# Equity in calculating my range vs opponent range

I'm trying to find a way to assess how good my postflop hands are in my open source pokerbot. Normal equity calculation certainly gives an indication how good the hands are if we play until the river but I'm looking for a better alternative.

One particular approach I've heard about is to put that equity in relation to the equity that I would have with my postflop range vs. the opponent's postflop range.

It would mean we have the normal equity (let's call it `absolute equity`) that gives me the equity of my cards vs. the opponent ranges

Then we have the equity of my postflop range vs. my opponent postflop range (let's call this `range equity`).

Then as a finaly step we would take the relation between the absolute equity vs the range equity (we can call this `relative equity`).

What are your views on that metric? Would there be any merit in using it? If so, under what circumstances?

• I'm intrigued. Could you include an example of a hand to make it more clear what you're getting at? Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 13:59
• happy to check in more detail: best join me on google hangouts with [email protected] Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 14:09
• Not clear to me. Don't follow and what I follow I don't see value. Why use the term post-flop range? They play the hand or not before they see a flop. Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 15:21
• Post flop because I assess their (and my) range from the preflop play. Once the flop comes I then assign a range to each player and run a montecarlo simulation to calculate the equity based on the ranges of each player, including myself. This is then compared with my actual cards vs. the ranges of the other players at the flop. Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 15:23
• That is one approach. If you know your hand then not seeing how a bot considering your range would add any value. Commented Nov 17, 2016 at 15:55

The metric is a ratio of what I think my equity is vs what the foe think my equity is. The higher the disparity the more volatile or different the perception of the outcome is to each ones perspective. It can be used, but it is definitely not even remotely worth it.

My opinion is because:

• The ratio does not add anything above existing metrics. Why use 2 when you have 1 and 1. What will you do with a high ratio where someone (could be you) is off by a bit with their expected equity? This can probably help you determine doing a check/raise at most.