Posts tagged as ‘Poker’
The quick answer: maybe. If I were to offer you two to one odds on a coin flip, it would be a great bet, at least from a probability point of view. The math is simple; I’d be willing to pay you $2 on your $1 bet based upon an event that will happen one time out of two tries. The probability of success is 50%, but you need a probability of only 33% to break even, so that’s a great bet, at least on the surface. You can probably tell I’m hinting about a downside here, so let’s talk about it in poker terms – specifically poker tournament terms, rather than cash or “ring” game terms. Why the distinction? Because in a cash game, if you take a 2 to 1 bet and lose, you can just reach in your pocket for more $$$. In a tournament, losing the hand may knock you out of contention or even bust you. It’s like me offering you 2 to 1 on a coin flip, but you have to bet everything you own. Sure, do it often enough and you’ll bust me, but if you lose the first time we do it, you’re busted and don’t get a second chance. Does two to one still sound good?
My point here is that every bet has a mathematical value, which can usually be measured precisely and a relative value, which is more difficult to measure because it must be done in relationship to other factors. Flipping a coin for a buck is one thing; flipping a coin for your entire net worth is another thing entirely. Fortunately, none of us has to risk our entire net worth on the outcome of a poker tournament, but we do want to finish as close to the top as possible, so we have to examine our bets from both a mathematical point of view and a relative point of view. For example, let’s say you’re in the Big Blind, which is $200 and you have $3000 left in chips after posting. A player in Middle Position bets $700 and everyone, including the Small Blind folds. The pot is now $1000 ($100 SB, $200 BB, $700 from MP player) and it will cost you $500 to call, so you’re getting two to one on your money. Now remember that your $200 blind bet is gone – once it’s posted, it no longer belongs to you, so you don’t use that in figuring odds like this. It’s simply a case of paying $500 to try and win $1000, which is 2 to 1 pot odds. In Lesson 2, I showed you some basic poker math that tells us how to convert probability to odds and vice-versa. Pot odds of 2 to 1 means you need a probability of just over 33% to break even (add 2 + 1 = 3; divide that into 100 and the result is 33.33). So, if we have a hand that we think has a 34% probability of winning, the math says it’s a call.
But there are several problems here. First of all, if the raiser has A-A and we have Q-Q, our probability of winning is only about 20%, so we’re not getting a good “price” for our bet. On the other hand, if our opponent raised with, say, A-K offsuit, our probability of winning is closer to 55%, which makes this a great call with Q-Q. But what if we have to go all-in to make the call? Is the return big enough; is 2 to 1 a good deal? For me, if I were short-stacked, I’d be happy to get all my $$$ into the pot with a pair of Queens. If my opponent has A-A or K-K, I’m basically toast and as the saying goes, “that’s poker”, but I’m a favorite in most other situations. Sadly, most hands you’ll encounter are not as clear-cut as this. What’s more likely is that you’ll hold something like 5-5, K-Jo or A-4 suited (I’m assuming you’ll fold the truly “junk” hands like Q-7o,10-5s, etc.) and calling the bet won’t force you all-in, but it would be a shame to miss a chance to add to your stack. What to do?
(Source: GameMaster)
In the game of poker, opens and raises are considered aggressive plays, while calls and checks are considered passive (though a check-raise would be considered a very aggressive play). It is said that “aggression has its own value”, meaning that often aggressive plays can make money with weak hands because of bluff value. Aggressive plays also tend to give the opponents more opportunities to make mistakes.
While it is true that aggressive play is generally superior to passive play, using any play exclusively can lead to predictability, and being too predictable is far worse than being too passive. A player who is constantly aggressive and plays many inferior hands is called a “maniac”, and skilled players will take advantage of him by calling him more often, using isolation plays, and by other means.
If a player is not aggressive with his weaker hands, the opponents can safely fold whenever the player does bet or raise. The appropriate amount of aggression can be computed using game theory, and depends on the game being played and the tendencies of the opponents.
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia.
