Calculations, calculations. What am I doing wrong here?

[luzipher]

Originally Posted by Disturbed

Yes but then you will have to take a number more than 169 as that has ommitted combos of the same hand, but generally i think you will end up with a similar number, maybe a bit higher.

I have to play a soccer match right now, I don't have time to answer about the EV now, but about the sentence I quote:
Yes, more than 169, but the number will be lower.
A reduced example:
You have a deck only with A and K (8 cards), and you decide play AA, KK and AKs, and fold AKu.
Following the way you do the calcs, you have 4 different hands, and choose to play 3 of them, so 3/4 --> 75%
But doing the right calculation like I suggest:
You have 6 possible AA, 6 possible KK, 4 possible AKs and 12 possible AKu, so the right calculation is:
(6+6+4)/(6+6+4+12) --> 16/28 --> 57.14%

If you do the right calculation using a complete deck you will see that you will hold one of the 23 playable hands with a porcentage lower than 14%.


About the EV, a negative EV means that you will lose money in the long range playing hands with this value, a positive EV means that you will win money.
If you assume you collect only EV*BB, then you will collect LESS money than the money you bet with an EV less than 1, and of course this is a mistake.
You expect win the average amount in risk PLUS EV*(this amount), and I'm pretty sure that is correct.

[Disturbed]

Originally Posted by scrawnybob

hi

ok well its mid morning now - I didnt drink too much last night, enough to be tipsy but not have the hangover from hell (the missus is an altogether different case lol)

anyway this is turning into a great thread ;-)

so now hungover I'd just add to all the great replies and great OP that if you look at some of the great maths based players - Chris Jesus Ferguson for example he is a human calculator and can & will make near perfect calls based on betting / odds etc but he also factors in (mathmatically) human variation / players styles etc ...

the end result of his very mathmatical approach (which is highly profitable) is also very similar to the old time served players "natural" school of life poker - which is learn on the road over a long period of time and self taught - but essentially arrives at a similar way of playing

the first can be learnt by strict maths (but factoring in all the variables) the later is learn by learning from successes and mistakes, observation and natural deduction, where a time served player might not be able to explain the maths formula that made them make the correct decision but they know from seeing and being in similar situations what is the most effect play

online we dont have physical tells but IMHO the potential information from betting patterns / bet size etc that you get both online and in live poker games is the most useful information

but (finally) here is the maybe useful observation ... people make certain bets thinking they are doing certain things (like betting too much to make it sensible for another player to call on a draw)

alot of the time this type of bet will give you

a) information
b) a mathmatical error that gives you an edge

alot of players will say I bet xyz to achieve abc ... if they make the mathmatically incorrect bet for this to be statistcal fact but feel they have ... you have gained information on what hand they most probably have and also more pot odds / implied odds to make a call that they would consider wrong

hopefully this makes sense but betting patterns are really big tells especially in low / mid stakes games - tells in terms of mathmatical mistakes and also obvious hand holding indicators

dont get too tied up in strict maths because without factoring in most / all variables the maths will correct in an all-in situation / bad beat etc is accurate especially in NL the implied odds etc really throw out the maths ... that doesnt make it about getting lucky or negate skill

but NL is more art based on science / maths

limit is pretty much just maths

if poker were just lucky and the cards - everyone would be equally lucky and no winners / losers over a good period

the reality is poker is like any sport ... the more you practice and improve the luckier you will get

while outsiders / amateurs do win tournaments ... looking at the tournament or cash table leaderboards for top US or Euro poker players etc its always the same names putting in consistent results ... that isnt luck or chance

cheers scrawnybob

Originally Posted by luzipher

I have to play a soccer match right now, I don't have time to answer about the EV now, but about the sentence I quote:
Yes, more than 169, but the number will be lower.
A reduced example:
You have a deck only with A and K (8 cards), and you decide play AA, KK and AKs, and fold AKu.
Following the way you do the calcs, you have 4 different hands, and choose to play 3 of them, so 3/4 --> 75%
But doing the right calculation like I suggest:
You have 6 possible AA, 6 possible KK, 4 possible AKs and 12 possible AKu, so the right calculation is:
(6+6+4)/(6+6+4+12) --> 16/28 --> 57.14%

If you do the right calculation using a complete deck you will see that you will hold one of the 23 playable hands with a porcentage lower than 14%.


About the EV, a negative EV means that you will lose money in the long range playing hands with this value, a positive EV means that you will win money.
If you assume you collect only EV*BB, then you will collect LESS money than the money you bet with an EV less than 1, and of course this is a mistake.
You expect win the average amount in risk PLUS EV*(this amount), and I'm pretty sure that is correct.

First part yes.

For the second part so EV is defined the wrong way. Again I agree with you on this, but can this be true?