JTs settle a disagreement with DeathDonkey - Page 4

The Bryce · #31 04-01-2006, 07:20 PM

You'll notice that the net difference EV in the 20:2 vs 20:3 example is larger than the difference in the 10:2 vs 10:3 example. Make the pot bigger and the dollar amount you net increases (even if the ratio between the two plays stays the same).

jason_t · #32 04-01-2006, 07:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Grah, stuff like this makes me so angry when I'm posting record slides. I want to yell at you guys, but it's probably a reasonably complex point. Think! If calling increases in value as you add bets to the pot then the value of seeing the same amount of cards for cheap also increases as you add bets. If you raise for a free card when you're getting exactly the odds to peel the flop you've basically gained nothing. Getting cheap cards in large pots basically equates to the EV happy dance. Peeling does get cheaper in big pots, but free cards get way better than peeling. What's better, 10:2 or 10:3? Can we also see how the bet saved in a 20:2 vs 20:3 example is more valuable than the previous one? Yes we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is there is very little difference between 20:3 and 20:2, especially when you take into consideration the possbility of being stop-and-goed, 3-bet, etc.

TheMetetron · #33 04-01-2006, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i def call. If sb has qa big pair then you just faced the callers with two bets and might be driving paying customers out while paying 3sbs for your draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Si senor.

Edit: Glad to see many other players I respect agreed. Raising just seems like the inferior play to me. Reason's have already been given.

The Bryce · #34 04-01-2006, 07:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Grah, stuff like this makes me so angry when I'm posting record slides. I want to yell at you guys, but it's probably a reasonably complex point. Think! If calling increases in value as you add bets to the pot then the value of seeing the same amount of cards for cheap also increases as you add bets. If you raise for a free card when you're getting exactly the odds to peel the flop you've basically gained nothing. Getting cheap cards in large pots basically equates to the EV happy dance. Peeling does get cheaper in big pots, but free cards get way better than peeling. What's better, 10:2 or 10:3? Can we also see how the bet saved in a 20:2 vs 20:3 example is more valuable than the previous one? Yes we can.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is there is very little difference between 20:3 and 20:2, especially when you take into consideration the possbility of being stop-and-goed, 3-bet, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fallacious, incomplete thinking. Why do we worry about our odds so much when we call with hands pre-flop in the BB? It's because making money in poker is entirely concerned with the ratio of expectated bets versus bets paid. Let's spell this particular hand out, to the letter. I'm going to assume 40% pot equity, since it's a nice round number to work with, and plug it into the 20:2 vs 20:3 example you just quoted.

If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

jason_t · #35 04-01-2006, 07:48 PM

[ QUOTE ]

This is fallacious, incomplete thinking. Why do we worry about our odds so much when we call with hands pre-flop in the BB? It's because making money in poker is entirely concerned with the ratio of expectated bets versus bets paid. Let's spell this particular hand out, to the letter. I'm going to assume 40% pot equity, since it's a nice round number to work with, and plug it into the 20:2 vs 20:3 example you just quoted.

If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You continue to ignore factors that go into the calculation of the EV of raising the flop and you haven't even bothered to compare it to the possibility of trapping people for two double-sized bets on the turn or river.

Plus your math is off.

The Bryce · #36 04-01-2006, 07:55 PM

Who's talking about the hand? The free card thing was just a peripheral concern in my analyses. These later posts have been responding to people calling BS on my factoid. The big reasons why I raise the flop are points 2 and 3 in my origional post.

ALL1N · #37 04-01-2006, 07:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You'll notice that the net difference EV in the 20:2 vs 20:3 example is larger than the difference in the 10:2 vs 10:3 example.

[/ QUOTE ]

And herein lies your mistake. This simple pot odds expression does not denote your "value" in the pot. If the pot had 1000 bets, and you had to pay 1 or 2 bets with your flush draw, paying 1 is clearly not twice as valuable - both are extremely valuable for the option of making ~300 bets at the cost of 1 or 2. Comparing 1000:1 to 1000:2 for value is obviously incorrect.

The actual value of your hand is simply this:

EV = Pr(win) * (pot + bets won) - cost

ALL1N · #38 04-01-2006, 07:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, your maths is wrong. I'm sorry. See my above post.

edit- To clearly see why dividing cost into pot size is incorrect, imagine that you were almost allin, and only had to pay 0.1 BB. Somehow your value is now bigger than the pot size!

milesdyson · #39 04-01-2006, 08:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If we put 3 bets into a 20 bet pot with 40% equity we net a gain of 2.7 bets (20/3*0.4). If we put 2 bets in with 40% equity we net 4 bets (20/2*0.4). You'll notice that this happens to be a huge freaking difference! Double the pot size and you double the disparity.

[/ QUOTE ]
it's not only between putting 2 and 3 bets in... its an issue of putting 3 bets in most of the time by calling vs. putting in 2 very rarely and most often 5 by raising.

and this still completely ignores the completely awful result that an SB 3-bet on the flop can knock out so many hands that can improve to crap pairs at the same time you improve to a flush.

ismokerocks · #40 04-01-2006, 08:04 PM

Our options are to (1) just call, because I don't want it to get 3 bet by the SB and cut down my odds if the SB has an overpair. Or (2) if you generally put the SB on something other than pockets higher than 99(because most ppl suck) I think a raise by you and 3 bet by the SB tremendously increases your equity and may sometimes fold out a stronger flush draw. That being said... I like a raise on the flop and if the SB just calls then you can take that free turn card if you don't improve.