Should I have raised?

[fifo]

Slowly, slowly improving...
One hand from yesterday. Obviously it was good that I didn't, but going over it again, I wondered if I should have raised on the Turn? There's 0,32 in the pot and I have 8 outs, which is about 1:5. Technically, that should be a raise, no?

GAME #436805476: 2c / 4c Limit (ok) - 2006-09-25 15:10:42
Table Turnberry

Seat 1: diymad1 ($1.53 in chips)
Seat 2: chrisbyII ($1.9 in chips)
Seat 3: hunzknochen ($0.8 in chips)
Seat 4: pretreltigha ($2.95 in chips)
Seat 5: demah ($0.39 in chips)
Seat 6: stuinn ($1.92 in chips)
Seat 7: FAGANX444 ($2.09 in chips)
Seat 8: maxence63 ($0.94 in chips)
Seat 9: retraite ($0.88 in chips)
Seat 10: dacb ($0.8 in chips)

FAGANX444: SB $0.01
maxence63: BB $0.02
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to pretreltigha [DJ D9]
retraite: Call $0.02
dacb: Call $0.02
diymad1: Call $0.02
chrisbyII: Fold
hunzknochen: Fold
pretreltigha: Call $0.02
demah: Call $0.02
stuinn: Fold
FAGANX444: Call $0.01
maxence63: Check
*** FLOP *** [C6 D10 H7]
FAGANX444: Check
maxence63: Bet $0.02
retraite: Call $0.02
dacb: Fold
diymad1: Call $0.02
pretreltigha: Call $0.02
demah: Call $0.02
FAGANX444: Fold
*** TURN *** [C6 D10 H7 CQ]
maxence63: Bet $0.04
retraite: Fold
diymad1: Call $0.04
pretreltigha: Call $0.04
demah: Call $0.04
*** RIVER *** [C6 D10 H7 CQ D4]
maxence63: Bet $0.04
diymad1: Fold
pretreltigha: Fold
demah: Fold
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $0.44 Rake $0
maxence63: wins $0.44

[biggle10]

Slowly, slowly improving...
One hand from yesterday. Obviously it was good that I didn't, but going over it again, I wondered if I should have raised on the Turn? There's 0,32 in the pot and I have 8 outs, which is about 1:5. Technically, that should be a raise, no?

You're confusing 2 different concepts: Pot odds/ and Pot eQuity.

Deciding whether to proceed with a hand when you need to improve to win relies on pot odds. So in your example, you're getting 8-1 on the turn on a 5-1 draw so you should stay in because folding would be a mistake.

However, on any given street (without consideration for future betting) one has to look at their pot equity to see if raising is correct. So back to your example: You are entitled to roughly 16% of the pot. Any raise you put in though means you are putting in 25% of the money.

This is why it is correct to jam strong draws (like a nut flush draw) on the flop when it is multi way. You win around 36% of the time, but are putting in a small portion of money.

[fifo]

Ah, ok, thanks, makes sense...

I wonder if there's some kind of correlation between both. Kind of like: If you have x:1 odds to make your hand and the pot is offering 1,5*x : 1 odds you can raise.

In my hand, in a 50c pot, 8c is about 16%. So, in a 50c pot, I could have raised. And taking the 4c call first, the pot offers 12,5:1 odds, which is about 1,5 time the outs I have.
hmm, I'll watch out for that - might make things easier to calculate during play...

[biggle10]

Ah, ok, thanks, makes sense...

I wonder if there's some kind of correlation between both. Kind of like: If you have x:1 odds to make your hand and the pot is offering 1,5*x : 1 odds you can raise.

In my hand, in a 50c pot, 8c is about 16%. So, in a 50c pot, I could have raised. And taking the 4c call first, the pot offers 12,5:1 odds, which is about 1,5 time the outs I have.
hmm, I'll watch out for that - might make things easier to calculate during play...

\

I don't think you're quite grasping it. The size of the pot doesn't really matter when deciding whether to raise or not. (It does, but for this example it really doesn't apply)

[fifo]

I don't think you're quite grasping it. The size of the pot doesn't really matter when deciding whether to raise or not. (It does, but for this example it really doesn't apply)

I think I do - I just wasn't making myself clear I guess. Let's just say there are necessary and sufficient conditions to a raise. And while positive pot equity / ok odds won't be sufficient conditions most of the time, they'll probably necessary conditions (if we disregard bluffing etc.).

What I was trying to say is that pot odds and pot equity seem to be related and I was wondering if one could take advantage of this fact. Right now, you calculate each in a separate way, one dealing with odds and outs, one dealing with probabilities. If you could just stay with "odds and outs" and get a similar exact conclusion about pot equity, it would take less time to figure out during play.

Taking the above example: 8 outs to the nuts, no other outs win, 32c in the pot before I call/bet, on the turn, 4c to bet/call, 8c to raise.

My draw has a probability of .174 to come in on the river (8/46)
The ratio of call to the pot is 4/32 = .125. So I should call because I have positive pot odds. This is very easy and fast to figure out when you're just comparing outs and odds, and a bit harder if you take the exact probabilities.

Pot equity is the amount of the pot I can "claim" with my draw. My draw comes in with a prob. of .174, so if I stay in, I can hope to get 5.568 of the pot. More specifically, I make a net of 1,568, since I "buy" an average of 5,568 with a 4c put-in.
Since this is more than a call, I have positive equity. Here, you have to take the probabilities to calculate the result.

But taking the difference of the draw probability of .174 and the "pot ratio" of .125 (= .049) and multiplying this with the size of the pot gives me 1.568, which is pot equity - amount-to-call.

Similar, if we assume a 50c pot and 8c to call, it's .174-.16 (8/50) = .014
50 * .014 = .7 which, again, is pot equity (50*.174 = 8.7) - call

So what I was wondering is if you could make something out of this relation for a rule of thumb of the sort "if the pot is giving me twice the odds I need, I have positive equity for a raise" or so. Which would be a lot faster than figuring out my actual pot equity, then doing this again with the amount I would bet if I raised.

And, of course, this is not to say that I actually _should_ raise which would be dependent on other considerations as well. But, as I said, it's probably one necessary condition.

[biggle10]

I think I know where your conclusions are wrong. Let me see if I can explain it another way.

Let's say you win a pot 17% of the time.

Situation 1:
Its headsup and there is $100 in the pot. Someone bets $1. You call.
17 wins * 102 = $1734
83 losses * $1 = $83
Profit = 1734 - 83 = $1651/100 hands = ~$16.5 /hand.

Since $16 > $1 its a call.

Situation 2:
Its headsup and there is $100 in the pot. Someone bets $1. You raise to a Million.
17 wins * 1,000,100 = 17001700 (WOW, that's a lot of money but wait...)
83 lossess * 1,000,000 = 83000000

Profit = -65998300 /100 hands = $-659983 / hand

So in both situations the pot size is the same, the bet against you is the same, but in one you make money and in the other you lose money. So let's consider.....

Situation 3:
Its 8 handed and there is $100 in the pot. Someone bets $1. You raise to a million and everyone calls.
17 wins * 8,000,000 = 136,000,000
83 losses * 1,000,000 = 83,000,000
Profit: 136,000,000 - 83,000,000 = 53,000,00/100 hands = $530,000 /hand

So what changed in situation #3? The percentage of money that you are putting in THAT ROUND (12.5%) is less than the percentage that you win (17%) Is that clearer?

[fifo]

So what changed in situation #3? The percentage of money that you are putting in THAT ROUND (12.5%) is less than the percentage that you win (17%) Is that clearer?

Yes.