|
Ragnar4
|
11-09-2006, 11:05 AM
Post subject: A question about "spewage"
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
I know I come in here and sometimes spout like I know 100% of what I'm talking about, sometimes I've been slapped down, other times people agree with me. But I have a question mathematically about aggressive play on the turn.
The question is this: Lets say, for the sake of arguement that you end up in a situation where you have definitive overlay. Saaaay top pair top kicker with a flush draw to the nuts, against 2 other people. On the flop you know you're going to the river. On the flop, say seat one bets, and seat 2 calls, and you raise, and 1 raises again, and all of a sudden you're all going to the turn capped, and you miss.
On the turn, if you were to get into another raising war, Xianti, and Fnord have both defined that betting and raising and capping on the turn with this draw is "spewage" (can't find the thread, but I will if I have to prove it).
The quesiton is, why couldn't you simply consider this money you would have gotten in on the flop if you could have, and keep going from there, your odds of catching this by the river after the flop haven't changed at all, you're just in the middle of the opportunity to get there.
I guess my question here is: Why is it correct on the flop and spewage on the turn?
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here? 
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
sinky
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 295
|
|
After seeing the flop, you have decided that your hand is good enough to see both the turn and river cards. Lets assume you are behind. You have 9 good outs (FD), 2 reasonable outs (Trips) and 3 not so good outs (2 PAIR). Lets say 11 outs.
Your chances of hitting by the river are 1 - (36/47*35/46) = 43%. So your hand's equity is 43%. ie) 43% of every dollar that goes into the pot from this point on is yours. Against 2 opponents you are only contributing 33% of all the future bets. So you have a +10% equity edge. So jam the pot.
When you miss the turn your odds of winning are now simply 11/46 = 24%. You still have to contribute 33% of everything that goes into the pot, but now your return is less than what you put in. You have a -9% defecit. So jamming the pot at this point is certainly spewage.
|
|
|
|
Xanadu
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: st. paul, MO
Posts: 966
|
|
Think about this Ragnar ...
If the odds didn't change after the event 'seeing one more card', why would they change after another event 'seeing one more card (the river)'? If you have a 40% chance of winning with your draw on the flop, then miss the turn and still have a 40% chance of hitting on the river, then, logically, if you miss the river, still nothing has changed, and even though you have missed your hand on both cards, you still have a 40% chance of making your draw. This relatively obscure concept in poker can help your winrate tremendously. Next time you miss your nut flush draw, as your opponent scoops the pot, explain to him that you still have 40% pot equity with your flush draw and that he is required by the laws of probability to surrender nearly half of it to you.
But seriously, not trying to be a jackass, but give you another way to think about it and add in a little humour. The difference on the turn is you have more information. Calculations of probabilities on the flop are really a combination of 2 separate but related events ... dealing the turn and dealing the river. The typical way to determine odds on a draw is to calculate turn and river probabilities separately and then combine them in the correct manner. Once you see the turn, that event is over, the probability is now 1 that the card that fell is the card that fell, and the only thing that matters is the one card left to come.
|
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,545
|
|
Yall are assuming that this player must hit the turn/river to win the pot. Are there times where he wins at showdown UI'ed? If I have TPGK+nut flush draw I am certainly getting more than 1 bet in on the turn, ESPECIALLY with more than 1 villain. I know you are speaking of percentage to hit one's draw, however, there is already a percentage that your hand is good. On top of this raising the turn on a draw is not popular play, meaning if you hit the river your hand is disguised that much more against a thinking opponent.
|
|
|
|
StageWhisper
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: WA
Posts: 90
|
|
It's been awhile since I've played online, but with a live game with this much action on the flop TPTK is almost never good unimproved.
|
|
|
|
Xanadu
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: st. paul, MO
Posts: 966
|
|
The point of my post was that the turn and river are separate events and having 1 card to come gives different odds than 2 cards to come.
And it is spewage because there just aren't many players that are going to be raising or 3-betting the turn after a capped flop when they can't beat TPTK, and after that action, you will almost always need to improve, and since each bet, assuming neither opponent folds lays only 2:1, you have to have at least 2:1 odds of making your hand for a turn bet or raise to be for value.
|
|
|
|
arkitekton
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 269
|
|
Xanadu and sinky said what I was going to say, only they said it better. Great posts.
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
OK..
But If I had gotten all that money in on the flop. (all the small bets on the flop and all the big bets on the turn) it would be +ev right?
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
Xanadu
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: st. paul, MO
Posts: 966
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
OK..
But If I had gotten all that money in on the flop. (all the small bets on the flop and all the big bets on the turn) it would be +ev right?
|
As long as no one has a set. Then your winning chances drop to around 30%. Important to know in those cases where you have a pretty strong read that opponent usually won't 3-bet without a set pre-flop.
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Xanadu
Important to know in those cases where you have a pretty strong read that opponent usually won't 3-bet without a set pre-flop.
|
Good god I hope they don't 3-bet with a set pre-flop. Gotta slowplay that shit!
Anyway. I guess what I'm getting at, is instead of measuring "where you are at percentage wise in the hand" To instead identify where you are at % wise against the other players. If you only represent 25% of the money going into the pot, for the entirety of the turn and river, and you're going to catch the nut flush 35%ish percent of the time, you've got a 10% overlay. .10 cents on every dollar that goes into the pot is pure profit, whether you win the hand or not.
While it doesn't happen often, by measuring the hand in this way, you can argue that capping on the flop, and turn, with a draw that is more likely to hit than the percentage of money you represent is going into the flop can now be always +ev. Therefore not becoming spewage. The only time it would become spewage is if your opponents begin to fold out (most likely) and the percent of % you represent going into the pot is less than the % you stand to win, but by now, the pot is so big.. you obviously have pot odds.
By simply measuring your odds of hitting on the next card, very rarely do we have odds to call a draw, let alone raise one.
Do you guys process info this way? Am I way off by thinking with
guy 1 =25%
guy 2 =25%
guy 3 =25%
hero = 25%
Odds hero will win pot 30%, bet and raise and cap on all streets as long as hero's percentage of pot share is less than odds of winning the hand.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
arkitekton
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: canada
Posts: 269
|
|
Rags,
I think you need to reread the thread very carefully. In a nutshell, if you're 35% to win the pot as of the flop, and 20% to win the pot as of the turn, then you certainly want to put in as much money as you can as of the flop, if you're putting in 25% of the total. Once the turn comes, though, if you have only a 20% chance of winning the pot, you want to put in as little (and preferably no) money as possible if you're putting in 25% of the total going into the pot that round.
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
That's just it, I have read the thread carefully, and threads carefully, and about a dozen books carefully, but what I'm trying to do is to stop considering where you are at on the turn, and the river individually, and instead consider where you're at in the hand overall. A different type of evaluation.
Instead, I think there may be a valuable lesson in evaluating where you stand from the flop to the river. I understand that your odds of hitting a needed out decreases on the turn. But I'm trying to figgure out a way to justify raising on the turn with a draw.
I think it's extremely important to remember that you're either evaluating each street individually, or evaluating both streets together. Each requirs a different type of correct mathematical play. But I think the math falls apart if you try to correlate the math by comparing both streets on the turn, and then only one street on the river. Leading to extremely passive turn play, and predictable draw patterns.
Which is instead why I'm challenging the idea. Instead, by thinking to yourself, with a nut flush draw, I'm going to win 38% of the time with my nut flush draw, and I'm 99% safe unless the board pairs. You find that you are capable of raising with that draw when you are incapable of raising a draw considering that you're only 18.9% to hit that flush draw on the next card.
With the former idea, you're just given an additional opportunity to bet/raise midway through your 38% odds of winning this hand by the river, and if you represent 33% of the pot or less, you should still be betting/raising. Remember half of the time on the way to your flush, you're going to miss, but you've evaluated it in such a way that raising with the draw is justifyable.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
Nehmer
|
|
11-12-2006, 05:27 AM
Post subject: Re: Hrrmmm
|
#13 (permalink)
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Decatur, IL
Posts: 666
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
Instead, I think there may be a valuable lesson in evaluating where you stand from the flop to the river. I understand that your odds of hitting a needed out decreases on the turn. But I'm trying to figgure out a way to justify raising on the turn with a draw.
|
Here is how you raise on the turn with a draw. Heads up pot where your opponent raised preflop and you call from the BB. You flop a flush draw and check-call a K or Q high flop. You then check-raise the turn making it very difficult for him to call without the K or Q or AA. This is called semi-bluffing and is a very strong play and works best heads-up. You are making a play where you know you have bad pot odds, but where fold-equity justifies it.
In a multiway pot that is huge thanks to a bunch of flop raises, you have no fold equity. This means that pot odds are the only thing you can base your play off of on the turn and that means pot odds AS OF THE TURN. This means that unless there are more than 5 people in the pot you shouldn't be raising your flush/straight draws on the turn unless you have strong reason to believe you have enough fold-equity to justify it.
|
|
|
|
Nehmer
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Decatur, IL
Posts: 666
|
|
I think this webpage might actually help you:
Sunk costs
"Sunk costs may cause cost overrun. In business, an example of sunk costs may be investment into a factory or research that now has a lower value or no value whatsoever. For example, $20 million has been spent on building a powerplant; the value at present is zero because it is incomplete (and no sale or recovery is feasible). The plant can be completed for an additional $10 million, or abandoned and a different facility built for $5 million. It should be obvious that abandonment and construction of the alternative facility is the more rational decision, even though it represents a total loss on the original expenditure - the original sum invested is a sunk cost. If decision-makers are (economically) irrational, or have the wrong incentives, the completion of the project may be chosen. For example, politicians or managers may have more incentive to avoid the appearance of a total loss. In practice, there is considerable ambiguity and uncertainty in such cases, and decisions may in retrospect appear irrational that were, at the time, reasonable to the economic actors involved and in the context of their own incentives."
That is not a quote about poker, but it is exactly what you are trying to do. You had certain odds of hitting your draw on the flop and raised with the correct odds. Now on the turn the situation has changed. The money you put in on the flop is now a sunk cost. Evaluating the new decision shows that the only rational course of action is to call, but because of your wrong incentives of wanting to keep raising, you are ignoring the math that says that you don't have the right odds to continue raising anymore and you are "finishing the project" even though it's irrational.
|
|
|
|
Xanadu
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: st. paul, MO
Posts: 966
|
|
I don't think you are taking this far enough rag ...
Since it's ok to just decide to evaluate our odds however we decide we want to, why not just decide that we have a say 60% chance of flopping quads with any 2 cards? If we miss, the chance will still be 60% that we will catch on the turn, and missing the turn, still 60% that we catch quads on the river. We now have over a 93% chance of getting quads every time we play a hand!! We can feel empowered to raise, reraise, and cap every hand we are dealt pre-flop, flop, and turn. And we can also cap the river as well, since even if we missed, there is still a 60% chance we actually have quads anyway.
Really, the odds change. They change. Nothing changes the fact that they change. The odds aren't what you want them to be, they are what they are. If there is something specific about this you don't understand, myself and many others here would be happy to explain. Maybe this is what you don't get ...
The turn and the river are 2 separate events. Calculating the odds on the flop for both of these events can give a probability that takes into account both events. But this doesn't turn them into one event. They are still separate events, and once the turn card falls, there is no meaning anymore to the combined probability calculated on the flop. The probabilities on the turn are now set ... the card that fell has a probability of 1 exactly. It fell and not any other card and nothing can change that. All other cards have probability 0. This is far different than the 1/47 for every card that you used on the flop.
|
|
|
|
NWNewell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kennedy Space Center, FL
Posts: 283
|
|
So, what you are saying with your proposed question is that, if you are suppose to make a set from your pocket pair on the flop 7.5:1. Then if you have missed your set the last 7 times, you should jam the pot because you are almost sure you are going hit it this time?
???
Or if you bet on 17 at the rulet wheel and it didn't hit on the last 36 times, that you are going to bet the farm the next time because mathmatically speaking you are "due" to hit 1 out of 37, and this is 37th chance?
?????
Wrong... every individal occurance or opportunity to make a decision is it's own entity/animal.
Those are the best examples I can give you. If you are 36% to hit the flush draw by the river on the flop, and you missed on the turn. You are NOT still 36% to hit by the river. You are now 19%. You just used up the other half of your chances with the turn card. You need to re-evaluate. This a completely new statistical situation and desicision.
In reality, you should not make your flop desicion based on compairing your chance to hit by the river to your cost on the flop. You need to compair your chance to hit by the river to your cost (estimated) of the flop AND the turn play. OR your chance to hit on the turn to your cost on the flop (which is what you should lean towards). And always re-evaluated on the turn based on your new pot odds to drawing odds.
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
So I did some math, and talked to a local pro. I am wrong, and I'll admidt it. BUT you guys can't vocalize why it's wrong. So here goes:
My argument would be correct all the time IF there wasn't a 400% swing in the odds. Not only do you lose 50% of your odds of hitting the card, you also have to pay 2 times as much. So since your odds from flop to river did NOT change from the point of evaluation (At the flop to the river.), the fact that you have to pay more money FORCES you to evaluate where you stand at the turn, and instead re-justify a the thought of turn/river. We did the math... AND if the Turn did not double in cost, I would have been right. I forgot to factor that in.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
NWNewell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kennedy Space Center, FL
Posts: 283
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
So I did some math, and talked to a local pro. I am wrong, and I'll admidt it. BUT you guys can't vocalize why it's wrong. So here goes:
My argument would be correct all the time IF there wasn't a 400% swing in the odds. Not only do you lose 50% of your odds of hitting the card, you also have to pay 2 times as much. So since your odds from flop to river did NOT change from the point of evaluation (At the flop to the river.), the fact that you have to pay more money FORCES you to evaluate where you stand at the turn, and instead re-justify a the thought of turn/river. We did the math... AND if the Turn did not double in cost, I would have been right. I forgot to factor that in.
|
Well, yes... and no. Of course the turn bets double, and change your odds, that goes without stating and most figured that was assumed. If they did not double, then it is true, that you're odds would be twice as good, and if it was correct to call the flop, it would often be correct to call the turn. But not always! You still would need to re-evaluated the turn each situation. There are many situations where you're thoughts could be correct, especially if the turn bets did not double. But there are way to many situations where it would be incorrect, even if the turn bets did not double. You always need to re-evaluate the turn, regardless of the cost.
|
|
|
|
Xanadu
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: st. paul, MO
Posts: 966
|
|
Sorry rags, turns out you and your buddy are still wrong. The odds change. It's not just because the bet doubles. In fact, bet size is pretty much irrelevant. Are you even reading the other posts? I guess we aren't technically 'vocalizing' what is wrong because this is a written word forum (you a politician?), but the reason you are wrong has been clearly stated several times by several people.
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
I'm wrong. I admidt it.
just wish you guys weren't being dicks about the fact that I challenged what you had to say.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
Nehmer
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Decatur, IL
Posts: 666
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ragnar4
I'm wrong. I admidt it.
just wish you guys weren't being dicks about the fact that I challenged what you had to say.
|
I'm sure nobody here was trying to be a dick. It is difficult for most people to tell somebody they are wrong on the internet without sounding like an asshole even if they didn't mean to be one . In those situations it probably is better to give people the benefit of the doubt most of the time and assume they were just trying to be helpful and not let it get you upset. It's definately good to challenge what people say here and you should definately do it anytime something they say doesn't make sense to you. Just be prepared that no matter how smart what you say is, they might think you are a moron for saying it and no matter how nicely they try to correct what you say if they think it's wrong, you might think they are an asshole 
|
|
|
|
Ragnar4
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Billings, Montana
Posts: 1,284
|
|
Thanks Nehmer. Guess I shouldn't suggest that kind of stuff when people are only trying to help.
|
The older I get, the more I start wondering; Just what in the hell is going on here?
|
|
Xanadu
|
|
Full House
Join Date: May 2005
Location: st. paul, MO
Posts: 966
|
|
I was kind of a dick in the last post ... the one before, maybe toook the joking around a little too far. But it would be nice if you could come up with a response to the counters to your argument other than just wanting your new way of thinking to be right. When up against so much opposition to your idea, it's better to show the math than just say 'a poker pro and I did the math and I'm right'. If you did some math to justify your concept, show it!
|
|
|
|
NWNewell
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Kennedy Space Center, FL
Posts: 283
|
|
I wasn't being a dick at all... just debating...
I am rarely a dick (on purpose, anyway)....
And when I am... You'll know it! There will be no doubt in anyones mind!!! 
But I agree with Xanadu.... I like (to see) math
|
|
|
|
sinky
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 295
|
|
In simple terms, on each street .......
1) The equity of your hand v's the pot odds (+implied odds) determines if you should continue or fold.
2) Then your EV determines whether you should raise or just call. Remember, expected value is only looking at future bets.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
