# Math 101 - Fold Equity

Im a little confused by the formula and definition of FE.

Total Equity = Hand Equity + Fold Equity
Is total equity always 100%? If your hand has 40% equity then your fold equity is 60%.

"The more FE the more we can bluff. The less FE the more reliant we are on hand equity."

If you have more FE then you have less hand equity which essentially means the worse your hand is the more we can bluff. Is this correct?

• Do not think of this as a math equation, but a concept using math as its presentation.
Co-founder Red Chip Poker,
Author Poker Plays You Can Use
Author Poker Workbook for Math Geeks
• edited July 2019
Ok thats what it appeard to be. Math representing a basic principle. But my 2 cents, using math that doesnt add up is confusing when everything prior in that lesson was straight math and I dont remember Split saying different.

Unless total equity IS 100% & 100 = HE + FE
Even then "total equity" was never defined and leaves room for confusion. Unless its me lol. I never rule that out
• edited July 2019
If our total equity was 100% we'd never lose. Does that help?

To put it another way, if we get rid of these awful %s then equity is essentially a probability and as such it has some value between 0 and 1. There's no reason for it to always equal 1.
Moderation In Moderation

• This is one reason why it was so confusing and Im certain I was overthinking it. After rushing through level 1 I decided to start over, slow down, take notes and digest everything. In splits first video he stresses the importance of these things which I had foolishly neglected. Im also mostly an introvert and participating in forums is somthing a rarely do but Im also taking everyones advice to ask any questions and so here were are.
Doug Hull wrote: »
Do not think of this as a math equation, but a concept using math as its presentation.

What also threw me off was that this presentation of a concept was delivered at the end of the math 101 couse which had been straight mathmatical equations up until this explanation of FE. So my mind was in that 1+1=2 mode and without a statement similar to Dougs reply before the FE definition I failed to see it that way and was trying to solve for "total equity". 