Re: Do I have pot odds to call here?
- From: Gary Carson <garycarson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 28 Jul 07 3:15:17 GMT
On Jul 27 2007 2:57 PM, Stephen Touset wrote:
On 2007-07-27, Gary Carson wrote:
Listen, I'm a huge math dweeb. I have a blog on Math and Poker. I've
taught
stat methods courses. I did applied math modelling for a iving for a few
years. I have two master's degrees in quant fields. But the kind of math
you're trying to apply just isn't appropriate in this situation.
The kind of math you're trying to apply is "Well, I'll win if I make a
flush,
what are the odds of making that flush and am I getting the right price to
draw".
Here the question is "what are the odds he's drawing to a flush? " That's
a very different question.
That's why in my calculations (yes, I know you're not replying to me
directly) I gave him probabilities to be on certain hands.
Making up a number so you can do arithmetic to two decimal places is not good
mathematics.
It won't give an exact figure, but the estimate of $20 EV is large
enough that I can be confident that, within a reasonable margin of error
on my read, calling has a positive expectation.
It is possible to actually address that question but you didn't do it.
I have no idea how you know $20 is a big enough edge.
Here's your assumed distribution
80 flush draw
10 pair
10 blanks
EV $23 (let's not do the false precision of to the penny computation).
What if the true value is 80, 15, 5? EV = 16
What if he's not bluffing and it's 80 20 0? EV = 10
Seeing the ten makes it more likely he has a 10. It could be that offering to
show also makes it more likely he has a pair. So, what if the he's not bluffing
and it's 30% chance of a pair.
70 30 0 has EV. Now its EV = 6
If you want to do an EV calculation you need to put a probabilty distribution on
the distribution. ie., what's the probablity that his hand distribution is
80/10/10, 50/50/0 etc.
If he's not bluffing and the flush draw/pair is 50/50 then EV is negative (-4).
I think it turns out that over all possible distributions it works out to be
worth a call. But you didn't show that, you didn't argue that, you didn't even
consider it.
What you did was you picked a distribution that was pretty much skewed as much
in your favor as was reasonable to assume and ran with it. That's not
analysis. That's assuming he has a hand you can beat.
If you'd done a worst case and found it was only slightly negative then that
would be different. But you didn't do that computation, you just ignored the
idea.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
.
- References:
- Re: Do I have pot odds to call here?
- From: Stephen Touset
- Re: Do I have pot odds to call here?
- Prev by Date: Re: OT: Tillman...Murdered?
- Next by Date: Re: RGP in 2007...
- Previous by thread: Re: Do I have pot odds to call here?
- Next by thread: Re: Do I have pot odds to call here?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
