good thread in SS

[tiltaholic]

Equity

[Marquis]

Thank you, sir. I have to poop now.

[Shillx]

It is fine but it has some flaws. The big one is that the analysis assumes an all-in type behavior. The reality of pumping edges is much different since

a - People will sometimes fold mid-street

b - The equity assumes that you will be seeing the hand till the end. There is nothing worse then pumping a gutshot or something and having to fold it on the turn when it comes 2 or 3 cold to you. It is very easy to generate a counter-argument against equity pumping using a hand that only has backdoor draws.

There are more but that is good for now.

[Marquis]

Shill,
I thought about that folding mid-street thing, but I figure if they're doing that, they're probably making a mistake anyway, and one that we make money on.

The thing I didn't like about it was the whole knowing the opponents' cards and computing equity based on that. That's not how we compute equity; we obviously don't know the opponents cards so we have to use outs and other means to do it. In his KQs hand, for example, to say that our equity with a gutter and a backdoor is greater than 35% is just plain wrong.

It was well-written though, and it made for good discussion. That's worth something.

Ram and jam your flush draws.

[fretelöo]

*bump

You guys points are good ones. However, if that thread's sole purpose is to makes people realize that backdoor draws ARE worth something, I guess it's reason enough to bump it once...

One hears very often "Oh, I don't put a lot of stock in that BDFD."

That Backdoor-draw bails you out 4% of the time. That is worth to know and to see how that changes the picture in plain figures.

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
It is fine but it has some flaws. The big one is that the analysis assumes an all-in type behavior. The reality of pumping edges is much different since

a - People will sometimes fold mid-street

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead money in the pot is usually not a bad thing, but you always have to remember this when making pot equity decisions. In the Micro-Limit forums, I see a lot of bad advice given, saying that players should pump their pot equity edges no matter what. It's a very, very important strategy to develop, but over-playing draws that turn pot equity edges into pot equity deficits are the biggest and most common mistakes I see employed at micro limit and small limit tables.

[ QUOTE ]
b - The equity assumes that you will be seeing the hand till the end. There is nothing worse then pumping a gutshot or something and having to fold it on the turn when it comes 2 or 3 cold to you. It is very easy to generate a counter-argument against equity pumping using a hand that only has backdoor draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, why would you be pumping a gutshot unless you knew exactly what your opponent had (as in the example provided)? Pumping a pot equity edge means that you are only contributing x% of the money going into the pot with a y% chance to win where y is always greater than x. Unless you're playing at a table with more than 12 players, you're never going to have a pot equity edge with just a gutshot.

edit: after reading the following post and re-reading the linked article (I'll admit that I didn't read through the examples very carefully), I realize that you're talking specifically about one of the examples he provided. I see your point, and I agree that it is not going to be possible to know about this kind of a pot equity edge 95% of the time, but I also feel it is important to know when that 5% of the time is when it does come up. I apologize for the tone of the preceding paragraph, but I figure it would be best to leave it just in case it could help someone else.

To further try to answer your question, yes, pumping a pot equity edge does assume that you are not going to fold on the turn. In all cases where you would want to pump a pot equity edge, you are actually trying to get your opponents to pay for a considerable amount of the pot odds you will need on the turn should your draw miss before you get to that street. Think of it as a form of pot manipulation.

You made two very excellent points, and they are both points you have to consider when electing whether or not to pump a pot equity edge. The objective is to get as much money into the pot when you're getting an overlay, not to bet and raise so much that people will be afraid of you before and after the draw hits. It's not wise to just indiscrimatantly push at 4-way pots with flush draws without taking the entire situation into context. However, it is imperative to understand that a capped bet on the flop in a 4-way pot with the nut flush draw and an unpaired board is a very, very, very good thing for the guy with the nut flush draw.

[BJK]

[ QUOTE ]
The thing I didn't like about it was the whole knowing the opponents' cards and computing equity based on that. That's not how we compute equity; we obviously don't know the opponents cards so we have to use outs and other means to do it. In his KQs hand, for example, to say that our equity with a gutter and a backdoor is greater than 35% is just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he did that more for the purpose of providing an example than anything, but you do make a good point. Decisions on whether or not to push pot equity edges always need to take reads on your opponents into account.

[Shillx]

We have covered this before. Putting a lot of money in on one street so that you have odds to call on a later street is a mistake. Say you have 35% equity against 2 opponents on the flop of A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] with K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. They will both put in an unlimited number of bets on the flop however they will not put any bets in once another [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] comes. If the turn is not a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] the turn will not get checked to you. The pot is 3 SB.

Player one checks, player two checks, hero ??

EV check = 3 SB * 19.15% = + 0.57 SB
EV bet = (5 SB * 19.15%) + (9 SB * 15.82%) - (3 SB * 65.03%) = + 0.43 SB

If you check you will get bet (and called) into on a non-[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and at that point the pot will be 3.5 BB so you won't be getting correct odds to call the turn. By betting the flop you make sure that you can see the hand to the river (the pot will be 5 BB on the turn when it comes to you) but betting with 35% equity is still a mistake in this situation. Now let's see what happens when the flop is capped

EV cap = (11 SB * 19.15%) + (15 SB * 15.82%) - (6 SB * 65.03%) = + 0.58 SB

Capping only does slightly better then checking in this example. Sure it isn't very realisitic but it should hopefully make the point that pumping the pot on +EV streets so you can make -EV calls later is a mistake.

[BJK]

You make a good point.

I've been through a lot of this discussion before as well, and if you search for me, you'll see that I'm not an advocate of pushing the very small pot equity edges like a flush draw in a three way pot for a variety of reasons (that doesn't seem to be the sentiment in the micro-limit forums, though). A lot can go wrong. Someone could drop out of the pot turning the minute edge into a deficit, for instance. The post you gave details another good example. You could bet the flop with position and a minute pot equity edge and then not have pot odds to call a single bet on the turn. That's another very good reason to not push a pot equity edge (not to mention the fact that these small 2-3% edges tend to be absorbed by the rake).

I'd like to see how your math changes, though, with a four-way pot. I'm generally not even thinking of pushing any kind of pot equity edge into a 3-way pot unless I have some kind of a combo draw.

Again, knowing when you have a pot equity edge is a valuable too, but knowing when not to push one is probably more advantageous than just knowing that one is going to come out ahead in the long run by putting money into the pot in such an advantageous position.