I suck at prop bets

[rchandra]

but remember, you're assuming there are 5 board cards. Sometimes there will be 3 or 4. so I guess the real question is what values of (sees flop) , (sees turn) , (sees river) make the bet profitable for the No A no K
Also are people more likely to have As and Ks in hand when the hand goes longer? it seems so to me but I have no proof or data.

[skates]

You're a 3-2 favorite on a flop, dead heat on the turn, and very slightly better than 2-3 underdog on the river. It really depends on the game whether or not this bet is +EV. I'd watch for the first few hours and see what the distribution is like. In any reasonable game, this is a +EV bet for you. However, in a loose live game, it might be bad. You should go back, watch for the first 2 hours and count +1 for each hand taken on the flop, -1 for each hand that sees a river. Except keep them in different pools. Then evaluate from there.

Say these were your distributions:
Flop: 24
Turn: Who cares
River: 16

Then you're looking at a 60/40 60% of the time and a 40/60 40% of the time, making your equity .6*.60 + .4*.40 = .52, so you can expect to win $5 *.52/.50 = $.20 each time you do the bet.

Basically, you need to be heavily weighted towards flops or rivers in order for this to make a difference. Without any additional concrete knowledge, it definitely seems like taking the "no ace or king" side is +EV because it seems like more hands end on a flop than river, and there's the added bonus of their possibly being a disporpotionately high number of high cards already dealt in hands that see flops.

I don't really know what happens in this game of yours, but if you see 3 hands that end on the flop for every 1 that sees a river, you go from being a 52% favorite to a 55% favorite (ignoring board textures that allow for this behavior).

Blah blah blah blah done with math. Assuming your game isn't all calling all the time, go back and rehustle him for $20/hand.

[tufat23]

[ QUOTE ]
You're a 3-2 favorite on a flop, dead heat on the turn, and very slightly better than 2-3 underdog on the river. It really depends on the game whether or not this bet is +EV. I'd watch for the first few hours and see what the distribution is like. In any reasonable game, this is a +EV bet for you. However, in a loose live game, it might be bad. You should go back, watch for the first 2 hours and count +1 for each hand taken on the flop, -1 for each hand that sees a river. Except keep them in different pools. Then evaluate from there.

Say these were your distributions:
Flop: 24
Turn: Who cares
River: 16

Then you're looking at a 60/40 60% of the time and a 40/60 40% of the time, making your equity .6*.60 + .4*.40 = .52, so you can expect to win $5 *.52/.50 = $.20 each time you do the bet.

Basically, you need to be heavily weighted towards flops or rivers in order for this to make a difference. Without any additional concrete knowledge, it definitely seems like taking the "no ace or king" side is +EV because it seems like more hands end on a flop than river, and there's the added bonus of their possibly being a disporpotionately high number of high cards already dealt in hands that see flops.

I don't really know what happens in this game of yours, but if you see 3 hands that end on the flop for every 1 that sees a river, you go from being a 52% favorite to a 55% favorite (ignoring board textures that allow for this behavior).

Blah blah blah blah done with math. Assuming your game isn't all calling all the time, go back and rehustle him for $20/hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're serious.

[xSCWx]

[ QUOTE ]

you're serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahhaha

[bronx bomber]

play every hand and after the flop blanks go all-in, thus greatly improving your chances.

[skates]

[ QUOTE ]
you're serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I thought it was interesting so I tried to figure it out. Was I wrong?

[rakes.a.beach]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you're serious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, I thought it was interesting so I tried to figure it out. Was I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

[insert sammy farha's "are you serious?" picture]