some EV calc. help. Mojo?

I just noticed you were assuming he was calling with more than QQ+ AK. I think the way you're going about figuring that out is very confusing and probably inaccurate. I think it would be absurd to assume he calls your shove with a hand like AJs or KQs. I'll universalize the formula for you so you can plug different values:

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(equity)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-fold%)*(1-equity)*(96)

"3bet is premium is a new stat in HM2, that keeps track of the times villain 3bets AND goes to showdown AND holds QQ+,AKo,AKs. im skeptical aswell because so many 3bet pots don't make it to showdown that I don't think the number will be 100% dependable.

it would be absurb renton if it wasn't 2nl 6max. lol hes def. calling 99+,AQs,AKo,AKs.

so using your formula: ( which thank you so much for by the way!)

EV = (.5)*(18.5) + (.5) * (.4127)* (105.5 - 4) - (.5) * (.5873) * (96)

is that correct?

then it would step down to
EV = (9.25)+ (20.94) - (28.19)
EV = 2

Originally Posted by Renton

I just noticed you were assuming he was calling with more than QQ+ AK. I think the way you're going about figuring that out is very confusing and probably inaccurate. I think it would be absurd to assume he calls your shove with a hand like AJs or KQs. I'll universalize the formula for you so you can plug different values:

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(equity)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-fold%)*(1-equity)*(96)

The equation may make more sense if presented like this:

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(something)

something = (equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-equity%)*(96)

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*( (equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-equity%)*(96) )

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-fold%)*(1-equity%)*(96)


All I did was show why in the hell the (1 - fold%) term shows up twice.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

Sorry to have left you hanging, acg.
no worries sir lol

I was spending all my time in the "Werewolf Village" forum here on FTR.
My team lost 'cause I made a couple of really bad choices.

hate when that happens..lol

***
Renton has lead you well, and the only critique I have for him is semantic.
He used "EV" when he should have use "value" a couple of times.
Here's what he wrote:
EV(3-bet) = P(fold)*EV(fold) + P(4-bet)*EV(4-bet) + P(call)*EV(call)

It should be:
EV(3-bet) = P(fold)*V(fold) + P(4-bet)*V(4-bet) + P(call)*V(call)

I just took the E's out of the RHS (right-hand side) of the equation. This is because we know the value of that play, and it's not a random variable.

I.e. If we bet, and Villain folds, we will win a non-random amount. That is a value.
When we multiply that value by a rate at which Villain folds, that's an expected value.
makes sense. also defines EV which will be helpful. ty sir

k

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The equation may make more sense if presented like this:

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(something)

something = (equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-equity%)*(96)

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*( (equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-equity%)*(96) )

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-fold%)*(1-equity%)*(96)


All I did was show why in the hell the (1 - fold%) term shows up twice.

I see it showed up twice, and this might be a dumb question but why does it show up twice?

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

The equation may make more sense if presented like this:

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(something)

something = (equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-equity%)*(96)

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*( (equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-equity%)*(96) )

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-fold%)*(1-equity%)*(96)


All I did was show why in the hell the (1 - fold%) term shows up twice.

Originally Posted by acg123

I see it showed up twice, and this might be a dumb question but why does it show up twice?

Start here:
EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(something)

Either he folds, or he "not-folds." In this case, since he's responding to a shove, there is only 1 "not-fold" option, so we don't need to separate call and raise.

It would normally start like this
EV = (fold%)(value_fold) + (call%)(value_call) + (raise%)(value_raise)

Any of those variables in parentheses can be 0, eliminating that term from relevance.
In this case, Her has gone all-in, so Villain can not raise. This makes our equation look like this:
EV = (fold%)(value_fold) + (call%)(value_call) + (0)(value_raise)
EV = (fold%)(value_fold) + (call%)(value_call)

We know that our equation is incomplete if the %-ages don't add up to 100%, or 1.
So we know that
fold% = (1 - call%)
and also that
call% = (1 - fold%)
Renton picked fold% to work with and eliminated one variable for his choice.

So now the EV euqation (when Villain is responding to a shove) looks like this:
EV = (fold%)(value_fold) + (1 - fold%)(value_call)

So now we know the value of a fold (the dead money in the pot before Hero shoved) and we know (or hypothesize) Villain's fold%.
The thing we need to solve for now is
value_call = something

Well... We can work out the something... since there are no more bets allowed at after this action, that makes it purely an equity analysis.
something = EV when called = (equity%)*(value_win) - (1-equity%)*(value_lose)

We use the same principle above and assume there will be no ties (which gives the mathematically same answer as if there ARE ties, so we're not even approximating, here).
That allows us to shorthand equity%_Hero in to just equity%, since we know that either Hero wins or Hero loses, so only Hero's equity is important. We could get the same results by using Villain's equity, but we're looking at it from Hero's perspective, so we'll choose Hero's equity.

OK, taking it back. Now we have this:
EV = (fold%)(value_fold) + (1 - fold%)(value_call)
and this:
value_call = (equity%)*(value_win) - (1-equity%)*(value_lose)

So we substitute the 2nd equation into the 1st.
EV = (fold%)(value_fold) + (1 - fold%)( (equity%)*(value_win) - (1-equity%)*(value_lose) )

The (1-fold%) term distributes through the 2 terms in the (value_call) substitution.

Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*(equity%)*(105.5 - rake) - (1-fold%)*(1-equity%)*(96)


All I did was show why in the hell the (1 - fold%) term shows up twice.

It can be contracted even further:

EV = (fold%)*(18.5) + (1-fold%)*((equity%)*(201.5 - rake) - 96)

I just chose the long form because it more obviously displays the different outcomes and how they relate.