Gambling Theory Master

[Khabbi]

This issue is cross-posted from another in Home Poker ( Acting Out of Turn)
[ QUOTE ]
As for me, I would take that 100% chance to win $100 over a 50% chance to win $400 every time. If you disagree, you don't know anything about gambling theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you help these people? Or do you find out where they live and try to get invited to play with them?

[Kips Bay Kid]

they probably think there is a 50% chance to lose $400 as well since when you don't win $400 (50% of the time) it is the same as losing it [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[PairTheBoard]

Sounds like some of the posters over there are more concerned about pwning and being pwned than in clarifying and solving.

The situation is heads-up post flop, the button who habitually acts out of turn does so and goes all in before the poster has a chance to act. Despite querries by others, the poster never clarifies whether the Out of Turn Action is binding or exactly what the home game rules are on it. He makes it sounds like it's both binding and not binding. If he instacalls it's maybe binding. Maybe it's not binding but if he instacalls he can play an angle and force it to be binding. He doesn't instacall, which is where he complains his opponent gets an unfair reading of weakness. After not instacalling, can he check? If he checks is the opponent forced to go all in? Or can the opponent then check behind? He doesn't check but instead goes all in. He says his opponent calls. Who's betting and who's calling here? It's all very muddled. Instead of clarifying these things the poster goes off on the pwning point quoted above about the 100% chance at $100 or 50% chance at $400.

Just as the Home Game Rules about acting out of turn are muddled, so is the pwning point about the 100% vs 50% chance. The poster is trying to equate the pwning point with his poker situation. As he is being such a nit about it, nobody is really looking at the comparison but instead taking an interpretation of the point that allows them to pwn him.

It looks like he's saying that the pot is $100 preflop and the post flop all-in bets are $150 making the final pot $400. Assuming your draw is strong enough to give you a 50% chance of winning on the river, would you rather call the $150 all-in bet or be the bettor with folding equity?

Suppose your opponent folds 30% of the time when you are the bettor. Then your EV on the $150 bet is:

(.3)(100) + (.7)(.5)(250) - (.7)(.5)(150) = $65

Compared to the EV on the $150 Call:

(.5)(250) - (.5)(150) = $50

If there is any chance in this situation that your opponent will fold to your all-in bet you are better off being the bettor than the caller. What the Poster meant to say when he gave his coin flip analogy, is that for this situation you are better off having a 100% chance of winning the existing pot when the opponent folds, with a 50% chance of winning the existing pot and additional bets when he calls; than you are having just a 50% chance of winning both the existing pot and additional bets.

So the Poster is actually right in saying that in this particular situation there is an advantage in being first to act. Of course he is wrong in general. In general you need to look at all the other situations you might be in when acting first or last.

It's nice that in this Forum we work harder at respecting each other and helping people than in pwning other posters. Although nobody's perfect.

PairTheBoard