Question on the equity realization
Posted by kknives
Posted by
kknives
posted in
Gen. Poker
Question on the equity realization
Hi everybody. I have a big doubt on the
“equity realization” issue.
We start from an example: btn miniraise
50% of hands, and we are in the BB with K3off. We have 43% equity,
and we have to put 1 to win 4.5, so 22% pot odds. I think (but i'm
not sure) that, to make a break even call, we need to realize
22/43=51% of our equity, or rather to win 51 hands on 100.
However, the problem is that this is
correct only if we suppose that the lost money when we loose the
49hands are equal to the won money when we win the 51hands. And i
don't think that this hypothesis is realistic.
The question is: how can i quantify the
difference between the size of the avg pot of the winning hands and
the loosing ones?
Putting in another way: i open holdem
manager, and i see that overall, when i call a BTN miniraise on the
BB with K3 off, i have, for example, -70bb/100. This is “good”
because it's better than the -100bb/100 that i could have if i fold
my K3 preflop. But how much is good?
How can i quantify the way with i
recover this 30bb 100? It's possible that on 100 hands, 90 times i
c/f on flop loosing a small pot, realizing a very little part of my
equity, but the other 10 times i win a very much bigger pot, and so
overall i have a profit. Or it could be that i realize a lot of my
equity and the avg winning and loosing pot are similar.
Is there any way (a formula for
example) that allows me to correlate these values?
I think the solution is in the ev
formula = (equity x pot we win) – (opponent's equity x pot we
loose)
but i don't know how to find/convert
the values of hm.
On the hm, i can put the filters won
hand true/false end see the winrate/loose rate, but this factors
included the BB that i post preflop and so i'm not sure to interpret
them correctly.
I mean, return to the K3 example, i can
see on hm that on 100 hands i win 34 for +500 bb/100 and i loose 66
for -450 bb/100, for an overall profit of X bb/100
Now, the X bb/100 are the total ev of
the formula (but i don't know how to convert it), the 34 and the 66
are the equity and the oppo's equity (realization and not realization
of the equity to be precise) and the +500 and -450 are the avg win
and loose pot (but again, i don't know how to convert them)
i'm really sorry for my english and i
hope i have explained my question clearly enough.
My aim is simple. I would like to
compare different hands in the same spot and understand how much the
realization of the equity changes and how big are the pots that i
loose/win. For example i could learn that in a
specific spot with 2 different hands with a similar equity i realize
the same amount of equity too, but with one hand the winning pot are
much more bigger than the lost ones. In other words it's like to
quantify the reverse pot odds.
Loading 20 Comments...
The reality is that no one can quantify this. There's way too much variance is poker to give a realistic answer.
yes, i know, but i could take some deduction by myself, based on my hm dates, if i understand how to convert them.
For example, if i see that with an hand i have -240 bb 100, i could verify that the problem is that i lose too much big pots (and so i have too much reverse pot odds) or that i realize too little equity (so i lose a lot of small pots)
It will be enough if i understand how to convert this -240bb/100 into an ev number
i try to make another example with real data on my hm
it's opened from BTN, we are BB and we call with a range of only suited cards, no AXs, no broadway suited, no SC (so K9s-, Q9s-, J9s-, T8s- etc). My result it's -110 bb/100, so there's something wrong in my game.
with this range vs 40 to 60 btn open range i have around 40% equity. Let's say the btn open 2 to 2.5bb, so our pot odds are from 22% to 27%, around 24%.
In my hm, when i put Won hand true, there are 318 hands on 790 total, with 568 bb 100. Instead, with Won hand false, there are 472 hands with -565 bb 100. So, the avg pot are very very similar, but i realize 318/790 = 40% equity instead of 24%/40% =60% that i have to and make a BE call (and so loosing -100 bb 100 i think?)
Now, is there a way to understand if the problem it's the similar average pot (so i lose too much/win too little when i call) or it's the too low equity realization?(or maybe both of them).
And also, is there a way to convert this overall -110bb/100 into an ev number?(suppose the pot on flop is around 4.5-5bb)
very advanced question which I can't answer but I'd like to be on the journey towards the answer so if you can answer this quick question it would help me a lot. If your equity is 43% doesn't that mean a break even call you need 43% pot odds? That's the way I learnt it; to have the same equity as the pot odds you're being offered. I hope someone can answer you're question although I kind of liked JediMindTricks answer lol
i think it's true only for a river call..on the other situations, there are implied and reverse odds that are much more important
yes, i already know it, but i would try anyway to understand more deeply this topic.
For example, now i'm seeing the results that i have in different spots (bb vs btn raised, call 3bet ip, call 3bet oop etc) with different grouping of hands (SC and S1gap, broadway off, broadway suited etc) and i'm finding some interesting things.
For example, when i 3bet in small blind vs btn open, i find that with 88- i have the less reverse implied, compared to other kinds of hand, whereas the BB/100 of the won hands are similar. So i'm start to think that maybe the best strategy is to 3bet all the PP from the blinds, despite their little bluff equity (of course i'm not sure, it is possible that there's something wrong with my game or with the sample size)
Yeah I agree. So you don't think implied odds with pairs (hitting a set) is good enough to just check because you have less reverse implied also? So you 3-bet to get extra value, is that what you're saying?
i'm saiyn that when i 3bet in the SB vs BTN and BTN call, with the filter "hand won true" the BB/100 of 77 or A3s or 76s are similar, whereas with the filter "won hand false" the negative bb/100 of the pp are much less.
In my opinion, this is because when i 3bet and i don't hit a set, i just c/f flop or turn, whereas with other kinds of hand i try to take the pot as bluff, or i c/c for showdown value etc. I don't know if this is because i play bad with some of these hands, or it's just because of the nature of the hand that has less or more reverse implied, or both.
i also don't know if the ev of 3betting pp is > of the ev of calling them in blinds vs btn open, but it's clearly that the +ev hands to 3bet in this spot in general are the PP
cool so you've worked out that its ok to 3bet or call with PP in the blinds, but you would like to know which is better, and other hands I guess you need to take more care when bluffing or taking to showdown. I would guess these "other hands" have less implied odds and less reverse implied odds I just think its doesn't make a difference if you're 3-betting them anyway.
To me it looks as if you´re approaching it the wrong way. :)
The equity realization factor (call it "R") ist just that, a factor. If we multiply your preflop equity with that factor, we will get your EV:
Equity = 30%, R = 80% => "Real Equity" = 24%
Equity = 80%, R = 70% => "Real Equity" = 56%
Equity = 20%, R = 150% => "Real Equity" = 30%
That "real equity" should be the measurement when you consider your odds in certain situations. Why is it important how much you win postflop? Wether you win $10 in 9 times (and lose $100 once) or you win $90 once and lose $10 nine times, doesn´t really matter, it´s just variance. That said, obviously different hand categories have different "R", but at the end, it´s just "real equity" that matters, the rest is "unimportant".
And that´s wrong. We don´t need to win 51 hands on 100, we need to win $1 (after having called) on average from the pot, regardless if we win the whole pot (of $4.5) in 22% or if we win $9 in 11% or $100 in 1% ...
Does that help?
i know that the last part it's wrong, infact i specified that "this is correct only if we suppose that the lost money when we loose the 49hands are equal to the won money when we win the 51hands."
maybe i don't understand something, but my point is the following:
i have a type of hand that has, let's say, 40% equity vs villain range and i have 35% pot odds. Now, the only thing that i can verify for sure, it's how many time i win a pot with this type of hand in this particular spot (with the "won hand true" stat). Let's say in the database there are 30% won hands.
This 30% is your "real equity", so, considering the 35% pot odds, i should have to fold. (the R factor it's simply 30%/40%-->0.75 or 75% of equity realization, i have 40% equity but i win only 30 pots, so i realize 75% of it, right?). However, i think that this fold could be wrong, because you don't considered that the average size of the pot is different depending on if it's won of lost ones.
If the 30% of times you win, the winrate is 400bb/100, and the 70 times you lose is -250bb/100, i think it's clear that you can do this call even if you have 35% pot odds but your "real equity" is just 30% (it's like a kind of definition of implied odds).
I don't know how to put this data in a formula to prove mathematically that it's correct what i'm saying and how much ev i win with the call in this example. i'm asking exactly this formula (i think it's the general ev formula, but i don't know how to use it with these number or how to convert them)
No. ;) Instead of looking at how often you´ve won the hand, look at how much you´ve won (in bb / hand). Then you can calculate your "R".
Example: Blinds are 0.5/1, $10 in the pot, $6 to call. You estimate to have 40% equity against the average range you´re up against (while needing only 37.5%). Now you look at the bb/100 you make with that hand and recognize your EV is -5bb/100. That means, you´re essentially losing 0.05bb any time you make the call. Which means, for the $6 you call, you only get back $5.95 from the pot. That way your "true equity" is:
trueEV = (40% * R * 16) - 6
-0.05 = (40% * R * 16) - 6
-0.05 = (6.4 * R) - 6
5.95 = 6.4*R
R = 93%
OK?
=> Crosscheck:
EV = (0.93*0.4*10) + ((1-(0.93*0.4))*-6) = -0.05
Looks fine. :)
first of all, thanks a lot for your help. I understand what you write, but i'm still a bit uncertain.
why do you say that this 30%(how often do you win the hand) couldn't be an approximation of your "real equity"?
I mean, the aim isn't to calculate the R factor basing on how much we win, but is to understand if we can or not do a call basing (is this word exist? :D) on the R factor (that we don't know, i thought that it could be how often do you win the pot/how often do you should have to win --->how often you win/equity--->30%/40%)
your calculation say: i have X equity-->i have X pot odds-->let's go to see how much we win in this situation-->we calculate R
instead, my tp is: i have X equity-->i have X pot odds-->i have this R factor (or i can estimate it in some way)-->i should to make X money--->i check that in the real life i make much less money-->there something wrong in my game that i have to fix.
maybe my goal it's impossible to reach because we have 2 variable (ev and R factor) and it's impossible to calculate one if we don't know the other and we can't estimate one of them, but i'm not sure
OK, I see, I calculated R based on factual results but you want to know the theoretical benchmark to test your current results against, right?
This is kind of similar to somebody asking what the EV of opening ATo from UTG should be ... to compare that figure to his actual results.
Agree? => It's "impossible" to know / calculate, you can only estimate. And estimations always are only as good as the underlying assumptions / base data.
yes it's right, i understand what you say. Btw, i still don't understand what is wrong on saying "R=how often do you win the pot/how often do you should have to win --->how often you win/equity--->30%/40%" but i don't want to bore you further, so i give up :D thanks a lot
Btw, i still don't understand what is wrong on saying "R=how often do you win the pot/how often do you should have to win --->how often you win/equity--->30%/40%"
Nothing "wrong" with it, it's just another definition. Commonly "R" is based on EV, not on equity, and as there doesn't exist any way to convert equity into EV (or vice versa), your number is a different definition, like R'. Agree?
yes i agree, it's another kind of definition. Let's take this last example and then i'll really give up :D
Suited trash from BB vs btn. Btn open 2x, we have to put 1bb and the pot on the flop is 4.5bb. The hand won % with them is 37%, so you have to get back 4.5x37%=1.66bb. You have put 2bb preflop (1+1), so on your HM your BB/100 should be 1.66-2=-0.33 bb--->-33bb/100. If you have worse than -33bb/100 (for example -50bb/100) there's something wrong with your game. Do you think this could make any sense?
(in reality, on won hand you can have +400bb/100 and on lost hand you can have -350bb/100, so the overall ev that you get back isn't 1.66bb but it is better and so also the -33 isn't correct but it's pessimistic, the value you shouldn't have to cross is something like -26bb/100 (?))
Take a more extreme example. Say, the 37% you win the hand are those times when Villain completely gives up (not realistic, I know, but for the sake of the argument), so you win the 4.5bb in the pot (minus your 1bb, so your profit is +3.5bb) in 37%. The rest of the time - namely 64%, you´re paying the 6bb cbet before you realize that you´re behind and fold the turn. That means, you´re losing 1bb pre + 6 bb on the flop for a total loss of 7bb. Your overall EV is (0.37*3.5) + (0.65*-7) = -3.2bb or -320bb/100 (meaning you should better fold preflop).
But what does that tell you? That your "R'" makes the hand a fold because you can´t profitably call, despite winning "often enough"? Or does it simply tell you that your postflop strategy is likely "improvable"? You see, the won% is almost meaningless ... or at least I can´t see any real value in evaluating it, because it´s almost irrelevant how often we win a hand, the most important factor is, how much money we win.
It´s like if you got AA and consider shoving preflop. You probably would win your Aces in 100% (because once your opponents realize you have AA they just muck any2), but is that desirable?! If you make a normal sized raise, you win the hand less often (in %), yet your EV is way bigger, so what does that "win%" information really tell you?
But all that said, I don´t want to belittle your idea or insist on being right (far from), I just want to clear up, what my thought proces is. I hope, this doesn´t come off wrong. :)
don't worry, i'm not convinced on what i'm saying too, so i'm pleased we continue to talk about this. it's very likely that i'm writing a lot of bullshits.
while i'm replying on this, i'm making some calculation with my real values on hm and i understand that there is something wrong with my idea, but i'm not sure about the reason and a bit confused, when i'll clarify with my own brain i'll try to explain better :D Btw, thanks a lot for your help
Be the first to add a comment