Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-18-2006, 08:26 PM
Poker Plan Poker Plan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Shropshire, UK
Posts: 786
Default Re: pot equity

[quoteI.e. If it went limp, raise, reraise and cap before it got to you with JJ, you ain't winning 40% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are. It's just very unlikely that this particular time is going to be a winner for you (ie it'll be in the 60% losing side)

Ian
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-19-2006, 12:17 AM
RatFink RatFink is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not close enough to Ljubljana
Posts: 468
Default Re: pot equity

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteI.e. If it went limp, raise, reraise and cap before it got to you with JJ, you ain't winning 40% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are. It's just very unlikely that this particular time is going to be a winner for you (ie it'll be in the 60% losing side)

Ian

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct, my sentence was worded poorly.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-21-2006, 02:14 AM
badplayer badplayer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: SilverStar
Posts: 238
Default Re: pot equity

[ QUOTE ]

You are. It's just very unlikely that this particular time is going to be a winner for you (ie it'll be in the 60% losing side)


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So the 40% chance is VERY unlikely? Is it less than a 40% chance that you'll still have a 40% chance that jacks will win? Or is it more like a 10% chance that you have a 40% chance that jacks will win?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-21-2006, 03:06 PM
DrJ DrJ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 38
Default Re: pot equity

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are. It's just very unlikely that this particular time is going to be a winner for you (ie it'll be in the 60% losing side)


[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? So the 40% chance is VERY unlikely? Is it less than a 40% chance that you'll still have a 40% chance that jacks will win? Or is it more like a 10% chance that you have a 40% chance that jacks will win?

[/ QUOTE ]

Equity is the percentage of chance that you are going to take the pot. If my opponent is playing TPTK and I am playing a flush draw, we're on the flop, I have 35% equity in this pot because there is a 35% chance that I am going to win. If we go to the turn and my flush hits, I have 100% equity (assuming he didn't hit 2 pair and has a boat draw, in which case it's 90%). If I don't hit my flush, I drop down to about 20% equity.

So naturally, as you allow more people into the pot and give more chances to outdraw you, you are reducing your equity in that pot. In limit holdem, you might want to raise here because you suspect you have an advantage in equity and want the pot to be larger when you have this advantage - you aren't going to be able to drive out as many marginal holdings. In NL, a better approach would be to raise and drive out as many of these hands as possible and increase your equity. Say you're playing against AJo, K9o, and Q9o. Your equity is only about 30%. Better than anyone else, but still a dog to win the hand. Now, if you can isolate to a single opponent, your equity increases to about 70% - a heavy favorite to take the hand.

As for that other example - JJ's against 3 random hands may give you 40% equity, but in this case the betting implies that you are facing hands far more powerful than random hands and you equity is likely to be far smaller. If it plays out that you are up against AA's or KK's, like this betting could indicate, your equity is terribly small even heads up.

At least this is how I understand it all - I'm rather new.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-21-2006, 03:37 PM
Red_Diamond Red_Diamond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 567
Default Re: pot equity

When different people talk about pot-equity, I have noticed they often mean different things. In many cases both # of players & the size of the pot does have its effects. Also note that it is possible to have non-zero equity even though you can not possibly win the pot. And this is not even including any fold-equity yet. And some internet definitions don't even account for cases of split-pots applying to equities. This should not be over-looked.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-21-2006, 03:40 PM
DrJ DrJ is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 38
Default Re: pot equity

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that it is possible to have non-zero equity even though you can not possibly win the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean that you cannot possibly win the pot through a showdown. If there is no chance you can win through showdown, and there is no chance your opponent will fold because he has the nuts, I'd say you have 0% equity...
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-22-2006, 03:34 AM
Red_Diamond Red_Diamond is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 567
Default Re: pot equity

No. Even if your opponent has the nuts you can still have > 0% equity because of split-pots.

You never had broadway, only to lose half the pot on the river because you paired one of your cards giving your opponent the same straight?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.