OT: Theory Question

[HAL PHIPA]

(note mods this post should probably be in poker theory but I am a Full Ring player and am more familar with the posters in here so their opinions are more valuable to me. Move if you must though. thanks.

I was thinking about poker theory and I realized I may have believed a fallacy about it for a long time. Does a fold always have to be 0 ev in a no rake game? This is what was tought to me but seems to be wrong. IMO a fold has to the the mean of positive and negative EV. This way there is always atleast a 0 ev choice between bet, call, check, and fold, again assuming no rake. Is this right, wrong, or does it depened?

[raistlinx]

EV is how much money you expect to make in the long run by staying in the hand. If you fold you can expect to make $0 so yes a fold is always 0EV.

[Cry Me A River]

If you figure out a way to make money by folding, please let us know!!!

[CalledDownLight]

Wow...no wonder your not a good player. Folding is 0 EV, but since you shortstack and don't have much experience folding any hand with a face card its ok to ask a question like this I guess.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow...no wonder your not a good player. Folding is 0 EV, but since you shortstack and don't have much experience folding any hand with a face card its ok to ask a question like this I guess.

[/ QUOTE ]
WTF??? Don't be a dick

[HAL PHIPA]

Certainly if you sit in a poker game and fold everyhand you will lose money. It seems the three options you have for any decision should have some sort of mathmatical relationship, EV may be a bad way to talk about it though. Does everyone agree there should always be a relationship? If there is a reationship than folding cant always be netrual. Sometimes folding has to be quite bad so if folding in these spots ins't - ev than what should it be called? Or is it always netrual?

[raistlinx]

Folding is not neutral to your bankroll. You are just using the term 'ev' differently.

[CityFan]

If you define EV as "how much money do you expect to add to your stack, starting from where it is NOW?" then folding is obviously 0 EV.

Calling and raising could both easily be -EV, making folding the best option.

Still, if you folded every hand you would lose money through the blinds...

[myheadhurts]

[ QUOTE ]
(note mods this post should probably be in poker theory but I am a Full Ring player and am more familar with the posters in here so their opinions are more valuable to me. Move if you must though. thanks.

I was thinking about poker theory and I realized I may have believed a fallacy about it for a long time. Does a fold always have to be 0 ev in a no rake game? This is what was tought to me but seems to be wrong. IMO a fold has to the the mean of positive and negative EV. This way there is always atleast a 0 ev choice between bet, call, check, and fold, again assuming no rake. Is this right, wrong, or does it depened?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely convention that folding is considered 0 EV. The idea behind EV in 2p2 terms is that you ignore everything that has gone on before. The money you put in the pot is no longer yours, but rather just a prize fund that all remaining players are aiming for.

Hence, if you fold you expect to win $0, and hence folding is always 0 EV. If calling/raising will win you more money than the ADDITIONAL amount you have to put in, these will be + EV.


It is perfectly acceptable however to look in terms of expected returns for the entire hand. Folding would then be a negative figure, being the amount you have already put in the pot. Calling and raising could be either positive or negative depending on the situation.


In either method, the best action is the one with the highest EV, i.e. your decisions would not change.


We choose the first method because it is easy to use in conversation - we can use the phrase "-ve play" to mean anything that is worse than folding, without having to work out the numbers exactly.

Your aim then is to never make a -ve EV play. If you learn how, tell me.

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(note mods this post should probably be in poker theory but I am a Full Ring player and am more familar with the posters in here so their opinions are more valuable to me. Move if you must though. thanks.

I was thinking about poker theory and I realized I may have believed a fallacy about it for a long time. Does a fold always have to be 0 ev in a no rake game? This is what was tought to me but seems to be wrong. IMO a fold has to the the mean of positive and negative EV. This way there is always atleast a 0 ev choice between bet, call, check, and fold, again assuming no rake. Is this right, wrong, or does it depened?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's entirely convention that folding is considered 0 EV. The idea behind EV in 2p2 terms is that you ignore everything that has gone on before. The money you put in the pot is no longer yours, but rather just a prize fund that all remaining players are aiming for.

Hence, if you fold you expect to win $0, and hence folding is always 0 EV. If calling/raising will win you more money than the ADDITIONAL amount you have to put in, these will be + EV.


It is perfectly acceptable however to look in terms of expected returns for the entire hand. Folding would then be a negative figure, being the amount you have already put in the pot. Calling and raising could be either positive or negative depending on the situation.


In either method, the best action is the one with the highest EV, i.e. your decisions would not change.


We choose the first method because it is easy to use in conversation - we can use the phrase "-ve play" to mean anything that is worse than folding, without having to work out the numbers exactly.

Your aim then is to never make a -ve EV play. If you learn how, tell me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good explanation.