Math Reads and Expected Value

I'm not real sure how to ask my question in a way that makes sense but i'm gonna give it a shot. This question/thought came up in a poker discussion last night.

We were discussing if/when is it ok to go "against the odds" or basically when the math or pot odds say FOLD but your read says RAISE. I guess my question is, over the long run, can a person get good enough at reading opponents that; 1)they can play -ev hands and 2)overcome wrong pot odds; and still be profitable at poker.

If your answer is YES, how can you develop these skills.....

http://www.thereheis.com/nucleus3.22...-ray-specs.gif

You could play like this I guess

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FczbS...x=0&playnext=1

poker math is range analysis NOT pot odds. and of course, if you can narrow a range down to a single holding then the range analysis will be simple to do and you will play more correctly.

1) given reads, if your hand yields a negative expectation you should not play it. your ev was calculated before hand given that you had reads or could soul read opponents.

2) only if there were proper implied odds or metagame implications.

Poker is a huge function of math. However, you are only looking at one part of the math. Let's say I have 20% chance of winning the pot, and villain bets $1 into the already $1 pot, thus making the pot $2, and me being faced with a $1 bet. The pot odds I'm being given is 2:1, which means I need 33% equity, yes? Unfortunately, I only have 20% equity, so a call would be incorrect. So it seems as if a fold is correct, as a fold has an Expected Value of 0 [0EV], and a call has a negative Expected Value [-EV]. However, that doesn't tell the entire story. We could consider implied odds, meaning the amount we stand to win if we hit, which could push this to a call. Better yet we can look at bluff/semi-bluff raising, and it could very easily be +EV if villain is folding with a high enough frequency. This doesn't mean we are going against the math, it just simply means we are considering more of the "equation".

Here's some math to look at the previous example, in which we are faced with a potsized bet, and we assume we only have 20% equity against his betting range. To make it easier, let's assume we have a draw, and therefore, 20% equity against the majority of his range.

EV[call] - The EV of us calling his bet
EV[call] = (Equity we have)(total pot) - (amount we called)
EV[call] = (0.20)(3) - 1
EV[call] = 0.6 - 1
EV[call] = -$0.40c

This shows that us calling his bet is -EV given the immediate pot odds we have, and our pot equity. And we know a fold is 0EV, so folding is a better option than calling here, assuming no implied odds (which likely isn't the case, but for examples sake).

Now let's see how often he need to fold to a raise to make raising profitable. We are assuming we raise his bet of $1 to $3 in this example. Different bet sizing from him or us would change the EV of a raise some.

EV[raise] = (% he call)*(Ev[call]) + (% he folds)*(EV[fold]), where X = % he folds
EV[raise] = (1-X)*(-1.6) + (X)*(2)
0 = -1.6 + 1.6X + 2X
1.6 = 3.6X
X = 1.6 / 3.6 = 0.44 = 44%

EV[call] - This is different than the before EV[call] function. This is now dealing with our EV when he calls our bet.
Ev[call] = (0.20)(1 + 3 + 3) - 3
Ev[call] = -$1.60

Ev[fold] - The EV we gain everytime he folds to our raise. Which everytime he folds to our raise we win the pot of $2.
EV[fold] = $2

Unless my math is incorrect, this shows that if villain if folding 44% of the time to your raise, then your raise is breakeven, and is therefore just as good of an option as folding. If he folds more often, then it's +EV to raise here. It needs to be noted, that this depends on other factors. The ability for villain to 3bet us, and not allow us to realize our equity, or re-bluff us, or our outs being tainted will play a part, and make the EV less and less. Those are assumptions you would need to take into account when you have enough information about the villain.

So as you see, then though one part of the math says that a fold might be correct doesn't make it so. You have to consider all possible options, and consider all of the math that comes with it. Here we considered the Equity we would have when called, the frequency with which he folds to a raise, etc. So, your not going against the math, you are simply using more math.

XX, thanks for the explanation. So basically, everything can come down to math. The trick is to properly assign a value to your opponent's range and probability to fold.

Now, with all that math, it's basically impossible to do in the 20-30 seconds that you have online to act. SO, what do you do? Is there a trick to or quick analysis that can be done? I know there is software but no way you can input ranges quick enough? OR, does it really just come down to instinct.

The idea is too study specific situations enough away from the table until you have a "feel" for the right +EV move for the given situation.

That is, you can do the pots odds, then maybe make them more / less favorable depending on your characterization of your opponent.

By the way, LucoTheFish.....I have a pair of those glasses for live play but i can't seem to get them to work on my monitor for online play....hehehehe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villagenut

Now, with all that math, it's basically impossible to do in the 20-30 seconds that you have online to act. SO, what do you do? Is there a trick to or quick analysis that can be done? I know there is software but no way you can input ranges quick enough?

---

The EV analysis Stacks did is a great way of looking at a hand post play and finding the optimum line. However, as you said, it's pretty hard to do on the fly. What you can do is to have a rough idea in your head when you play. This is not easy, and the only real way is to do lots of analysis yourself. After a while, you can just pull rough numbers off the top of your head.

Something that helped me a lot was when after I went off and downloaded Poker Stove. One day, I started to mess about and plug in a whole load of different situations into Stove when I was idling whilst 2 tabling. Really helps you get a good sense of where you stand against common villain ranges. Obviously this works better against your 10/8 table nit who has a predictable range than against a 70/30 LAGtard who will play ATC, but even then if you can put a him on something as vague as a draw or 1 pair, it really helps to speed up equity calculations.

EV calculations I've found to be tricky to do on the fly, but the way I'm looking at it is the more hands being SHALed here and 2+2, the better sense I'll get for playing common lines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragntail

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villagenut

Now, with all that math, it's basically impossible to do in the 20-30 seconds that you have online to act. SO, what do you do? Is there a trick to or quick analysis that can be done? I know there is software but no way you can input ranges quick enough?

---

The EV analysis Stacks did is a great way of looking at a hand post play and finding the optimum line. However, as you said, it's pretty hard to do on the fly. What you can do is to have a rough idea in your head when you play. This is not easy, and the only real way is to do lots of analysis yourself. After a while, you can just pull rough numbers off the top of your head.

---

This.

Plus, I can't emphasize enough the importance of session review. Plug some tough hands into Poker Stove. Post them here. Analyze what you did right and wrong on every street. Put players on ranges.

One of the things that happens when you've done this for awhile is that you start to see situations where you have already analyzed it and done the math and you know the right play. In other words, it isn't that good poker players are always sitting there at the table thinking "let's see, he puts money into the pot 20 percent of the time and raises 4 percent, so his range pre flop is TT-44, AQs-A2s, AQ-AT, KQ-KJ, KT, and JT, and now his flop bet is 2/3 of the pot, so that narrows his range and I have 42 percent equity against that range so I can call his flop bet as I am getting better pot odds than that".

Rather, they have been in this situation before, analyzed it, and know what the correct play is. It's more like "I remember this from that game I played at the Borgata, when a fish makes this play, my hand is good enough for a call".

But you only get to that point through session review and doing the math and posting your hands at FTR and other poker websites.

I'm really bad with math and i seem to go ok at this crazy game.