The first thread that I started began with discussions that I have at the casino with a local pro who is extremely mathematical but makes great projections for the final pot v. investment. His rationale is quite intriguing whether I agree with him or not in the discussion.

ANYWAY...
This sparks from Marm and Steve's discussion, though not really related at all. Commonly accepted theory via David Sklansky and Mason Malmuth is that your odds are in the moment and implied odds are projections or predictions of the future.

But what about the past? Almost everytime that you're making odds decisions, you've already invested into the pot that you're attempting to win. When you call/bet/raise, your initial investment is dead just as when you fold. Could this lead to a theory that you subtract certain amounts from the pot when you calculate based on an initial investment that is a constant.

RESTATE: With QQ in a NL game, you can estimate the minimum amount of BB's that you will put into the pot every time you have QQ. That number is greater than the average time that you hold AJ, 67s, and 99. So, how much value can you place on the money that you are attempting to win that is only available to win because you lost it?

Without regurgitating the same "money in the pot belongs to the pot now" argument, in what ways does this theory have merit and where doesn't it? When I say, without regurgitating the Sklansky argument, I mean that I'm not talking being pot-committed and in all honesty Sklansky doesn't really explain why the money in the pot belongs to the pot. He just says it does and I interpret it as meaning that every round of betting is a another prop bet. The reward rises as does the risk which change your chances to make money.

This could get ugly.

Originally Posted by the alex

So, how much value can you place on the money that you are attempting to win that is only available to win because you lost it?

Ouch.

Well, not only does the money IN the pot belong to the pot, you bet and get raised, even though your money is not in the "pot" yet, your initial bet still belongs to the pot.

The reason is, if you fold, or just check and lose the pot, the money is gone. The only way you get the money is by winning it.

Therefore, all money in the pot is of the same value no matter who put it in the pot.


I guess you could look at it a slightly different way. Say you bought a stock for $50 and it doubles to $100. On the way to cash in your certicate, you meet your bookie. He says you can pay him the $100 in cash that you owe him, or give him the stock certificate. Well, you only put $50 into the certificate, so are you getting off cheap if you give him the stock? No, they both have equal value (let's not discuss taxes) and you are out $100 either way. You could even say you had just cashed in the stock and have one $100 bill from the stock certicate, and another from your own money - do they have different value? Does the $100 from the stock change in value because you put in $50 of your own cash?

So, since you lose it everytime that you fold, couldn't it (not "shouldn't it), isn't that bet just a constant?

Doesn't removing the constant which is on both sides of the equation at some point in the hand and through the whole game distort your numbers?

Are they distorting them in a more accurate or less accurate manner? I don't say right and wrong because we're dipping into relativity and diving into unprovable theories, I admit.

Originally Posted by Beavis68

I guess you could look at it a slightly different way. Say you bought a stock for $50 and it doubles to $100. On the way to cash in your certicate, you meet your bookie. He says you can pay him the $100 in cash that you owe him, or give him the stock certificate. Well, you only put $50 into the certificate, so are you getting off cheap if you give him the stock? No, they both have equal value (let's not discuss taxes) and you are out $100 either way. You could even say you had just cashed in the stock and have one $100 bill from the stock certicate, and another from your own money - do they have different value? Does the $100 from the stock change in value because you put in $50 of your own cash?

That's exactly what I've been asking myself in theory? Thanks for giving a good non-poker related example. Here's another:

Last Monday, I was bowling with someone 1-on-1 at $25 a game. The three other and myself were playing a big pot where the 3 losers had to pay the winner $5 per pin. I know that if I lose, I'm not going to lose by more than 15 (-$75), but if I win, I figure to beat 1 guy by 10, 1 by 20, and another by 30 (+250). The one on one was a fairly even match before the game.

I did end up finishing in 2nd to my 1-on-1 opponent by 11 pins [(-55)+(-25)= -80]

But on one frame, I bet the guy $50 when it looked like I was gonna win the one on one and gave him 5:1 that he wouldn't pick up a 4-10 split. -80+50= -$30. Was my fault that I lost $30 or was it my great prop bet in a frame that only made me lose $30?

I haven't read the responses yet so if I touch on something already stated sorry.

I'm going to talk about a couple theories, please keep in mind they are theories not something i truly believe.

The money in the pot does belong to the pot, but you must also look at your investment in the pot. what i mean is if you have 77 and cap the betting 4 ways preflop you have basically made it correct to chase until the river to spike a 7. I call this artificially inflating the pot.

we've discussed this before where i said making a mistake preflop leads to more mistakes post flop, raising 44 after 5 limpers has almost guaranteed you will call a flop bet. in a 5/10 game a $5 mistake has turned into a $10 which could still get uglier. it is similar to the Slotboom article i posted, if you raise AJ after 4 limpers you should almost definetly call if you only have 2 overs or an inside straight, if you had limped this would not be the case. sometimes you can manipulate the pot and it makes chasing correct, for you and your opponents. your profit comes from making chasing incorrect, it seems to me that raising marginal hands make chasing correct.

If 1 of your 3 opponents limped with KT and you raise with AJ he will have made 0 mistakes, he should call your raise preflop and he should chase gutshots and second pair post flop. Does this make sense to anyone else?


Something I learned from hi/lo games is your investment does matter, Omaha 8 you are 3 handed and you chase a low draw and catch on the river, suppose everyone put in $20 you would win $30, because of your investment in the pot you only won $10. if you scooped you would make $40 profit. if you add 2 more opponents your half the pot would now be $50 for $30 profit.

Based on # opponents and in hi/lo games the amount of the pot you will win you should consider if the initial investment is worth it. for instance 1 player limps in Omaha 8 and you have A279 I would fold, your playing for 1/2 the pot the blinds likely have nothing and will fold on the flop unless they hit.

The money in the pot does belong to the pot, but you must also look at your investment in the pot. what i mean is if you have 77 and cap the betting 4 ways preflop you have basically made it correct to chase until the river to spike a 7. I call this artificially inflating the pot.

Now, again, I can't really explain this theory in detail as my colleague did, but the question is even hard to ask without being completely misunderstood.

What you call inflating the pot, I call "maxin' the plastic." This is a more extreme example and a KQs limp on the button with 4 other limpers and calling a J-T-8 with 2 of your suit flop is the other extreme. There are in-between situations, especially in PL and NL.

I see it most in PLO and everyone sees it when they're playing live because no matter what, you know which chips you have just put in the pot. I'm still so confused that I'm having problems asking the question.

Following up on the QQ question:
My odds to get trips with QQ are the same as my odds to get trips with 22. Because QQ needs less help than 22, it's a better hand, but we can all agree that it's a very hard hand to lay down, so what we put in the pot looking for info, or isolating, or protecting, or for value is COMPLETELY different from what we've put in the pot with 22 looking for trips or at worst a HORRIBLE flop with few people for a pot to steal.

On a flop that doesn't hurt us on the surface, not help us on the surface, how different is QQ from 99 because of what's already in the pot?

How dangerous is it to not discriminate between what we will always put into the pot with QQ as opposed to lower pairs?

In the moment bets are in the moment bets, I agree, outside of a style where being more passive, aggressive, looser, or tighter PF is the issue, is on a flop REALLY the same as preflop against a normal raise?

H

ow dangerous is it to not discriminate between what we will always put into the pot with QQ as opposed to lower pairs?

this is a big reason why in loose games AXs and small and middle pairs can be so profitable.

It's like buying a penny stock, it either explodes and you make money or goes nowhere which isn't that bad since you invested very little to begin with.

AA, KK, QQ, ets are like buying coke or disney, they need big initial investments they don't have many huge gains compared to your investment but in the longrun they will be your biggest and most consistent money makers.

my discussion with marm was a little different, we were looking at the same situation from 2 different point of views. Marm was looking solely at his pot odds for the entire hand, where i was looking at maximizing my profit on the river.

this is similar to your prop bet on each round theory.

Maximizing your profit on a given round should have nothing to do with what is in the pot already. you are trying to determine the best way to extract the most money from your opponents on this given betting round. You want them to call.