Misleading statements in auto-profit article

Im not great with all this stuff but your example only uses 2 hands now add another hand and villain calls 1 and folds 2 what happens if we 1/2p all 3 hands we should be profiting from the bets ?.To go to an extreme say villain folds 100% on the river and never calls or raises i should bet 100% of the time on the river regardless of my hand correct ?. The statement doesn't say it's the most profitable line it just states it's profitable.

Umm... You just explained how betting has EV of +25. So it is profitable. Period.

Article did not say that auto-profiting means the bet is the best EV line possible. Of course sometimes checking has better EV, sometimes betting bigger has better EV. And so on. You just took one example and misunderstood the whole concept. What if in your example hero has nothing (pure air)? Then the bet has better EV than checking?

"Betting lost money" is not true. Betting just makes you less money than checking in that specific example. I can give you an example where betting has higher EV than checking. But none of that nullifies that betting is +EV.

The article is right.

My definition of a profitable bet is that it brings in more money than not betting. The article does not mention that more profitable actions are often available, which is why I find it misleading. For example in the second example of the article.

The pot is 1.5$

Check equity share is 0.54$ based on the provided range.

bet 1$ --> take pot 42% of the time directly --> 1.5$*0,42=0,63$
--> 58% of the time I lose 1$ --> -1$*0.58=-0.58$
--> total EV according to the article is 0.05$

When I take the actual equity share into account after the villain calls I get a better idea of whether betting is smart.
--> 58% of the time my new eq share is 16% because I am now for behind most hands in villains range
--> new pot is 3.5$ of which I own 3.5$*0.16=0.56$, but we may not realize this equity because of future actions.
--> Anyway the total EV is 0.63$ + 0.58*(-1$+0.56$) = 0.38$ which is still less than checking.

The article pretends that we should bet in this example because it is profitable. But it appears that checking is probably the better option and should be at least considered. I really think it should be mentioned that the auto-profit strategy is only the best strategy in case you have very little equity against the opponent's range.

Originally posted by DodoBrabbel
My definition of a profitable bet is that it brings in more money than not betting.

Your definition of profitable is possibly wrong profitable just means it's overall profitable.It's obvious if we could see the cards and knew villains actions we shouldn't bet those times we get called and lose.

Yeah, problem is not in the article or concept. Your definition is just plain wrong.

Being MOST profitable is what your definition is, in the article the definition is just profitable. Which means it is +EV.

The saying goes something like "Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups" or something

Anyway, then a profitable bet according to your definition is that it brings in more than 0$. Folding brings in exactly 0$. So if I have a spot that is barely auto-profit, it is barely better than folding. Guess that fixes a major leak.

Originally posted by DodoBrabbel
The saying goes something like "Assumptions are the mother of all fuckups" or something

Anyway, then a profitable bet according to your definition is that it brings in more than 0$. Folding brings in exactly 0$. So if I have a spot that is barely auto-profit, it is barely better than folding. Guess that fixes a major leak.

Ye it's a +ev bet ,betting more might make it a -ev bet as villain needs to fold more.The same with preflop you can auto profit in theory and raise any 2 cards and steal if villains fold over x% of the time.In reality we probably still dont open 72o It's just a concept that can be used to exploit villains tendencies better given the information you have on them.

In reality we should open any2 if opponent folds often enough.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
In reality we should open any2 if opponent folds often enough.

Maybe , what's the fold % for sb and bb to auto profit if were on the btn is it something like 60% ? If they are both folding 61% combined and i can raise any 2 i'm probably still not opening 72o.Don't you need to think about reverse implied odds and postflop rather than just the preflop statistic ? In many cases theory isn't always implemented to the letter i wouldn't 3b 72o either even if theory suggests i can because of fold equity maybe i'm wrong though.

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by Kyyberi
In reality we should open any2 if opponent folds often enough.

Maybe , what's the fold % for sb and bb to auto profit if were on the btn is it something like 66% ? If they are both folding 67% combined and i can raise any 2 i'm probably still not opening 72o.Don't you need to think about reverse implied odds and postflop rather than just the preflop statistic ? In many cases theory isn't always implemented to the letter i wouldn't 3b 72o either even if theory suggests i can because of fold equity maybe i'm wrong though.

From the collected wisdom of VorpalF2F
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different {:coolface:}

If SB fold-to-steal from button multiplied by BB fold-to-steal from button is > 60%[1] then even 72o is a legit open raise (not recommended).
Of course it is a fold to 3Bet, and it isn't going to flop well often.
Also, it doesn't take long for even the tightest players to start playing back at you if you open 100% from the button for very long.
However that is fine, because they'll start to 3Bet wide, and you can make money that way as well.

       Equity     Win     Tie
BU     20.48%  18.97%   1.51% { 72o }
SB     39.74%  37.87%   1.87% { random }
BB     39.78%  37.91%   1.87% { random }

So:
60% of the time, you get the blinds.
20% of the other 40% you win <<seems extremely optimistic actually
so 68% of the time you win.

Now consider that you open 72o from the button, and you get called by pocket 6s and pocket 4s, and the flop is A♥:7♠:3♦:
There are all sorts of things that can happen.

[1] I didn't do the math

Originally posted by VorpalF2F
[1] I didn't do the math

Originally posted by VorpalF2F

Originally posted by RedsYNWA

Originally posted by Kyyberi
In reality we should open any2 if opponent folds often enough.

Maybe , what's the fold % for sb and bb to auto profit if were on the btn is it something like 66% ? If they are both folding 67% combined and i can raise any 2 i'm probably still not opening 72o.Don't you need to think about reverse implied odds and postflop rather than just the preflop statistic ? In many cases theory isn't always implemented to the letter i wouldn't 3b 72o either even if theory suggests i can because of fold equity maybe i'm wrong though.

From the collected wisdom of VorpalF2F
In theory, theory and practice are the same, but in practice they're different {:coolface:}

If SB fold-to-steal from button multiplied by BB fold-to-steal from button is > 60%[1] then even 72o is a legit open raise (not recommended).
Of course it is a fold to 3Bet, and it isn't going to flop well often.
Also, it doesn't take long for even the tightest players to start playing back at you if you open 100% from the button for very long.
However that is fine, because they'll start to 3Bet wide, and you can make money that way as well.

       Equity     Win     Tie
BU     20.48%  18.97%   1.51% { 72o }
SB     39.74%  37.87%   1.87% { random }
BB     39.78%  37.91%   1.87% { random }

So:
60% of the time, you get the blinds.
20% of the other 40% you win <<seems extremely optimistic actually
so 68% of the time you win.

Now consider that you open 72o from the button, and you get called by pocket 6s and pocket 4s, and the flop is A♥:7♠:3♦:
There are all sorts of things that can happen.

[1] I didn't do the math

I can understand the concept more for say a river bet spot where it's the final action of the hand it's either +ev or it isn't where it gets a bit murky for me is when there are still streets to play.As that surely effects hand selection and decision making at least somewhat.So that's what i was getting at even if we have the fold equity were not really opening raising 72o still.Because we still want playable hands for further streets even if an open raise in theory is +ev preflop it might cost you more postflop than preflop gains .As you point out with your example it's not like we can say we wont ever give further action postflop and 72o isn't going to be profitable postflop long term i wouldn't think.Cheers for the reply i thought it was either 60% or 66% so nice to have that clarified.It's not often something i really think about as the vast majority of my play has been without huds.

Originally posted by RedsYNWA
I can understand the concept more for say a river bet spot where it's the final action of the hand it's either +ev or it isn't where it gets a bit murky for me is when there are still streets to play.As that surely effects hand selection and decision making at least somewhat.So that's what i was getting at even if we have the fold equity were not really opening raising 72o still.Because we still want playable hands for further streets even if an open raise in theory is +ev postflop might cost you more than preflop gains .As you point out with your example it's not like we can say we wont ever give further action postflop and 72o isn't going to be profitable postflop long term i wouldn't think.Cheers for the reply i thought it was either 60% or 66% so nice to have that clarified.It's not often something i really think about as the vast majority of my play has been without huds.

Yeah, this is all purely theoretical, but in general, if you see a player folding too often, you open wider.

Whether it is 50%, 60% of 1 in 3 or whatever, the basic idea is that the more they fold, the more you can open and at some point it becomes profitable to open any two.

The discussion ignores stack sizes -- in a tournament, fold equity is as much a function of stack size as position.
I watched a streamer today heading for the final table, the the tournament chip leader sat to her right, and opened in the neighbourhood of 80% of hands, and either got the blinds right there on on the flop.

On some sites, you can adapt your strategy to the rakeback system - on Unibet you can limp more in the SB to see more flops.

If opening is instant profit (= enough FE), then it is. If you play 100% give up postflop with 72o, it is profitable. If you don't understand that you open it just to steal the blinds AND the open itself generates instant profit, and then you make postflop mistakes, it's not the problem of math. It's a problem of you misapplying the concept.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
If opening is instant profit (= enough FE), then it is. If you play 100% give up postflop with 72o, it is profitable. If you don't understand that you open it just to steal the blinds AND the open itself generates instant profit, and then you make postflop mistakes, it's not the problem of math. It's a problem of you misapplying the concept.

It does make perfect sense from the preflop point of view if we give up on 100% of flops and never put any further money in the pot postflop.So the problem isn't with the concept it's maybe with human nature because people are going to defend postflop what they open preflop surely.So yes in that respect it would be me misplaying the concept and playing an unprofitable hand postflop.Surely the best adjustment to that would be me not opening 72o preflop to begin with.Obviously this is a very extreme example of 1 hand but i thought some hand selection was still advisable.Ill have to delve into these concepts more thoroughly and stop driving you crackers with these replies

If one understands why that 72o is opened, and what makes it profitable, then overplaying it postflop would be just silly.

If we extend that "fear" of making mistakes in future streets, it will be really hard to win money in poker. Like saying opening AQs is not good as you might overplay is postflop.

Originally posted by Kyyberi
If one understands why that 72o is opened, and what makes it profitable, then overplaying it postflop would be just silly.

If we extend that "fear" of making mistakes in future streets, it will be really hard to win money in poker. Like saying opening AQs is not good as you might overplay is postflop.

I wasn't really thinking about over playing it postflop just playing it postflop AQs is a profitable open pre and a profitable hand to play postflop which would be the difference for me in that scenario.But i take all your points on board your obviously correct in what your saying it's just me wrapping my brain around it

AQs is profitable postflop, if you play it correctly. 72o is profitable preflop in there, if you play it correctly postflop.

In both cases, if you suck at postflop there isn't a hand that is +EV for you

Originally posted by Kyyberi
AQs is profitable postflop, if you play it correctly. 72o is profitable preflop in there, if you play it correctly postflop.

In both cases, if you suck at postflop there isn't a hand that is +EV for you

I was just thinking pretty much that exact thing ,what would you suggest if someone was opening say TT preflop from utg and losing money with it.The answer that sprung to mind was don't remove it from your preflop range it's profitable so fix your postflop game