Raising after many loose limpers - what's the proper analysis?

[binions]

In SSHE, Miller makes the point that if your hand will win more than its fair share of pots compared to how many limpers are already in, you should raise. The thinking is that this is a +EV edge that you should push. Example, you have AQ on the button, and there are 5 limpers. Your AQ will win more than 1/6 of pots v. 5 limping hands, so you should raise.

Abdul makes the same point in further detail here.

http://slicer.headsupclub.com:3455/16/54

No distinction is made, however, between hands that win small pots when they hit v those that win big ones, or hands that are easy to dump on the flop v. hands that disproportionately make expensive second best hands.

Should the proper analysis focus solely on the number of pots won or lost, or should the size of the pots won/costliness of pots lost also be factored in?

[AceHighone]

For a preflop raise, it does not matter what these hands do post flop other than their expected value with x-limpers. In other words, if you expect to win more than 25% of the final pots and there are already 4 or more limpers, a raise is correct. Understand that the pot is already getting large, and nearly every limpre will call your raise, which will make a pot that likewise, nearly every player will call on the flop.

[Ed Miller]

Should the proper analysis focus solely on the number of pots won or lost, or should the size of the pots won/costliness of pots lost also be factored in?

Of course other factors should be included. For instance, there are some hands you should raise from the button after a few limpers, but not from the big blind. Something like A8s comes to mind. Pot equity alone can't explain that.

[Leo Bello]

After u got Ed Miller to answer... not much left...

[Big Bend]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, there are some hands you should raise from the button after a few limpers, but not from the big blind. Something like A8s comes to mind. Pot equity alone can't explain that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm the big blind with A8s and a buncha people have limped, why is raising bad, but its a good raise on the button? I'm confused about this distinction.. I know I need to re-read SSH for the 3rd time. thx..

[bathroompants]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, there are some hands you should raise from the button after a few limpers, but not from the big blind. Something like A8s comes to mind. Pot equity alone can't explain that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm the big blind with A8s and a buncha people have limped, why is raising bad, but its a good raise on the button? I'm confused about this distinction.. I know I need to re-read SSH for the 3rd time. thx..

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you don't want to be second to act out of a bunch of people with a mediocre hand.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For instance, there are some hands you should raise from the button after a few limpers, but not from the big blind. Something like A8s comes to mind. Pot equity alone can't explain that.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm the big blind with A8s and a buncha people have limped, why is raising bad, but its a good raise on the button? I'm confused about this distinction.. I know I need to re-read SSH for the 3rd time. thx..

[/ QUOTE ]

(Far too often) People tend to check to the preflop raiser on the flop.

One reason to raise A8s on the button v. several limpers is, in part, to get a free card, i.e. see a free turn, if you need it. This reason does not exist when you have A8s in the BB, as you will be acting early in the round instead of last.

Another reason to raise A8s on the button is to eliminate random hands in the blinds that might beat you (A9 off, or A3 off that hits 2 pair when u catch an A, or 83 suited that catches 2 pair when you pair your 8, etc.). Basically, you are "buying more outs" with the raise.

Sure, you would like to play against dominated hands (A8 v. A3, A8 v. 83) heads up. But multiway, its important to knock these people out preflop since the pot will be big anyway.

Again, this reason does not exist when you are in the BB, as everyone will simply call one more bet, and you won't be able to eliminate anyone.

I should also mention that raising wrecks the implied odds of the types of hands that might be limping in early or mid-position (small pairs, suited connectors).

For example, someone limping with 33 needs to flop a set or better to keep playing. That's 7.5:1. If he sees the flop for 1 small bet, and there are 5 other limpers (including you and the SB who completes because you did not raise), he is getting 5:1 on the call, and needs to make only 2.5 small bets more to reach his implied odds of 7.5:1 when he flops a set.

Now, if he has to pay 2 small bets (1 big bet) to see the flop, and there are 4 others because your raise has eliminated the small blind (4:1 odds), he now needs to make 3.5 big bets when he flops a set to reach his implied odds of 7.5:1.

You can see how your raise has made his hand less profitable.

[doggin]

Good post binions. I realize all that, but you put in a
very easy to read and understand post.
Thanks

[rickr]

[ QUOTE ]
I should also mention that raising wrecks the implied odds of the types of hands that might be limping in early or mid-position (small pairs, suited connectors).

For example, someone limping with 33 needs to flop a set or better to keep playing. That's 7.5:1. If he sees the flop for 1 small bet, and there are 5 other limpers (including you and the SB who completes because you did not raise), he is getting 5:1 on the call, and needs to make only 2.5 small bets more to reach his implied odds of 7.5:1 when he flops a set.

Now, if he has to pay 2 small bets (1 big bet) to see the flop, and there are 4 others because your raise has eliminated the small blind (4:1 odds), he now needs to make 3.5 big bets when he flops a set to reach his implied odds of 7.5:1.

You can see how your raise has made his hand less profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was always told you don't count money you have already put in the pot. If that's the case isn't he really getting better odds to call, or am I confused?

Later,
Rick

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I should also mention that raising wrecks the implied odds of the types of hands that might be limping in early or mid-position (small pairs, suited connectors).

For example, someone limping with 33 needs to flop a set or better to keep playing. That's 7.5:1. If he sees the flop for 1 small bet, and there are 5 other limpers (including you and the SB who completes because you did not raise), he is getting 5:1 on the call, and needs to make only 2.5 small bets more to reach his implied odds of 7.5:1 when he flops a set.

Now, if he has to pay 2 small bets (1 big bet) to see the flop, and there are 4 others because your raise has eliminated the small blind (4:1 odds), he now needs to make 3.5 big bets when he flops a set to reach his implied odds of 7.5:1.

You can see how your raise has made his hand less profitable.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was always told you don't count money you have already put in the pot. If that's the case isn't he really getting better odds to call, or am I confused?

Later,
Rick

[/ QUOTE ]

Rick - in determining straight pot odds (how much is in the pot vs. how much is the bet to me), you are correct. You disregard who put the money in the pot - it doesn't matter. All that matters is how much is in the pot, and how much you have to call.

For example, if there is $5 in the pot, the bet is $1 to you, you are getting 5:1 odds on the call. If you have a flush draw with 1 card to come, your odds are 4:1. The pot is offering you better than 4:1, so you call.

Implied odds become important when the pot is not laying you enough to call.

For example, there is $4 in the pot, and the bet is $1 to you. You have an open ended straight draw, which is a 5:1 shot with one card to come. The pot is not laying you enough to call. However, if you hit your straight, you think you will be able to make at least $2 more (from other players), because straights are so hidden.

So really, you are calling $1 to win $4+2. In other words, your implied odds are 6:1, making it correct to call your 5:1 shot.

These examples are postflop examples. Figuring pot odds and implied pot odds are pretty straightforward post flop, when you have seen 5/7th or more of your hand, and you have a grasp on how many outs you have.

Preflop, when you have seen 2/7th of your hand, you have no idea if you will hit or miss your hand. You have no idea if you will even have outs. It is better to view this round in terms of "what chance do I have to win" v. "how much can I win if I hit" v. "how much is it going to cost me to play." Sure, if you limp in, and it gets raised, you should call 1 bet back to you. But if it is 2 or 3 bets back to you, beware - as we'll see, you are going to have to win a lot of money if you hit just to break even for the risk you took.

Before the flop, certain hands thrive on implied odds. Small pairs and small to medium suited connectors come to mind. These hands do not figure to be the favorite preflop, but if they get help, they can win.

For small pairs, we know for example that it is 7.5:1 to flop a set or better. If you have 44, and 10 people (including yourself) see the flop, then you are getting 9:1 straight pot odds. Meaning, it doesn't matter how much the pot is raised, you have the odds to call. It could be unraised 9:1, raised once 18:2, reraised 27:3 or capped 36:4. Either way, you have odds to call. (In fact, you should raise).

But what if there are only 5 people who see the flop (including yourself)? Now, you don't have the straight pot odds to call. You are getting 4:1, which is less than 7.5:1.

So now, you have to figure your implied odds - how much extra MONEY you can expect to win if you hit your set or better?

Here is where it becomes important what the "1" is. Pot odds of 4:1 in an unraised pot is a lot different than 4:1 in a capped pot. In the unraised pot, you are putting in one small bet. In the capped pot, you are putting in 4 small bets. Literally, pot odds in a capped pot is 16:4

What does this mean? It means in an unraised pot where you got 4:1 and need implied odds to get you to 7.5:1 when you hit, you only need to win 3.5 (7.5 - 4) small bets (from other people) when you hit.

However, in a capped pot, where your pot odds are 16:4 (4 x 4:1), you need to reach your implied odds of 30:4 (4 x 7.5:1) when you hit. In other words, you need to make 14 (30-16) small bets (7 big bets) from other people when you hit, just to break even for the risk you took.

You can see why small pairs and suited connectors usually want to see the flop for one bet - they don't have as big a hill to climb to reach their implied odds.

Conversely, you can see how raising these types of hands when they limp in early or middle position wrecks their implied odds - ie makes them a bigger hill to climb (makes their hand less profitable).

Hope this helps.

[cpk]

Though I would think sometimes you should raise A8s even in the BB (such as when pot equity figures to be truly massive). But certainly not as often as you would on the button.

[cpk]

One picky point--once the pot gets large enough, you cannot "wreck the implied odds" of hands like small pairs and suited connectors, as they have positive pot equity, usually at about 6-handed. Obviously, the larger the cards, the smaller the pot has to be.

You can, however, exact a penalty from junk Aces and suited garbage--and that is what you are doing with this raise. Also, other people may also gain from your raise--the idea is that it isn't a zero sum between you and all the other people put together, but rather between you, perhaps 1 or 2 other people, and then all the crap.

[jogger08152]

I disagree. I wouldn't care to play 67s for 4 bets preflop. A small pair would be better but not fantastic unless your opponents will chase quite a bit.

If play these hands in raised (and re-raised) pots often, you will lose money for the reasons Binions has already detailed.

Incidentally, can you really see S&M cold-calling 4 bets with middle suited connectors in a 6-handed pot?

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
One picky point--once the pot gets large enough, you cannot "wreck the implied odds" of hands like small pairs and suited connectors, as they have positive pot equity, usually at about 6-handed. Obviously, the larger the cards, the smaller the pot has to be.

You can, however, exact a penalty from junk Aces and suited garbage--and that is what you are doing with this raise. Also, other people may also gain from your raise--the idea is that it isn't a zero sum between you and all the other people put together, but rather between you, perhaps 1 or 2 other people, and then all the crap.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my original post in this thread, I linked a site where Abdul makes the argument that after 5 loose limpers, you can raise a suited 0-gap connector down to 65s on the button because it will win more than it's fair share (ie 1/6) of pots.

After 6 loose limpers, he says you can raise suited 1-gappers on the button down to 64s. After 7 loose limpers, he says you can raise hands like T2s and 83s on the button.

It would stand to reason that if these hands limped in the cutoff, for example, then a button raise would not hurt them as long as everyone called.

So, I agree with your limited point. In certain circumstances ("family" pots), suited connectors can stand a raise because they will win more than their fair share.

[cpk]

One thing to keep in mind is that Abdul at the time played the lower high-stakes games ($80, $100, $200, etc), which are collection games. Therefore, the rake doesn't factor except in collection pots, and even then the collection is so small relative to the blinds that it doesn't compare to a typical rake/jackpot/toke drain on a 3/6 game.

Therefore, you have to set the line a lot higher than Abdul does. For this reason, I think the specifications of SSH are closer to optimal in raked low-limit games.

The rake really hurts offsuit hands, because these hands tend to win smaller pots. Thus, you have to dump a lot of his offsuit recommendations. If you find yourself in a good 15/30 collection game, you can add in all sorts of junk vs. bad players.