am I doing something wrong ?
sklansky wrote an article in tournament for advanced players called moving-in against the blinds. He shows that there is a point where moving in becomes negative EV, a guy in the BB will call with 77+,AQ+,Ak+ ,we have put 66 on button and there's only 1 hundred dollar blind so the BB with call 80 times out of 1225,48 combos of pairs and 16 combos of AQ,16 combos of AK, so ... 1145 times he folds 80 times he calls,,sklansky says of the 80 times were called we will win about 23, he will win 57,,,I got the formula down but I ran 66 against 77+,AQ+,Ak+ in pokerstove ,it says we will win with pocket 66 33%,so 33% of 80 is 26 times,,which changes the chip stack we can move in from 3367,to 4403,,,,I believe I may be calculating how many times pocket 66 will win out the the 80 combos were called with, could someone please help me out here, would very much appreciate it,,,thank you all very much,Thinkright
5 Replies
I meant I think I may be making some slight error in calculating how many times pocket66 will win out of the 80 times were called, i get 26 times we win not 23 against 77+,AQ+,Ak+,thank you for your feedback
Equilab (enumerate all) also says 33%, which is closer to 27/80. @David this is why we don't calculate these using two pages of fractions :P
well the equation was- we hold pkt 66 leaving 50 cards in the deck, 50*49/2=1225, we will be called 80 of those times with 77+,AQ+,AK+..thats 8 pairs *6= 48 combos,16 combos of AQ,16 combos of AK=32combos = 80 total combos,he says of the 80 times were called we will win about 23, see why?,,, 0 = (1145) ($100) +(23) ($x) - (57) ($X) / (34) ($X) = 114500 / X=$3367.65 , thats the equation but when he says of the 80 we win about 23,see why? ...it makes me think im doing something wrong , i cant imagine david sklansky is wrong here, its more likely i am, i have very little former math training,,,and thank you for your reply btw
you can't win individual hands at poker with mathematics...
those probabilities are only valid for thousands of hands before they even come close to 'proof'.
I’m not sure of your concern except possibly you find it hard to believe Skansky is wrong. It’s possible. I once made a mistake 😊.
By standard EV analysis we can calculate the Bet that sets EV to 0 assuming a showdown situation. Using more exact values than you did, for your case:
Villain call probability = 80/1225 = 0.0653
By combos or Equilab, your 66 pair wins 26 of the 80 calls villain makes, so --
eq = 26/80 =32.5%
EV = Pr(V Call) * $Return|Call + Pr(V fold)*Pot
$Return|Win = Pot + Bet =100+Bet. $Return|Lose = -Bet
$Return|Call = eq * $Return|Win + (1-eq) * $Return|Lose
Let B =All-in bet.
For break-even
0 = 0.0653*(0.325*(100 + B) - 0.675*B) + (1-0.0653)*100
B=4183 (EV < 0 for a bigger bet)
This analysis doesn’t consider some important factors that can modify what the EV analysis suggests, such as stack sizes, tournament standing, realized equity if the bet is not all-in, etc. So, it should be considered as a first cut look at the decision.
