[Buzz]

[ 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