[ 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