Pot equity questions

[Mr.ScragglyBeard]

Hello,

I've been reading "Small Stakes Hold 'em" and I'm having a hard time understanding the pot equity concept. I figured I would post what I kind of get, and ask questions along the way. If I'm wrong, please tell me where I'm making a mistake - just assume I'm slow, and explain the correct line of though as simply as humanly possible (aka... avoid crazy complicated math).

1) So let's say the flop comes down and I'm drawing to a nut flush - I have 9 outs, or roughly a 36% chance of making the best hand BY THE RIVER. Let's also say that the pot is $1000 at this point. If I understand correctly, my pot equity (or "fair share") is therefore 36% of $1000, or $360 dollars. But why is pot equity measured with two cards to come vs. one card to come? Shouldn't I be thinking of my pot equity as 18% ($180) since I'm going to be calling to see one card?

2) The 2nd thing I'm unclear about is the so called "pot equity edge". Here's what I understand (same example as above). If you have 4 other people calling your bet, you are responsible for 20% of the new money (100% new money / 5 [4 others + you] = 20%). Under the 36% pot equity concept (playing the nut flush draw to the river), I can see where you get an "equity edge" of 16% (36%-20%=16%). But... again, that's presuming you're going to play your hand all the way to the river. If you're only betting to see one card, and therefore have a likelihood of hitting your flush only 18% of the time, wouldn't you need at least FIVE people to call (100% / 6 = 16.5%) in order to get any edge at all?

3) Finally, would you make a bet that is always UNDER your pot equity? In the 18% example, would you bet something like $175, or in the 36% example, a smidge under $360?

I guess that's all I can think of for now - am I completely missing something? Do you ALWAYS determine pot equity based on the turn AND river? If that's the case, aren't pot odds a better tool to use, since they focus on one card to come?

Help me please! Sorry about the length of this post, and the ball-park nature of my numbers.

Cheers.

[pzhon]

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] SSHE is a book on limit. In limit, you will very likely have the odds to call on the turn, so you can assume that you will see the river.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] If you can choose the size of your bet, and will get called by enough people, there is no reason to restrict yourself to bets smaller than your estimate of your pot equity. If you will win 30% of the time with AA preflop against 9 crazy gamblers, and if they will call a bet of 1000 times the size of the pot, do it. Sometimes it is right to bet more than the pot against rational opponents.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] The nut flush draw often has more than 9 outs. Sometimes it is ahead. Sometimes it only wins 25% because of redraws to a full house.

[Mr.ScragglyBeard]

Thanks for your reply. I didn't realize that SSHE was limit hold 'em specific. Does that mean that the pot equity concept is, I don't know, LESS relevant in no limit? I don't mean that it's useless, just less applicable because you're unlikely to see the river card with a flush draw on the board (I'm assuming that whoever has made top pair will make a sizable bet to protect their hand against opponents on a draw).

[Graveraver84]

Are you disregarding implied odds?

[Mr.ScragglyBeard]

Well, my example is pretty basic and I'm only trying to focus in on comprehending pot equity and how it applies in small stake no limit games. I get implied odds - you add the amount that your believe your opponent will call on future rounds of betting to the current pot (I know, that's kind of vague, but that's the general idea).

I don't really think it applies in my scenario because if an opponent is willing to make a sizable bet to protect their hand (for the sake of simplicity, I'm assuming we're playing heads up here, he has flopped top pair, but there is also a flush draw on the board), I don't think he's very likely to make another large bet if you have only called (thereby indicating that you likely don't have top pair and are drawing) AND the turn card happens to complete the flush.

I guess I'll paraphrase my question - what is the use of pot equity in no limit hold 'em? I thought maybe its big "pro" would be that it aids you in figuring out the rough maximum your bet should be (i.e. your bet doesn't exceed your pot equity), but Pzhon makes a valid point.

[PantsOnFire]

The way you are asking the question, I assume you want answers in the NL language.

In NL, most decisions where you are using pot equity are all-in situations. For example you have 44 in the BB and a short stack has moved all-in on you. Now you have to range your pot equity with 44 vs. his possible range of hands and compare it to your offered pot odds.

The same might be true if you have that nut flush draw on the flop and are facing an all-in from villain. If your call odds are greater than about 2:1, then you call. If you figure your A is an out then your equity is a bit higher at (guessing here) 44%. So again, use this to decide to call given the pot odds.

However, when you are faced with a bet on the flop that is not all in, it is much more complicated. Since there is money left, there can be betting on the turn and the river.

NL Holdem is more of an art than limit holdem. So instead of being faced with calculating pot odds and equity on the flop in NL, you are thinking much more about implied odds and also fold equity. And to think about those two things, you need to have a good grip on what your opponent could hold, how likely he will fold to a bet, how likely and how much he will bet on the turn, and how much you could get out of him on the river if you make your hand. You also have to consider if a raise on the flop might get you a free card on the turn or win the pot outright. And you have to consider his style of play.

You can see in limit that it's a lot easier to get from the flop to the river with a flush draw than it is in NL.

[Mr.ScragglyBeard]

Thanks for your replies, I was just unsure if there was something I wasn't understanding about pot equity since I was having a hard time applying the principle to no limit games.

Does anyone have any comments on using the amount you come up with as a result of pot equity (i.e. $360 as a result of 36% equity in a $1000 pot) as a rough guide to the range of betting you should make if you haven't hit your hand yet?

[sbj]

OP,
I would recommend that you pick up Theory of Poker by Sklanksy. The book discusses in more detail the concepts of Pot-Odds, Pot-Equity, Implied-Odds, Fold-Equity, etc. The book and the concepts it covers is not specific to Limit or No-Limit or even to Hold-Em.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your replies, I was just unsure if there was something I wasn't understanding about pot equity since I was having a hard time applying the principle to no limit games.

Does anyone have any comments on using the amount you come up with as a result of pot equity (i.e. $360 as a result of 36% equity in a $1000 pot) as a rough guide to the range of betting you should make if you haven't hit your hand yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well basically, you shouldn't be bettting if you are behind in the hand. But since you asked, let's take your flush draw. You are on the flop. Your equity to the turn is 18%. So you should bet an amount that if villain calls, it ends up being less than 18% of the new pot for seeing the turn card.

However, NL players don't think like this. First of all, it will be a very small bet in relation to the size of the pot. You might open yourself to a raise by villain and now all of a sudden you are putting in more than 18%. As well, if you keep making 18% bets, it's pretty obvious what you are doing.

I really believe you are over-thinking this whole idea. Again the general idea is to put money into the pot (i.e. bet) when you have the best hand and don't voluntarily put money in the pot when you don't have the best hand. If you are forced to put money into the pot, then you need to check your pot equity and and your pot odds.

This whole concept applies much more to limit holdem. If you have a big pot in limit holdem and your equity is like 20%, then sure fire in another bet as long as there are more than 5 bets in the pot. But watch out for raises because that could bring you over your equity mark.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have any comments on using the amount you come up with as a result of pot equity (i.e. $360 as a result of 36% equity in a $1000 pot) as a rough guide to the range of betting you should make if you haven't hit your hand yet?

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again, there is no reason to do this. It is a bad idea. Sometimes you will come up with a reasonable play by doing this, just as you will sometimes be right if you always say it is noon when someone asks you what time it is. However, if you are trying to learn to play well, you should drop that idea and look for something else. If you think SSHE told you to bet that much and no more, you are wrong. SSHE says nothing like that, and the SSHE authors wouldn't say something like that even if they were talking about NL. It is often right to bet much more than your estimate of your expected share of the pot.