Moved from PFC: Math Help Min Raise/Folding

[RWPKRPLR1]

I've been trying to find somewhere that could explain to me the theory of min-raise/folding. I think I finally made headway into figuring it out and understanding the concept. But some of the math trips me up. This will be a scratch pad for it because I know there are a bunch here who can clear this up or check it. I'm also pretty sure a lot of mtt grinders here wanna see this math.

This certainly needs checking because I haven't worked it all out yet...

I was told by V that min raising is a separate event from calling a shove...so......


PART1

Ex: blinds are 100/200/25 antes 9 handed........

So if we min raise we raise we risk 400 to win 525 (blinds + antes)

which gives us 1.3125 to 1 on our bet (525/400)

which is 100 * (1 + 1.3125)^-1 = 43.24%

So if our min raise gets through 43.24% or more of the time, its profitable with any two cards.

PART2

So assuming 43.24% is correct if we are in the sb and action is folded to us, we can profitably min raise ATC as long as the bb doesn't reshove more than 1-43.24% = 56.76% of hands

PART3

If there is more than one opponent behind us the formula for the amount of times we get through is the percent each of our opponents folds multiplied together.

so if we min raise from the CU
Bu reshoves 20%
Sb reshove 10%
Bb reshoves 15%

we get through .8 * .9 * .85 = .612 = 60%

but we only we only to get through 43.24%


Part 4

From each position we can take the nth root of 43.24 where n is the players left to act and see what the average reshove range needs to be for us to min raise to show a profit (so assuming each villain shoves the same, whats their max shove range that we can still min raise ATC):



Part 5

There seems to be an relation between the sum of the reshove %'s and their product. So if one player shoves 5% too much we are ok if another player folds 5% to much. I don't think its exactly linear but I don't want to dig so far into it until I know the rest is correct.

Also it may be too complex to figure out the adjusting with so many variables but I think if we treat it linear the amount of error is small?

[RWPKRPLR1]

Datamn's response (don't know if it relevant, but you liked it so i have added it)
SCENARIO 1
------------

Yes, if you are outside the blinds, then if your min-raise will win the pot right there 43.24% of the time or more, then min-raising is a +EV play.

SCENARIO 2
------------

You forgot about the fact that you have already posted the SB, so you are in fact betting 300 to win 525. So, if your min-raise will take it down right away 36.4% (or more) of the time, then min-raising is +EV from the SB.

But, looking at it from the BBs position, folding to the min-raise is a pretty big mistake no matter what their hand. They need to invest 200 to try and win 825 - so they only need to win 32% of the time with the added bonuses of position on the min-raiser, with the SB having no clue as to which 2 cards they hold.

As someone stated earlier, it comes down to the flatting tendencies of the BB. If they are mathematically/positionally savvy then your min-raise should not work as well as you hope - unless the blinds are so high that it now becomes a matter of they need to fold or shove.

Part 3
------

I know what you're saying... "But I stated earlier that someone flatting is equivalent to them shoving" but it really is not, because it would adjust your percentages IRL.

Your math is correct on this part... if the BB would only call/reshove 20% of the time, the SB only calls/reshoves 10% of the time, and the BB only calls/reshoves 15% of the time then you would win right there 61.2% of the time.

But... when calling is an option to bust up your play I really think 20%/10%/15% is way too low of a percentage. A range of 30%/20%/25% would be enough to make your min-raise try unsuccessful (with the assumption that you will always lose if you are called/raised).

Part 4
------

Yes, your math is correct on this one, assuming that all players have an equal chance of raising or folding (which we know not to be true - but I won't keep pounding this point).

Part 5
------

If there is a difference in the percentages for one player up by X% and a difference down for another player by the same X% it will not be fully linear - but it will be close.

If we assume p is the original percentage, then for 2 iterations it will be p^2.

If we add in our up/down variance of x, then (p+x)(p-x) = p^2 - x^2.

So, with a 5% up/down variance it will change the calculation to p^2 - 0.0025 (a change of .25%).

Unless the variance is very large, you could effectively ignore it for calculation purposes.

[RWPKRPLR1]

Here is my best explanation of the min raising chart I posted. Its not the most coherent vid but I got the job done. This is really strange because I still stumble on simple poker terms but this concept is quite advanced in the way that most good regs don't use it.

If your just checking it out make sure you get to around 12 minutes because the beginning is a just a setup.

I'm sure if a few watch this there will be someone who this just resonates with in a big way.

This is what I've been lacking and now that its fixed I'm confident my results will follow

The disclaimer is I could be totally wrong

https://vimeo.com/48573123

Tis a concept for intermediate players but I tried to explain it in a way everyone could understand.

[sngking]

Have not watched the video yet, but have no idea what is being said above , mind you I don't really know implied odds or stop and go all this time.

[sngking]

Have not watched the video yet, (need a password!) but have no idea what is being said above , mind you I don't really know implied odds or stop and go all this time.

[Sponsored content]