A thread to end "lets find a better spot"

[IowaSkinsFan]

For good.
This only applies to SNG's and MTT's, not cash games. There is no finding a better spot. The question is always is this +EV or -EV. It's not like once you stack a guy he will leave immediately. Even if that was the case, the arguement still wouldn't hold much water. If something is very thin versus a maniac but slightly +EV then it is a good call. I don't want to stack the guy just once, I want to stack him all that I can.
I'm not going to proofread this post but if anyone has something to add or wants to argue about it then go ahead and post.

[swiggidy]

who was arguing this?

[Warpe]

Reference thread:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=440338#440338

[gabe]

there are some very specific situations where it applies to cash games, but not prevalent enough in online games to worry about

[euphoricism]

The underlying assumption is that you will be able to find a larger +EV situation with an easier decision. NL is a game of pushing big edges hard. LHE is a game of pushing small edges repeatedly. Thats the fundamental difference.

Essentially the phrase is saying, "there is no need to make this thin call, when against this opponent you'll have easier ones with equal value and higher expectation."

Yes you might have +EV in some given situation if you call. You dont know. We dont know either. Such is the structure of the game. Thats the point.

[LeFou]

I also think the find-a-better-spot line is overused, but I also think EV calculations are never decisive.

Unless you know your opponents holdings exactly, AND (if applicable) know with precision what heshe will do on later streets.

"Find a better spot" basically means that there are too many uncertainties in play, EV can't be calculated exactly, and there's no point stacking when you know better, more clearcut situations will eventually arise.

[LeFou]

Reference thread:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=440338#440338

perfect example from the referenced thread:

...Depending on how Laggy and Tardy he is here I think its a +EV calldown (although not as much as on a low flop).
...
edit: FWIW if the flop is low and the K comes later I dont think its even close to thin against this villain.

this text by Pelion (who started the post in agreement with Iowa) indicates how uncertain this spot is, and gives an example of a better spot!

[swiggidy]

Thanks Warpe

The underlying assumption is that you will be able to find a larger +EV situation with an easier decision. NL is a game of pushing big edges hard. LHE is a game of pushing small edges repeatedly. Thats the fundamental difference.

I think NL is about pushing edges. It doesn't matter the size. Snapping off thin eV situations will raise your BB/100, thus is not insignificant.

Don't forget the limit. The players at 50NL are trying to learn aggression, and they are very bad at value betting vs pushing people off hands.

[zenbitz]

Thanks Warpe

The underlying assumption is that you will be able to find a larger +EV situation with an easier decision. NL is a game of pushing big edges hard. LHE is a game of pushing small edges repeatedly. Thats the fundamental difference.

I think NL is about pushing edges. It doesn't matter the size. Snapping off thin eV situations will raise your BB/100, thus is not insignificant.

Unless they are thin in the wrong direction, in which case they will lower your BB/100. That's why the decision is hard.

Just because you think you have an edge, doesn't mean you actually have that edge.

[IowaSkinsFan]

"Find a better spot" basically means that there are too many uncertainties in play, EV can't be calculated exactly, and there's no point stacking when you know better, more clearcut situations will eventually arise.

You can't just use this arguement. You have to do your best every hand to calculate EV, and should make a educated guess of if the situation is + or -.
No matter how unclear it is. If you're really unclear on what to do, but your best guess is that it is +EV, even slightly, you should call. You can't just say, I have no idea whatsoever what the play is if you did it would be neutral EV, in which either decision wouldn't make a difference.

[Pelion]

Reference thread:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=440338#440338

perfect example from the referenced thread:

...Depending on how Laggy and Tardy he is here I think its a +EV calldown (although not as much as on a low flop).
...
edit: FWIW if the flop is low and the K comes later I dont think its even close to thin against this villain.

this text by Pelion (who started the post in agreement with Iowa) indicates how uncertain this spot is, and gives an example of a better spot!

Yes BUT the point is that we arent in a better spot. We are in THIS spot and we have to decide if its +EV or -EV. If we arent sure then we still have to give it our best guess and go with it. If we get it wrong we can figure out why later.

[euphoricism]

You can't just say, I have no idea whatsoever what the play is if you did it would be neutral EV, in which either decision wouldn't make a difference.

While every hand theoretically will have a +EV or -EV or 0EV move, we can't ever know it in practice unless we know villains cards or we have the stone nuts. This does not mean the decision is neutral EV. The extreme example is if villain has a set and were thinking we might be ahead with our top pair, calling an all-in is obviously negative EV.

Just because we aren't sure doesnt mean its close.

Now if you want to do things like Villain has a set 10% of the time, air 10% of the time, two pair 20% of the time, top pair with a better kicker 40% of the time, and top pair with a worse kicker (or any hand your top pair beats) 20% of the time, yeah you can do that. But you'll NEVER get those percentages accurate, and WE just from reading a hand history, cannot guesstimate at those percentages either.

Often the hands that involve the "find a better spot" quote involve strong top pair-like hands against a moron who could hold ATC including sets, two pairs, or total air. In these cases, we can't narrow villains hands down enough to get an EV Calc. Hence, you can call if your read says to, and if youre properly bankrolled, you'll probably be alright in the long run.

But really, you're pretty likely to find a better spot where youre more confident youre ahead.

Its my firm belief that a lot of those posts are simply saying, "sympathy please? He could have ANYTHING and I thought I might have been ahead. Is that ok?" to which we say, "you could probably find a better spot."

[Genitruc]

I largely agree with OP.

GAMBOOOL

Whenever something is pretty close to neutral ev I just call and spew/look like a hero because I get the benefit of info to help my intuition, recall, knowledge of villain etc. For me, this benefit compensates in winrate/experience/intuition building for whatever small amount of ev I lost in the hand. If you don't get your money in in a lot of these marginal situations, you never learn how to exploit them.

[Pelion]

Often the hands that involve the "find a better spot" quote involve strong top pair-like hands against a moron who could hold ATC including sets, two pairs, or total air. In these cases, we can't narrow villains hands down enough to get an EV Calc.

Yes you can

1,070,190 games 0.441 secs 2,426,734 games/sec

Board: Ks 8d 7d
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 85.1641 % 84.85% 00.31% { AcKd }
Hand 2: 14.8359 % 14.53% 00.31% { random }


Once you have given him a range you can make a guess as to the EV how ever wide that range. If you dont know the player well enough to put him on a range then you guess one based on what you know about similar players. If a player is totally new to you (i.e. first hand) then you make a guess based on the "average player" at that game. EV never lies.

[euphoricism]

Thanks Warpe

The underlying assumption is that you will be able to find a larger +EV situation with an easier decision. NL is a game of pushing big edges hard. LHE is a game of pushing small edges repeatedly. Thats the fundamental difference.

I think NL is about pushing edges. It doesn't matter the size. Snapping off thin eV situations will raise your BB/100, thus is not insignificant.

Of course NL is about pushing smaller edges as well. But its not really the crux, especially at lower limits that dont involve as many metagame/shania issues. "Hit sets, get paid" is really THE fundamental NL statement. Avoid losing your stack to them, do your best to get other peoples stacks with them.

Essentially we're talking about the hero call, and its been my experience that they are almost always a bad idea. You could probably do incredibly well in NL poker if you never exposed your stack when you aren't over 75% sure you're in a +EV situation. Are you giving up some expectation? Of course. You might get pushed off some hands which were the best. But the problem I have with those is that they tend to always be the "win small lose big" situations.

[Pelion]

That probably has more to do with your (anyones) psychology distorting their logical picture of the situation. Its pretty easy to talk yourself into thinking you *might* be ahead when you obviously arent. Those boarderline calls could well be when you are ALWAYS way behind.

e.g. calling big bets with TT overpair when its obvious OP has QQ+

[swiggidy]

Just because you think you have an edge, doesn't mean you actually have that edge.

Yes BUT the point is that we arent in a better spot. We are in THIS spot and we have to decide if its +EV or -EV. If we arent sure then we still have to give it our best guess and go with it. If we get it wrong we can figure out why later.

This thread is awfully close to the aok's 19 starting hands argument. Do we want to follow a formula "make sets, get paid" or do we want to attack every single edge that we find to learn the most about poker that we can?

Here's a message from drmcboy:

Swig, I am sure that you can beat 50nl playing lock down poker. Maybe it's not optimal and your win rate won't be what it could be (that's a different story), eventually you'll start seeing spots you can make plays and the poker player inside will demand you make them.

If a lagtard villain makes 1/2 PSB on the river for value, is a PSB call really a hero call? I see a lot of players at 50NL that get value betting, and get pushing someone off a hand, but they don't connect the gap between the two ideas.

[Galapogos]

In response to OP (didn't read the others) I just think this is not the ideal way to play the game. The thread that started this is based on making what is assumed to be a slightly +EV hero call. I hate this. Say it's ever so slightly +EV to make the call, then yes, technically it's a good idea in the long run. But I still think it's not the ideal way to make money. Wait for the better spot with a guy like this and be gauranteed to stack him. Who is to say this guy won't hit and run? Who's to say someone won't stack him if he beats you and take your money from him?

Gabe made a point in Lukie's all-in ATs thread about game dynamics and other variables changing the rules in these situations. Maybe I misunderstood him and was not sure what he meant. But this is a situation where you know you and everyone is gunning for this guy. Why take a 52-48 chance to stack him vs having to stack him twice to make some profit off him?

People playing the game with the math in a vacuum that says this is profitable over time are not the big winners. Take advantage of the situation at the table and use these situations to your immediate advantage. The math is a huge tool to being a winner but it's not everything. We let something like "fold equity" affect our mathematical decisions, so why can't something like the type of player affect our mathematical decisions too?

If you have a slight chance to be ahead on a hand with an idiot, why not wait for a greater chance that you know is coming?

I just find that to be a much more profitable way to play. This might not have made sense but I'm in a hurry and have to go.

Edit: to sum up, I don't think making such a thin call is necessarily a wrong way to play if you have a slight edge, but it's not the best way IMO

[mcatdog]

In response to OP (didn't read the others) I just think this is not the ideal way to play the game. The thread that started this is based on making what is assumed to be a slightly +EV hero call. I hate this. Say it's ever so slightly +EV to make the call, then yes, technically it's a good idea in the long run. But I still think it's not the ideal way to make money. Wait for the better spot with a guy like this and be gauranteed to stack him. Who is to say this guy won't hit and run? Who's to say someone won't stack him if he beats you and take your money from him?

When you play in a lot of games against pretty decent players, you realize that you have to take advantage of your small edges. You can't just wait for edges to be handed to you on a silver platter.

[LeFou]

Yes BUT the point is that we arent in a better spot. We are in THIS spot and we have to decide if its +EV or -EV. If we arent sure then we still have to give it our best guess and go with it.

Yes, all correct. My point is this:

EV is per dollar

Most of the "pick a better spot" lines are to do with hands where a very large call is being contemplated. If you imagine EV to be +.01 *per *dollar and call off $5,000 based on that, you'd better be Very Sure it's not -.01

"Pick a better spot" means "there's a nonzero chance that you're wrong; why magnify the potential loss? Hang out a bit and forthwith, you'll be in a +1.0 EV spot for $50, which all other things being equal is .. well, equal. But it's a lot less stressful.

[Galapogos]

In response to OP (didn't read the others) I just think this is not the ideal way to play the game. The thread that started this is based on making what is assumed to be a slightly +EV hero call. I hate this. Say it's ever so slightly +EV to make the call, then yes, technically it's a good idea in the long run. But I still think it's not the ideal way to make money. Wait for the better spot with a guy like this and be gauranteed to stack him. Who is to say this guy won't hit and run? Who's to say someone won't stack him if he beats you and take your money from him?

When you play in a lot of games against pretty decent players, you realize that you have to take advantage of your small edges. You can't just wait for edges to be handed to you on a silver platter.

True that. But my arguments mostly apply to the situation in the thread that this one sprouted from.

Reference thread:

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...=440338#440338

[Warpe]

I've probably got better examples, but this hand comes to mind:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP ($98.50)
Hero ($237.05)
Button ($364.60)
SB ($79.55)
BB ($130.55)
UTG ($63.95)

Preflop: Hero is CO with T, A.
2 folds, Hero raises to $4, 1 fold, SB calls $3.50, 1 fold.

Flop: ($9) 6, T, 4 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $6, SB raises to $12, Hero calls $6.

Turn: ($33) 7 (2 players)
SB bets $12, Hero calls $12.

River: ($57) 3 (2 players)
SB bets $51.55 (All-In), Hero ???

Villain is a 70/30 laggtard. Does Hero pick "a better spot"?

[euphoricism]

We cant tell you that. Theres too many variables for a yes/no answer.

[Warpe]

Theres too many variables for a yes/no answer.

Precisely.

[Pelion]

If you imagine EV to be +.01 *per *dollar and call off $5,000 based on that, you'd better be Very Sure it's not -.01

Why do you have to be so sure its not -.01?

Thats basically a coinflip. You expect to lose $0.01 per hand. Thats not exactly huge if you are playing for $5,000.

I dont understand what you mean by "you'd better be Very Sure it's not -.01"

EV means EXPECTED value. If you expect to gain value from a certain call then EV is positive. The whole point about poker is you never know what hands the opponent holds. You have to guess at ranges and then you use those ranges to make decisions.

Explain why it makes sense to fold for 100BBs when you believe you have a 0.0000000000001% edge (with no rake) in a game that you are bankrolled enough to rebuy for the full 100BBs if you lose.

@Galapogos

Wait for the better spot with a guy like this and be gauranteed to stack him. - No you arent. He might leave before that or get stacked by someone else. Equally you might stack him now and he might rebuy allowing you to stack him later. Now if you feel its likely that villain will leave after doubling up then it becomes incorrect to take small edges if you believe he will offer you larger ones later. We arent actually considering that at the moment though since people seem to be arguing a more general case.

Who is to say this guy won't hit and run? - Whos to say he will? Whos to say you dont lose the chance to stack him twice. You cant make decisions based on this if you have no idea either way. If you feel its likely he'll hit and run then you are probably correct to pass. If you feel he is likely to rebuy if he loses, or stay when he wins then how are you ever correct to fold?

Who's to say someone won't stack him if he beats you and take your money from him? - ????? Whos to say you wont stack him and take money from some of the people sucked out on before. I really dont see how this point is relevant at all. That same thing can happen when you have a HUGE edge.


You all seem to be making assumptions that he will "hit and run" or something. Obviously if you think he will then you have to consider that. I dont think you can just assume its going to be the case though, not least because the vast majority of people hang around after doubling up.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Pelion's arguments express my viewpoint.

[|~|ypermegachi]

Explain why it makes sense to fold for 100BBs when you believe you have a 0.0000000000001% edge (with no rake) in a game that you are bankrolled enough to rebuy for the full 100BBs if you lose.

some very good points. but this i think is the important one. are you basing your decision on your buyin, or your bankroll?

now, assuming that we're basing it on the bankroll one, even though EV is the same, would it be better to bet/call or fold?

[LeFou]

I love it when a discussion is feisty but remains civilized. Let me try another angle:

You're 2-tabling 200NL. By weird coincidence you realize you have a call to make on each table, and your calculations convince you that your edge on *both is exactly +1%, with a margin of error of 5%.

The size of the bet you have to call is $1 at table A and $199 at table B.

Mathematically, you should call on both and this is a perfectly good answer. The "pick a better spot" approach doesn't say fold B every time. It says be more likely to fold B than A.

Speaking of margin of error, I think it's usually much more than 5%. I also think that for 99% of players, it doesn't spread evenly plus/minus but skews high. That is to say, you're much more likely to be *overestimating your EV than underestimating it. This argues for conservative play when pots are of such a size that losing could have repurcussions on the rest of the session.

[euphoricism]

I think this is also a good spot to point out that theres plenty of advice that goes something like Person A has AK person B was QQ, it doesnt matter what happens if you go all-in its a coinflip. Despite the fact that the QQ is a favorite by 5%.

IF you can find a true 51/49, yes you should go all in every day anytime. The trick is to NOT overestimate your EV. It doesnt take much to trick yourself into thinking a 70/30 dog is a 51/49 flip. Thats where the 'pick a better spot' comes in.

[Renton]

an argument for "pick a better spot" is that a lot of us aren't good enough players to know if a thin spot is plus or minus ev either way. In this case its best to err toward caution.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I think what determines the quality of a poker player is how accurate his or her EV calculations are.

[Genitruc]

props to OP

one of better ftr threads in recent memory, even if it seems to be such a basic question

[bode]

an argument for "pick a better spot" is that a lot of us aren't good enough players to know if a thin spot is plus or minus ev either way. In this case its best to err toward caution.

i agree with this whole-heartedly. I feel this is where my game is lacking. i talk myself into calling these marginal situations because i feel it is very slightly +EV, when in fact, too much of the time it isnt.

i dont see any problem erring on the side of caution in these spots when there is no way you can be completely sure.

[IowaSkinsFan]

In this case its best to err toward caution.

So your saying even if you barely even the slightest think a situation is +EV you should fold because you dont know? Isn't that saying, in an exaggerated manner, that even if you really think something is +EV you should fold because it could be -EV?
Maybe your saying since you know your not good, you are going to guess that it is -EV, because you aren't good enough. Which in that case, a fold wouldn't be picking a better spot, it would be making a good laydown.
If you don't know what to do, which means you could go either way, then your actions make no diffence.

[Jager]

To me the 'find a better spot' argument is only valid when you are facing a push with a marginal holding, Warpe's example is good here, or when your stack is at risk due to the nature of the villains betting i.e. you will be required to play for your stack on later streets. Other than these there are no other situations where picking a better spot is valid.

Why anyone here will play for stacks with a marginal holding against any opponent, loose or tight, is beyond my knowledge of what makes a winning player. Even if any spot you are in is slightly +EV why would want to play for stacks? It may be true that you may not get another shot at him, but isn't your long term success more secure if you are pushing with a better holding than AJ on any Jxx board against a loose or tight villain? Why should we assume that because he is loose that he does not have us beat? Only the bad of the bad that play with a full stack will raise a Jxx flop with only QJ, they usually just call you down. Maybe I am wrong, but there is nothing in this thread to make me think otherwise. I still believe that in these situations you CAN find a better spot.

[|~|ypermegachi]

If you don't know what to do, which means you could go either way, then your actions make no diffence.

if this is the case, i think it's better to gamb00l!!! it can only improve your hand reading skills.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Even if any spot you are in is slightly +EV why would want to play for stacks?

If playing for stacks is +EV then it would be retarded to not.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

In this case its best to err toward caution.

So your saying even if you barely even the slightest think a situation is +EV you should fold because you dont know? Isn't that saying, in an exaggerated manner, that even if you really think something is +EV you should fold because it could be -EV?
Maybe your saying since you know your not good, you are going to guess that it is -EV, because you aren't good enough. Which in that case, a fold wouldn't be picking a better spot, it would be making a good laydown.
If you don't know what to do, which means you could go either way, then your actions make no diffence.

I Agree.

With every action you should know what you THINK your EV is. If you fold because lack of clarity then you aren't playing right (unless you don't have proper bankroll or know that you aren't very good).

This thread has a lot to do with Lukie's "I really want to call with AT" thread. He determined his EV was positive, so he called. He didn't say, "well i'm not sure so i fold." He made a range and determined that his call would be +EV.

P.S.
However, if you are hungover or semi-tilting... you aren't going to play your best that session. That may be a reason to say to youself, "This is too complicated a situation right now and i don't think i'm going to make the correct decision, but this looks marginal so i will fold."

[euphoricism]

If you don't know what to do, which means you could go either way, then your actions make no diffence.

This is simply untrue.

[Jager]

Even if any spot you are in is slightly +EV why would want to play for stacks?

If playing for stacks is +EV then it would be retarded to not.

In the theoretical world yes, but to me in the practical world no. If I think I am +EV, but it is borderline, why play for stacks on the flop or turn? I am almost just as likely to get outdrawn for my whole stack as I am to hold on IF I am correct. In the practical world we never really know.

[euphoricism]

The issue is not SHOULD I GO ALL IN WHEN ITS +EV!?? Its just not. We know that answer.

[IowaSkinsFan]

If I think I am +EV, but it is borderline, why play for stacks on the flop or turn? I am almost just as likely to get outdrawn for my whole stack as I am to hold on IF I am correct.

Then that situation is -EV if you're losing money in the long run. You have to use the best of your abilities in any situation to calculate EV, if you aren't going to then you are losing value.

[euphoricism]

Thats the entire point Iowa. Entire point. If we're not sure if we're +EV or -EV, particularly in places in which we might be + a little EV but - a lot of EV, folding is 0EV and is the better of the two options.

If we know we're +EV, we are always correct to make a call. Input any element of doubt as to whether we are or not, and the line gets significantly more blurry. In many of those cases you can find a better spot.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Even if any spot you are in is slightly +EV why would want to play for stacks?

If playing for stacks is +EV then it would be retarded to not.

In the theoretical world yes, but to me in the practical world no. If I think I am +EV, but it is borderline, why play for stacks on the flop or turn? I am almost just as likely to get outdrawn for my whole stack as I am to hold on IF I am correct. In the practical world we never really know.

I don't think people get what you are talking about... I think i get it now though.

Are you talking about a situation like, you have KJ vs a LAGG guy who overvalues hands. You flop a K but don't want to play for stacks even though you think it's +EV to show the hand down.

I think the reason you don't play for stacks here is because it is MORE +EV if you keep the pot small. Lets say the pot is $8 on that flop, and you it is +EV to show your hand down. If you only end up putting $8 more, you only needed to win the hand 1/3 of the time to have even EV, so if you think you'll win the hand 50% of the time that's great EV. If you end up putting 16, you need to win the hand 4/10 times for it to be even EV, so if you'll win the hand 50% of the time, it's decent EV. If you end up $10000000 in, it needs to be close to 50% for it to be Even EV, so if you'll win the hand 50% it's still slightly +EV.

Obviously, the turn and river cards affect your decisions later in the hand, so my explanation isn't perfect. But it's the best that i could do.

[Jager]

If I think I am +EV, but it is borderline, why play for stacks on the flop or turn? I am almost just as likely to get outdrawn for my whole stack as I am to hold on IF I am correct.

Then that situation is -EV if you're losing money in the long run. You have to use the best of your abilities in any situation to calculate EV, if you aren't going to then you are losing value.

I think EV is inate??? I don't believe I can alter the EV by what I think, it is either + or - by the cards we hold. We estimate our EV on based on our opponents range.

[Galapogos]

Thats the entire point Iowa. Entire point. If we're not sure if we're +EV or -EV, particularly in places in which we might be + a little EV but - a lot of EV, folding is 0EV and is the better of the two options.

If we know we're +EV, we are always correct to make a call. Input any element of doubt as to whether we are or not, and the line gets significantly more blurry. In many of those cases you can find a better spot.

Wow, you say what I want to say in such a concise way and people understand what you're saying. Thank you!

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Thats the entire point Iowa. Entire point. If we're not sure if we're +EV or -EV, particularly in places in which we might be + a little EV but - a lot of EV, folding is 0EV and is the better of the two options.

If we know we're +EV, we are always correct to make a call. Input any element of doubt as to whether we are or not, and the line gets significantly more blurry. In many of those cases you can find a better spot.

Hmmm, is folding really 0EV? If you fold a +EV situation, you are essentially "losing" money because you didn't take the money you could have won.

Also, i'm not sure if i'm thinking correctly, but if there is no money in the pot and you fold, it's 0EV. But if there is money in the pot and you fold, can it still be 0EV? I'm thinking it has something to do with that it's not a 50/50 or something... Maybe i'm wrong.

Can someone clarify this?

[IowaSkinsFan]

So in that case doesn't the doubt have to be put in the EV calculation? So if your doubt that your beat makes you think it's -EV then it's -EV. I'm sure Hollingol gets it wrong sometimes but you have to take your best most educated guess.

What my understanding to your arguement is is that since we really can't make an accurate EV calculation at all in certain situations because of a lot of factors we should just "find a better spot." The blurriness could be +EV or -EV no? But as far as I can tell you are saying that more times than not when you make a questionable decision its -EV?

[Jager]

Not bad Massimo. I'll try this...

You hold Ks Jd You raise 4x get 1 caller

Flop comes Kc Tc 5d You bet 2/3 pot Villan raises 3x
If you call Villain will probably tap you...

If we know he has K9, JTo, 87o... We know this is an easy call/push we are way ahead.

But what if he has AK, KQ, KT, TT, 55. We are way behind. We know this is an easy fold.

But what if he has Qc Jc, 5c 6c, Ac 2c these are almost coinflips. Most players would raise these hands. What do we do here?

Statistically we are huge favorites, this situation is very +EV
Board: Kc Tc 5d
equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 83.1140 % 82.49% 00.62% { KsJd }
Hand 2: 16.8860 % 16.26% 00.62% { random }

Now do you really want to call his raise knowing that he could push turn?
If we decide to reevaluate turn, any club(9), any A(3), any 9(3), either 5(2), either T(2) are all bad plus maybe any 7(3), any 6(3), any 4(3) for those with 75, 65, 54. This is 27 possible cards out of 47 that could give us trouble and invoke a push.
Are we better off waiting for a better hand?

[swiggidy]

Hmmm, is folding really 0EV? If you fold a +EV situation, you are essentially "losing" money because you didn't take the money you could have won.

This is right. Folding is always 0eV because you never win any money, and at this point you never loose any money.

Betting may be +5eV (made hand vs calling station), calling +1eV (cuz the bet will be smaller) so:
Betting > calling > folding

If betting is -5eV (where only a worse hand calls), check/calling is +1eV (picking off abluff) then:
calling > folding > betting

[euphoricism]

Hmmm, is folding really 0EV? If you fold a +EV situation, you are essentially "losing" money because you didn't take the money you could have won.

Folding is always and forever 0EV. The value you expect to make off folding is 0. You gain nothing, lose nothing on future rounds. Remember, the money you have already put in the pot is no longer yours and every decision is irrespective (mathematically) of previous rounds of betting.

I understand your point, and to an extent it is correct, but in mathematical terms folding is always 0EV. If youve passed up on a +EV situation, you have lost value, that does not mean youve made a -EV move. A -EV move is a move you make (such as a call) that is expected to lose you money long term. A fold can never lose you money because the money you've put in the pot is no longer yours. Its a little dicey, I know.

So in that case doesn't the doubt have to be put in the EV calculation? So if your doubt that your beat makes you think it's -EV then it's -EV. I'm sure Hollingol gets it wrong sometimes but you have to take your best most educated guess.

Absolutely, IF you can quantify that doubt incredibly precisely. The point being, most people are just not that good at doing it.

Do you honestly believe you can go 49.35% of the time he beats me, but I win the other 50.75%? Being off on your estimate as much as 1% of the time turns a winning move into a losing move.

But as far as I can tell you are saying that more times than not when you make a questionable decision its -EV?

ABSOLUTELY. The human psyche is INCREDIBLY good at deceiving itself and justifying a given action unto itself. Think of any and every crime committed "in the heat of passion." Or the real good cops, the ones you really want in uniform, who at the end of a police chase beat the living shit out of a suspect and then lose their jobs over it. Thats their head deceiving them into believing an action is justifiable when its not. The human mind is very very good at that.

You really do have to train yourself out of it. The best you can hope to do is be cognizant of it.

Its not a function of the decision itself, as your statement seems. Its not that everytime you make a questionable decision its automatically -EV. No, but you need to be aware that your fundamental "humaness" is going to scream "CALL CALL CALL" at you when you really really shouldnt.

[Lukie]

One problem is that people really underestimate how big of an edge is in some situations. For example, a 55/45 (dead money in the pot is an added bonus) is actually a very significant edge, and anyone that doesn't agree just doesn't understand math, EV calculations, and how much money they are 'passing up' by not taking those. I really only briefly skimmed through the thread, but somebody made a good point that we never (very rarely) know our exact equity. This is true, but we have to do our best to put them on a range and go with it. This is much better then throwing our hands up and running every time we are confronted with a tough decision. Plus, it never hurts to think a little bit about game theory. The more you actively think about this kind of stuff, the better of a player you will become. At least that's my theory.

I also heard someone make mention of passing up the 52/48's, yadayadayada. Let's look at a hand that could actually happen, with a little dead money in the pot, to see how big of an edge a 52/48 can really be. 5/10, $1k effective stacks. tagg/laggish regular opens to $40 in MP, you repop him on the button with 22 to $140. folds back to MP who pushes. You have played with him enough to know that he has AKo/AKs here every time (I know this is assuming a lot and we're never going to be 100% sure here, but against some players, this assumption really isn't that far off at all).

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 52.0135 % 51.70% 00.31% { 22 }
Hand 2: 47.9865 % 47.67% 00.31% { AKs, AKo }

Folding here is a 0 EV move. It's 860 for us to call to have 52% ($1056) equity in what will be a $2030 pot. Thus, folding is nearly a $200 mistake! To a player poker, this is real money. It is also nearly a 25% edge on our money. By comparison, a professional blackjack player (who card counts) has roughly a 1% edge on his bets (has an EV of +$1 on a $100 bet).

Anyway, I also read somebody say that NLHE is about hitting sets, stacking people, and avoiding getting stacked by sets. You have to understand that a year or two ago, you could find widespread games where this could be profitable. As the games get tougher, if this is still your philosophy, then you will be enroute to busto.

[Pelion]

Thats the entire point Iowa. Entire point. If we're not sure if we're +EV or -EV, particularly in places in which we might be + a little EV but - a lot of EV, folding is 0EV and is the better of the two options.

Ok it sounds like we are talking about 2 different things here. You're argument sounds alot like a reverse implied odds argument. You put someone on a range and you are ahead of that range at the moment but with more than one decision to go it could go downhill.

When I talk about EV im bundling up all that stuff into one single number and basing my decision on that. It can never be a choice between "+ a little EV but - a lot of EV" because in that case Id just have an overall negative number.

Youre (my?) example about talking yourself into calling when you probably have the worst of it in a marginal situation is a good one, but in order for this discussion to make sense on a theoretical level we have to assume that you are working on logic.

So heres a new simplified question that I would like each of you to answer/consider.

You have a NL poker bot installed on your PC. It moniters all the collected poker tracker stats and all previous hands shown down. It is not affected by emotional considerations. It plays perfect chip EV poker based on ranges it can calculate at the time. Someone goes allin for 100BBs and the computer decides you have a 1% edge and asks if it will let you call.
You know the villain will stay whether he wins or loses. You know the computer will not tilt or anything like that.
What do you decide and more importantly why if you decide not to?

[pgil]

First, if you are basing your decision about such an abnormal play (unless you were very deep to begin with or there were many others in the pot, this looks like it will be a massive overbet) on pokertracker stats and hands showndown, this would be a mistake.
Second, it would depend on how wide the range of hands was. The wider the range, the larger the margin of error, and the more troublesome the calculations become. Even a calculation of the margin of error can become difficult.

Basically, if pokertracker stats tell you that villain could do this with any 2 random cards (widest range possible), you are saying we should be calling with Q8(or 9, can't remember which one is exactly in the middle) as you will be slightly ahead. I would want to wait for one of two things, either a larger advantage over 2 random cards, or more information to allow me to narrow the range.

If you have a 1% advantage and have villain on a much more narrow range, then I think that a call becomes easier, and a lot better.

[Alibi]

np Lukie

[euphoricism]

We know. We get it. If we are 100% sure, absolute, no doubt about it, sure that we have a 1% edge we should take that edge every time all day all night until we're dead. (And maybe come out with the worst of it because of the rake...)

But lets take your poker bot example. Its perfect. Its got a 1% edge on this guy and it says its sure. Whats your confidence in that estimation? If youre 100% confident in it, all-in baby!

But take the same bot and say it finds a 1% edge against player A but it also tells you it has a 3% margin of error. Well that is a significantly more 'gray' decision because what looks like a +EV call could very well be -EV. And an argument for finding a better spot can easily be made. Introducing any sort of doubt significantly decreases your abilities to nail down your EV accurately.

This is why sklansky writes that he doesnt actually do any sort of EV calcs at the table, and theyre purely for learning purposes. Its just too hard to identify your edges that precisely in practice.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think the question more is...
1. Should you assume that when you are in a very grey situation where it is almost impossible to accurately calculate EV that we should fold most of the time (I'd like to say everytime?)
2. When you are in a very grey situation where it is almost impossible to accurately calculate EV, should you calculate EV to the best of your ability and act accordingly, even if you very vaguely make an educated guess that raising/calling is more +EV then folding.

I think two is correct.

[euphoricism]

Let's look at a hand that could actually happen, with a little dead money in the pot, to see how big of an edge a 52/48 can really be. 5/10, $1k effective stacks. tagg/laggish regular opens to $40 in MP, you repop him on the button with 22 to $140. folds back to MP who pushes. You have played with him enough to know that he has AKo/AKs here every time (I know this is assuming a lot and we're never going to be 100% sure here, but against some players, this assumption really isn't that far off at all).

You said it right there. You're never going to be 100% sure. You might be "not far off" but this is a really bad place to be any off. So as you said, you need to quantify it.

How unsure are you? 100%? 95%? 90%? Did he just tilt and lose a pot, and now youre facing a shove from 55? How much does that element of doubt change your perception of a 52/48 edge? Even a 5% chance that villain has any overpair turns this into a losing call.

I surfed on over to TwoRags.com and threw that exact situation in...



You've lost $11 on your call. -EV.

Using this, you only show a profit when you are 98% sure. 97% sure is a loss even though its a barely +EV situation. With rake its a loss.




Now, how good do you think you are at estimating between 97% and 98% accuracy? Or should you consider finding a better spot?

[mcatdog]

He's still calling $860 to have about $1000 in equity...

[euphoricism]

(for those wanting the link to those calcs, its
http://www.tworags.com/?ACTION=odds . Really good stuff.)

[Warpe]

I've probably got better examples, but this hand comes to mind:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

saw flop|saw showdown

MP ($98.50)
Hero ($237.05)
Button ($364.60)
SB ($79.55)
BB ($130.55)
UTG ($63.95)

Preflop: Hero is CO with T, A.
2 folds, Hero raises to $4, 1 fold, SB calls $3.50, 1 fold.

Flop: ($9) 6, T, 4 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $6, SB raises to $12, Hero calls $6.

Turn: ($33) 7 (2 players)
SB bets $12, Hero calls $12.

River: ($57) 3 (2 players)
SB bets $51.55 (All-In), Hero ???

Villain is a 70/30 laggtard. Does Hero pick "a better spot"?

To use this hand as an example again, against this villain's preflop range (70% of hands) I'm a huge favourite. But obviously I'm only up against a small part of his range here. What to do, what to do...

Let's add in reads. He's been donking off chips for a number of orbits and could very well be on tilt. He makes a weak check/raise on the flop (bluff?)...he makes a really weak bet on the turn (surely he'd bet stronger if he had something) which I just call. I therefore look weak to him so he shoves it all-in on the river. No way I can call that bet, right?

But I suspect he's bluffing all the way down. By the "pick a better spot" logic, I should always fold here because I'm ahead of so little - but he's sticking his stack out there so I don't see a much better spot than this one coming up for me to take it off his hands.

How do you quantify that kind of intangible into an EV calculation?

[LeFou]

...what looks like a +EV call could very well be -EV. And an argument for finding a better spot can easily be made. Introducing any sort of doubt significantly decreases your abilities to nail down your EV accurately.

Yes, and more importantly (I think) human margins-of-error are different from robot ones.

When a robot finds a 1% edge, the margin of error might be +/-3%. When a human does, it is almost always more like +5, -15%.

If you know this about yourself (through a tremendous exercise of self-analysis), you would correctly find that the "real" EV is halfway between +6 and -14, namely -4. And you'd fold. But that would require that you know the exact "shape" of your margin-of-error precisely. Ad infinitum.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

But take the same bot and say it finds a 1% edge against player A but it also tells you it has a 3% margin of error. Well that is a significantly more 'gray' decision because what looks like a +EV call could very well be -EV. And an argument for finding a better spot can easily be made. Introducing any sort of doubt significantly decreases your abilities to nail down your EV accurately.

This is why sklansky writes that he doesnt actually do any sort of EV calcs at the table, and theyre purely for learning purposes. Its just too hard to identify your edges that precisely in practice.

I think your logic is a little fuzzy here. If a poker bot calcs an edge of 1% with a 3% margin of error you should STILL TAKE THAT EDGE EVERY TIME. Because ON AVERAGE, YOU'LL HAVE AN EV OF +1%.

So when you are making an EV calculation, if you make an educated guess that you have a 3% edge but your margin of error is 10%, you should take that edge because in the long run, you'll gain money.

But the problem is a players margin of error isn't always even. Some people err towards calling, some towards folding. Which makes this even more complicated...

[euphoricism]

First, its less than a PSB. He's not "shoving in his stack" thats really just a normal sized bet into that sized pot. And if youre properly bankrolled and believe it him to be weak, calling is hardly a massive mistake.

Put him on a range. x% of the time he has this hand, x% of the time he has that hand, x% of the time its a pure bluff. If you can do it accurately, the math is simple. Doing it accurately is the trick.

If you want less precision, you could just do a "I beat him x% of the time, he beats me x% of the time" and compare it to your pot odds. We can't really guesstimate those numbers for you.

[euphoricism]

Further warpe, you opponents turn bet isn't necessarily weak. He's done exactly as NLT&P says and left just enough for a credible river bet if he wants to bluff. He might be unsure of his hand, but doesnt want to take away his hammer, as sklansky put it. If he had bet $20 on the turn, he'd then be betting, what, $20 into a $70 pot?

But that may be giving him a* little* too much credit as a 70/30.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think the question more is...
1. Should you assume that when you are in a very grey situation where it is almost impossible to accurately calculate EV that we should fold most of the time (I'd like to say everytime?)
2. When you are in a very grey situation where it is almost impossible to accurately calculate EV, should you calculate EV to the best of your ability and act accordingly, even if you very vaguely make an educated guess that raising/calling is more +EV then folding.

I think two is correct.

I'm going to quote myself, because i feel like our arguements are going away from the actual point.

[euphoricism]

On the surface this thread is "should we make a +EV move if its +EV?" and uh, yeah, yeah you should. But on a deeper level its about our abilities to estimate our EV, and being cognizant of the fact that we're often very optimistic in our calls.

In a gray area where its hard to calculate your EV, should you attempt to do it anyway? Yes, of course you should. And should you act on that estimation? Its hard to go too wrong doing so. Just, again, be cognizant that your estimations are likely to be optimistic and fight that urge to think you're in a more favorable situation than you really are.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

very grey situation

Do you mean "a very gay situation"? I'm pretty sure in America, grey isn't a word.

In a gray area where its hard to calculate your EV, should you attempt to do it anyway? Yes, of course you should. And should you act on that estimation? Its hard to go too wrong doing so. Just, again, be cognizant that your estimations are likely to be optimistic and fight that urge to think you're in a more favorable situation than you really are.

Great point. You should know yourself, if you like to call or fold more, if you always think your bluffs will work or you think they never will, etc.


Also, on another point, i think it's better for beginners to fold in gray areas. For one thing, if they do something like follow Aoks 19 hand strategy, they'll win money. Also, when they see more hands they'll be able to calc EV better in grayish areas.

It worked really well for my friend. He had played a lot of live poker, but he still wasn't very good. I lead him to Aoks site and he did his strategy, and slowly but surely he has been opening up his game.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I think we are in agreement now Eupho.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

[quote="IowaSkinsFan"]For good.
This only applies to SNG's and MTT's, not cash games. [/quote

I'm pretty sure you meant "this applies to cash games, not necessarily SNG's and MTT's."

[IowaSkinsFan]

[quote="Massimo"]

For good.
This only applies to SNG's and MTT's, not cash games. [/quote

I'm pretty sure you meant "this applies to cash games, not necessarily SNG's and MTT's."

What I meant is that the quote doesn't make sense period logically, but makes more sense in MTT's and SNG's, and never in cash games.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Well can you edit it up a bit, it's just unclear...

[bigred]

I think both sides of this argument are in agreeance. There's just argument on technicalities.

Side A: You should always make the play if it's +EV.

Side B: Your EV calculation is probably flawed in many aspects and on a small EV with a probable large margin of error, you're more likely to be in the negative EV range.

Could this thread simply redefine "pick a better spot" as a marginal EV line with a human margin of error (based on Lefou's +5 to -15, overconfidence, lack of self analysis). If this margin of error is accepted, the weighted average of the EV line is negative EV and all parties agree that negative EV is bad.

It has simply come to a speculation of this margin of error weighting.

[IowaSkinsFan]

I don't understand the logic of margin of error being farther in the negative then in the positive.

[LeFou]

Estimate the number of peanuts in a Hershey bar. You have a margin of error, and no particular reason why you would estimate it high or low.

Estimate your chances of getting a date with Foxy Chick #413B, and your accuracy will depend on certain factors of your psychology, viz: are you overconfident (you will tend to estimate high) or insecure (you will estimate low)