
24.07.2015, 07:05

0

This post has been edited 2 time(s), it was last edited by maheepsangari: 24.07.2015 07:07.
I seem to be making some conceptual mistake here, please let me know if there is some calculation mistake I'm making too along with mistaking the concept.
Assumptions:
Ranges are perfectly polarized.
Its the river, CO bets and its HU with BU and the CO has the BU covered so BU can only call or fold.
Pot $100
CO bets $50
Ratios:
FE=50/150=33%
BU should defend 67% of his range.
When the BU calls,
50/200=25%, he must win atleast 25% of the times so the CO can have 25% of his betting hands as bluffs and 75% should be value.
Assuming perfectly polarized ranges, all CO's bluffs lose and all his value hands win. So his range basically 100% equity and 0% equity hands, its river anyway so possible, the value:bluff is 3:1.
EV for CO
Case 1:
CO bets and BU folds
CO wins $100
this happens a total of 33% of the times.
EV1=100x0.33=$33
Case 2:
CO bets and BU calls and loses
CO wins $150
this happens 0.67x0.75=0.5025 so 50.25% of the times.
EV2=150x0.5025=$75.38
Case 3:
CO bets and BU calls and wins
CO loses $50
this happens 0.67x0.25=0.1675 so 16.75% of the times
EV3=(50)(0.1675)=8.38
EV=EV1+EV2+EV3
=33+75.388.38
=$100
Shouldn't this EV be $0?
Isn't that why all the balancing and stuff happened?
What am I missing?
EV for BU
Case1:
BU folds he loses $0, this happens 33% of the times.
EV1=0x0.33=$0
Case 2:
BU calls and loses $50, this again happens the same 0.67x0.75=0.5025
EV2=0.5025x(50)=25.13
Case 3:
BU calls and wins $150, this happens 0.67x0.25=0.1675
EV3=0.1675x150=25.13
EV=EV1+EV2+EV3
=025.13+25.13
=$0
So for the BU his EV is $0 but for CO his EV is $100.
So basically does that mean no matter what, in the long run this is a winning situation for the CO and at best a breakeven situation for the BU?
I thought they would win and lose the same amount. Like if CO has EV of +100, BU should have EV of 100, you know, zero sum game and such.