Where's the sense in "calling"?

[Ampelmann]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So putting any more bets in will lose us money (we put in 50% of the money on the flop, but we only win 35% of all the money put in on the flop). Raising is clearly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
We are talking about 35% pot equity, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's the all-in equity. Since the fold equity is 0 this is our total equity.

[ QUOTE ]
So we don't win 35% of all the money put in on the flop but rather 35% of all the money of the whole pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Both. We don't fold because of the money already in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
We put in 50% of the money on the flop but we don't put in 50% of the whole pot on this bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
So what? For every bet we put into the pot on the flop our total expectation for the hand is reduced by about 1/3 of a bet. It's pretty easy to calculate that.

The only thing that counts is expectation. Calculate the expectation for a free flop and compare that to the expectation for the hand when you pay one (or several) bet(s) on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
shouldn't the money already in the pot be also considered in the pot equity calculations?

[/ QUOTE ]
The amount of money in the pot is totally irrelevant for the question if we can bet for value or not (a bet is for value if the bet itself has a positive expectation).

Well, this is not true. The smaller the pot the bigger the fold equity we typically get. But this is at least one step more advanced.

[Ludanto]

[ QUOTE ]
In no limit, that's also why it's +EV to raise JJ 3-5 xBB pre-flop at a full table when the blinds are small compared to the average stack size, but it would be -EV to push in that same situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you please give a example hand which includes hole cards, community cards, stack sizes and bet amounts? I think it would illuminate what you wanted to express.

[Ludanto]

I think I have some kind of logic problem here.
Let's take my hand example. On the flop the opponent bets out and there are 9 SB in the pot.

If I call I put 1 SB in the pot.
Over 100 hands I lose 65 x 1 SB = -65 SB and I win 35 x 9 SB = 315 SB. That is 2,5 SB per game and that's my expectation.

But let's say I don't call and raise instead. There are now 11 SB in the pot. The 2 SB I just bet are not mine any more, they are part of the pot. This guy re-raises. The pot is now 13 SB big. I would need to call only 1 bet 100 times to lose 65 x 1 SB = -65 SB and win 35 x 13 SB = 455 SB! This would be an expectation of 3,9 SB per hand.

Thinking like this it sounds as if (at least in limit heads-up) it would be the best thing to cap all streets in this example as the expectation would rise. But if you think that the opponents equity is 65% and my equity is 35% it can't be profitable to cap all streets. I seem to have a major thinking error somewhere here.

Where is my mistake?

[NigelSmith]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have some kind of logic problem here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, you're conflating two different things, value betting and pot equity.

1) If the odds of you winning are better than the odds you are getting on that betting round, you should raise.

Example: you have 4 to the nut flush with 2 cards to come. You are 1:2 to win the hand. If you have at least a bet and a call in front of you then you can raise, knowing that you wil probably get at least 2 calls. If there is a bet in front of you, you should not raise for value unless you believe at least one person will call 2 bets cold -- if everyone folds to the original bettor you will only be getting 1:1 on your 1:2 shot, not a recipe for profit!

2) If (1) is not true, but the odds of you winning are better than the odds you are required to pay to continue in the hand, you should call.

Example: as above but you missed your flush on the turn and have one card to come. It's heads up, and one bet to you. You are a 1:4 dog, so you should only call if you are getting pot odds of 4:1 or better. You should *not* raise, unless you think you will get at least 5 callers.

Note that all the above ignores such esoteric things as implied odds, buying outs, fold equity...

HTH,

Nigel

[Ampelmann]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have some kind of logic problem here.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems very much so. You have to compare the situation where you put only 1SB in to whe situation where you put 3SB in. It's the total expectation that counts. Your *total* expectation is severely reduced when you put 3 bets in as a 2:1 underdog.

[ QUOTE ]
Let's take my hand example. On the flop the opponent bets out and there are 9 SB in the pot.

If I call I put 1 SB in the pot.
Over 100 hands I lose 65 x 1 SB = -65 SB and I win 35 x 9 SB = 315 SB. That is 2,5 SB per game and that's my expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's right.

[ QUOTE ]
But let's say I don't call and raise instead. There are now 11 SB in the pot. The 2 SB I just bet are not mine any more, they are part of the pot. This guy re-raises. The pot is now 13 SB big. I would need to call only 1 bet 100 times to lose 65 x 1 SB = -65 SB and win 35 x 13 SB = 455 SB! This would be an expectation of 3,9 SB per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
You totally neglected that you put in 2 more SB's here than in the last example in order to get to this point. With this logic you should raise and cap every hand in every situation in order to maximize your expectation to call the final bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking like this it sounds as if (at least in limit heads-up) it would be the best thing to cap all streets in this example as the expectation would rise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not only in this example but in every hand.

It's obvious, that the expectation for calling a later bet alone is always bigger than the expectation for calling an earlier bet alone, simply because there is more in the pot.

However, in Poker we don't want to maximize the expectation for one certain bet but for the hand in total.

[mornelth]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have some kind of logic problem here.
Let's take my hand example. On the flop the opponent bets out and there are 9 SB in the pot.

If I call I put 1 SB in the pot.
Over 100 hands I lose 65 x 1 SB = -65 SB and I win 35 x 9 SB = 315 SB. That is 2,5 SB per game and that's my expectation.

But let's say I don't call and raise instead. There are now 11 SB in the pot. The 2 SB I just bet are not mine any more, they are part of the pot. This guy re-raises. The pot is now 13 SB big. I would need to call only 1 bet 100 times to lose 65 x 1 SB = -65 SB and win 35 x 13 SB = 455 SB! This would be an expectation of 3,9 SB per hand.

Thinking like this it sounds as if (at least in limit heads-up) it would be the best thing to cap all streets in this example as the expectation would rise. But if you think that the opponents equity is 65% and my equity is 35% it can't be profitable to cap all streets. I seem to have a major thinking error somewhere here.

Where is my mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

You do NOT count what you put in on this round. Rather what you are doing is paying 3 bets to win 12 (9 in the pot + 3 of your opponent's). By the way - a raise is TOTALLY in order in this hand because

a) you have some FE when you raise
b) You may get a call and a check on the turn and take a free card
c) Even after you are reraised, 4:1 is still profitable with your nut FD.

[NigelSmith]

[ QUOTE ]
Poker Plan,

How do you define a speculative hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Speaking for myself rather than PP, a speculative hand would be one which cannot be played for pot odds at the time but, if it hits, can make up the balance on future betting rounds -- what's called implied odds.

Take a small pair like 55, for example. You will probably need to hit a set or better to win, and even then you may be beaten by a bigger set, straight or flush.

Your odds to flop a set are 1:7.5 -- add in the odds you will hit and still get beaten and let's guestimate you need to get at least 9:1 on your bet to play the flop with a positive expectation. If you are on the button with 2 limpers ahead of you, you should fold.

But that is ignoring the betting in later rounds. Let's say your reckon that the blinds will complete and check (preflop pot of 4 small bets without yours), if you hit your set you'll get 2 callers to your flop raise (4 small bets) and 1 each on the turn and river (2 big bets = another 4 small bets). That's a total of 12 small bets, and your implied odds are 12:1, better than the odds of you winning, and you should call to see the flop.

So yes, a speculative hand is one which will either miss or hit big-time. But the reason it is speculative is the implied odds when you do hit.

Nigel

[Ludanto]

Thanks all for posting.

My conclusions for HU decisions:

1) If I have the bigger pot equity it is good to raise.
2) If I have less than 50% pot equity I should calculate my pot odds (also implied odds?) and make a fold/bet/raise decision based on that calculation.

Are 1) and 2) correct?