"Your hand has no value until showdown"

GoStumpyGoStumpy Red Chipper Posts: 57
edited January 2017 in General Concepts
I absolutely love this quote and have been dwelling on it for a couple of days now, applying it to many theories and discussions...

Anyone want to expand on it a little bit?
«1

Comments

  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I think it was expanded on in the thread in which it appeared :)
  • GoStumpyGoStumpy Red Chipper Posts: 57
    edited January 2017
    Ooh I think I missed that, pretty sure I heard it in the Crash Course.

    Perhaps it's just my 'aha!' moment that puts me beyond just thinking about my two cards
  • tagliustaglius Red Chipper Posts: 290 ✭✭
    edited January 2017
    it has no present value, but it does have future value, no? (also known as equity).

    Example: I raise :2s:2c and flop comes :Qh:Jh:Th. No present value, and near-0 future value. However, if I got the same flop holding :Kh:Ks, the much greater future value should affect my play on this street.
  • Matt BerkeyMatt Berkey Red Chipper, RCP Coach Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    taglius wrote: »
    it has no present value, but it does have future value, no? (also known as equity).

    Example: I raise :2s:2c and flop comes :Qh:Jh:Th. No present value, and near-0 future value. However, if I got the same flop holding :Kh:Ks, the much greater future value should affect my play on this street.
    taglius wrote: »
    it has no present value, but it does have future value, no? (also known as equity).

    Example: I raise :2s:2c and flop comes :Qh:Jh:Th. No present value, and near-0 future value. However, if I got the same flop holding :Kh:Ks, the much greater future value should affect my play on this street.

    The difference between those two hands are: how they effect your opponent's potential holdings, and margin of error.

    With 22 we have no reasonable information on our opponent's range nor do we have any real fall back when we attempt to attack the bottom of our opponent's range and fail...

    With KhKx we have a lot of information about our opponent's hand, and we have some room to be wrong about our assertions given our equity.

    The concept no hand has value until showdown is a means to an end of navigating a hand based upon your opponent's range rather than your exact holding. It secondarily detaches us from hands that at one point or another possessed incredibly large value (flopped set on now a 4 flush board, AA pre vs a turned 3 liner w/completed flush draw. You get the point). Finally, it's a rationale that discourages showdown.

    This all may seem trivial, but I promise no more than a handful of you are able to detach from value and conceptualize our holdings as fluid from bluff to value in the heat of the moment. But it can be learned.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The concept no hand has value until showdown is a means to an end of navigating a hand based upon your opponent's range rather than your exact holding. It secondarily detaches us from hands that at one point or another possessed incredibly large value (flopped set...

    This is the language that I claimed (in the old thread) trips us up, Matt. Supposedly it would be an oxymoron to say "no hand has value until showdown", and then use language such as "a hand has incredibly large value on the flop".

    I'll take AA every single hand, even if I never get to showdown. To me, that's valuable. Yet to me, this does not distract from the dynamic nature of value. YMMV.

  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    I guess we need to replace the term Value with Perceived Equity Advantage.
    Because truthfully that is all we ever have; some assemblance of perceived equity.
  • jbruelsjbruels Red Chipper Posts: 134 ✭✭
    Ed introduce me to the idea. Basically, I don't want to bet in a way that allows my opponents to play perfectly. It's sort of the antithesis of protection betting. I see a lot of it when players pick up poket J's or Q's in the blinds. They just can't stand to see that overcard flop so they put in a HUGE raise and everyone folds. What they are doing is turning thier hand into simply two blank cards. They might as well have 7-2. Playing strong hands bound for showdown means you must allow for the fact that players will draw out on you. You also will reap max value.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Here's a little thought experiment to help us think about value/perceived equity. You're playing Omaha and you have TTTT. You're playing a hand 5 ways and the board reads QJ98. You bet the pot and take it down. How much "value" does your hand have? What does "hand" mean - the cards in your hand, or your legal poker hand? (Your "hand" is TTTT, but your "hand" is TT). How often is it going to showdown? How much "perceived equity" does your hand have? You might say your hand has "value" only because it's not going to showdown.

    Kind of an extreme example that doesn't directly translate to Holdem, but just something to get the brain moving.....
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    jbruels wrote: »
    Ed introduce me to the idea. .

    Im confused. Ed introduced you to what idea?
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    "we have some room to be wrong about our assertions given our equity".

    Note taking.
  • Matt BerkeyMatt Berkey Red Chipper, RCP Coach Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    jeffnc wrote: »
    The concept no hand has value until showdown is a means to an end of navigating a hand based upon your opponent's range rather than your exact holding. It secondarily detaches us from hands that at one point or another possessed incredibly large value (flopped set...

    This is the language that I claimed (in the old thread) trips us up, Matt. Supposedly it would be an oxymoron to say "no hand has value until showdown", and then use language such as "a hand has incredibly large value on the flop".

    I'll take AA every single hand, even if I never get to showdown. To me, that's valuable. Yet to me, this does not distract from the dynamic nature of value. YMMV.

    I'll happily give you AA every hand if there is no perception of other hands in your range and there is post flop maneuverability. Hands only matter when showdown is the only, or most prevalent, means to winning (shallow poker, all in poker, etc). The process is meant to help avoid applying static value to a
    holding in a game rooted in a dynamic structure. Boards change, thus value is always in flux... This concept holds true to our opponents as well, capitalizing on that insecurity is the edge, not earning more when you "have it"
  • Christian SotoChristian Soto RCP Coach Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    The concept no hand has value until showdown is a means to an end of navigating a hand based upon your opponent's range rather than your exact holding. It secondarily detaches us from hands that at one point or another possessed incredibly large value (flopped set...

    This is the language that I claimed (in the old thread) trips us up, Matt. Supposedly it would be an oxymoron to say "no hand has value until showdown", and then use language such as "a hand has incredibly large value on the flop".

    I'll take AA every single hand, even if I never get to showdown. To me, that's valuable. Yet to me, this does not distract from the dynamic nature of value. YMMV.

    I'll happily give you AA every hand if there is no perception of other hands in your range and there is post flop maneuverability. Hands only matter when showdown is the only, or most prevalent, means to winning (shallow poker, all in poker, etc). The process is meant to help avoid applying static value to a
    holding in a game rooted in a dynamic structure. Boards change, thus value is always in flux... This concept holds true to our opponents as well, capitalizing on that insecurity is the edge, not earning more when you "have it"

    100% in agreement with @Matt Berkey
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    He just described the very nature of the relational game of poker. A strategy that speaks to the bones of the thing itself, poker or anything, is going to be very powerful indeed.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'll happily give you AA every hand if there is no perception of other hands in your range and there is post flop maneuverability. Hands only matter when showdown is the only, or most prevalent, means to winning (shallow poker, all in poker, etc). The process is meant to help avoid applying static value to a
    holding in a game rooted in a dynamic structure.

    Clearly I didn't mean that AA can be the only hand in my range. I mean having AA when it's "Groundhog Day" for your opponents and you're Bill Murray.

    If that example was too brute force, then think of it like this. If you got dealt AA at twice the normal rate, at the end of a year are you going to make more or less money than normal, all else being equal? Assuming that many of your AA hands don't go to showdown. Clearly you are going to make more money.

    I already agreed with you that values are dynamic. In fact, I've always said that when someone forgets about relative hand values, they're suffering from "Video Poker Syndrome". i.e. thinking in terms of absolute hand values. I believe I coined that phrase!

    But I also think I proved (with the Omaha hand example above) that hands don't only matter when showdown is the most prevalent means to winning. In that case you're virtually never winning at showdown, and yet the hand has a lot of value (precisely because no one else is going to showdown because of your cards.) In HE it's much more subtle than that, but the effect is still there.
  • kageykagey Red Chipper, KINGOFTAGS Posts: 2,241 ✭✭✭✭✭
    jeffnc wrote: »
    The concept no hand has value until showdown is a means to an end of navigating a hand based upon your opponent's range rather than your exact holding. It secondarily detaches us from hands that at one point or another possessed incredibly large value (flopped set...

    This is the language that I claimed (in the old thread) trips us up, Matt. Supposedly it would be an oxymoron to say "no hand has value until showdown", and then use language such as "a hand has incredibly large value on the flop".

    I'll take AA every single hand, even if I never get to showdown. To me, that's valuable. Yet to me, this does not distract from the dynamic nature of value. YMMV.

    I'll happily give you AA every hand if there is no perception of other hands in your range and there is post flop maneuverability. Hands only matter when showdown is the only, or most prevalent, means to winning (shallow poker, all in poker, etc). The process is meant to help avoid applying static value to a
    holding in a game rooted in a dynamic structure. Boards change, thus value is always in flux... This concept holds true to our opponents as well, capitalizing on that insecurity is the edge, not earning more when you "have it"

    [bang bang?]
  • volcanovolcano Red Chipper Posts: 346 ✭✭
    I love when multiple players at the table complain about my betting frequency while they fold. I probably just had good cards, but they gave me the green light to bet with any 2. And then if I suck out they see I play rags and I can go for value in the next hour or so and get called.
  • jbruelsjbruels Red Chipper Posts: 134 ✭✭

    jbruels wrote: »
    Ed introduce me to the idea. .

    Im confused. Ed introduced you to what idea?

    "Your hand has no value until showdown"
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    @jeffnc

    Think about it this way. You are in a ball game, Wrigley Field, bottom of the 7th, Eddie Vedder is drunk and screwed the "take me out to the ball game" song and you're team is leading by 2. Are you winning ? For the moment yes, you are greatly favorite, specially when your team is 45-2 when leading after the 6th inning. But does the W is already compiled in the W column ? No, why, because you can't attribute a value on a lead until the last out bottom of the ninth, and there is a lot, a lot! of baseball to be played until that. Therefore your lead has no value more than being a lead.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I understand that Adam, but there's more to it than that. Poker isn't like baseball because one team can give up in any inning even if they're leading.

    The river card might already have come and the best hand is already determined, so it's not about who's currently "leading". But the best hand can lose and the worst hand can win. Certain hands have more value than other hands even when we don't go to showdown, because you win more money with certain hands even when you don't go to showdown.

    The point Soto and Berkey are making is that the value of a hand is relative and dynamic depending on the street, the board and the action. I understand that "a hand has no value until showdown" is a catchy concept, but it just isn't the correct way to express their point IMO.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    In Baseball, like in any sports and/or competitive game, some give up.
  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Let's say you only play AA and I know it. AA is the only hand you're giving action with. What is now the value of AA if I give up anytime unless i beat you. I can play now every hand. What would be the best way for you to make the most money with it. Do you think you'll realize your full equity with it now ?
  • persuadeopersuadeo Red Chipper Posts: 4,382 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Jeff is just being very precise, again. All hands have value as in Worth or Purpose, but the spirit of the phrase is about Showdown Value, and thus illustrates a key facet of the game's structure.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Let's say you only play AA and I know it. AA is the only hand you're giving action with. What is now the value of AA

    I don't know, but that's a pretty contrived example that's never going to happen so I don't know how applicable it is. I mean the value goes down, of course.

    Go look at your stats and see how much you make per hand on average with AA when it doesn't go to showdown. Then look to see how much you make per hand on average with 72 when it doesn't go to showdown. I know you don't think that's just a coincidence.

    Look, it's not like I don't understand what these guys are saying. I get it. But I think it's a misleading phrase and misleading concept. I think if it gets repeated it'll turn into a platitude or a thought terminating cliche. Somebody will say "you can't win 'em all if you don't win the first one" and then someone will say "yup, I never won a pot by folding" and the next guy will say "well, hands have no value until showdown".

    I'm sure there are better ways of making the point they're trying to convey.

  • Adam WheelerAdam Wheeler Red Chipper Posts: 2,659 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Some hands are better at realizing equity of course. But to realize it you got to go to showdown.

    Anyway I know that you know that I know you understand ;)

    In regards of my example, you're the first to say that we should push to extreme when we want to understand something.
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Yes, not talking about realizing equity at all.... If you want to start a phrase that says "If ya wanna realize your equity, ya gotta go to showdown!" then I'd support your effort :)
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 580 ✭✭✭
    AA since I got back into poker in September including non showdown winnings:

    0aokvbfhky35.png

    What would happen if you played 72 as aggressively as AA?
    AA.PNG 48.7K
  • jeffncjeffnc Red Chipper Posts: 5,007 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I'm pretty sure someone's already thought of that :)
  • YoshYosh Red Chipper Posts: 580 ✭✭✭
    It wasn't meant literally. I think something interesting happens when you consider hypothetical identical play of the best and worst hands in the game. Maybe it's just me.
  • moishetreatsmoishetreats Red Chipper Posts: 1,819 ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2017
    Yosh wrote: »
    It wasn't meant literally. I think something interesting happens when you consider hypothetical identical play of the best and worst hands in the game. Maybe it's just me.

    It's interesting, yes. But, in this, case, it's a false premise. People love to see flops with an A in their hand. Many will call Ax-suited and any A-Broadway card. Those hands are dominated and have a high chance of paying all the way through a showdown. You can't play 7-2 that way because, when V has an A and the A hits the board, V is likely to call/raise/showdown. You lose almost every time with 7-2 but win almost every time with AA.

    Again, an interesting concept but a false premise to apply here.

    Putting it this way in the larger context of the thread: value, as makes sense in my mind, is the combination of equity and showdown. Equity is realized by the sum of how often it would win at showdown and how often you can use it to induce a fold. Showdown, for me, is how often a hand does win at showdown.

    When I look at "value", it's simply the combination of those.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file