Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Question about Todd Brunson's article in CardPlayer mag

Reply to Thread
  1. racer racer is offline

    Gananoque
    Canada

    Posts: 994
    Joined: Oct 08

    Jul 29th, 2011 (7/29/2011 6:39pm)

    My question is in regards to his reference about 'fold equity' in this particular paragraph:

    Once I made such a small raise on the flop, I should have followed through with a small-ball tactic and bet about half pot on the turn. That way, I would have had plenty of fold equity and I could have easily gotten away from the hand.

    I dont know if I'm interpreting this wrong or I'm just a noob, or what, buy my definition of fold equity has nothing to do with me 'getting away from hands', but has everything to do with exploitation and trying to make my opponent get away from hands.

    Can such a popular term, and important tool in this game have 2 totally opposite meanings, considering were referring to a long time established professional here?
  2. boneralert boneralert is offline

    Fort Worth, TX
    United States

    Posts: 673
    Joined: Jan 11

    Jul 29th, 2011 (7/29/2011 7:15pm) in reply to racer

    doesnt fold equity just = value in folding

    you dont bluff at an opponent who has no fold equity because they are so committed that folding is rarely of any value to them.

    you also preserve your own fold equity by not creating too big of a pot or betting too many of your chips. in some scenarios, a fold on a later street will be be +EV, but if you make the pot too large that equity goes away and you will have to call in more scenarios.

    it makes sense to me in both uses. but this is just how i see it, could be wrong.

    EDIT: didnt explain that very well, but my point was that fold equity is just anytime there is value in folding. you can have it just as well as your opponent can have it, and sometimes you even want to have it.
    Edited By: boneralert Jul 29th, 2011 at 07:19 PM
  3. LiquidSw0rd LiquidSw0rd is offline

    Lausanne
    Switzerland

    Posts: 573
    Joined: Nov 09

    Jul 29th, 2011 (7/29/2011 7:32pm) in reply to racer

    i think he just meant 'bet / folding the turn with good fold equity'. (good fold equity = good chances that our opponent will fold when we bet)
     
  4. racer racer is offline

    Gananoque
    Canada

    Posts: 994
    Joined: Oct 08

    Jul 29th, 2011 (7/29/2011 8:13pm) in reply to LiquidSw0rd

     
    Originally Posted by LiquidSw0rd View Post

    i think he just meant 'bet / folding the turn with good fold equity'. (good fold equity = good chances that our opponent will fold when we bet)

    yeah, i can see the logic in this.
    I think what didnt make sense initially to me was when he stated his 'small-ball tactic', and betting half pot on turn etc, really does not utilize fold equity as much as it screams 'value betting', but then, its like how can these co-exist in the same hand??? But now it makes some sort of sense to me, that is if you have a marginal hand that you may have to fold to aggression on later streets.

    I'd be happy to hear more thoughts on fold equity in general, whether in regards to his paragraph or not.
    Thanks.
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread