pot equity

[Poker Plan]

[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

[RatFink]

[ 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.

[badplayer]

[ 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?

[DrJ]

[ 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.

[Red_Diamond]

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.

[DrJ]

[ 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...

[Red_Diamond]

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?