Caro and Thinning the Field

[mach3]

Anyone see the piece on page 61 of this months Cardplayer. Mike Caro talking about raising to Thin the Field as bad? Aren't we typically raising preflop because we have an edge? The only time I am not looking to "thin the field" is with a drawing hand like QJs. Other then that, I am raising to punish people on the draw. Thoughts? Perhaps his advice is more relevant to live games?

[bobbyi]

Do you have a link to the article? I don't see it anywhere. This should be all of Caro's columns:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/writers/view/name/Mike_Caro

And here is the current issue:
http://www.cardplayer.com/poker_magazine/

Are you sure it was in cardplayer and not some other magazine?

[mach3]

Thinning the field may thin your bankroll. Of the 15 concepts Mike Caro imparted, I chose this one because it shows that you must scrutinize a poker axiom before you accept it. In Mike’s words:

“As a lot of you know, I’m not a fan of thin-the-field strategies. Thinning the field is where you try to get rid of a lot of players, presumably to give your hand a better chance. You’ll see a lot of literature about the advantages of thinning the field, so that you don’t get drawn out on so much. But it fails by succeeding in the wrong way.” Mike then asked us, “When you raise with the intent of thinning the field, what type of hands are you most likely to chase out of the pot?” We got the answer right: weak hands. Mike then informed us that the most likely result is that we will be left against the strong hands. He continued, “Yes, there are hands that you would prefer to play against fewer opponents, but there is practically no way to accomplish this because the strategy leads to your playing against the wrong kind of players. So, here is the answer … here is the answer … raise the pot to thin the field when weak players are in and strong players wait to act behind you. But, if the strong players are already in and the weak players are yet to act, don’t raise. You want to give the weak players a chance to come in. You don’t want to isolate against just the strong players.”

[andyfox]

Couldn't find the article, but here is what Mike has said before:

You should usually not raise if you expect to drive out the weak hands and remain against the strong ones. This, unfortunately, is a common result of "thin the field" strategy. Often you would prefer to play against fewer opponents. Some hands simply make more profit that way. But what if your raise will thin the field in the wrong way? What if the most likely callers are those you least want to play against and the most likely folders are those you most want to play against. In that case, a raise can be wrong, even though you did want to thin the field and play against fewer opponents. That's because you didn't want to thin the field if it meant playing against only opponents with the stronger hands. And that's often the case. This is why - in general - I'm not an advocate of thin-the-field raising for many common situations for which it is advised.

Before the flop in hold 'em most players raise too often. This is not just guesswork, but a viewpoint I've formed after studying hold 'em opponents for many years and comparing what they do to the ideal strategies I've devised through computer research and other analysis.
I believe that you should often just call and see what develops. Since most of a hold 'em hand blossoms on the flop, you really aren't usually raising with the advantage you assume. This doesn't mean you shouldn't be very aggressive in short-handed games and when attacking the blinds from late positions when no one else has entered the pot. But it does mean in full and nearly full games, there are many times when you should opt to just call before the flop, rather than raise.

[lil feller]

It is Andy's line of thinking that has me limping 1st in and in UTG or UTG+1 w/ AKo about 70% of the time its dealt to me. I'm sure I'm gonna get toasted for saying that, but to me, it seems like a very profitable approach.

lf

[andyfox]

It's not my line of thinking. In my game, the weakest players I want in are usually coming in for one bets or two. The strongest players I want out are coming in for one (or even making it two themselves) when they would fold for two.

[bobbyi]

I agree with you Andy. However, Caro and Lil Feller aren't the only ones making this sort of recommendation. I recently reread HPFAP, as I do periodically. I'm reaching a point of diminshing returns, where I only pick up a few small things from the book each time I read it that I don't already know and understand well. There were two things that really jumped out at me this time. One was the advice in the shorthanded section that you should frequently be betting into the pf raiser on the flop when defending rather than automatically checking. I have found myself doing this a lot more recently anyway, and it was good to see it in print, and I've started doing it more and I love it. The second (and the one that is relevant here) is the claim in the loose games section that you should often limp with AQ because you need to flop a pair anyway, so having a hand like 78 in there only hurts you if you hit the board once and he hits it twice (or more), which is very unlikely. I don't like this advice at all and always raise AQ. But it seems to me that this is almost exactly what Caro (and Lil Feller) is saying. Would you agree that the S&M advice here about not always wanting to thin the field is very much in line with the Caro advice about the same?

[lil feller]

EDIT: Didn't read Andy's post as quoting Caro (no quotation marks), sorry.


Didn't mean to mis-represent you. Sorry. In my game the players I want in don't come for two bets with the hands I want them in with when I have something like AK, at least not most of the time. I always raise with it if somebody as limped in front of me.

lf

[andyfox]

If I remember the HPFAP loose games section, they say not to raise with A-Q if it's unlikely to thin the field: that is, there are already players in for one bet who will certainly call for one more (as will the blinds) and it's unlikely your raise will eliminate any players behind you who would just as soon cold-call two bet as play for one.

Mason has written on Mike Caro's don't raise very much pre-flop advice and said he knew of no winning player who played as passively pre-flop as Mike (sometimes) advised. I may have the exact quote wrong, I think it's in the first Poker Essay book. And keep in mind Mason thinks many limit players play too aggressively.

I'm known on 2+2 as a pump-or-dump guy. The games I play in have gotten looser and looser over the years, though, and I see the arguments for playing less fast pre-flop.

[andyfox]

No apology necessary. I usually do use quotes, don't know why I didn't.

I am seeing a lot more limping with A-K and A-Q, and cold-calling (rather than 3-betting) with A-A and K-K than I have in the past.

In general, I would say I don't want players coming in behind me when I have A-K. I'll still have no pair two times out of three after the flop and it's a lot easier for me to decide how to proceed with just two players in front of me than with two in front and two more yet to act. Despite the looseness of the games, there are still a lot of players who will check to the pre-flop raiser too.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]

If I remember the HPFAP loose games section, they say not to raise with A-Q if it's unlikely to thin the field:

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you should go back and look at it gain. I don't have it with me now to quote it exactly, but in addition to that, they also talk about how with AQ you don't want to force out a hand like 78 because once enough people are in, you need to flop a pair anyway, so 78 needs to hit at least two of the remaining four board cards to beat you, and that's unlikely enough that you welcome him being in the pot.

[andyfox]

OK, I'll re-look. But it's not just having the 8-7 in that can be a problem in a loose game. It's having the 8-7, 9-8 and J-T all in, and all behind you.

[roy_miami]

I think by raising to thin the field with strong players in and loose weak players yet to act gives you the best of both worlds. You offer the bad players the chance to make a mistake by calling 2 cold, which many will with as little as a backdoor draw (huge mistake), and you force the stronger player to pay 2 bets when he would have preferred to fold if he knew you were going to raise.

[mach3]

It seem's to me Caro's advice is misleading. The only time you'd want someone in is w/ a dominated hand - such as KQ to your AK. In that case, not "thinning the field" makes sense.

IMO - limping w/ a hand like AKo or a large PP, makes those borderline calls from average players easier for them to make - such as coldcalling w/ QJo or TJ. And they can get lucky on the flop and pick up 2 pair or a draw.

But I guess what I'm asking is, is our fear of getting sucked out on costing us money? Would it be more profitable to limp and let these people call us down w/ a weaker hand? Or do we just open ourselves up to a world of hurt?

[cpk]

You should not accept Caro's advice uncritically. Not because it's generally bad advice (it isn't), but rather because it applies to specific game conditions which are no longer predominant.

The key is to understand why you are raising preflop. "Thin the field" is usually the wrong answer. Big pairs and suited hands make more money from a large field than a small one. The exceptions are AKo and AQo, which also do fine against large fields. The hands which benefit the most from such a raise are the unsuited Broadway hands. But if you're out of position, you have to be concerned about domination (though Caro has written that we are concerned about domination a bit too much if we play properly, and I agree).

As others have noticed, in the best games, a raise will induce weak players to call with crap, but it will induce strong players to fold with marginal hands. This is a win-win situation. But you're not raising to thin the field so much as to increase the amount of money you win from weaker hands.

In very tough games, you need to be able to invite the weaker hands in. This means you should play a preflop strategy mixing limp-reraising, open-raising, and limp-calling, such as one that can be found at www.posev.com. (http://www.posev.com.) The reason for this is that it lets you play more marginal hands without fear of being isolated by strong players with hands that probably dominate you. Your strange and tricky strategy will keep them off balance, and your tendency to limp in will draw in the weaker players.

The key is to remember why you are raising and to be aware of the effect it will have.

[andyfox]

I've looked at the "Playing AQ" section. Indeed, it says that "if you knew your raise with the A /images/graemlins/heart.gifQ /images/graemlins/spade.gif would force the 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif out, but a call will not, that's not a reason for you to raise" for the reason that you indicate.

In another section, though, it says, "In general you should not raise with offsuit hands (other than AK), except if you have a chance to isolate a weak opponent. That is, you think you can knock out the players behind you and (hopefully) the blinds. Once you know you can't knock people out, it is often better to just call."

[andyfox]

"You are in early position, 6 off the button, in a game that's so loose that you always see a flop, usually 5-8 way for 1 bet or 4-6 way for 2-4 bets. The pot is not yet opened. How do you play your hand?

AQ: Raise to destroy the implied odds of the fish and narrow the field."

[bobbyi]

Thanks for finding those quotes, Andy, that is exactly what I was referring to.

[ QUOTE ]
In another section, though, it says, "In general you should not raise with offsuit hands (other than AK), except if you have a chance to isolate a weak opponent. That is, you think you can knock out the players behind you and (hopefully) the blinds. Once you know you can't knock people out, it is often better to just call."

[/ QUOTE ]
Does "though" indicate that you think these quotes are in contradiction? It sounds to me like the first quote is saying that you aren't interesting in thinning the field with AQ once you know it will be multiway and so is the second quote. You want to raise if you can isolate (knock everyone out), but you aren't interested in knocking just some people out. Isolating is good, but thinning the field only slightly is not. That's how I read it. I don't agree with the advice, as I would always raise AQ.

Similarly, I would always raise TT. Their advice on that is similar, as I recall (in the preflop section, I think). If you can get it heads up, you should raise. If you can only partially thin the field, you aren't interested in thinning the field, since the hand plays better against one or many opponents than against three, so once a bunch of people are in you welcome more. Do you agree that there advice on these matters is similar?

[mach3]

How could TT play better against many opponents? Generally, I'll raise and 3bet TT from EP if I can narrow the field. If that doesn't scare anyone away, you're pretty much hoping to flop trips, a draw, or a fantastic flop.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
How could TT play better against many opponents?

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't mean to imply that it plays better against many opponents. I am just saying that it is a strong enough hand that if no one has raised yet, I am raising it with it regardless of how many people I guess will end up seeing the flop. Sometimes poker is very complicated. That is why I have spent five years reading this forum (and books and so forth) and am still trying to figure things out. But, once in a while, poker is simple. I think this is one of those times. AQ is a very good hand. It wins a lot. My opponents usually play bad hands. So if I have AQ, raise. TT is a good hand. It wins a lot. So if I get TT, I raise. I'm not trying to make an argument about the ideal number of opponents or anything similar, I'm just saying that--at least in today's games where our opponents are often playing horrendous hands-- I think that these are always worth raising preflop, so I don't like the S&M advice to sometimes limp AQ and TT regardless of arguments about how many people will see the flop. There are times when people overthink that game and "I bet (or raise) because I have a good hand" really is the right tactic.

[cpk]

AQ is strong enough that you mind neither limiting the field so you can win unimproved, nor do you mind playing against the full field as TPTK wins way more than its share.

What it's saying is that you need to think about the effect your raise will have. You want to be up against hands like 87, becuase if you flop a Q and they flop an 8, you will win more money. OTOH, if your raise blows Mr. 87 out of the pot, that's money you can't win. Therefore, you call to induce a bad call. This is, essentially, the FTOP working. If you raise, they will play "correctly" and fold.

But this is not true in all games. In really good games, people will call two bets cold with 87. In that case, go ahead and raise.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
"You are in early position, 6 off the button, in a game that's so loose that you always see a flop, usually 5-8 way for 1 bet or 4-6 way for 2-4 bets. The pot is not yet opened. How do you play your hand?

AQ: Raise to destroy the implied odds of the fish and narrow the field."

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been reading this board since about 2000, and I remember when there was some sort of cold war type state between Abdul and Mason. FWIW, I've always liked Abdul's preflop advice better than S&M's. This reminds me that I've meaning for a while to try to start a thread on what people think of Abdul's preflop guide. Since the games have changed so much since he wrote it, I think it would be nice to get a discussion on how applicable most of that is today.

[cpk]

EV of TT increases as number of opponents increases. It's quite a bit like AK, really. In short-handed pots it wins unimproved. In multiway pots it scores by making sets, straights, and very rarely winning unimproved [imagine a board like J7552 and no one has 5 or J].

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
There are times when people overthink that game and "I bet (or raise) because I have a good hand" really is the right tactic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im pretty agree with this statement. I raise 99+,ATs+, KQs, AQo regardless on number of limpers ahead of me or i expect behind me (of cause things change when i face raise).

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
What it's saying is that you need to think about the effect your raise will have. You want to be up against hands like 87, becuase if you flop a Q and they flop an 8, you will win more money. OTOH, if your raise blows Mr. 87 out of the pot, that's money you can't win. Therefore, you call to induce a bad call. This is, essentially, the FTOP working. If you raise, they will play "correctly" and fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with all of this. I can accept that I would rather have the 87 call then fold. But he is not the only person I'm thinking about. The assumption here is that I cannot thin the field much by raising. This necessarily means that if I raise a lot of people will see the flop with me for two bets. They will be making a big (FTOP) mistake by doing so. If I don't raise, they will see the flop for one bet and will be making a smaller mistake (or no mistake at all). So even though raising means that I collect less sklansky bucks from the guy behind me who folds his 87 facing two cold, it means that I collect many more from all the clowns who already limped with 76 and are now being forced to pay another bet to see the flop, plus the blinds who call with 62s plus the button (sitting behind the guy who folds his 87) who calls with Q4s, etc. My EV is higher by raising than by limping because I force a lot of people to make bigger mistakes, even though the lucky schmuck with 87 gets off cheap. I am thinking about the effect of my raise, and the effect is that lots of people put two bets in the pot when I have the best hand. I like it when they do that.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are times when people overthink that game and "I bet (or raise) because I have a good hand" really is the right tactic.


[/ QUOTE ]

Im pretty agree with this statement. I raise 99+,ATs+, KQs, AQo regardless on number of limpers ahead of me or i expect behind me (of cause things change when i face raise).

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you automatically raise all of those from the blinds as well if the pot is unraised?

[Peter_rus]

Majority of the time yes. And of course i don't autobet any flop after my PFR. But with these cards i like the flop at least 30% and more. Of course im aware of my bad position and i win postflop less if i was on button, but i think. But im still believe that i win.

[cpk]

I'm wasting yet more time on preflop strategy. But who cares? :P

I used to do fairly well with Abdul's strategy. It's not optimal, IMO, and I would recommend the following changes to it:

1. I dump most of the offsuit hands, as most statistics I've seen against real players (rather than sims) show that they are -EV. If Abdul had known this at the time, I'm sure he would not have recommended them. Remember that every offsuit hand means you will be playing 4 times as often as if you were playing suited hands only. Dump all offsuit hands with any card lower than 10, except in the SB. Also, I think MP2 is a bit early for hands like KJ/QJ and I would push them back to MP3.

2. I don't bother with play balancing except in games which I try to avoid anyway. There are some exceptions--there are some loose games in the Seattle area with excellent postflop players. In that case, play-balancing is worthwhile, too.

3. I usually play ATs and KQs UTG, even 10-handed, except in the very toughest of games. This is because I know how to push my draws well, so I can make more from my flush draws.

4. In passive games I will play any suited Broadway from any position. The reason is that you will not get punished for being out of position too terribly often, and if you are dominated, being suited mitigates it.

5. As SSH recommends, you can often cold-call and play in EP hands like 88-22 and Axs, so don't forget to add those.

Given the technology available at the time, and also given that Abdul was knocking games dead at the $80+ level after playing for only a few years, I have a lot of respect for his work on the subject. The play-balancing section was just brilliant (but in most cases you should not bother to learn this--just look for a better game).

[cpk]

I'm with you there. I was thinking of a situation where a raise with AQ will put you up against the blinds only or a 3-bet from a better hand. If it is saying "you can't thin field much and 87 would fold," then I can see why you'd be confused. (I seem to have lost my HPFAP in my last move).

I simply distill into thinking "If raising steals the blinds or gets me three-bet, then call. Else raise."

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I simply distill into thinking "If raising steals the blinds or gets me three-bet, then call. Else raise."

[/ QUOTE ]
If you have a substantial chance to steal the blinds, then limping is pretty big mistake.

[roy_miami]

[ QUOTE ]
Similarly, I would always raise TT. Their advice on that is similar, as I recall (in the preflop section, I think). If you can get it heads up, you should raise. If you can only partially thin the field, you aren't interested in thinning the field, since the hand plays better against one or many opponents than against three, so once a bunch of people are in you welcome more. Do you agree that there advice on these matters is similar?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he says TT and JJ should be raised if you have fewer than 3 opponents or more than 4 opponents. Only 3 or 4 opponents is no mans land for these hands. I pretty much raise these hands in most situations though especially if i think I can get the button.

[mach3]

I'm not feeling the TT plays well against 4 or more talk. In that scenario, it's not much different then a low PP, you lose some of the inherent value of a high PP. TT is not that different from 55 or 66 in if 7 people are seeing the flop, in which case you want to call w/ any PP in virtually any position because of the implied odds of flopping a set.

[Michael Davis]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not feeling the TT plays well against 4 or more talk. In that scenario, it's not much different then a low PP, you lose some of the inherent value of a high PP. TT is not that different from 55 or 66 in if 7 people are seeing the flop, in which case you want to call w/ any PP in virtually any position because of the implied odds of flopping a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. Hot&Cold, TT is 50% better than 55. There's a huge difference. Whatever advantages to having 55 there are postflop (easier to fold, whatever), they cannot come close to closing this chasm. See this site: GoCee Starting Hands Chart (http://gocee.com/poker/HE_Val_Sort.htm)