another 1/2 lhe hand

[TheIceman05 0]

I hope people see now that you do lose the .5 BB's everytime you fold this

How does the post show that? He just said he assumes....When money goes into a pot, you can't just claim ownership of it based on your contribution to determine how much you lose by folding. That money is gone. If things worked that way, then everytime you figured out your pot equity you would just add up how much money you've contributed to the pot with no consideration for how likely you are to win the hand and how much money is in the pot. Its extremely complicated to determine pot equity preflop, with so many (some undetermined) factors including the actual board cards, and how playable the hand will be (aggressiveness of opponent, position, etc) . Its like those crazy economists (sorry econ_tim) trying to factor in opportunity cost with very little idea of what the opporunity is. You have 4 choices: 1. You can say that the pot belongs to no one, and choose to make the cost of folding zero. OR--2. You can say that the cost of folding is the amortization of the Blinds across each hand, (.075 BB) for a 10 handed game. That way, each hand has a folding cost associated with it which describes the dynamic of the game. 3. You can come up with some crazy econ forumla with 1000 variables factoring in all the different things that might happen when the cards hit. 4. If you had a database which contained normalized expected values for this hand in this position against a raise, against the average opponent for this type of game, with many many hand histories, you might use that number. What you can't say: is I contributed .5 BB to the pot so thats how much I lose. Think about how that would work after the flop. You flop a royal flush, from the Big blind, so the cost of folding is just your Big blind post?? Or, the only hands that are expensive to fold are in the BB and SB? Everything else is a free fold?

huh? By folding, we lose our equity stake in the pot. If we would win 1/3 times, and there are 3 bets in the pot, by folding we lose 1 bet.THAT is how that calculation is done. It has nothing to do with blind amortization. ??Ice

[harvey 0]

huh? By folding, we lose our equity stake in the pot. If we would win 1/3 times, and there are 3 bets in the pot, by folding we lose 1 bet.THAT is how that calculation is done. It has nothing to do with blind amortization.

That is where the complexity of calculating pot equity preflop comes in. You can't just say that your chance of winning is 1/3,. which isn't accurate at all (if you see Jayson's poker stove results) because the hand has to go to the river. The hand going to the river depends on a number of factors that cannot be determined easily without seeing the cards. If you read akishore's posts he explains it much better. When you do game theory problems and try to come up with a cost of folding preflop, I've have only seen those methods used that I listed.

Can I also say that 1 in 10 times I am playing I put in .25 BB's and 1 in 10 times I put in .5 BB's?

You can say whatever you want, I just don't think its a mathematically accurate way of showing the dynamic of the game. How would you analyse any out of blind hand? You have to somehow model the fact that you need those other hands to make up for the cost of the blinds. Thats why dividing the cost amongst each hand is a common way to think about it. <shrug> As for the link, I read it when you first posted it. Its very interesting. But, he sights .5 BB as the cost of folding.. which I disagree with.

[Sundevils21 0]

Small pot, out of position, easily dominated, I say fold.It's one of those times where if you get action post flop you are usually beat. So you might win a small pot or lose a decent amount of bets if1. An ace flops(if there's action you probably lose, if you have the best you usually don't get action)2. You call down hoping Ahigh is good3. You have a tendancy to do wacky things out of position like the op(no offense)I think it's close. Maybe I'm giving the typical 1-2 player too much credit for being able to lose the min with hands like 10 10- KK on an ace high board.*preflop decisions are way overrated*

[harvey 0]

OH, and since I never really addressed the actual arguement,I would call the raise.But, I still disagree with the cost of folding part.

[JaysonWeber 0]

OH, and since I never really addressed the actual arguement,I would call the raise.But, I still disagree with the cost of folding part.

Can you give a reason why? You're thoughts are flawed here Halvey.

[harvey 0]

Can you give a reason why? You're thoughts are flawed here Halvey.

The only thing flawed, is you ability to type my name! j/k lolI would call because thats what I normally do, and when I ask my database if its a good idea it says yes (I show a positive EV for A2s+ for calling a raise against one opponent in the BB).You're getting 3.5:1 odds, and since players usually have a trouble getting rid of their big hands you get paid off pretty good when you hit straights, flushes, or even when you pair your 4s or A high against any unpaired big paint hand.... KQ, KJ, AK(not with Ace high obviously)...etc. Sure, alot of times you are dominated, but alot of times you are already ahead, so I think the pot odds compensate for this fact. .So, I think, and have evidence, at least for me, that calling is +EV while however you want to determine the cost of folding (even if you want to do it the wrong way :-) ) is always going to be <= 0 errr >= 0 since its a cost..but you know what I mean..

[Canada 0]

If you figure that you lose your blind by folding, then you have to exclude it from your profit when you win the hand (in other words, you can only count as profit the money that your opponents put in the pot).If you figure that folding is zero EV, then you have to include the initial blind you posted as part of your profit when you win the pot, while any additional money you invest in the hand still does not count as profit.

You shouldn't look at this folding as Zero EV though. Because it infact isn't 0 EV. I think you understand why, But I think a lot of people here might not. The reason this is not a Zero EV decision is exactly the reason we are calling, as MrNiceGuy showed you infact lose more by folding, this is why people defend blinds and it is such a cause of controversy and discussion on poker forums. How you play this does effect your bottom line, even over the 100 hands shown theres a difference between folding and calling it's because of situations like this one that you CANT absolutely CANT think of folding your blinds as zero EVGo sit at a table... Fold Every hand for 2 hours, did you lose money? Blinds are -EV it's a constant struggle to make up for them.

Jay Web - you've really embarrased yourself all the way through this post.Firstly you blamed Canada - but I will let that pass.Next you conceded to Aki without a fight, but soon as wrto waded in with his opinion you made some excuse about 'reading the post again', got your back up and started posting with some really superior/arrogant tones. Do you check with wrto to see what he is wearing each day before you get dressed? Sorry cheap shot, but go back and read this post and others - the hero worship is rather pathetic.Now to the actual post at hand - Akishore & Ice are so right its not funny.Calling here is only acceptable if its a defence of your BB. A raise from UTG in a ring game is no where near acceptable to call.The folks arguing a call here have some fundamental flaws that need addressing.#1 The biggest argument is a post on 2 + 2 by Peter Rus. Its a nice post, but his figures are irrelevant for the following reasons.

• It's sample size is way too small to be of any value.It's discussing more criteria than we are here, including completing in the small blind, not against a raise. This effects any results as we have a completly hand texture.The figures for heads up will cover raises from all positions and at 15/30 a significant % of these raises (If not a majority) will be steal raises with a much weaker holding than an UTG at a full table will raise with.His implied odds are acheived only when the flop hits his hand giving him the result listed. This will be less than 50% of the time.
  • #2 Your argument that folding is costing you .5 BB is really quite funny.
    • hand increases, which is why you get more aggressive shorthanded with weaker holdings.If we went with your logic, you would only play weaker holdings more aggresively in short handed games out of the blinds, but play all other positions exactly the same as a full ring game because they cost you the same ie nothing.Its a little more involved than that however that is a simple enough explanaition that should make it clear as to why folding is not costing you .5bbThe reason that blind defence occurs is because you are getting a discount to enter the pot, giving you good pot odds and significantly improved implied odds. Especially against opponents that are attempting steals with less than premium hands - again, not UTG raisers.
      • #3 Mr NiceGuys calculations
        • Mr NiceGuys figures that you have so whole heartedly endorsed have made the assumption that 'When you flop 2-pair of better(5%), I'm assuming you can win an average of net 4BB on the hand 'Yet Peter Rus shows that for those hands you actually net an average of 2BBAlso assume a flopped pair is good 2/3 of the time. No factoring for domination is accounted for there. This is a major point for an UTG raiser.Make these adjustments and his calculations will show its -EV
          • #4 Pot Odds vs Implied odds
            • Bringing PokerStove equity calculations into the equation. Unbelievable. How many times does it need to be said that using these figures are irrelevant for this sort of decision.As Aki pointed out, we are more concerned with implied odds than pot odds for this kind of decision.
              • I could go on with position, pot size etc but I'll let you digest that lot first

[JaysonWeber 0]

Hey canada, Read your post I'm wayyy too tired to Retort right now. But the WRTO Hero Worship? Please, I misread every post I read. Do I think WRTO is a good player? Ugh... Yeah. Do I think he's better than me? Ugh... Yeah, He's my roommate, I see his results. WRTO and I were reading and posting at the same time and discussing before we posted everything we did, there is no such worship going on.I am looking for the right answer here not anything else, so I'm gonna come back too it and look at it tomorrow.I am kind of curious to see what happens at the end of this. Was I cocky in some of my posts? yeah, probobly, But I'm working on that I promise ;)I'm off too bed, promise I'll respond tomorrow.

[Steppin Razor 0]

3. You have a tendancy to do wacky things out of position like the op(no offense)

None taken

But most players do NOT have that great an edge postflop, ESPECIALLY THE OP! The whole point of this thread is to decide what most players should do. The suggestion that this is a "no brainer" is absolutely ludicrous. I wouldn't counsel a player to play this hand if he's not significantly above average. The pot's small, so I say "bleep it."

Here either :)You guys never bluff? Even with a loose call PF, I'd almost always fold if I didn't hit the flop. I just took a shot. One thing I didn't think of at the time, but I might have been able to add 3 outs to a King. I'm 90% sure he would have folded if I represented a pair of Kings and another one came off.I re-read the Limit section of Super/System 2 last night, as I do every so often. On pg. 269, Jennifer Harmon gives an example, "say a fairly tight early position player raises your blind and you decide to defend with A-7 of spades." This is under the 'Semi-bluffing the turn' heading.Now this is example is about semi-bluffing middle pair on the flop, not a total bluff with nothing that I did, but the PF call is pretty much the same situation.

[MrNiceGuy 0]

Mr NiceGuys figures that you have so whole heartedly endorsed have made the assumption that 'When you flop 2-pair of better(5%), I'm assuming you can win an average of net 4BB on the hand 'Yet Peter Rus shows that for those hands you actually net an average of 2BBAlso assume a flopped pair is good 2/3 of the time. No factoring for domination is accounted for there. This is a major point for an UTG raiser.Make these adjustments and his calculations will show its -EV

My first calculation was definitely an overestimate, overall. I went back and did a complete workup, assuming that UTG's hand range was AK-AT, AA-88, and KQ.The percentages now include the fact preflop, one of your aces will be in UTG's hand half the time, so your odds of flopping a pair of aces or two pair are slightly lower than what I first reported. (The only things I believe I've left out are the possibility of us making a gutshot draw to go with our one pair or flush draw hands, and the possibility of opponent making a flush on the flop.)Here's what I got for flops:2 pair/Trips/Boat/Quads/Straight/Flush: 4.35%Flush Draw and Pair: 0.9%Flush Draw, no pair: 10.4%Pair of Aces, no flush draw: 12.2% (Odds you'll flop a pair of aces and still be behind: 43%)Pair of 4's, no flush draw: 14.8% (Odds you'll flop a pair of 4's and still be behind: 44.2%)None of the above: 57.35%I think -1 BB when you have nothing and -.5 BB when you have only a flush draw are probably about right. I'd also guess that when you have a pair and a flush draw, you can probably expect to win about 1BB on average. I'm not sure what you can expect in the other cases - that's what will determine whether calling or folding PF is better.Flush Draw: -0.5 BB * 10.4% = -5.2Flush Draw and pair: 1 BB * 0.9% = +0.9Nothing: -1 BB * 57.35%= -57.35When you flop two pair or better, I think you can do pretty well, since villain will often have a reverse-dominated A. But, on those occasions when he makes a set or a better two pair, you'll get reamed. Maybe you can expect 2.5 BB on average here.2.5 BB * 4.35% = +10.87 (total so far: -50.78)When you flop a pair, you'll have the best hand more than half the time. But when you make a pair of aces and villain has a pocket pair, he'll see the A on board. And when you make a pair of fours and villain has A-high, he'll know that he's beat. So it will be hard to outplay villain here, especially from out of position. Against a decent opponent, I'm guessing you will break even at best here. Against a weaker opponent, maybe you make 0.25 BB per hand on average.So - if you make 0.25 BB with a pair:0.25 * 27% = +6.75. Then over 100 hands, you total about -44 BB over 100 hands. This is better than the 50 BB you lose by folding PF for 100 hands.But - if you break even with a pair, then you'll make about the same as you make by folding.-----------------------------------------------So, bottom line is, if you think you can do as good or better than the BB/hand that I gave for each situation, this is an easy call PF. If you can't do this well, then you should fold PF.

[TheIceman05 0]

huh? By folding' date=' we lose our equity stake in the pot. If we would win 1/3 times, and there are 3 bets in the pot, by folding we lose 1 bet.THAT is how that calculation is done. It has nothing to do with blind amortization. [/quote']That is where the complexity of calculating pot equity preflop comes in. You can't just say that your chance of winning is 1/3,. which isn't accurate at all (if you see Jayson's poker stove results) because the hand has to go to the river. The hand going to the river depends on a number of factors that cannot be determined easily without seeing the cards. If you read akishore's posts he explains it much better. When you do game theory problems and try to come up with a cost of folding preflop, I've have only seen those methods used that I listed.

Can I also say that 1 in 10 times I am playing I put in .25 BB's and 1 in 10 times I put in .5 BB's?

You can say whatever you want, I just don't think its a mathematically accurate way of showing the dynamic of the game. How would you analyse any out of blind hand? You have to somehow model the fact that you need those other hands to make up for the cost of the blinds. Thats why dividing the cost amongst each hand is a common way to think about it. <shrug> As for the link, I read it when you first posted it. Its very interesting. But, he sights .5 BB as the cost of folding.. which I disagree with.

Harvey, I think you're pretty wrong on this one.When we're considering ONLY a single course of action like in this case (call or fold to an UTG raise with A4s from the BB getting 3.5 to 1 on our money) the direct EV of calling is:(Size of pot after call) x % chance to win a showdown - amount of callOR, in this case, 4.5 x .40 -1 = .8 small betsIf we fold, it costs us .8 small bets. That's some very simple math. Folding has an EV of -.4 big bets, if we're all in.Now, of course we have to take into account implied odds, reverse implied odds, etc.Folding ALWAYS costs .4 big bets here. Our blind money is dead, and we have to make a decision whether to pursue it or not. We make this decision whenEVER we call a raise. We're deciding whether to pursue money in the pot. Period. We don't need to amortize our blind costs here, because we're talking about a single decision. We're closing the action getting 3.5-1 on our money with a 40% chance of winning. That is how we figure cost. Facts are useful.ICEPS- I'd still fold, because I think my EV of calling is much worse based on the usual flop, turn, and river actions

[MrNiceGuy 0]

#2 Your argument that folding is costing you .5 BB is really quite funny. Folding the BB is losing .5 is a statement that shows you have very little understanding of the mathematics involved in poker. The blinds are a compulsary bet and are 'lost' before the hand is even dealt.

You and Jayson are both right, you're just each looking at it differently.You're right that you should not be thinking that you can "save" 0.5 BB if you play the hand and win. You should play the hand if it's worth risking an additional 0.5 BB, plus the investment you may end up making postflop, to win the 1.5 BB already in the pot, plus the extra money that your opponent(s) may put in postflop, and otherwise, you should fold.But Jayson is right in that if you do fold, the hand did in fact cost you 0.5 BB. If you fold the same hand on the button, the fold didn't cost you anything (but it still could have been a bad fold, if there had been positive expectation in calling or raising).