Really interesting video, always delighted to see one of you theory videos even if my brain hurts afterwards! I'm sure there'll be more informed questions from other members, but maybe you can humour my attempts to put this into other words for now.

Would I be right in saying that some of this is because in a multi street game where pot sizes can potentially increase dramatically, we should usually be betting the earlier streets with that portion of our range which wants to build a big pot more often than not, by virtue of having a strong draw or a strong hand (ie our high equity hands) but with our more middling hands, instead of choosing "one and done" cbets or bets for protection, we should be more inclinded to check back so as to play the more marginal parts of our range over less streets which will lead to a pot size more appropriate to their equity?

Or to put it another way, pot control isn't just for marginal "value" hands but hands with a non-negligible equity share vs villains range for getting to the flop but a much worse share vs villains continuing range?

First off, great video Phil, I love when you put out these theory videos!
I am a little concerned that you didn't cover a lot of what happens after the turn in the KJJ5 hand (and other examples). Are we assuming that we are never folding a brick river if he leads? Are we ever bluff raising the river? Are we bluff catching if a draw comes in? It seems like these questions are very hard to answer, and in a way betting turn simplifies the situation. Not only is it +EV, but it also is a lot easier to figure out for the non-experts (Like me!)

I agree that encouraging us to look at pot share is a better view than equity, but it also creates more complicated situations when we decide to check and realize more of our equity share. so I guess i have a few questions.

1) Should we have a plan for every river?

2) Would we need to have a different plan for every bet size?

3) Would we need to figure out our whole range in that situation? (ie. putting in strong enough hands to bluff catch, x/r, while having a folding range that is tempting to bluff catch)

4) If we are prone to making mistakes in calculations for EV (I don't run EV sims often) would it be better to just bet turn?

Thanks Phil, I find this an interesting concept. I believe I need to digest it more, but I have a couple of initial thoughts after my first watch. In thinking about a pot share approach, I think it likely would help us to become less emotionally attached to each pot. "Suckouts" seem like less an issue when you bear in mind that each person owns a percentage of the pot. A gutshot hitting versus a top set or whatever the case may be. Any concept which helps with emotional acceptance of inevitable negative outcomes, certainly is intriguing.

It does also seem to make a case for increasing passivity, and decreasing "fold equity" as a concept. Perhaps I am misinterpreting this. It seems to favor a less aggressive approach in order to maintain our share of the pot. Perhaps this is more acutely relevant in PLO as opposed to NLH?

In regards to the point regarding multi-street bluffs, I think conceptually it helps one conceive that most of the time you create a pot which inherently your share of is small, which of course doesn't make a lot of sense.

Maybe I am interpreting things too simplistically here, but I certainly enjoyed the video, and I will rewatch and rethink it.

One of the best vids on this site, Phil. I am wrapping up my PhD thesis, but I almost feel this urge to chime in and add some comments. (And because of that, I'll make sure I put your name in the acknowledgement.)

To start with, I found some similarity between this vid and my 2+2 post that I wrote a while ago. Here's the link: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showpost.php?p=44000840&postcount=1 Therein, I briefly talked about why "+EV is not enough" and suggested another way of thinking in terms of pot share.

Disclaimer: I'm not posting that 2+2 link to "claim" any credit; rather, I'm very pleased to see that the ideas I had were not completely wrong (yay!), and that you are, as always, explaining it a lot better than I did in the past. Especially the title - man, I thought mine was catchy enough, but it just can't beat "the death of EV." :/

That said, I have two things (for now) that I would like to add on the content:

a) Thinking in terms of pot share is useful, but there are cases where you (I mean other members of RIO, not just you) shouldn't be too caught up with it either. More precisely, sometimes you have to think beyond it.

An obvious example would be the river PvBC spot where we have a polar range and our opponent a merged one. Let's say our equity vs his range is 60%, which means we will capture 60% of the pot if we check back IP. However, this is likely an underestimation because we are "allowed" to bluff with some frequency along with our value bets, and this in turn will increase our EV. Thus, IMO this is a spot where we have to try to capture even more than what the equity/pot share dictates.

b) In the middle of the video, you (this time just you, the vid maker) talked about building the pot to "capture better than none of it." Whilst I agree with this in general, I also think there are cases where we can snowball the pot on earlier street(s), usually with the intention of barreling a ton later on. IMO this is especially true if we expect that (i) our opponent's calling frequency will decline a LOT on future streets, or (ii) our opponent's range will be capped, or (iii) a combination of these two or whatever. Of course, we have to be certain that this will work out fairly often, because like you said, we are putting a lot of money into the pot to get a lot of it back :)

These days, besides writing my endless PhD thesis, I have been focusing on the hand whose EV I think is very close to 0. Let's take an extreme example, I have 2222 on AKQ board and opponent checks to me in HU PLO. Apparently, my equity should be very close to 0%. But if bluffing is +EV than checking back and giving up, I probably should take a stab for obvious reasons. This led me to bet a ton on the flop with one-and-done bluffs, either to take the pot down right now or to get called and give up later.

After watching this video and re-reading my old post, though, I noticed that I was making at least two mistakes. First of all, it's gonna be pretty rare that I actually have close to 0% share of the pot; even a bare gutter will give me somewhere between 15-20% of the pot, and this is a far, far cry from a zero. Second, even with those no-equity bluffs, there might be more profitable options than to bet the flop "just because it's +EV." Like, I can check back 2222 on AKQ board and take a delayed stab on turn or river and, possibly, capture a bit more of the pot.

Oops, I wrote a bit more than I intended to, but this is what happens when I am in the writing mode I guess. I hope my comments made some sense and will make others think about a thing or two. Once again, this was an excellent video and I learned a ton from it. Thanks a lot!!

-- mela/midori

[quote]
I say "one point" above because I don't want the only takeaway from this video to be a change in play.
The other main discussion in the video is the psychological problem with using EV as a measuring stick. While the way this should impact your play (especially in the examples I gave) is important, I think a mental shift is necessary for making better in-game decisions all around.

[/quote]

Thanks for the reply Phil - I'm glad that I've at least got a foothold in terms of understanding the video, I'll definitely be working on the mental shift you're talking about in terms of thinking about pot share rather than EV, its already come up a few times while playing.

Oops, how do I quote Phil's reply properly?

"He was like, 'I think a call is better than a fold' and I thought to myself, 'yeah I agree' and then he said 'but I would shove' and I exploded."

Hi Phil,

It seems to me like you've always had a preoccupation with the concepts we use to think about poker, and more specifically the concepts we use to bridge the gap between studying and playing. The idea of thinking in terms of potshare instead of EV to train our intuitions better shares a lot of similarities with your Gbucks article from years ago in this way. The unifying theme to me is that our philosophical ideas about what to look for and measure have a big affect on how we end up playing. Maybe that view is obvious for many; but I think many people behave as if it's obvious what we need to measure and everything else is a question of precision. I think your view is that the words and concepts we create to describe the things we know we want to measure influence the degree of precision we're capable of attaining. I find the latter view a lot more interesting.

I think it's very clear that picking the highest EV action is the goal and the importance of the decision is identical to the difference in the EVs of our strategic options. I think it's also clear that almost everyone tends to have some amount of cognitive bias as regards the +- divide in EVs. What I think was a more subtle point is that we also have a bias towards looking for situations that fall near the 0EV line. In other words, we end up paying more attention (in our study, while playing, while multitabling) to spots that fall near 0EV even if we know it's true that the potshare difference between strategic options is small. I think almost all poker players are afflicted with this bias to some degree and I know I benefited from having this made plain in the video. I think the idea of thinking in potshare as opposed to EV eliminates any +- bias if practiced consistently, and therefore it seems to be a clear improvement on EV provided it takes similar amounts of cognitive effort to execute (which I think it does).

Disclaimer: I watched it really quick on 1.5x speed and I intend on re-watching to fully absorb.

My initial reaction is this: It seems like when you transition from the EV discussion to the Pot Share discussion, you really hammer home the concept that our equity on the next street is greatly reduced vs the opponent's continuing range. You seem to use this point to justify why you think check>bet in these scenarios. Shouldn't you calc the EV of check and compare it to bet to prove this instead? My only issue with the Pot Share discussion is that you seem to gloss over the fact that you've already taken into consideration the frequency in which the opponent folds since you plugged into poker juice a sensible continuing range. In other words, you've already calculated and weighted (with the EV calc) the frequency in which the "fuked if he calls" scenario happens...and since poker juice says the bet is still +EV that means that this scenario happens infrequently enough that it is still worth betting since an opponent fold result occurs more than often enough to fully compensate (and our equity when called is non-zero). I understand that we need to weigh +EV decisions against other +EV decisions to make a decision on an action, but I don't get how the Pot Share concept argues this point (if that is in fact what it is intended to do) better than comparing EV bet to EV check. If I'm missing something please let me know.

Disclaimer: I watched it really quick on 1.5x speed and I intend on re-watching to fully absorb.

My initial reaction is this: It seems like when you transition from the EV discussion to the Pot Share discussion, you really hammer home the concept that our equity on the next street is greatly reduced vs the opponent's continuing range. You seem to use this point to justify why you think check>bet in these scenarios. Shouldn't you calc the EV of check and compare it to bet to prove this instead? My only issue with the Pot Share discussion is that you seem to gloss over the fact that you've already taken into consideration the frequency in which the opponent folds since you plugged into poker juice a sensible continuing range. In other words, you've already calculated and weighted (with the EV calc) the frequency in which the "fuked if he calls" scenario happens...and since poker juice says the bet is still +EV that means that this scenario happens infrequently enough that it is still worth betting since an opponent fold result occurs more than often enough to fully compensate (and our equity when called is non-zero). I understand that we need to weigh +EV decisions against other +EV decisions to make a decision on an action, but I don't get how the Pot Share concept argues check>bet better than comparing EV bet to EV check. If I'm missing something please let me know.

alright im going to look very stupid here but i take it, im too curious and maybe too lazy to think hard enough for myself at the moment. Anyone who knows the answer please tell me, I dont think it needs the brilliance of a Phil Galfond to come up with an explanation lol. Never when I do equity calculations for calls or bets etc etc I get so much ev out of the pot vs X range that I have as much pot shares as our opponents have here in given calculations. It seems like they get a ton of the pot here always, is that only because they are up against our specific hand and not vs our range?

Tbh i dont even know what to really ask, but it just seems weird to me that the opponent gets such huge chunks of the pot in all such calculations and when I think back in all of my equity calculations, it would be the same. I think what I want to ask is, when we calculate our ev, is that number we come up with really in a relationship to the pot size as in being a percentage of the pot while the rest goes to the opponent on average? Quite embarrassing but I never thought about this. Reminds me of a recent interview with luke schwartz, where he responded to some question with something along the lines of "one would think that me being considered a professional in what im doing, I would know the answer". To be fair though, im a tournament player, I dont need to be so precise with all that math magic stuff

Besides all that, love this concept of pot share, this is really really nice actually to get a different perspective on things

a little further explanation or a try at least of what i dont get, or it might even be something different, im too confused at this point:

Lets say we have 1 in chips behind and the pot is 1 and our opponent has 1 in chips behind too and its our turn. Lets say its always a flip when we bet and he calls, and lets say for simplicities sake he calls 100% of the time.

so when we calculate our ev of the bet, its 1. Since 0.5*2=1 because he always calls so its like we call an all in from the opponent. Now our pot share in this case would be 100% if we calculate in just in relation to the flop pot, isnt that what you did in the video, or am i missing something? For example in the KJJ5 hand our equity for betting is $319 which turns out to be 17% of the pot in ur example, but we bet 1200 and he in the cases he calls adds another 1200 to the pot, shouldnt that be considered somehow for the pot share? So basically shouldnt we treat the pot share calculations for the flop or turn independantly from our ev calculations, if the ev calculations were made assuming future actions or additional future chips going into the pot? Feel even more stupid now but i started this rambling might as well get it all out there

Hey Guys. Lots of great comments and big questions that I intend to give well thought out responses to! I'm traveling now so it may be a couple days until I can give this thread the attention it deserves.

Ty for your patience. Happy Thanksgiving!

Hey Phil, Really nice video, and made me think a lot, thanks for that.

Id like to share some very simple numbers of a typical situation on NLH where i applied your concept, and i personally get surprised by the results.

BBvBTN Single Raise Pot at 1kNL ($50)

BTN has J6hh and cbets pot on 7h9h8d, and BB has JTo.
How different check raising sizes does affect to the potshare i get?

I did get surprised by the different results i get in terms of potshare at the time to choose my check raise size. Solvers like Snowie says that when BB checkraise a 3x size, the ev of BTN calling with J6hh its around to 8.71bbs, or what it means 8.71/(5+5+15) = 0.34. So he gets 34% of the pot.

But when i checkraise pot (~4x), the ev of him calling it deacrease to 5.64bb, or 5.64/(5+5+20) = 19%

Maybe this is ovbious for some poeple, but for me in practice a 3x raise does not look too different than a 4x size, but if you think in terms of potshares, you are giving away 15% of the pot for this mistake, which i think its significant.

+EV vs. ???

Disclaimer: The following applies mostly to pre-river decisions and is also a pretty annoying post.

Some people have argued that since the future street EV calculation is difficult to do (and in the moment we won't be able to figure it out), we should just bet because we at least know that it's +EV.

Let me start with a word problem:

The Bet vs. Check Mystery

You are in a hand, and are deciding between betting and checking. You need to make your decision based on only the following information:

1) Betting is +EV compared to folding
2) Checking is +EV compared to folding

Which option is better?

Spoilers below...
...
...

The answer, of course, is that there is no way to know which option is better. The only thing we know is that both options are better than folding.

Obvious? Perhaps, but this is the case in virtually any poker hand where you are deciding between betting and checking (and have determined that a bet is +EV).

The point I want to drive home is that a bet being "+EV" is (usually) completely useless information, and is in no way a justifiable argument for betting.

In all (but some rare) cases, checking back is also +EV. (in those rare cases, it's neutral EV)

So, if we know that betting is +EV and we know that checking is +EV - we know nothing.

Another Bet vs. Check Mystery

This time, you still don't get to know hand details but I've calculated the exact EV of a turn bet! Here's the information you have to work with:

Scenario 1:
1) The Pot is 25bb on the turn
2) Betting the turn is +8bb in EV

Scenario 2:
1) The Pot is 25bb on the turn
2) Betting the turn is +15bb in EV

Scenario 3:
1) The Pot is 25bb on the turn
2) Betting the turn is +40bb in EV

What is the best play in each case?

....
....
....

The answer, once again, is that there is absolutely no way to know.

What can we learn from this? Not much, probably, but word problems are fun!

The point is that looking at the EV of a play in isolation doesn't lead to good decision making. We need to compare it to other options, and using Pot Share instead of EV allows for a quick comparison to our equity in the hand. From there, we can use our judgement to make the best decision more effectively (I believe) than with an EV calculation.

Did everyone stop asking questions on this because I was critical with a few responses? I expected more questions! I'll be nice!

Great video, I know the concept videos are the hardest to make but they are also the best.

I'm curious about how to combine the ideas in this video with those in Daniel Dvoress's "value bluffing" series. It's been awhile since I watched those, but I seem to remember him comparing the EV of betting vs checking behind with marginal hands (NOT betting vs open folding, which is one of the main mistakes you warn against) and finding that betting worked out better in many cases. I guess I'll have to go back and re-watch those at some point and see if I can figure out what's going on.

Another question Phil, this time a bit more psychological.

I talked with my friend whose mindset I respect a lot about your vid, and the conversation she and I had made me wonder if most of us sometimes just fall for the trap named "mental laziness" whenever we find any +EV line and stick with it, without seeking for better alternatives. Then, it made me question how we can break it through.

Do you think one should be motivated enough by his/her competitiveness or desire to win, before having this maximally +EV line mindset in poker?

Or, are most of us just being result oriented in one form or another? For example, when you take a suboptimal line and win anyway, it's gonna be somewhat difficult to look back and think "oh wait, I missed a better line, I screwed up" for understandable reasons. Likewise, when we check back on flop to realise equity, only to miss on the turn and fold to opponent's pot bet, it's gonna be tempting to think "oh wait, what if I bet the flop and deny him of this option."

Or yet, maybe these two are the same thing?

Interestingly enough, this is exactly what bothers me (even nowadays) when I run deep in a tournament and bust somewhere on the road to the final. On the one hand, I know I have been extremely lucky to make it that deep and bring some $$ home. On the other hand, I also know (or so I think at least) I could have run even deeper if I passed out on some +EV lines for the sake of decreasing variance. Sometimes it's just not easy to keep that positive outlook and not care about the result at all, and I wonder if this could lead us to take any sloppy lines and, as a result, be result oriented. And rinse and repeat.

Very interested in what you think.

-- midori

my 2 cents:
1. everything you said is true
2. satisfaction can kill one's desire to get better
3. most of us should fight the urge to become complacent

I just watched this and read the comments, great video Phil !

I have a few things to add, it seems that in many spots players rely on a certain play being +ev because it is better than folding, however often they are picking the worst option other than folding. If its folded to me in the sb with 20bbs and I shove my least profitable shove its very likely im making less money than limping or even r/f in some spots. I agree with Phil that settling on a play because it is profitable rather than looking for the most profitable option can be a large leak.

I would suggest a few options

1. Look for alternative lines, often there are many different ways to play a hand, make an effort to actually consider all the options you have at your disposal.

2. Make an effort to create a gameplan for different opponent's and tailor your ranges accordingly, keep in mind that in almost all spots picking the option with the highest EV depends on your opponents range. It is a mistake to settle for suboptimal lines particularly when your opponents are giving you more than your share of the pot if you take an alternative line.

3.Watch out for spots where people split their ranges i.e. you 4bet in PLO get called oop and villain checks 789fd this is often a spot where they are stronger than their pf range indicates because they may jam hands that have enough equity to get it in but are behind and may check their near nut hands.

1. As for tournaments, there are certainly spots where +cev does not equal +$ev and you should be aware of this. However there are plenty of spots where you need to shove or call a shove reasonably light and you are making a mistake avoiding these spots, keep in mind the blinds go up and if you don't keep your foot on the gas its easy to blind out, v often you will not got a better spot in the future and are making a mistake passing up on an immediately profitable spot.

This video. So sexy

Great video.
Always glad when you make something related to NLHE. This is a really cool concept and i've been talking to people and we are trying to apply it.
So often I find myself in MTT's betting small for protection with nearly my whole range in ep/mp/hj/co versus the BB, and often dividing my range on the turn.
This strategy works fairly well overall on many board textures that arent too connected. Ppl rarely defend enough and i thought it was good to autoprofit with a cbet and then check back the turn a bunch and get two free streets with hands that want to realize their equity.
For example, on Q63r, i cbet hands like AJ/AK and then check back turn unimproved (unless like a turn T, which then it becomes much lower in my range, and i consider barrelling it at some frequency). It folds out a lot of dominated hands i have crushed as i dont expect many tournament regs to peel AXo that much. I just find it useful to have my opponent fold 87 T9 K9 KT 98 K5 JT type stuff that have 25% equity and can turn a straight draw in various ways and then semibluff versus me with reasonable equity. I know my pot share is high on the flop if my opponent defends 50% preflop (10th-60th percentile hand).
I was thinking that maybe in this scenario though, given the range advantage i have versus a wide BB, that maybe 1/3rd cbet on these boards isnt that detrimental? I hate allowing all these hands with reasonable equity to get a free card, especially when they can pick up more equity on a lot of cards (the 87 JT type stuff). Also the 3 and 6 dont interact with him well at all as his pairs and straight draws mostly need to be suited combos and he has so many offsuit connected combos between the 6 and Q that must fold.
I'm not sure how to solve for this spot and see the EV of checking back but am really curious to find one because it is true I feel I am giving up EV when i make these cbets that they do overfold to, but not necessarily by that huge of a margin. Want to know a different way to leverage my range advantage.
PS: i dont do this strategy on wetter boards that connect better with my opponent where I will be check/raised more.

To the last hand, I would like to point out that there might be a huge difference in the type or quality of EQ we aim to realize. In the last spot, you assign us 27% EQ, which I assume to be true. However, this 27% is hardly realizeable, and if it is legitimate to categorize our actual holding, I would call it "air". There are only few if none turncards we can continue on if we face a bet, so the times villain has a hand of similar category "air" he can bet pretty much any amount OTT and will make us fold, whereas we could have c-bet the flop for a small bet and could have made him fold. If, in a different spot we had flopped something like bottom pair and J high flushdraw, our EQ , regardless of the % in which we win the hand by checking 3 times, is easier to realize. We can call most turns, and make some river decisions without having to give up this EQ. Also we reduce implied oddds if we are up against a higher flushdraw. Is my thinking correct?

Really really like this video , thank You Phil and all commentators for those rich ideas . Makes me think about the game with a new perspective.
Happy Gaming.

AQQ9 hand
I get that +$315 is only 12% of the existing pot but I don't understand what it means that our opponent's potshare is now 88% of the pot. I might be missing something, but to me it doesn't track that the 88% number has any meaning whatsoever. Can somebody please help me with this?

"Remember that your opponent's EV is the pot size minus your EV." Our EV on a shove with AQQ9 was +$315, but how does that make our opponent's EV +$2235 when we choose the shove option and our +315?

4:41 example - I did the math if anyone would like the work shown. Also, loved this vid, thanks a lot Mr. Galfond!

Variables:
P$ => Pot Size = 2550
S$ => Effective stack size = 3600
F% => Chance opponent folds = .307 aka 30.7%
W% => Our equity vs opponents stack off range = 0.30 or 30%

EV(Shove) = [P(Fold)*EV(Fold)] + [P(ALLIN) * EV(ALLIN)]
EV(Shove) = (1) + (2)

(1)==> P(Fold) * EV(Fold) = F% * P$ = 0.307 * 2550 = 782.85

(2)==> P(ALLIN) * EV(ALLIN),
P(ALLIN) = (1-F%) = 0.693
EV(ALLIN) = (W%(P$+S$))-((1-W%)S$)
(W%(P$+S$))=0.30(2550+3600) = 0.30(6150) = 1845
-((1-W%)S$) = -(0.703600) = -2520
(2) = P(ALLIN) * EV(ALLIN) = 0.693 * (1845 - 2520) = 0.693 * (-675) = -467.78

EV(Shove) ==> (1) + (2) = 782.85 + (-467.78) = 315.07