Archive for Tagpoker Forum A friendly place for winning poker players to share their strategy to making money playing poker.
 


       Tagpoker Forum Forum Index -> Heads Up Poker Strategy
N86xps

Fold equity. LOL

After a recent discussion in another thread I feel that there is a serious disagreement on what fold equity really is. I'd like to fully clarify this concept and maybe even extract some useful points out of it.

Let’s first agree on some terms:
The pot is now X.
We are contemplating a bet OR raise of size B.
If we get called, then our equity (probability, that we win the showdown) is E.
We will be called with a probability P.
Let’s also define our share of the final pot

    S = E * total pot if we are called

Now, our expected value is given by:

    EV = (1 – P) S + P (X + B) – B                 (I)

What happens if we change P, and what effect will it have on our EV? Fold equity FE is designed exactly to answer this question. More formally fold equity is the gain in EV due to the fact that our opponent may fold. It is easy to see, that

    FE = EV(opponent may fold with probability P) – EV(opponent never folds) = (1 – P) S + P (X + B) – B – S + B = P (X + B – S)         (II)

What is immediately evident from this formula is that

    FE < 0 if S > X + B          (III)

It is also evident, that the more likely our opponent is to fold the bigger the absolute value of FE.
Also, we can now rewrite the expression for EV using FE:

    EV = S + FE – B                (IV)              

I will try to point out a couple ways in which all this can be useful. First, let’s establish a condition for a bet o raise to be +EV. For this we just need to solve an inequality EV > 0 (quite obvious actually:)):

    EV = (1 – P) S + P (X + B) – B > 0
    P (X + B - S) > B – S
    P > (B – S) / (X + B - S)             (V)

The other form of it is:

    FE > B – S              (VI)

This is how fold equity “acts”: if it is bigger than B – S then the bet or raise is +EV.

Example 1. The pot is 600t, effective stacks are 1200t if we get called our equity will be 33%. Using the inequality (V) we can find the minimum required probability of opponent folding for our shove to be +EV:

    S = 33% * 3000 = 1000
    P > (1200 – 1000) / (600 + 1200 – 1000) = 1 / 4 = 25%

Example 2. All the same as in example 1, but this time we will have 45% equity if called.

    S = 45% * 3000 = 1350
    P > (1200 – 1350) / (600 + 1200 – 1350) = -150 / 450 = - 1 / 3

In this example we see, that we do not need our opponent to fold at all for our shove to be +EV. Since P can’t be less than zero, FE is still positive due to

    X + B – S = 450 > 0

This means, that it is still good for us if our opponent folds (we gain in EV). It is easy to show actually: if our opponent ALWAYS calls, we would win 150 chips on average, but if he ALWAYS folded we would win 600 chips every time. We actually WANT him to fold as often as possible. I think at this point it is starting to became clearer what FE really is, it is a measure of how good is it for us, that our opponent folds.

Example 3. All the same, but our equity if called will be 67%. It is obvious, that we do not NEED our opponent to fold when we are such huge favourite. But do we want him to fold? In example 2 if he folded we would gain. But now:

    S = 3000 * 67% = 2000 > X + B = 1800, therefore
    FE < 0

It is also evident, that if our opponent always calls, we win 800 chips on average, but if he folds we gain only 600. What if we bet, say 400 instead of 1200? Then our fold equity becomes positive:

    X + B = 1000 > S = 67% * 1400 = 933

Now, what is our EV?  If he always folds, EV = 600, if he always calls, EV = 333, since he is probably going to call sometimes our actual EV is going to be somewhere in between.

Now, let’s establish a condition for FE to be positive in terms of hand equity and bet sizes:

    FE > 0
    S < X + B
    E * final pot < X + B
    E < (X + B) / (final pot)

Since (X + B) / (final pot) is always greater than 1/2, FE is always positive if our hand equity is less than 50%.

Looking again at the expression for fold equity FE = P (X + B – S) we see that it can often be positive yet very low. This happens when our opponent is unlikely to fold. If it is negative, than we would like to keep our opponent in the hand to maximize EV.

I hope this was at least of some interest. I wanted to write more on maximizing EV, though it is probably better to do in a separate post (I will do it if they do not ban me for flooding:)LOL).
Jakester1288

TL;DR.
NinjaReads

N86xps

NinjaReads wrote:


I see.........Smile
forced

i really should have paid attention in math class....
Jakester1288

forced wrote:
i really should have paid attention in math class....


Haha oath.
AxeMage

Neutral

woah.. do top level poker players actually think like this? lol, cuz if they do, then i need to rethink on how much time i wanna spend at getting better at poker.. lol
chesslw

Lol. Hmmm I feel like this thread is meant to be fore me ... And I didn't mean to try to sound harsh etc- I appologise if I seemed rude.

Tbh I never really knew what the proper definition of fold equity is- intuitively I thought it was the naked equity gain you get when villain folds. The contradictory wikipedia article didn't help either.

In this definition- you incorporate the equity difference to when villain calls instead- which I just feel is a bit optimistic, since villain may raise as well (so the actual meaning of fold equity isn't as clear as a simpler definition)- it just didn't make sense to me mathematically.

Also- the reason why I was so worked up about "negative fold equity" is it really isn't a concept- since it is purely to do with your betsize, and nothing to do with how likely villain calls/folds. Having negative fold equity isn't an indication that you should slowplay and not bet- all it means is you should bet smaller (obviously you can slowplay as well- maybe that is better- but this decision has nothing to do with negative fold equity).
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
Lol. Hmmm I feel like this thread is meant to be fore me ... And I didn't mean to try to sound harsh etc- I appologise if I seemed rude.

Tbh I never really knew what the proper definition of fold equity is- intuitively I thought it was the naked equity gain you get when villain folds. The contradictory wikipedia article didn't help either.

In this definition- you incorporate the equity difference to when villain calls instead- which I just feel is a bit optimistic, since villain may raise as well (so the actual meaning of fold equity isn't as clear as a simpler definition)- it just didn't make sense to me mathematically.

Also- the reason why I was so worked up about "negative fold equity" is it really isn't a concept- since it is purely to do with your betsize, and nothing to do with how likely villain calls/folds. Having negative fold equity isn't an indication that you should slowplay and not bet- all it means is you should bet smaller (obviously you can slowplay as well- maybe that is better- but this decision has nothing to do with negative fold equity).


I agree, that negative fold equity does not mean anything other that WHEN YOU HAVE BET you do NOT want your opponent to fold.
chesslw

It was this post that made me feel uneasy:

N86xps wrote:
_red_dog wrote:
Why would u want to bluff when you have less equity.  Your hand has the most value on the flop, by having so much equity that is what makes playing the hands aggressively on this street more profitable than on later streets.  I don't know how else to explain it to you.


I would want to bluff with less equity simply because it is profitable in case my opponent is likely to fold (in this case my fold equity is POSITIVE).

Having a ton of fold equity is not so good if it is NEGATIVE imho:).

Although in this case my hand is likely to loose a lot of equity on the turn it will still have enough equity + fold equity will suddenly become POSITIVE, making a semi-bluff +EV. To me it looks like a win-win situation.

I may be missing something.

I'd like to point out, that I am speaking of a situation when villain is TOO likely to fold.


I think- having now known the correct definition of fold equity- you were drawing wrong conclusions of negative fold equity? Having negative fold equity is never good in poker- since you can always strictly improve by betting smaller.

It is always possible to make a bet such you can't have -ve equity as long as you don't have 100% equity in the hand.
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
Lol. Hmmm I feel like this thread is meant to be fore me ... And I didn't mean to try to sound harsh etc- I appologise if I seemed rude.

Tbh I never really knew what the proper definition of fold equity is- intuitively I thought it was the naked equity gain you get when villain folds. The contradictory wikipedia article didn't help either.

In this definition- you incorporate the equity difference to when villain calls instead- which I just feel is a bit optimistic, since villain may raise as well (so the actual meaning of fold equity isn't as clear as a simpler definition)- it just didn't make sense to me mathematically.

Also- the reason why I was so worked up about "negative fold equity" is it really isn't a concept- since it is purely to do with your betsize, and nothing to do with how likely villain calls/folds. Having negative fold equity isn't an indication that you should slowplay and not bet- all it means is you should bet smaller (obviously you can slowplay as well- maybe that is better- but this decision has nothing to do with negative fold equity).


It is not "equity difference". It is a difference that it makes to our EV.

It is really very simple:

             EV = S - B + FE

Where S - B is our EV if villain never folds (our equity share of the final pot - our bet). If S - B > 0 than we do not need any fold equity really. But if it is positive we still gain by our opponent folding more often. The most important case for practical use is when S - B < 0, so if our opponent never folds the bet is -EV. To make it +EV we need fold equity to compensate for the deficit of EV. Therefore we say, that our hand is semistong BUT we have a ton of fold equity. What we mean by saying this is in fact:
           
                  FE > B - S
chesslw

Anyway I think you probably understand everything with respect to all this fold equity/slowplaying thing now (and I think I understand everything now), so this issue is resolved.

But I still contend like earlier- stop focusing so much on maths imo. I think you will improve much more if you just think about things logically (even without any calculationgs). Maths only becomes really useful once you know each other's games (e.g. once you played someone over 100 times), despite it looks pretty and nice to talk about strategy in this way.

Brokerstar quoted Bruce Lee in his videos:

"Be like water my friend. If my opponent contracts, then I expand. If my opponent expands then I contract." And something something something else....

The point is just adapt against player types when you play and you will be a winning and improving player.
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
It was this post that made me feel uneasy:

N86xps wrote:
_red_dog wrote:
Why would u want to bluff when you have less equity.  Your hand has the most value on the flop, by having so much equity that is what makes playing the hands aggressively on this street more profitable than on later streets.  I don't know how else to explain it to you.


I would want to bluff with less equity simply because it is profitable in case my opponent is likely to fold (in this case my fold equity is POSITIVE).

Having a ton of fold equity is not so good if it is NEGATIVE imho:).

Although in this case my hand is likely to loose a lot of equity on the turn it will still have enough equity + fold equity will suddenly become POSITIVE, making a semi-bluff +EV. To me it looks like a win-win situation.

I may be missing something.

I'd like to point out, that I am speaking of a situation when villain is TOO likely to fold.


I think- having now known the correct definition of fold equity- you were drawing wrong conclusions of negative fold equity? Having negative fold equity is never good in poker- since you can always strictly improve by betting smaller.

It is always possible to make a bet such you can't have -ve equity as long as you don't have 100% equity in the hand.


In fact it is not bad to have negative fold equity. And by improving your fold equity (betting smaller) you are NOT increasing your EV. I feel, that as long as your fold equity stays positive by betting bigger you can only increase your EV. But if FE < 0 than you need to find an optimal bet size. It will still be bigger than just giving villain the correct odds.

In the otehr thread, I did not in fact claim negative FE being a good enough reason for slowplaying. Again, I was just pointing out various reasons that MAY influence a decision to slowplay. Yet I was misunderstood because it seemed I am not showing enough respect... whatever:). lol

I still want to expand this topic on how to maximize EV. Will do it a bit later
chesslw

Ok thanks for the clear up- although how do you know what "equity difference" means for me? I understand how the above works now ty but it won't really improve my game.

I was only trying to help you into understanding that fold equity (-ve or +ve) has nothing to do with whether you should slow play or not, and you understand that now anyway.

peace
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
Anyway I think you probably understand everything with respect to all this fold equity/slowplaying thing now (and I think I understand everything now), so this issue is resolved.

But I still contend like earlier- stop focusing so much on maths imo. I think you will improve much more if you just think about things logically (even without any calculationgs). Maths only becomes really useful once you know each other's games (e.g. once you played someone over 100 times), despite it looks pretty and nice to talk about strategy in this way.

Brokerstar quoted Bruce Lee in his videos:

"Be like water my friend. If my opponent contracts, then I expand. If my opponent expands then I contract." And something something something else....

The point is just adapt against player types when you play and you will be a winning and improving player.


I am not thinking about poker ONLY this way. Though I am just trying to learn ALSO by analysing it mathematically. Because I feel, that by the end of the day poker IS math and you MUST make +EV plays to win.
chesslw

Meh- in that case I'm sorry.

But why did you say "if you have a big draw 15+ outs fold equity actually becomse -ve." When all that matters is betsize?

Yeah I agree with you now I think. In a game theoretic sense the optimal play is always at a maximum/minimum or saddle point so it wouldn't surprise me the optimal bestize is when fold equity is 0 (of course checking could be better than betting).
chesslw

N86xps wrote:
chesslw wrote:
Anyway I think you probably understand everything with respect to all this fold equity/slowplaying thing now (and I think I understand everything now), so this issue is resolved.

But I still contend like earlier- stop focusing so much on maths imo. I think you will improve much more if you just think about things logically (even without any calculationgs). Maths only becomes really useful once you know each other's games (e.g. once you played someone over 100 times), despite it looks pretty and nice to talk about strategy in this way.

Brokerstar quoted Bruce Lee in his videos:

"Be like water my friend. If my opponent contracts, then I expand. If my opponent expands then I contract." And something something something else....

The point is just adapt against player types when you play and you will be a winning and improving player.


I am not thinking about poker ONLY this way. Though I am just trying to learn ALSO by analysing it mathematically. Because I feel, that by the end of the day poker IS math and you MUST make +EV plays to win.


Yeah- I agree. Although learning by intuition/feel/experience is always faster for most people I think. Like in backgammon- all pros play intuitively rather than mathematically, even though the game is purely mathematical.

I just think you will learn/improve faster if you go easy on the maths- it's what I've found through personal experience. Also as I said before, from what I've read/heard it only really becomes useful as you get to the highest stakes.
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
Meh- in that case I'm sorry.

But why did you say "if you have a big draw 15+ outs fold equity actually becomse -ve." When all that matters is betsize?

Yeah I agree with you now I think. In a game theoretic sense the optimal play is always at a maximum/minimum or saddle point so it wouldn't surprise me the optimal bestize is when fold equity is 0 (of course checking could be better than betting).


WEll.. first of all wneh I wrote what is in the quites I was not understanding it as well as now (after writing this thread:))..

The point at which FE = 0 is (probably) optimal from the GTO point of view (though I may well be wrong on that, since your bluffs still increase the chance of you being called, so maybe you can extract little more EV by betting even bigger). But in the sense of immediate profit that maximally exploitative point is somwhere beyond the one where FE = 0. And it is really interesting to investigate, since it also includes the case when you have the nuts on the river yet want to extract some extra chips. FE < 0 with ANY bet size (we have 100% hand equity already), yet we want to bet and hope our opponent calls. How much to bet is usually left to the playerws intuition and experience, yet math can help here at least a little bit. This is still to came in my next post (if I manage to make it at least remotely interesting)
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
N86xps wrote:
chesslw wrote:
Anyway I think you probably understand everything with respect to all this fold equity/slowplaying thing now (and I think I understand everything now), so this issue is resolved.

But I still contend like earlier- stop focusing so much on maths imo. I think you will improve much more if you just think about things logically (even without any calculationgs). Maths only becomes really useful once you know each other's games (e.g. once you played someone over 100 times), despite it looks pretty and nice to talk about strategy in this way.

Brokerstar quoted Bruce Lee in his videos:

"Be like water my friend. If my opponent contracts, then I expand. If my opponent expands then I contract." And something something something else....

The point is just adapt against player types when you play and you will be a winning and improving player.


I am not thinking about poker ONLY this way. Though I am just trying to learn ALSO by analysing it mathematically. Because I feel, that by the end of the day poker IS math and you MUST make +EV plays to win.


Yeah- I agree. Although learning by intuition/feel/experience is always faster for most people I think. Like in backgammon- all pros play intuitively rather than mathematically, even though the game is purely mathematical.

I just think you will learn/improve faster if you go easy on the maths- it's what I've found through personal experience. Also as I said before, from what I've read/heard it only really becomes useful as you get to the highest stakes.


I'd like to get to those higher stakes one day. AND I do not want that transition to be like... oh.. this is a totally different game. I want to try to look at it in such a general way, so that it really does not matter for me who I play, a fish or a 300$ reg.
chesslw

lol @ this thread and the one before-

Sorry for all those useless posts which aren't really strat or help anyone improve their game.

If mods would like to delete/clean up some posts then feel free to delete mine- i'm also happy to remove them myself if you like.
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
lol @ this thread and the one before-

Sorry for all those useless posts which aren't really strat or help anyone improve their game.

If mods would like to delete/clean up some posts then feel free to delete mine- i'm also happy to remove them myself if you like.


Ok. If you really think so, than... just delete everything I wrote in this forum. I am serious. Since I am a beginner I may really be wrong on everything I write, so... up to you guys.
chesslw

N86xps wrote:
chesslw wrote:
lol @ this thread and the one before-

Sorry for all those useless posts which aren't really strat or help anyone improve their game.

If mods would like to delete/clean up some posts then feel free to delete mine- i'm also happy to remove them myself if you like.


Ok. If you really think so, than... just delete everything I wrote in this forum. I am serious. Since I am a beginner I may really be wrong on everything I write, so... up to you guys.


Don't worry mate- I just felt so frustrated when you were saying weirdly sounding (probably wrong) things, and trying to justify them through some obscure maths. This whole forum is friendly and I don't actually post here often- you should keep posting.

You remind me of a student I used to coach (not in poker obv)- I'm sure you will be great one day- since you definitely have the correct mindset/work ethic.

lol

ps I might not actually be as good as you at poker anyway- but just listen to the advice of people like red_dog, kierk, borg7, aggysb blazing and of course brokerstar and a hell of a lot of others as well. You can't go wrong- that's what I've been doing and I've improved a lot.
U Cook Socks

I think you two should just get a room and get it over with!

P.S

Don't listen to me, or at least should I say, I'm not in the same league (yet) as the other names mentioned.
chesslw

Blazing_Saddler wrote:
I think you two should just get a room and get it over with!

P.S

Don't listen to me, or at least should I say, I'm not in the same league (yet) as the other names mentioned.


lol we already kissed and made up (I think).

Blazing- your advice(s) have been invaluable to me (and other lurkers out there). Just your 1000th post for example was pure gold.

At the risk of offending others- for beginners at least imho your more frequent posts are worth more in value than the "better" players.
U Cook Socks

Thanks for the compliments. My posts are really aimed at the begginers, because I feel I have something to offer them. I just don't like being classed in the same bracket as Kierk, Borg, Red_Dog, etc, cos I'm not, but I owe a lot to all of them for their help. I have total respect for them all. Oh yeah and Broker almost forgot him  Very Happy

You never know, one day I may get things right, and actually get where I want to be too, then I can put myself in the same bracket
_red_dog

It took me a couple mins to read this post, and I have come to the conclusion that you now owe me 2 minutes of my life.

ZOMG, can't believe I have not known how to correctly apply fold equity all this time, guess I've just been lucky to have made over $140k then......

Why do u even post question if you are just going to totally disagree with proven, long term winners who have more knowledge on the game than u?  

Yes your maths is correct in the post above, not disagreeing with that.  But it is you who still fails to apply the concept correctly, as we saw in the other thread.  The arguments you were making made zero logical sense if you actually listened to people and thought about it, and could actually accept the fact that your thinking might be wrong.  To go anywhere in this game, you need to be open minded when moving up and take on board what better players are saying.

Yes there are certain situations where making villain fold is not the optimal play, these would include strong made hands(SMH), and hands that play well as bluff catchers vs an aggressive villain.  However, the hand that was discussed in the other thread, was not one where we have a SMH.  We were talking about a hand where, yes we had significant equity on the flop, but when we brick the turn, our equity would plummet.  Yes our equity was high OTF, but this is only if we get to see turn and river for the correct price.  If we brick the turn we are then going to have significantly less equity and if faced with a bet from villain we can no longer make a +EV call if villain decides to barrel with correct sizing.  We also represent a narrower range of hands as many SMD AND draws would be raising/betting the flop.  Since we now rep a very narrow range of value hands villain can assume our bluffing frequency is going to be higher (even if ever so slightly).  So our FE is now less, and our equity is a lot less.

Your thinking is that if we have >50% equity on the flop that we should be willing to pass up on FE in order to keep villain in the hand, and this would be true if our relative hand strength was going to be similar or stronger on the turn.  The other thread we were pointing out that on the turn our relative hand strength is going to be next to nothing on roughly 70% of turn cards, and now we have a spot where had we of been aggressive on the flop we either win the hand there and then, OR we get a ton of chips in the middle (hopefully all of them with our 15 out hand) to be able to make a +EV call or shove on the turn.  If you just flat u cannot do this, plus if you do get there your implied odds are f*cked because any card that makes your hand will potentially kill your action, so you may have infact made an incorrect call on the flop.

Hopefully your post hasn't already retarded too many members on the forum who are actually thinking about and applying fold equity correctly.

Plz lock and delete this thread, it's rubbish.
_red_dog

N86xps wrote:
chesslw wrote:
lol @ this thread and the one before-

Sorry for all those useless posts which aren't really strat or help anyone improve their game.

If mods would like to delete/clean up some posts then feel free to delete mine- i'm also happy to remove them myself if you like.


Ok. If you really think so, than... just delete everything I wrote in this forum. I am serious. Since I am a beginner I may really be wrong on everything I write, so... up to you guys.


COOL, THANKS. BYE FOR NOW.
aggsyb

_red_dog wrote:
It took me a couple mins to read this post, and I have come to the conclusion that you now owe me 2 minutes of my life.

ZOMG, can't believe I have not known how to correctly apply fold equity all this time, guess I've just been lucky to have made over $140k then......

Why do u even post question if you are just going to totally disagree with proven, long term winners who have more knowledge on the game than u?  

Yes your maths is correct in the post above, not disagreeing with that.  But it is you who still fails to apply the concept correctly, as we saw in the other thread.  The arguments you were making made zero logical sense if you actually listened to people and thought about it, and could actually accept the fact that your thinking might be wrong.  To go anywhere in this game, you need to be open minded when moving up and take on board what better players are saying.

Yes there are certain situations where making villain fold is not the optimal play, these would include strong made hands(SMH), and hands that play well as bluff catchers vs an aggressive villain.  However, the hand that was discussed in the other thread, was not one where we have a SMH.  We were talking about a hand where, yes we had significant equity on the flop, but when we brick the turn, our equity would plummet.  Yes our equity was high OTF, but this is only if we get to see turn and river for the correct price.  If we brick the turn we are then going to have significantly less equity and if faced with a bet from villain we can no longer make a +EV call if villain decides to barrel with correct sizing.  We also represent a narrower range of hands as many SMD AND draws would be raising/betting the flop.  Since we now rep a very narrow range of value hands villain can assume our bluffing frequency is going to be higher (even if ever so slightly).  So our FE is now less, and our equity is a lot less.

Your thinking is that if we have >50% equity on the flop that we should be willing to pass up on FE in order to keep villain in the hand, and this would be true if our relative hand strength was going to be similar or stronger on the turn.  The other thread we were pointing out that on the turn our relative hand strength is going to be next to nothing on roughly 70% of turn cards, and now we have a spot where had we of been aggressive on the flop we either win the hand there and then, OR we get a ton of chips in the middle (hopefully all of them with our 15 out hand) to be able to make a +EV call or shove on the turn.  If you just flat u cannot do this, plus if you do get there your implied odds are f*cked because any card that makes your hand will potentially kill your action, so you may have infact made an incorrect call on the flop.

Hopefully your post hasn't already retarded too many members on the forum who are actually thinking about and applying fold equity correctly.

Plz lock and delete this thread, it's rubbish.


+1, I think the main problem is not the fact your disagree with players, challenging everything is what breeds success its more to do with the fact your telling proven winning players they are completely wrong and are clueless as to certain aspects of the game , when in fact it is you that cannot grasp certain concepts of the game and go out of your way to prove otherwise (as seen in this thread), your maths is very very solid obviously but when push comes to shove (please dont make a mathmatical article about how im using that phrase incorrectly) you should try to accept what other (winning) players are telling you (for free) to add to your own game.
_red_dog

Might start charging per post.  BROKER, thoughts on paying me per post?  We'll do lunch and work something out mate.
N86xps

aggsyb wrote:
_red_dog wrote:
It took me a couple mins to read this post, and I have come to the conclusion that you now owe me 2 minutes of my life.

ZOMG, can't believe I have not known how to correctly apply fold equity all this time, guess I've just been lucky to have made over $140k then......

Why do u even post question if you are just going to totally disagree with proven, long term winners who have more knowledge on the game than u?  

Yes your maths is correct in the post above, not disagreeing with that.  But it is you who still fails to apply the concept correctly, as we saw in the other thread.  The arguments you were making made zero logical sense if you actually listened to people and thought about it, and could actually accept the fact that your thinking might be wrong.  To go anywhere in this game, you need to be open minded when moving up and take on board what better players are saying.

Yes there are certain situations where making villain fold is not the optimal play, these would include strong made hands(SMH), and hands that play well as bluff catchers vs an aggressive villain.  However, the hand that was discussed in the other thread, was not one where we have a SMH.  We were talking about a hand where, yes we had significant equity on the flop, but when we brick the turn, our equity would plummet.  Yes our equity was high OTF, but this is only if we get to see turn and river for the correct price.  If we brick the turn we are then going to have significantly less equity and if faced with a bet from villain we can no longer make a +EV call if villain decides to barrel with correct sizing.  We also represent a narrower range of hands as many SMD AND draws would be raising/betting the flop.  Since we now rep a very narrow range of value hands villain can assume our bluffing frequency is going to be higher (even if ever so slightly).  So our FE is now less, and our equity is a lot less.

Your thinking is that if we have >50% equity on the flop that we should be willing to pass up on FE in order to keep villain in the hand, and this would be true if our relative hand strength was going to be similar or stronger on the turn.  The other thread we were pointing out that on the turn our relative hand strength is going to be next to nothing on roughly 70% of turn cards, and now we have a spot where had we of been aggressive on the flop we either win the hand there and then, OR we get a ton of chips in the middle (hopefully all of them with our 15 out hand) to be able to make a +EV call or shove on the turn.  If you just flat u cannot do this, plus if you do get there your implied odds are f*cked because any card that makes your hand will potentially kill your action, so you may have infact made an incorrect call on the flop.

Hopefully your post hasn't already retarded too many members on the forum who are actually thinking about and applying fold equity correctly.

Plz lock and delete this thread, it's rubbish.


+1, I think the main problem is not the fact your disagree with players, challenging everything is what breeds success its more to do with the fact your telling proven winning players they are completely wrong and are clueless as to certain aspects of the game , when in fact it is you that cannot grasp certain concepts of the game and go out of your way to prove otherwise (as seen in this thread), your maths is very very solid obviously but when push comes to shove (please dont make a mathmatical article about how im using that phrase incorrectly) you should try to accept what other (winning) players are telling you (for free) to add to your own game.


Wel... whatever. I never disagreed with anyone here. I ONLY pointed out some reasons for OCCASIONALLY calling instead of raising with really monster draws. Instead of a discussion on that I was told, that I am talking rubbish. LOL. I never claimed to be correct. Yet I had my thoughts and posted them. Maybe I should not do it anymore.
N86xps

aggsyb wrote:


your telling proven winning players they are completely wrong and are clueless as to certain aspects of the game


Just for the sake of clarity: where the hell did you get THAT from?!
chesslw

N86xps wrote:
aggsyb wrote:


your telling proven winning players they are completely wrong and are clueless as to certain aspects of the game


Just for the sake of clarity: where the hell did you get THAT from?!


OK N86xps, I think this is the main problem:

2 strong players took a lot of time trying to explain a concept to you- i.e. they disagreed with you and sent sometime explaining logically their thoughts as to why they think you were wrong.

You then retorted with- ah but what if in case xyz [insert mathematical statement here].

ducy this tilted them? First of all it didn't help that your initial statement was wrong (or didn't mean what you initially intended). Secondly, it does sound a bit condescending- it seemed that you didn't really think through what they were trying to say, and were only thinking about your thoughts.

In future- treat other people's (particularly strong players) answers with respect- i.e. go through the whole process yourself and think through logically. I have disagreed with stronger players before (one particular case I remember was that I wouldn't jam river with A10 on the river thinking no worse hands will call- but in fact villain's range was capped by hands worse than ours, and since all draws missed, he might hero call us with worse), but always even if I didn't understand- wouldn't just say some random maths stuff in reply.

As I said before- it's much better to think logically first in poker- especially when talking about your thoughts- then if you want to back it up with some maths then so be it. If you disagree with someone- point out your thoughts logically, where you disagree etc.

Do you think this post is fair? If you took sometime to explain certain concepts to someone, and they didn't seem to take it in, and said something that was cryptic and seems random in reply wouldn't you be tilted?

Don't be discouraged about posting here- but think things through more carefully.

Peace
N86xps

chesslw wrote:
N86xps wrote:
aggsyb wrote:


your telling proven winning players they are completely wrong and are clueless as to certain aspects of the game


Just for the sake of clarity: where the hell did you get THAT from?!


OK N86xps, I think this is the main problem:

2 strong players took a lot of time trying to explain a concept to you- i.e. they disagreed with you and sent sometime explaining logically their thoughts as to why they think you were wrong.

You then retorted with- ah but what if in case xyz [insert mathematical statement here].

ducy this tilted them? First of all it didn't help that your initial statement was wrong (or didn't mean what you initially intended). Secondly, it does sound a bit condescending- it seemed that you didn't really think through what they were trying to say, and were only thinking about your thoughts.

In future- treat other people's (particularly strong players) answers with respect- i.e. go through the whole process yourself and think through logically. I have disagreed with stronger players before (one particular case I remember was that I wouldn't jam river with A10 on the river thinking no worse hands will call- but in fact villain's range was capped by hands worse than ours, and since all draws missed, he might hero call us with worse), but always even if I didn't understand- wouldn't just say some random maths stuff in reply.

As I said before- it's much better to think logically first in poker- especially when talking about your thoughts- then if you want to back it up with some maths then so be it. If you disagree with someone- point out your thoughts logically, where you disagree etc.

Do you think this post is fair? If you took sometime to explain certain concepts to someone, and they didn't seem to take it in, and said something that was cryptic and seems random in reply wouldn't you be tilted?

Don't be discouraged about posting here- but think things through more carefully.

Peace


I understood, that I was a pain in the ass. BUT I still see nothing wrong with saying " yeah, but what if xyz .... [whatever statement here]" just because poker is not a solved game, and there CAN be different ways of seing things.

Anyway. It happened in a different thread. This thread I wrote for people who might be interested in the concept of fold equity. If the moderators believe, that this is all crap and useless, let them delete it. Since there were claims, that everything that I wrote in this post IS rubbush and should be deleted I probably won't post anything more. I'll do my own research for myself.

When I found this site I was thrilled by the strategy videos, and articles. Yet I often found, that many poker players lack mathematical background. I thought, that this is how I could give something in return. But as I see I am not welcome here. I did post something in the equity calculations thread. I did simplify Red_Dog's calculations a little bit and gave a simple AND useful formula to find out whether a shove is profitable (I use it myself when I play and it is really easy to use). I may be wrong but it seems that Red_ Dog did not like the fact, that I dared to improve on his post. If I am wrong, then I apologize to him.
BetMagicMoney

Im going to lock this thread now.

Im not going to get involved in who is right or wrong but im looking it to try and stop the arguing.

Can everyone plz remember to be courteous and polite to everyone at all times.

BetMagicMoney (forum moderator)

Broker kept it open right after I posted this as he is spreading his loving guidance......       Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy  Very Happy
Brokerstar

N86xps wrote:


When I found this site I was thrilled by the strategy videos, and articles. Yet I often found, that many poker players lack mathematical background. I thought, that this is how I could give something in return. But as I see I am not welcome here. I did post something in the equity calculations thread. I did simplify Red_Dog's calculations a little bit and gave a simple AND useful formula to find out whether a shove is profitable (I use it myself when I play and it is really easy to use). I may be wrong but it seems that Red_ Dog did not like the fact, that I dared to improve on his post. If I am wrong, then I apologize to him.


Mate of course you're welcome here and I really agree with some things you say. For example you make me look like a math retard (hands up I'm no math guru) and the calculations/ formula you wrote down means nothing to me and likely never will. It may as well be written in Japanese. I look at it and see Egyptian Hyroglyphics.

Now that's me personally and I'm sure there are plenty of bright people on here who can in fact get a lot from what you're saying maths wise so by all means do share your thoughts.

I'm always a bit sad when I see clashes and aggression in this forum as that really isn't the idea of this place. It nearly never happens but as with any community there will be some personality clashes from time to time.

All I can ask is that if/ when people don't agree in here can we all perhaps make an effort to show a little class in our discourse? Now I know I'm no angel, man put me in a competitive situation and I want to eat someone's face and I'm all kinds of evil, in the ring, cage, street, BJJ mats or even over the felt on a poker table. I become the most cold, cutting, kill first, ask questions later and my god do I take losing badly (really badly).

But this forum is my safe haven, it's a place of peace and somewhere I love to come not just because it's my business, no it goes way beyond that. It's because there is a real feel of unity, like we've all been in this together or it's not too clicky and anyone can join our gang provided they are prepared to be cool too. We're all on the same journey, some better than others, some further along the road but what unites us is that we all started in the same place and all aiming for the same destination.

In short, I love you guys,let's not lose what makes this place special.

Much love.

Dom
U Cook Socks

N86xps wrote:
chesslw wrote:
N86xps wrote:
aggsyb wrote:


your telling proven winning players they are completely wrong and are clueless as to certain aspects of the game


Just for the sake of clarity: where the hell did you get THAT from?!


OK N86xps, I think this is the main problem:

2 strong players took a lot of time trying to explain a concept to you- i.e. they disagreed with you and sent sometime explaining logically their thoughts as to why they think you were wrong.

You then retorted with- ah but what if in case xyz [insert mathematical statement here].

ducy this tilted them? First of all it didn't help that your initial statement was wrong (or didn't mean what you initially intended). Secondly, it does sound a bit condescending- it seemed that you didn't really think through what they were trying to say, and were only thinking about your thoughts.

In future- treat other people's (particularly strong players) answers with respect- i.e. go through the whole process yourself and think through logically. I have disagreed with stronger players before (one particular case I remember was that I wouldn't jam river with A10 on the river thinking no worse hands will call- but in fact villain's range was capped by hands worse than ours, and since all draws missed, he might hero call us with worse), but always even if I didn't understand- wouldn't just say some random maths stuff in reply.

As I said before- it's much better to think logically first in poker- especially when talking about your thoughts- then if you want to back it up with some maths then so be it. If you disagree with someone- point out your thoughts logically, where you disagree etc.

Do you think this post is fair? If you took sometime to explain certain concepts to someone, and they didn't seem to take it in, and said something that was cryptic and seems random in reply wouldn't you be tilted?

Don't be discouraged about posting here- but think things through more carefully.

Peace


I understood, that I was a pain in the ass. BUT I still see nothing wrong with saying " yeah, but what if xyz .... [whatever statement here]" just because poker is not a solved game, and there CAN be different ways of seing things.

Anyway. It happened in a different thread. This thread I wrote for people who might be interested in the concept of fold equity. If the moderators believe, that this is all crap and useless, let them delete it. Since there were claims, that everything that I wrote in this post IS rubbush and should be deleted I probably won't post anything more. I'll do my own research for myself.

When I found this site I was thrilled by the strategy videos, and articles. Yet I often found, that many poker players lack mathematical background. I thought, that this is how I could give something in return. But as I see I am not welcome here. I did post something in the equity calculations thread. I did simplify Red_Dog's calculations a little bit and gave a simple AND useful formula to find out whether a shove is profitable (I use it myself when I play and it is really easy to use). I may be wrong but it seems that Red_ Dog did not like the fact, that I dared to improve on his post. If I am wrong, then I apologize to him.


When you write something on the internet, you leave your self open to be criticised. That's just the way it is. It's not a case of you not being welcome, no one can stop you posting on here, well BrokerStar can, but I see that as highly unlikely.  

For what it's worth, Red_Dog has had a big influence on me with poker, he taught me a load of stuff that I probably would never have learned without his input. I've talked poker loads with him, but he is still more than happy to lol @ one of my posts if he doesn't agree with it. I just try and take it in a positive manner. He's a young man, who has won a lot of money playing poker, with a big ego I guess.

You put a lot of effort in to your posts, so I guess I can see why you were a bit miffed, but don't let it stop you contributing to the forum.
N86xps

Thank you guys. Anyway I know, that I did not make my points clear at times, I did make doubtful assumtions at other times, and... well, I do no have much experience communicating on the internet (this is my first forum).

And, once more: I did not want to irritate anyone here:).
_red_dog

Okkkkkkkkkk,

N86xps, look, I have no probs with u improving any post I have made.  In fact, it's the exact opposite - I would encourage you to do so, I'm not against making things easier, esp when alot of ppl struggle with the math aspect.

I understand that you put a lot of work into your posts, and yes, ur maths is correct.  I just disagree on an application level I guess, none the less, I could have gone about it in a different manner.

As blazing said, I do have a big ego, I'm very confident in what I do.  If I see something that is think is wrong, I'm going to tell you, not just pander to your beliefs so that you feel good about yourself.  Poker is about getting better to make money, not to make yourself feel special etc.  I may go about this in a slightly egotistical and aggressive manner but my intentions are well meaning.

Anyway, I apologize for the manner in which I went about my posts, I hope it doesn't discourage you from sticking around and posting here.

GL.

Mat
N86xps

_red_dog wrote:
Okkkkkkkkkk,

N86xps, look, I have no probs with u improving any post I have made.  In fact, it's the exact opposite - I would encourage you to do so, I'm not against making things easier, esp when alot of ppl struggle with the math aspect.

I understand that you put a lot of work into your posts, and yes, ur maths is correct.  I just disagree on an application level I guess, none the less, I could have gone about it in a different manner.

As blazing said, I do have a big ego, I'm very confident in what I do.  If I see something that is think is wrong, I'm going to tell you, not just pander to your beliefs so that you feel good about yourself.  Poker is about getting better to make money, not to make yourself feel special etc.  I may go about this in a slightly egotistical and aggressive manner but my intentions are well meaning.

Anyway, I apologize for the manner in which I went about my posts, I hope it doesn't discourage you from sticking around and posting here.

GL.

Mat


Thanks mate. I am also very egoistic:). Yet I am a beginning poker player, and I do have a lot of controversial ideas in my head. It is a real mess at times. Yet I really should not post all this mess around. I should filter it to only those things, that I can clearly express (at least).

I've seen you play some rebuys today... you really got pissed off with that guy geting it in with ace high if I remember it right...SmileSmile
_red_dog

yeah, was so horrid because with the stack size he had I am never raise/folding that flop.  His FE is exactly 0, so yeah was retarded on his part.  Guess he doesn't know what he is doing lol, oh well.  Prob going to win the $3 rebuy now.
N86xps

_red_dog wrote:
yeah, was so horrid because with the stack size he had I am never raise/folding that flop.  His FE is exactly 0, so yeah was retarded on his part.  Guess he doesn't know what he is doing lol, oh well.  Prob going to win the $3 rebuy now.


good luck m8!
       Tagpoker Forum Forum Index -> Heads Up Poker Strategy
Page 1 of 1