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

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 = %100

And solve

Solve Second Equation for % Called.
%Called = %100 - %NotCalled

Substitute this result into the first equation

( %100 - %NotCalled ) * $40 = %NotCalled * $30

Distribute:

%100 * $40 - %NotCalled * $40 = %NotCalled * $30

Add like terms

$40 = $70 * % NotCalled

Solve by dividing thru by $70 on both sides

%NotCalled = $40 / $70 = % 57.1428571

So 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 called
1-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 > x

So x has to be less than 30/70, or 42.857% to win
Where x is the % you are called

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.

Christ that's complicated lol

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 = 10
Villain bets $5, hero calls

turn pot = 20
Villain bets $10, hero raises to $40


I'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

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 Bet
If he calls more than this you lose money.

Like this:

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

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


Aren'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.

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

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


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 go

15/55 = 27%, therefore have to win 73% of time?

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.

yeah, I'm just converting Odds to Percentages

In the first idea, of a turn bluff only, its

$40 to win $30

So 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. 40/70
Or 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.

EDIT - nevermind.

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, no
We'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??

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:


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

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=1495232

Bye.

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

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.

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.

OK
Follow me here.
Read the OP
Read where he says "Assuming I can't win if I'm called..."
We assume we can't win if called
We assume we can't win if called

How 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.... )

that's what makes you better than Dane
A 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.

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=1455738
To show that he won't move on:
http://www.fullcontactpoker.com/poker-foru...who&t=80048

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

Let's everyone chill lol. I think it's time for Actuary and Dane to roll a fat blunt and watch just erlax

Seriously, thanks for the help everyone that posted.


James D-
The situation;
It's a 2 bullet bluff I've been trying recently. I've noticed a few people in my game will very frequently bet the flop OOP if they led preflop, and they always call a raise (all they need is atleast 1 overcard, guess they don't want to look like they were caught with their hand in the cookie jar). If they check the turn, they're always done, so I can bet the turn, and take it there.

I was just curious as to the frequency this play needs to work to profit from it

Fallacy of sunken costs.

It doesn't matter if the $30 pot came from you, your opponent, or Jesus Christ Reborn. All that matters is the presence of $30 in the pot.

And Jesus Christ Reborn was not in the hand. So, Sluggo, wouldn't you be more comfortable in the Religion forum?

However, this is the original question:




Thus, the question is NOT asking about the profitability of a two street move, and is just asking about this particular bet; it is with THIS bet that how the money got into the pot is irrelevant, which is what Sluggo was perfectly correct in pointing out.

Heads up pot, hero has position. Villain took lead preflop.

Flop pot = 10
Villain bets $5, hero calls

turn pot = 20
Villain bets $10, hero raises to $40


later Big says this is a two street bluff.
We're lead to believe he has no hand, no draw and will lose this if Villain calls the turn raise.

What are we to assume about the $ we put in preflop? Surely, we felt some potential beyond just a two street bluff at that time. So lets say we put in $4 preflop, just to keep it simple

Given that overly simplified scenario, I'd say this is risking $49 to win $21. But $4 of that $49 was put in preflop when we had potential and not simply hoping villain folds. On the other hand, post flop, we are risking $45 to win $25. Nevertheless, we don't know on the flop, how much he is going to bet on the turn. In the end, we can look back to see what we risked; however, during the hand, our turn play should be taken alone in consideration for risk/reward.


***********************



the question was later explained more completely

Thanks for your continued uselessness Dane, we covered that already.