|
|
#21
05-25-2007, 02:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Brian Townsends Equity/Hand range article in Cardplayer.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] also how dcoes .41= 33%?? [/ QUOTE ] no, if you are more than a 33% favorite to win the hand on average which is calculating your equity, which i did and found it to be 41% with the situation i used. Since you will win 41% of the time in this spot and you only have to put in 33% of the pot to call this means it is a +EV call since 41>33 [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. If you are calling 33% of the pot, then you only need to be 25% to win to breakeven. That is, unless you are referring to your call as a percentage of the total pot (including the call) which is very unclear. 
|
|
#22
05-25-2007, 03:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brian Townsends Equity/Hand range article in Cardplayer.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] also how dcoes .41= 33%?? [/ QUOTE ] no, if you are more than a 33% favorite to win the hand on average which is calculating your equity, which i did and found it to be 41% with the situation i used. Since you will win 41% of the time in this spot and you only have to put in 33% of the pot to call this means it is a +EV call since 41>33 [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. If you are calling 33% of the pot, then you only need to be 25% to win to breakeven. That is, unless you are referring to your call as a percentage of the total pot (including the call) which is very unclear. [/ QUOTE ] 33% is correct according to the beginning of his post. "The pot now has $120 and it costs you $60 to call, so you should call if your less than a 2-1 dog"
|
|
#23
05-25-2007, 03:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brian Townsends Equity/Hand range article in Cardplayer.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] also how dcoes .41= 33%?? [/ QUOTE ] no, if you are more than a 33% favorite to win the hand on average which is calculating your equity, which i did and found it to be 41% with the situation i used. Since you will win 41% of the time in this spot and you only have to put in 33% of the pot to call this means it is a +EV call since 41>33 [/ QUOTE ] This is wrong. If you are calling 33% of the pot, then you only need to be 25% to win to breakeven. That is, unless you are referring to your call as a percentage of the total pot (including the call) which is very unclear. [/ QUOTE ] 33% is correct according to the beginning of his post. "The pot now has $120 and it costs you $60 to call, so you should call if your less than a 2-1 dog" [/ QUOTE ] Ok but there he is calling 50% of the pot and clearly he does not need to win 50% of the time for the call to be profitable. It's a problem with wording not the numbers themselves.
|
|
#24
05-25-2007, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brian Townsends Equity/Hand range article in Cardplayer.
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this at a subconcious level, but can you give me an example of a bet or raise that would not split a players range? [/ QUOTE ] This may be a bad example, but if you bet the nuts into someone who will call with at least 1 hand, that's an example of a bet that doesn't split their range. [ QUOTE ] Would this be done through the manipulation of YOUR speculated range? If I only bet out and then went over the top with a set, you would fold worse than a set, but if i i make the same play with a flush draw and air sometimes, it prevents myself from splitting your range? [/ QUOTE ] If we're talking about play on the end, yes. If you never bluff, and your opponent has perfect knowledge of your range, then your profitable value bet range shrinks to nothing except the nuts, and your opponent will always fold unless he also has the nuts. You can only value bet because 1) you're not on the end and your opponent has a draw 2) you bluff or 3) your opponent believes you value bet a wider range than you do.
|
|
#25
05-26-2007, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Brian Townsends Equity/Hand range article in Cardplayer.
[ QUOTE ]
It's a real service to the poker community that he chose to ignore them, though [/ QUOTE ] I assume this will be included in part #2.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
