[Buzz]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In simulations, winning half the pot two times in ten and losing the other eight times is exactly the same as scooping the pot one time in ten and losing the other nine times. Thus it may seem as though two cards that win half the pot for Hero are equivalent to one card that would scoop the pot for Hero. However, that is not true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is. Equity calculators like twodimes are entirely correct.

[/ QUOTE ]Ergoicity - There is a typo in what you have quoted. I didn’t mean two “cards” (which doesn’t make any sense). I meant two “hands.” Here’s the correction:

<font color="red">Thus it may seem as though two hands that win half the pot for Hero are equivalent to one hand that would scoop the pot for Hero. However, that is not true.</font>

And, with that correction, I think that which I wrote is true. I am not saying twodimes is not correct. (I find twodimes very useful). Instead I am saying it’s misleading to think of winning two halves of a pot as equivalent to winning one whole pot (assuming the pots are of equal sizes).

They are only equivalent in a simulation where you simulate being dealt a given hand a certain specified number of times and where you lose when you don’t win.

Otherwise, assuming pots of equal sizes, being awarded two half pots does not equal being awarded one whole pot, in terms of what you net as winnings.

Instead, two half pots equal one whole pot plus one entirely losing venture.

Perhaps it is a subtle difference, but I think the reader should see it.

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case I. There is no possibility of low so that if you make your draw, (i.e. if the board pairs) you will scoop and win $500 (You get your own white chip back and win the five blue chips).

Case II. Low is possible, so that if you make your draw, you will probably have to split the pot with low. If so, you will win $200. (You get three chips (half) back from the six chip pot – make them your own white chip and two blue chips).

Winning half such a pot twice nets you $400. Winning all such a pot once nets you $500.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bolded statement is where you go astray with your logic, because you are comparing apples to oranges.

[/ QUOTE ]No. I am comparing <font color="blue">your net</font> in winning half of a pot twice to <font color="blue">your net</font> in winning all of a pot once.

[ QUOTE ]
If you look at a situation where winning all of the pot once is correct, then to win half the pot twice means you are twice as likely to win some portion of the pot. Which means the guy scooping is twice as likely to LOSE a portion of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]No. A hand that has a good chance of scooping is more than twice as good as a hand that has an equal chance of winning half the pot.

I do not have to play every hand I am dealt. I do not have to play hands that have a very poor chance of scooping.

You very well may be able to play circles around me. But I can protect myself at least somewhat by sticking to starting hands that have a decent chance of scooping.

[ QUOTE ]
Here is the mistake you are making: You are saying, "If I just play this hand out once, put in my $100 and win a $600 pot, that nets me a profit of $500. And its better than playing two hands, putting in $100 on each of those, and winning a pot that is half as big on each of those hands".

Of course it is.

[/ QUOTE ]Exactly!

[ QUOTE ]
But that has nothing to do with O8 being a split pot game. Take the above sentence and simply translate it to holdem to see why.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you more likely to see a split pot in Texas hold ‘em or Omaha-8? (rhetorical)

[ QUOTE ]
paying the cost of playing a hand to showdown is irrespective of the game being played.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed. However, what you don’t have to do is always pay the cost of playing every hand to the showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
Just as your equity is irrespective of o8 being a split pot game.

[/ QUOTE ]This statement does not logically follow as a consequence of those preceeding it. And perhaps ”equity” does not have the same meaning to me as to you. (I don't think it does).

Buzz