Beginner Series Part 9 - Maximizing Expected Value (EV) in your poker game
How to avoid shedding your equity by minimizing blatant mistakes.
Sum(marizing) Expected Value
Most group initiatives we participate in are cooperative. In other words if we are doing an activity in a way that gives ourselves +EV, we are typically doing it in a way that is +EV for others. Examples range from using the correct currency, conforming to typical umbrella use, and working within the hours of a common workweek.
Let’s use the example of using headlights at night. It makes perfect sense that our best strategy for driving at night involves using our headlights. It gives us the ability to see where we are going!
It also adds to the EV of our fellow drivers. Afterall, if they can’t see us, that definitely detracts from their EV. So we have a positive sum of their positive EV and our positive EV.
There are also lots of negative sum EV equations. May wartime situations fall in this scenario - and not just mutually assured destruction. Imagine a country trying to take a territory or city from another. Both sides will have casualties for sure and the winner will perhaps only “win” a bombarded shell of a city as a prize. The EV of the winner is often diminished to negative and the EV of the loser is ALWAYS negative.
Poker - and a lot of other games for that matter - is what is referred to as Zero Sum. In a zero sum game or scenario, the winner wins the same amount the loser loses. If we ignore the rake, and or associated fees, other examples would include: trading on the stock market, a game of chess, or a wager between friends on a the outcome of a football game.
Zero Sum?… That doesn’t sound too good.
A lot of people feel icky about playing a zero sum game for money. Especially when there are so many other things we could do that build up ourselves and others at the same time.
However, as we discussed many times, especially on Motivation, more people than you may imagine are playing for fun or well within their poker budget. A majority love the game for the competition, the socialization, and the puzzle it presents to the brain.
That there are sick people in this world shouldn’t dissuade the healthy from enjoying the activities they adore.
How a Zero Sum scenario works
What’s important to remember when playing a zero sum game - like poker - is when you play +EV you take EV from others. Conversely, when you play or act -EV you are giving them an advantage.
I use the plural “them” because giving away EV doesn’t just positively impact your immediate opponent. You give some of the EV to the other opponents at the table as well.
When we learned about ICM, we discussed the idea that the big stack adding chips to her pile doesn’t have as big of a value as the absolute (negative) value of the shorter stack losing the same amount of chips. The ICM value of the big stack gain goes up a few percentage while the smaller stack losing the same amount may lose a very large percentage of the value of his stack. So if this is zero sum where did the difference in stack value go?
The answer is it went to the value of the stacks of the other opponents at the table or in the tournament. A small sliver of value is distributed amongst each player still in the game unevenly based (typically) on stack sizes with the smallest stacks “winning” the most value.
I made a chart for a simple ICM spot in the scenario below. I used this free app ICM calculator to get the stack values before and after a hand in which Albert (our chip leader) won 15000 in chips from Ernie (a shorter stack). The data is for a tournament which has 6 players left. This fictional tournament plays 3 spots with the winner receiving $500, second getting $300, and the third place player earning $100.
The first thing to notice is that while it was a heads up pot with Albert winning 15000 from Ernie alone, the ICM value of Albert’s stack went from $244 to $288. That’s an 18% increase in stack value. However, when we look at Ernie’s stack value it can be seen that losing that same 15000 in chips sunk the value of his stack from $119 to $53. That’s a loss of 55%.
What’s perhaps even more interesting is the value of the stacks that weren’t even in the hand. Each player that wasn’t involved in the hand “won” between $4 - $6 in stack value just based on the outcome of that hand.
Hopefully this gives you an idea of how the zero sum concept works and how it affects you and the players around you based on what the group is collectively doing.
The ways in which I see people giving away their EV most are: not taking advantage of one’s +EV opportunities, revealing specific information about their game, and letting others dictate big EV decisions.
Not taking advantage of +EV opportunities
I have seen my share of times when someone doesn’t want to “take advantage” of the weak or friendly player at the table. Sometimes, in an extreme example, even checking back with the nuts. I would caution against this type of “soft play” and not only because it is frowned upon and sometimes outright breaks the rules.
If we use the example in the chart above we can see that there are times that, although, we may think we are taking it easy on a simple player, we are actually giving value to our tougher opponents at the same time. Be Mr. Nice Guy at your own risk.
Revealing unnecessary information about your game
This often comes in the form of showing your hand when your opponent has folded. Maybe you had to show the bluff. Or maybe you show the goods because you want your opponents to think you’re honest so you can set up a bluff later. It really doesn’t matter if you are trying to think a level higher or are trying to be honestly nice. You don’t know the situation that is coming up next and whether showing now will prove to be to your benefit or detriment.
So if you want to guess or if you think you have a “system”, I’m here to tell you that - in the long run - this is a losing play and a losing thought process.
Another more nuanced reveal comes in the form of strategy banter at the table. If player A is telling player B that: “There is no way that player C was bluffing on that last hand” and player B is adamant that its possible, you should probably believe that both are being honest about how each would have played the hand. A lot can be gleaned about a person’s playing style if you listen to what players are saying to each other in these conversations.
This should also be your warning to steer clear of describing anything as “always” or “never” when in a discussion yourself. This is especially true in a higher stakes game where your opponents are more likely to be listening for such banter for this specific reason.
I will personally try to be vague in my answers to such questions and outright lie if put on the spot where I feel like I should answer to avoid awkwardness. This goes for the person that keeps asking about my hole cards after the hand as well.
Allowing others to dictate your EV decisions
You may be thinking “I would never allow someone to persuade me to make a bad decision in poker”. The truth is, you probably do it more than you think.
Let’s say you are the chip leader and you’re the most skilled player of the 4 left in the tournament. The group wants to do an even chop because one person has to get up early and another hasn’t cashed a tournament in 3 weeks and needs to tell his wife that he won something. If we don’t play this game often and we aren’t going to get a lot of future credit from the players that “need” to end the game, we are selling ourselves short.
Even if an ICM chop is proposed, it’s still a bad deal for the player with the skill edge. ICM numbers don’t consider the blinds, skill, or position. These are all considerations that YOU must account for.
If you have an advantage at short handed play and never use it, what good is it? You’re letting others make your EV decisions for you. What’s more is your opponents are likely short changing themselves - for the long term at least - as they aren’t taking advantage of the experience of short handed play for themselves.
I’m not against making a deal. Don’t get me wrong there. I just want a deal that I feel is good for me. Often that is the original tournament deal of playing it out to a winner.
I hope you gained something from the idea of spewing EV. As always, if you have any questions, let me hear them in the comments section below. I’m always open for a discussion - even for a chop.
A Tip of the Cap to Joe and Joey Schwenk for winning the Tag Team event at Firekeepers in Michigan last week. It couldn’t happen to a nicer couple guys and what a memory for the Father and Son. Congratulations Guys!
1. Thank you for the read… and thank you for not naming me regarding your anonymous soft play example, but point taken 2. What is typical umbrella use? And 3. Joe and Joey…. AMAZING job guys!!! Congratulations!!! Super happy for you both! Gg