Using pot equity to decide between raising or calling

[pergesu]

I was just reading an early part of SSH, and in the section on pot equity he says not to spend 1 bet to protect a pot equity of 0.5 bets. Later on he says if your pot equity is 1.7 bets then you should raise, because you have an edge and every bet that goes in is +EV for you. That all makes sense, easy stuff. Then in the wrap up he says that you use pot equity to determine whether to call or raise...that's where he lost me. Seemed like he said if you have less than 1 bet in pot equity you should fold, if you have more than 1 you should raise. So I guess the only time to call would be when you have exactly 1 bet of pot equity? Also I suppose times where you're close, like 0.8-0.9 and have implied odds. I'd like a better interpretation of this.

[BenA]

p. 35 SSHE. "Thiking in terms of pot equity can help you make both call/fold and call/raise decisions."

Miller and Sklansky never said that equity CANT help in call/fold decisions, they just argue that pot odds are more helpful for call/raise decisions. Pot equity is essentially the measure of value you get out of a pot, and if you have an edge (say 40% against 3 players) you should raise for value. You keep talking about bets, but you should be thinking about pot sizes. The example of spending one to protect .5 is merely a simple example to illustrate the point. Pot equity is most effective in drawing situations. Its hard to measure your equity against 3 players when you've got TPTK on a drawy board. In this case, you play agressive to protect a vulnerable hand. You don't waste time figuring out your equity because that's too dependent on your opponents hole cards. With a flush, OESD, or full house draw, however, you can figure your equity fairly accurately, and it can help you to pump up the pot that you will will x% of the time. In other words, if you have 35% equity against 4 opponents, every raise makes you money.

[James.]

think of pot equity in terms of percentages and it is easier to understand. 3handed if your pot equity is more than 33%(1/3)you have an edge and it can be profitably pushed. the same is if 5handed, if you have more than 20% pot equity, you have an edge. the bigger the edge, the more profitable to push it. of course the proper course of action involves not just pot equity, but your opponents, the size of the pot, your implied odds, and quite a few other factors(position, image, etc.).

[pergesu]

Alright well what I don't understand is how to use pot equity to determine whether to call/raise/fold. If you have an edge, you should be raising as much as possible (assuming your opponents will still call). If you don't have an edge, you should fold...unless you have good enough implied odds, in which case you can call?

[ncboiler]

I agree with James. Pot equity determines wether or not you raise for value and I think of it in percentages. If yor chance of winning is greater than if all of you had and equal chance then you riase...maybe

Example: You have a 33% chance of winning and there are 5 people in the hand. That means that if all things were equal you would win 20% of the time but your hand is giving you 33% chance of winning. You want to build this pot a much as possible and that can mean raisinig and reraising. Also like James said there are other things you need to think about. Will your raise make it heads up against someone that has better odds of winning than you? If so yuo need to be careful.

Another example:

5 people in the pot and you have 33% chance of hitting a draw. You have pot equity greater than your fair share of 20%. Someone bets and you are next to act. You think they have a made hand and are favored over you. You don't want to raise unless you can get at least one person to call other wise you don't want to put 2 bets in to get HU as an underdog. (simplified example)

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]
Alright well what I don't understand is how to use pot equity to determine whether to call/raise/fold. If you have an edge, you should be raising as much as possible (assuming your opponents will still call). If you don't have an edge, you should fold...unless you have good enough implied odds, in which case you can call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a good description although you don't neccessarily need implied odds as pot odds may dictate how you play as well.

[pergesu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright well what I don't understand is how to use pot equity to determine whether to call/raise/fold. If you have an edge, you should be raising as much as possible (assuming your opponents will still call). If you don't have an edge, you should fold...unless you have good enough implied odds, in which case you can call?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a good description although you don't neccessarily need implied odds as pot odds may dictate how you play as well.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeesh. Duh. Brain fart?

[fellfold]

You pot equity is the percentage you get of every dollar that goes into the pot. In poker, every person who wants to continue has to put in the same amount of money (except for all-ins of course). You have an equity edge when for every dollar you put in, you get more back in terms of EV.

If you have an equity edge, a raise will make you money. So if the choice is between call/raise and you have an equity edge, it's usually fine to just go ahead and raise. Mathematically speaking, if you have an equity edge, you always have sufficient pot odds to call.

You should use pot odds to make call/fold decisions. For example, if you are getting 5 to 1 on your 11 to 1 gutshot, you should fold. It's often the case that when you are drawing, you have sufficient pot odds, but negative equity. For example, if you are getting 8 to 1 for a 20% to hit draw on the turn. You have negative equity here, but the amount of money in the pot gives you sufficient odds to call. You are paying 80% of your call (you are getting 20% back when you hit) to get 20% of what's in the pot. You win when that 20% is bigger than what you had to pay.

[ncboiler]

[ QUOTE ]

For example, if you are getting 8 to 1 for a 20% to hit draw on the turn. You have negative equity here, but the amount of money in the pot gives you sufficient odds to call. You are paying 80% of your call (you are getting 20% back when you hit) to get 20% of what's in the pot. You win when that 20% is bigger than what you had to pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't thiink is it totally correct. The equity you have is irrelevant to the size of the pot. In your above example a player is on a draw that has a 20% chance of hitting. He has an equity edge if there are 5 or more people in the hand. Actually it is an edge with 6 people and "fair share" with 5 people. In your above example if there are less than 5 people in the hand and the player is on a 20% draw then he must look at the size of the pot to deterine how to play. In the example he is getting correct odds to continue. After determing he has correct odds to continue then the decision must be made to call or raise.

[Siegmund]

People have a somewhat dangerous habit of using the same name, pot equity, for two not-quite-the-same things.

You have some chance of winning, p.
There are some number of big bets already in the pot, N.

1) If N*p is larger than the size of the bet you are facing, this means that a call is better than a fold.

2) If p is larger than 1 over the number of players who will see the next street if you raise, a raise is better than a call.

You still have a raise-or-fold decision to make when 1) tells you that calling is wrong. You also still have a raise-or-call decision to make when 2) doesn't tell you that raising is automatically right.
You need a couple additional facts -- the chance of winning the pot outright by raising, and how your raise would affect the subsequent action (will you get 3-bet on this street? will you get checked to on the next street?) -- to make those decisions.