Home
(0 votes) 
September 14, 2014
Offline
hey
my question is how often do we need V to fold to our flop c-bet?
say for instance
total pot is $300
hero bets $150, so total pot now is $450 v has to call $150 to win back $450 , which mean's v is getting 3 to 1 on the call, v needs 20% equity to make this call profitable.
now what im trying to figure out is how this relates to how often we need our opponent to fold to our flop c-bet?
December 28, 2012
Offline
We bet 150 to win 450, so 150/450 = 33.33%.
If V therefore does not defend 66.67% of time vs our half pot Cbet, we make a profit.
V has to call 150 to win 600, so 150/600 = 25%.
I think these numbers indicate that people still fold too much to Cbets, generally.
September 14, 2014
Offline
ty for the response.
you say that v has to call 150 to win 600 , so 150/600 = 25%
what does this indiciate then?
December 28, 2012
Offline
It indicates that V only needs 25% equity to continue given those odds.
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
Gsmyth is right, but it's worth pointing out that this is a simplification. In fact you don't need to succeed even that often because you won't lose 100% of the time that your c-bet is called. Sometimes you'll draw to the best hand, sometimes you'll bluff your opponent on a later street.
January 28, 2013
Offline
This does not also take into account the times that villain check/raises right?
If we cbet giving villain 3:1 they need at least 25% equity for immediate odds to call. It is also right to say they need to defend 75% of their range otherwise we are making an immediate profit. This seems a bit contradictory because they are two entirely different ranges?
^ hopefully can understand that. if not, let me know and i will try to explain clearer in a further post.
September 14, 2014
Offline
that makes sense , cheers 🙂
@ kalculater , two entirely different ranges? i'm lost now …
January 28, 2013
Offline
I will try to make my question/thought a little clearer.
If we are giving villain 3:1 odds on calling a cbet he needs at least 25% equity for immediate odds to call (not taking implied odds into account here). From what Gsmyth5 has said, and Andrew backed up if the villain folds more than 75% of the time we make an immediate profit. This means that he needs to call with 25% of his range to be break-even, however in 99.9999% of cases 25% of villains range will not have 25% equity. So how do we reconcile this, or how can both be true?
Hopefully that makes more sense. If not, let me know and i will give it a deeper attempt at portraying my thoughts.
December 28, 2012
Offline
No, when we Cbet half pot, V needs to defend 66.67% of the time in order to stop us exploiting him, in theory.
If, for example, we can say with certainty that he’ll only defend say 50% vs half pot Cbets, we can Cbet every single time and make a profit.
Of course there are different board textures etc to consider in determining what makes a profitable Cbet spot, but the numbers in isolation dictate that it doesn’t have to work too often – that’s the first thing.
V, facing a half pot Cbet, needs just 25% pure equity to call. As Andrew alludes to, there are other factors to weigh in such as the times he can float with air to bluff future streets etc.
So I think it’s a case of understanding what the numbers dictate, which we might consider our fundamentals, and then playing poker from there.
Correct me if I’m wrong guys with any of this, I don’t profess to be an expert.
January 28, 2013
Offline
Gsmyth that still doesnt answer what i am trying to elude to..
If we are giving villain 3:1 odds on calling a cbet he needs at least 25% equity for immediate odds to call (not taking implied odds into account here). From what Gsmyth5 has said, and Andrew backed up if the villain folds more than 75% of the time we make an immediate profit. This means that he needs to call with 25% of his range to be break-even, however in 99.9999% of cases 25% of villains range will not have 25% equity. So how do we reconcile this, or how can both be true?
TPE Pro
December 6, 2012
Offline
Kalc,
I’d really recommend reading Mathematics of Poker if you are curious about these concepts, it’s better explained there. If I bet 100 into a pot of 200 with a dead hand, I lose 100% when Villain does not fold (whether he calls or raises) and win 200 if he does fold. Thus, if he folds 50% of the time, then I lose 100 50% of the time and win 200 50% of the time, for a net EV of 50. Thus, Villain needs to call or raise, combined, 66.67% of the time to prevent me from showing a profit with this bluff. If he calls with pure bluff-catchers more than 66.67% of the time, then I can exploit him by never bluffing while still getting my value bets paid off. Of course he could then exploit this strategy by never calling, and then I could adjust by always bluffing, etc. A 66.67% not-folding range is the point where I’m indifferent to bluffing. With this ratio, he’ll have the same EV against my strategy no matter how frequently I bluff
” in 99.9999% of cases 25% of villains range will not have 25% equity”
I don’t think this is true. There are cases where one player’s range is so strong that even if his opponent knows that he will always bet with weak hands, that opponent still has to fold. I don’t think they occur anywhere near as often as you assume, though. Generally this indicates that the player with the very strong range ought to have played more weak hands on an early street because on the current street he essentially has good bluffing opportunities that he can’t take advantage of for lack of bluffing candidates.
January 28, 2013
Offline
The Mathematics of Poker is the first on my 2015 poker book reading list. Being so interesting in the mathematics, combination, equity and modelling side of poker it is indeed a poker sin of sorts not to have read this book yet. I have heard yourself and Nate mention it many times on the thinkingpoker podcast.
Thanks for your explanation there. I am sure I will understand it better when I explore the concepts in MoP early next year.
What I was trying to reconcile was:
(According to the above), when giving a vaillian or being laid 3:1 odds on a cbet:
Breakeven = 25% equity, and
Breakeven = continuing with 25% of range
However, 25% equity != 25% range. (!= is a symbol for does not equal, primarily used in computer programming). This is what I was eluding to in prior posts.
After writing my previous post and asking the question “how do these reconcile?” it prompted many lines of thought. Its amazing what asking the right questions can prompt in responses and internal thought processes. I have since come to a few conclusions that I will not divulge until further research with MoP. I believe it has something to do with parts of the range, texture and other variables. Obviously there are some pretty generous assumptions involved as well.
As to what I wrote: ” in 99.9999% of cases 25% of villains range will not have 25% equity” it was meant to be taken generally, not literally. Definitely the wrong way to portray this in a post about methematic odds and equity 😀 I was mainly trying to say that there will only be the very rare case where this holds true.
Andrew thanks for your additional comments. I have noted this and am going to try and find practical application spots in my HHs in future to visually represent this.
Most Users Ever Online: 2780
Currently Online:
40 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
bennymacca: 2616
Foucault: 2067
folding_aces_pre_yo: 1133
praetor: 1033
theginger45: 924
P-aire 146: 832
Turbulence: 768
The Riceman: 731
duggs: 591
florianm1: 588
Newest Members:
Tillery999
sdmathis89
ne0x00
adrianvaida2525
Anteeater
Laggro
Forum Stats:
Groups: 4
Forums: 24
Topics: 12705
Posts: 75003
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1063
Members: 12008
Moderators: 2
Admins: 5
Administrators: RonFezBuddy, Killingbird, Tournament Poker Edge Staff, ttwist, Carlos
Moderators: sitelock, sitelock_1
