The Official "Why Should I Bet With Equity" Thread

[spoonitnow]

Awesome picture. So feel free to get to talking because I feel like just making this thread is sufficient to be my contribution to the thread.

[daven]

i want extra ways to win the hand please
+ balance + disguise + etc
+ it's nice to win at showdown occasionally

Why Should I Bet With Equity

should always consider betting
betting with equity is often nicer than betting without
considering betting is good, always going ahead and doing it out WITHOUT a decent reason for doing so is retardo

[couriermike]

Winning at gambling means getting it in good. The more equity, the more good you are, the more you should bet and raise. It's so funny at the micros seeing people barrel air and then check as soon as they hit, trying to keep people in. It just shows how counter-intuitive poker can be.

[HarleyGuy13]

Cuz to bet without equity is bad!

[daven]

Cuz to bet without equity is bad!

what if your only equity is fold equty?

[couriermike]

Betting or raising with fold equity is good if you have enough of it. Sometimes you get the sense people just want to fold. But in most situations people probably over-estimate their fold equity.

[spoonitnow]

Cuz to bet without equity is bad!

Not always true!

A better title that would have been too long would have been something like why betting with equity is soooooooooo much better than betting without equity.

[d0zer]

long term winning poker and equity are related.

[spoonitnow]

I'm waiting on something to finish downloading before I go to bed, so I'll bite in my own thread. As usual, this thread was made so I could just link people who ask, so I might as well. I'm going to keep everything in context of all-in bets, but the same principles hold for non-all-in bets, there are just fringe factors that are in play as well.

Overbet Shove Example: Suppose we're heads-up at 20nl on some weird Euro site with cards left to come and the pot is $10. We go all-in for $15.

A) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 0% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(10) + (2/3)(-15) which comes to about -$6.67, which is about one-third of a buy-in

B) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 25% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(10) + (2/3)(0.25)(25) + (2/3)(0.75)(-15) = $0.00.

In this spot where we're shoving for 1.5x pot with a moderate amount of fold equity (though not enough for it to be +EV as a pure bluff), 25% equity is the difference between losing 1/3 of a buy-in on average with our play and the play being break even.

A 3/4-Pot Shove Example: Suppose we're heads-up at 50nl on some weird American site with cards left to come and the pot is $40. We go all-in for $30.

A) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 0% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(40) + (2/3)(-30) which comes to -$6.67, which is about 13% of a buy-in.

B) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 10% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(40) + (2/3)(0.10)(70) + (2/3)(0.90)(-30) which comes to $0.00.

In this spot where we're shoving for 3/4 pot with a moderate amount of fold equity (again, not enough to be +EV as a pure bluff), 10% equity is all it takes for us to get up to break even, compared to losing 13% of a buy-in in one play.

Affecting A Range: Suppose that in some spot where you go all-in you have a range that consists entirely of +EV value betting hands. Now, with all else being equal, you add some break even semi-bluffs to that range. If your opponents don't change how they play at all, then the EV of your range stays the same.

However, if seeing these semi-bluffs in your range is likely to make them change how they play, what's their most likely adjustment? Surely they're not going to fold more because they see semi-bluffs in your range, so now they're more likely to call.

When this happens, your EV is affected in three ways. First, your semi-bluffs become slightly -EV because your Villains are folding less often. Second, your value bets become a lot more +EV because your Villains will be calling with wider ranges. Third, you will often be able to make a +EV value bet with more hands your opponents' ranges have widened.

Extrapolating From The Above Points: If adding semi-bluffs to your range that are break even in a vacuum is +EV for your range as a whole, then obviously making semi-bluffs that are +EV in a vacuum will be greatly +EV for your range as a whole. I feel kind of dumb or like I'm talking down to people who read this by making this point, but some people won't make that connection because they'll get stuck on wondering why I use break even plays to illustrate my points above.

[daven]

I'm going to keep everything in context of all-in bets,

this seems to be the most boring part of betting with equity...

but the same principles hold for non-all-in bets, there are just fringe factors that are in play as well.

these fringe factors are perhaps the most important things in poker?

also, isn't this a lot of this just post-coital shania?

edit: nice post by the way!

[spoonitnow]

this seems to be the most boring part of betting with equity...

But it's where you need to start if you don't understand the concepts at work.

these fringe factors are perhaps the most important things in poker?

Probably not.

also, isn't this a lot of this just post-coital shania?

Semi-bluffs are nice because they don't change the strength of your range nearly as much as people seem to think they do.

[daven]

re all-in situations

But it's where you need to start if you don't understand the concepts at work.

true. Didn't you write an article on fold equity and stuff a while back that covers similar ground/complements this thread well?

also, this is interesting and relevant old content
http://www.flopturnriver.com/pokerfo...se-117361.html

Semi-bluffs are nice because they don't change the strength of your range nearly as much as people seem to think they do.

in non-allin spots on the flop or turn they have an interesting impact on your range strength on future streets tho

[daviddem]

Spoon, all the EV/equity calculations and articles that used to be on your site before, is that still available somewhere or did you take that offline?

edit: I found some of these on your blogspot, but I remember there was one where you were showing a shortcut to calculate the EV of a semi-bluff on the fly. Can't seem to find that one.

[Robb]

Thanks for the high quality posts, spoon and daven. I've been playing the nano's for a few days, trying to get back into pokerz, and don't have much insight. But I have noticed that semi-bluffs that connect tilt the shizzle out of micro-donks.

[HarleyGuy13]

I'm waiting on something to finish downloading before I go to bed, so I'll bite in my own thread. As usual, this thread was made so I could just link people who ask, so I might as well. I'm going to keep everything in context of all-in bets, but the same principles hold for non-all-in bets, there are just fringe factors that are in play as well.

Overbet Shove Example: Suppose we're heads-up at 20nl on some weird Euro site with cards left to come and the pot is $10. We go all-in for $15.

A) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 0% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(10) + (2/3)(-15) which comes to about -$6.67, which is about one-third of a buy-in

B) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 25% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(10) + (2/3)(0.25)(25) + (2/3)(0.75)(-15) = $0.00.

In this spot where we're shoving for 1.5x pot with a moderate amount of fold equity (though not enough for it to be +EV as a pure bluff), 25% equity is the difference between losing 1/3 of a buy-in on average with our play and the play being break even.

A 3/4-Pot Shove Example: Suppose we're heads-up at 50nl on some weird American site with cards left to come and the pot is $40. We go all-in for $30.

A) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 0% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(40) + (2/3)(-30) which comes to -$6.67, which is about 13% of a buy-in.

B) Our opponent folds 1/3 of the time and we have 10% equity when called. Our EV is (1/3)(40) + (2/3)(0.10)(70) + (2/3)(0.90)(-30) which comes to $0.00.

In this spot where we're shoving for 3/4 pot with a moderate amount of fold equity (again, not enough to be +EV as a pure bluff), 10% equity is all it takes for us to get up to break even, compared to losing 13% of a buy-in in one play.

Affecting A Range: Suppose that in some spot where you go all-in you have a range that consists entirely of +EV value betting hands. Now, with all else being equal, you add some break even semi-bluffs to that range. If your opponents don't change how they play at all, then the EV of your range stays the same.

However, if seeing these semi-bluffs in your range is likely to make them change how they play, what's their most likely adjustment? Surely they're not going to fold more because they see semi-bluffs in your range, so now they're more likely to call.

When this happens, your EV is affected in three ways. First, your semi-bluffs become slightly -EV because your Villains are folding less often. Second, your value bets become a lot more +EV because your Villains will be calling with wider ranges. Third, you will often be able to make a +EV value bet with more hands your opponents' ranges have widened.

Extrapolating From The Above Points: If adding semi-bluffs to your range that are break even in a vacuum is +EV for your range as a whole, then obviously making semi-bluffs that are +EV in a vacuum will be greatly +EV for your range as a whole. I feel kind of dumb or like I'm talking down to people who read this by making this point, but some people won't make that connection because they'll get stuck on wondering why I use break even plays to illustrate my points above.

Asking this to see if I understand something I read earlier in the AQ thread you bumped as well. Is this the basic principal of "Shania?" Because this is really what I took out of the Shania article I read on 2+2.

[Robb]

Shania is a bit more than this, but essentially, yes.

BTW, what stakes are you playing? I personally haven't seen the need for shania at 100nl or lower, other than some VERY basic balancing. But I also have not played much poker in 2010. Maybe things have changed, including the games you're playin' in hopefully

[HarleyGuy13]

Shania is a bit more than this, but essentially, yes.

BTW, what stakes are you playing? I personally haven't seen the need for shania at 100nl or lower, other than some VERY basic balancing. But I also have not played much poker in 2010. Maybe things have changed, including the games you're playin' in hopefully

Robb I'm currently playing 10nl/50bb tables. I just read the Shania theory because it appeared in another thread. Haven't even tried to incorporate it into my game and will not be for a very long time. I was just curious if I understood what I read or not.

[spoonitnow]

It's not something you have to incorporate, it's just something that happens regardless of whether you're trying to make it happen or not. Kind of like if you knock someone off of the back of a truck in front of a cop, you aren't really meaning to be told "get on the ground motherfucker", it's just a side effect.

If someone sees you semi-bluff some flop as a c-bet, they're not going to tighten up as a result. They might loosen up, and they might stay the same. The times they loosen up, it changes the EV of your range a little. That's really all I'm getting at.

[Robb]

You aren't really meaning to be told "get on the ground motherfucker", it's just a side effect.

Regulated.

Glad you're still the BC mod spoon, hope all is groovy. Nice thread.

[oskar]

We recently had some hands in the FR forum where some thinking reg villain took a line where he represented almost nothing on a dry board and some guys were like: wtf call, he's repping like 6 value combos.

The thing is that most low to mid stakes regs understand the above concept very well, and as a result their bluffing range on super dry boards will be very slim against other regs: Because they can't maintain a wide bluffing range without opening themselve up to exploitation.
Take for example a 883 rainbow flop vs a 7s8sTh flop. Let's say you called a MP open from lp and you're heads-up. On 883 you can raise representing 78,89, A8s, 33, JJ+ or ~37 combos. On 78T you could be raising any flushdraw, any gutshot with a pair, any oesd, gutshot with overcards, overpairs, sets... a huge part of your calling range, and a thinking reg will understand that he cannot continue against that range oop even with overpairs unless you have a good amount of complete air in your range - even if his c-betting range is pretty strong.
I am not encouraging bluffraising air there against opponents who aren't capable of thinking about your range very well. - against someone who is only really concerned about his hand value 883 might even be the better board to bluff with air.
Even tho on a more basic level I think this is understood even at fairly low stakes. Paired rainbow boards are a good example where everyone knows some guy who will just bluffraise them religiously because you never have anything, but you can call him down very light without too much drama because his range is so static.