Why is it OK...

[BeerMoney]

For Sklansky to say, "the pot is big enough so, take it down now", but not OK for lee jones to tell people to ignore the Jackpot?

[Andy B]

Because Sklansky is right and Jones is wrong.

Once the pot is "big enough," you reach a point where you really don't want any more action. How big "big enough" is depends on how vulnerable you are to being outdrawn. If your opponent is getting the right odds to draw out on you, you're better off if he folds.

Sometimes the jackpot changes the correct play. It doesn't happen often, but you should be aware of the size of the jackpot all the same (at my local room, it is the subject of endless discussion, so it's difficult to not be conscious of it). To cite a not-so-random example, a few years ago, I was playing in a short-handed $6/12 stud game on a Sunday morning. I raised coming in with something to the effect of (T/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif. I don't remember if it was heads-up right away or on fifth street, but on sixth, I was check-raised by my lone opponent who showed 3/images/graemlins/club.gif A/images/graemlins/club.gif 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="red">Q</font>/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or some such. I still had only the Nines, but I had picked up a gut-shot straight flush draw. I hit a blank on the river and folded to his bet. He showed the steel wheel that he had had in five cards, which was good for a Canterbury Card Club hat as well as a couple of stacks of my chips. Now if I had somehow known on sixth street that he had a straight flush, I had an easy fold with my one-outer, if you ignore the jackpot. With the jackpot at about $12k, and my winning hand share at 20% of that (it's 25% now), I had an easy call. I was getting about 200:1 on a 40:1 shot.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Because Sklansky is right and Jones is wrong.

Once the pot is "big enough," you reach a point where you really don't want any more action. How big "big enough" is depends on how vulnerable you are to being outdrawn. If your opponent is getting the right odds to draw out on you, you're better off if he folds.

Sometimes the jackpot changes the correct play. It doesn't happen often, but you should be aware of the size of the jackpot all the same (at my local room, it is the subject of endless discussion, so it's difficult to not be conscious of it). To cite a not-so-random example, a few years ago, I was playing in a short-handed $6/12 stud game on a Sunday morning. I raised coming in with something to the effect of (T/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif. I don't remember if it was heads-up right away or on fifth street, but on sixth, I was check-raised by my lone opponent who showed 3/images/graemlins/club.gif A/images/graemlins/club.gif 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="red">Q</font>/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or some such. I still had only the Nines, but I had picked up a gut-shot straight flush draw. I hit a blank on the river and folded to his bet. He showed the steel wheel that he had had in five cards, which was good for a Canterbury Card Club hat as well as a couple of stacks of my chips. Now if I had somehow known on sixth street that he had a straight flush, I had an easy fold with my one-outer, if you ignore the jackpot. With the jackpot at about $12k, and my winning hand share at 20% of that (it's 25% now), I had an easy call. I was getting about 200:1 on a 40:1 shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, I understand odds and stuff, but when Sklansky says, "The pot is big enough" I think he is saying do whatever you can to get the person to fold, even if they would be incorrect to call a smaller bet.

[Easy E]

I think he is saying do whatever you can to get the person to fold, even if they would be incorrect to call a smaller bet.

is the EV gain from the smaller bet higher than increasing the risk that you'll lose the big pot?