[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright Buzz, we are on the same page with regards to fresh money equity (which as I stated before is the same as pot equity, except you multiply it by the bets going in instead of dead money in the pot to get the absolute number).

[/ QUOTE ] Jai - I don’t think in terms of “equity” when making decisions about folding, calling, raising, or re-raising. Instead I think in terms of odds.

“Pot odds” is an entirely different concept than “fresh money odds.”

I don’t actually use “pot odds” at all – but I may use an estimation of “implied pot odds” or “reverse implied pot odds” as part of my decision to call.

And I may use “fresh money odds” as part of my decision to raise.

In other words, the odds I use to determine whether or not to call are different than the odds I use to determine whether or not to raise. One is based on the estimated size of the pot at showdown while the other is based on the number of players who I expect to be participating in the action. It’s possible that fresh money odds and pot odds could have the same numerical value, but generally they do not.

Someone probably associated with ProPoker (I’d guess the writer or writers of the simulation program) may have came up with the term “pot equity.” I think I see what is meant by "pot equity," in the context of the simulation, although in my humble opinion it’s a poor and misguiding term to use.

[ QUOTE ]
But the correct way to calculate EV using a percent equity is to include all of the bets that will go into a particular betting round, and then multiply that by your equity.

[/ QUOTE ]I don’t think so. I guess it depends on how you define EV. More about this below.

[ QUOTE ]
The thing that you are getting hung up on is that your net "win" in a split pot case is less than when you scoop when looked at from the perspective of the middle of the hand—you can only "win" half of the dead money in the pot. However, when you include everything in the pot, including your calls, then the amount you "win" in a split pot case is exactly half of when you scoop.

[/ QUOTE ]I’m not “hung up” on anything except maybe seeking the truth. Assuming the pots are of the same size and your cost is the same each time, the amount you net when you win two half pots and lose none is exactly the same as you net when you scoop one pot and lose another.

Get it? You have to lose one time for every time you scoop for two half wins (with no losses) to equal a scoop.

[ QUOTE ]
And it is the total size of the pot that is important in an equity calculation since you will get back, on average, your equity share of bets being put in currently as well as the dead money.

[/ QUOTE ]I include what I expect on future betting rounds in my EV computations. I think that’s a better way to proceed than just considering the current betting round. My opponents and I have the option of folding after the second betting round. When you fold after the second betting round, you don’t put any more bets into the pot.

Let’s say you see the flop 100 times with hand A and also 100 times with hand B. Let’s say the expected amount contributed to the pot by your opponents is 24 small bets, and if you stay to see the showdown, it will cost you six small bets. Let’s say you’re able to get out of both hand A and hand B easily when you miss the flop, and you do get out of the hand every time you miss the flop.

Let’s say you expect to only scoop with hand A and you expect to only win half the pot with hand B.

Let’s say you get a favorable flop 20 times and an unfavorable flop 80 times for hand A. and that you get a favorable flop 40 times and an unfavorable flop 60 times for hand B.

The PokerPro simulator would show these two starting hands as having the same “pot equity.” Similarly, the two dimes.net simulator would show these two starting hands as having the same E.V.

But look again.
You’re going to net 480-80 = 400 small bets scooping 20 times with hand A.
You’re going to net 360-60 = 300 small bets winning half 40 times with hand B.

Assuming you’re able to get out of a hand when you miss, you end up doing better with hands that scoop X times than with hands that win half the pot 2X times.

The ProPoker simulator evidently assumes you play the hand through to the showdown. However, I don’t play all hands all the way through to the showdown, and neither do most of my opponents. When one doesn’t play all hands through to the showdown, some hands that ProPoker would rate as having the same pot equity actually have different expectations.

[ QUOTE ]
Given that we know we have a "fresh money" equity edge with top set (you may not believe this yet, but hopefully you will), I will argue until my lips bleed that you can't be making a losing play by raising. Raising may not always be the best play, and you provide several important reasons for that throughout this thread. However, when you contend that it is a losing play because your hand is "drawing", you imply that it does not have "fresh money" equity, which I think is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]It may not be a losing play for the current betting round, but you may not win as much on the next <font color="red">TWO</font> betting rounds.

[ QUOTE ]
…try out the following calculators:
ProPoker Tools Simulator Twodimes Calculator

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks for the links.

[ QUOTE ]
Try to come up with as many possible scenarios as you can to have top set on the flop texture we've been talking about. I think you'll find that top set will have better than fair share on "fresh money" equity.

[/ QUOTE ]Fresh money odds depend on the number of opponents who will call your bet or raise. I can hardly imagine folding when I flop a set of kings. But I might not bet or raise, depending.

[ QUOTE ]
You stated earlier that 2/3 of the time with top set you'll be drawn out on and won't win anything. Of the 1/3 that you win, 6/11 times you'll have to split with the low.

[/ QUOTE ]I was trying to keep things as simple as possible when I used those approximation estimates.
[ QUOTE ]
Well let's use these numbes to figure fresh money equity.

[/ QUOTE ]I don’t like the label “fresh money equity,” although I think I understand what you mean by it. Instead I prefer to use what I (and others) label as “fresh money odds.”[ QUOTE ]
Given n players in the pot, two out of three times we will lose a bet. 6/33 times we'll win n/2-1 bets and 5/33 times we'll win n-1 bets.
When n=4, we are losing 1/33 of a bet with each bet that is going in. With n=5, we are clearly winning with each bet put in.

[/ QUOTE ] Yes. Agreed. We’re winning that much on the second betting round. However, we may not win as much on the next two betting rounds as when we simply call.
[ QUOTE ]
I believe your numbers are less accurate for the cases when there are fewer players (n=4 or less) because you overestimate the number of times all the draws are out against you,

[/ QUOTE ]Good point.
[ QUOTE ]
and you underestimate how often your opponents may have the same draws, thus eating up outs.

[/ QUOTE ]That’s a two edged sword. Your opponents who have sets or two pairs eat up your own outs. But yes, opponents often have the same draws.
[ QUOTE ]
With 3 or fewer opponents, not all low cards will fill a straight. You may even occasionally win half on a flushed board.

[/ QUOTE ]Good points. Especially with three or fewer opponents, your unimproved set may win even when a flush or straight is the nuts.
[ QUOTE ]
Given these possibiliities, I think even your calculations will allow that putting extra money in with top set can be a winning play.

[/ QUOTE ]Whoa! I honestly don’t think it is, even given those possibilities. When I flop a set of kings, I’m almost invariably going to put the required money in on the second betting round, and if nobody has bet in front of me and I think nobody will bet behind me, I'll put in the first bet myself. But I’m not generally going to raise a bet after a 34K flop with nothing but top set. I’ve given my reasons already. I think I follow your reasoning for raising, and although you make some excellent points, I'm still convinced that not raising is generally better. I do believe in mixing up your play, and there could be special circumstances which would lead me to raise, but my default mode here is not to raise.
[ QUOTE ]
Hopefully that clears up the argument I've been trying to make.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes. It does. Thanks. [ QUOTE ]
I hope I've at least been able to help you think about how to use equity at the tables,

[/ QUOTE ]I see what the PokerPro simulator is doing and that you evidently believe “pot equity” is the correct way to the truth. However, if it’s all the same to you, I am going to continue to sometimes use implied pot odds or reverse implied pot odds as part of a decision to call or not, and I am going to continue to sometimes use fresh money odds as part of a decision to raise or not.[ QUOTE ]
if not convince you that raising top set is not a losing play!

[/ QUOTE ]I still don’t think you’ll net more on the second betting round by raising with only three opponents – and when you consider probable greater gains on later betting rounds when you don’t raise, more often than not, you will net less in a typical casino limit Omaha-8 game by raising on the second betting round with the hand/flop under discussion.

Although it’s true you’ll win more often with fewer opponents, you’ll want as many customers as possible when you make your draw. You can get hurt on the river with only top set when a flush or straight becomes possible, even with only three opponents. In a limit game, flopped top set with a coordinated two or three card low board just doesn’t seem all that great to me in a typical limit Omaha-8 game.

Let’s end this discussion here, or if you want the last word, I won’t respond again. We seem to be at an impasse.

Buzz