How Do I Do This Math?

[bigkeenanh 0]

Assuming I can't win if I'm called...betting $40 into a $30 pot, how often do I have to win in order for this play to be profitable.Please provide how you did this.Thanks

[Actuary 3]

since you will always lose $40 when you are called, and win $30 when you are not.Then you can solve for 2 equations: %Called * $40 = %NotCalled * 30%Called + % NotCalled = %100And solveSolve Second Equation for % Called.%Called = %100 - %NotCalledSubstitute this result into the first equation( %100 - %NotCalled ) * $40 = %NotCalled * $30Distribute:%100 * $40 - %NotCalled * $40 = %NotCalled * $30Add like terms$40 = $70 * % NotCalledSolve by dividing thru by $70 on both sides%NotCalled = $40 / $70 = % 57.1428571So if they call about 43% you break even.Any questions?I"m sure there are faster ways to solve this; but this shows the equations and was the first way I thought of******************Or simply say:x = % I"m called1-x = % I"m not called$30 * (1-x) - $40 * x > 0$30 - $30 * x - 40 * x > 0$30 - $70 * x > 0$30 > $70 * x$30 / $70 > xSo x has to be less than 30/70, or 42.857% to win Where x is the % you are called

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Assuming I can't win if I'm called...betting $40 into a $30 pot, how often do I have to win in order for this play to be profitable.Please provide how you did this.Thanks

I'm looking at this again because I forgot - "Assuming I can't win if I'm called..."Here are the "givens" that I'm working with: you're heads up, and half of the $30 pot was from you, and you're all in for $40, assuming that you can't win if you're called, you'll be betting $55 ($15 + $40) to win $15 (1/2 of the $30 pot) of someone else's money. In order to be "profitable" I feel as though we need to include all money invested during the hand.$55 of your money divided by $15 of someone else's money = 3 2/3. You'll need to win, in this scenario, 3 2/3 times for every 1 time that you lose (or win 11 times for every 3 losses) to break even. This is just a simple way to look at it based on my understanding of the given circumstances. Of course, it's always important to check our math: winning 11 times, at $15 profit per hand, = $165 profit. Losing 3 times, at $55 lost per hand, = $165 lost.

[bigkeenanh 0]

Christ that's complicated lolI asked because a play I've been trying a few times ends up betting 40 to win 30 (arbitrary numbers, but same %s).Heads up pot, hero has position. Villain took lead preflop.Flop pot = 10Villain bets $5, hero callsturn pot = 20Villain bets $10, hero raises to $40I've only tried it on 2 of the players I know to consistantly fire a 2nd bullet, on a non-threatening board, but has seemed to work fairly well. Just want to make sure I'm not getting super-lucky, and it doesn't have to win too often lol.There wouldn't happen to be a shorter way to figure that out would there? lol, I have no idea how you did all that math B)

[Actuary 3]

that's complicated lol

well, you have to solve for something.And then do additions, subtraction and division.I really can't see a more simple way.Ok. maybe this.Take the Pot (before your bet)Divide by: the Pot + Your BetIf he calls more than this you lose money.Like this:$30 / ( $30 + $40) = $30 / $70 = 42%

[bigkeenanh 0]

Thanks Actuary, that bottom one is much easier to follow for the mathematically retarted

I'm looking at this again because I forgot - "Assuming I can't win if I'm called..."Here are the "givens" that I'm working with: you're heads up, and half of the $30 pot was from you, and you're all in for $40, assuming that you can't win if you're called, you'll be betting $55 ($15 + $40) to win $15 (1/2 of the $30 pot) of someone else's money. $55 of your money divided by $15 of someone else's money = 3 2/3. You'll need to win, in this scenario, 3 2/3 times for every 1 time that you lose (or 11 times for every 3 losses) to break even. In order to be "profitable" I feel as though we need to include all money invested during the hand.This is just a simple way to look at it based on my understanding of the given circumstances.

Aren't I betting $40 to win $30 though?

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Thanks Actuary, that bottom one is much easier to follow for the mathematically retartedAren't I betting $40 to win $30 though?

You're betting $40 to win the $30 pot but, if half of that $30 pot came from you, and you want to talk about being "profitable," you've really got $55 in the pot to win $15 of someone else's money. If you're looking at profitability, you shouldn't write off the $15 that you already have invested in the pot.

[bigkeenanh 0]

You're betting $40 to win the $30 pot but, if half of that $30 pot came from you, and you want to talk about being "profitable," you've really got $55 in the pot to win $15 of someone else's money. If you're looking at profitability, you shouldn't write off the $15 that you already have invested in the pot.

Ah gotcha, thanks

[Actuary 3]

Ah gotcha, thanks

Big:Dane has been proven here to be bad at math.He has me on ignore; so don't expect a response from him.The $15 he speaks of is completely irrelevant to your turn play. If you want to discuss the profitability of a two street move, then yeah, all $$$ you put in must be considered

[bigkeenanh 0]

I think I understand now. So if I'm pulling a multistreet bluff, all money I put in pot has to be accounted for. But say I called turn with a draw or something, then decided to bluff-raise the turn, I'd count it as 30/40

$30 / ( $30 + $40) = $30 / $70 = 42%

hey, when I do this, I'm basically just dividing possible win by possible loss correct?So for the way Dane posted it, I'd go15/55 = 27%, therefore have to win 73% of time?

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Assuming I can't win if I'm called...betting $40 into a $30 pot, how often do I have to win in order for this play to be profitable.Please provide how you did this.Thanks

I asked because a play I've been trying a few times ends up betting 40 to win 30 (arbitrary numbers, but same %s).Heads up pot, hero has position. Villain took lead preflop.Flop pot = 10Villain bets $5, hero callsturn pot = 20Villain bets $10, hero raises to $40

I'm looking at this again because the op gave some more info in his second post:Here are the "givens" that I'm working with: you're heads up, and $10 of the $30 pot was from you, and you're all in for $40, assuming that you can't win if you're called, you'll be betting $50 ($10 + $40) to win $20 ($5 + $5 + $10) of someone else's money. In order to be "profitable" I feel as though we need to include all money invested during the hand.$50 of your money divided by $20 of someone else's money = 2 1/2. You'll need to win, in this scenario, 2 1/2 times for every 1 time that you lose (or win 5 times for every 2 losses) to break even. Winning 5 times out of 7 = about 71% of the time.This is just a simple way to look at it based on my understanding of the given circumstances. Of course, it's always important to check our math: winning 5 times, at $20 profit per hand, = $100 profit. Losing 2 times, at $50 lost per hand, = $100 lost.

[Actuary 3]

yeah, I'm just converting Odds to PercentagesIn the first idea, of a turn bluff only, its$40 to win $30So you need him to only call 30 times for every 40 he folds.THat means 40 out of every 70 hands he needs to fold. 40/70Or he needs to call less than 30/70, same thing, essentially.It's sorta the converse of drawing whenn you use pot odds.You think: "Im getting 6:1 to draw to a 4:1 hand" So, you draw.

[Zach6668 513]

EDIT - nevermind.

[James D 0]

I assume this is a river bet we are talking about here? That was never established, or I'm just slow.If so, then Actuary is correct.But if not, then implied odds and reads on the player also must come into the equation.

[Actuary 3]

I assume this is a river bet we are talking about here? That was never established, or I'm just slow.If so, then Actuary is correct.But if not, then implied odds and reads on the player also must come into the equation.

dude, noWe're done with the hand if he calls.And it's not about predicting how often he calls; it's just about solving for a %.Why are hypotheticals so hard to understand??

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Dane has been proven here to be bad at math.

Wrong. My math skills are above average and they speak for themselves in my answer to your question on this page. A's referring to an interpretation of how to solve a problem that was discussed in the past. Although I'm above average, I usually don't go out of my way to brag like some people do:

hi, welcome.I am a math wiz...I should get paid for this.

He has me on ignore; so don't expect a response from him.

I opened a couple in this thread out of curiosity. But I'm not interested in seeing any more in this thread

The $15 he speaks of is completely irrelevant to your turn play. If you want to discuss the profitability of a two street move, then yeah, all $$$ you put in must be considered

Nice self-contradiction. As the op described it, and I interpreted it, it was a two-street move. Therefore the $10 already invested must be used in the profitability calculation. I'm glad that you agree with me.I'm done with this thread, unless the op has any more questions, because I don't want to get A to lose it as he did in a previous thread: http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1495232Bye.

[Actuary 3]

Big,see?lol.And feel free to read thru the thread Dane pointed to.It's pretty good stuff and gives you more insight into Dane's ignorance concerning bankroll managment and reading people's intents over the net, among other things

[James D 0]

dude, noWe're done with the hand if he calls.And it's not about predicting how often he calls; it's just about solving for a %.Why are hypotheticals so hard to understand??

dude, no yourself.How can we be done with the hand if you don't even know what he's betting with here?Say this is a turn bet, and you are overbetting your flush draw... you get a call with TPTK, and you hit your flush. Still done with the hand?As I said, if it's purely a river bet, then you are correct with the maths.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

2 User(s) are reading this topic (0 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)2 Members: _Great_Dane_, Actuary Uh oh. He's back to see what was posted after he left. Too bad I won't see what he's going to write.

[Actuary 3]

dude, no yourself.How can we be done with the hand if you don't even know what he's betting with here?Say this is a turn bet, and you are overbetting your flush draw... you get a call with TPTK, and you hit your flush. Still done with the hand?As I said, if it's purely a river bet, then you are correct with the maths.

OKFollow me here.Read the OPRead where he says "Assuming I can't win if I'm called..."We assume we can't win if calledWe assume we can't win if calledHow hard is that to read?It's not a poker hand reading question.It was a math question.

[James D 0]

OKFollow me here.Read the OPRead where he says "Assuming I can't win if I'm called..."We assume we can't win if calledWe assume we can't win if calledHow hard is that to read?It's not a poker hand reading question.It was a math question.

Yeah you're correct, didn't see that.I was trying to bring a different situation into it though! (digging myself out of a hole.... )

[Actuary 3]

Yeah you're correct, didn't see that.I was trying to bring a different situation into it though! (digging myself out of a hole.... )

that's what makes you better than DaneA willingness to capitulate.Dane is so jealous of the respect I get on here it palpable

[James D 0]

that's what makes you better than DaneA willingness to capitulate.Dane is so jealous of the respect I get on here it palpable

Lol.. capitulate is a bit strong, seeing as I agreed with you from the start.I either just missed the part where he said 'assuming we can't win if we're called' or just got sidetracked while reading the thread. I like confusing things! (Maybe I should start a thread about the semi-bluffs/overbetting draws which I was talking about?)But yeah, Dane seems a bit sensitive to things sometimes. I think it's important to have more than 'one voice' here though, especially in the strat section. Even if you've had issues in the past, just forget it and move onto the next one... that's my opinion.

[_Great_Dane_ 0]

Dane seems a bit sensitive to things sometimes. I think it's important to have more than 'one voice' here though, especially in the strat section. Even if you've had issues in the past, just forget it and move onto the next one... that's my opinion.

I'm not "sensitive" to anything that happens here. Debate and observing multiple viewpoints are important; especially in strat. "A" won't forget his issues and he won't move on. To show that he's overly sensitive, go here:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...t&p=1455738To show that he won't move on:http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...who&t=80048

[shrimp4789 0]

this posted reminded me of exactly why i hated math in school