiple bets on a later betting round. (3) It costs you twice as much when you raise.

That’s why. There’s a bit more to it than just that, but that should be enough for you to at least realize that sometimes it’s better to “pass up that opportunity.”

Buzz