Understanding the difference between good heads up and mulitway hands.

[mtdoak]

This is a concept I've been thinking about for awhile. Lets say you have 6 limpers to you on the button. Should you be raising hands like AQo and limping with hands like JTs or A6s? Shouldn't it be the opposite? With AQo, you have a powerful top pair making hand....but top pair rarely wins against a large field, wheras with JTs and Axs, you can make a flush or a powerful straight, which will usually take down a large pot. Anyone famillar with how to calculate pot equity with strong multiway hands preflop based on the number of callers? You would think your pot equity would go up the more limpers with a hand like JTs and it would go down with AQo the more limpers there are.

[ihardlyknowher]

I think you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what Sklansky says in HEPFAP.

[SmileyEH]

Play is such at low limits that you should be raising a wide range of hands preflop for value, and to take the initiative.

-SmileyEH

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what Sklansky says in HEPFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what sklanksy says on this subject doesn't apply for most smalls stakes games because the players are so terrible.

-SmileyEH

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
You would think your pot equity would go up the more limpers with a hand like JTs and it would go down with AQo the more limpers there are.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your equity is going to decrease on both hands as you add limpers to the equation. The difference is that you're equity will drop faster with AQo than it will with JTs. You will, however, maintain a larger equity advantage with AQo than you will with JTs.

[TripleH68]

I believe AQo still has an edge multiway that you can push here. Let the limpers throw in another small bet before the flop misses them.

I might raise JTs, but not A6s.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe AQo still has an edge multiway that you can push here. Let the limpers throw in another small bet before the flop misses them.

I might raise JTs, but not A6s.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not raising JTs with 6 limpers to you is a fairly significant mistake I think.

-SmileyEH

[QTip]

Funny you should mention this, as I was just thinking about this at lunch time. I like the question even better if you said there were 5 limpers, the sb completes and you have AQo in the BB.

As others mentioned here, this has everything to do with your opponents. If you're opponents are such that they're calling with 94o and such, I think you're passing up on too much of an edge to miss this raise, even though, at that point, I'd rather have JTs.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what Sklansky says in HEPFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of what sklanksy says on this subject doesn't apply for most smalls stakes games because the players are so terrible.

-SmileyEH

[/ QUOTE ]

I think at 3/6 it is good to start thinking about some of these concepts. At 5/10 and above I would stop raising with AQo in this situation.

IMO, it is never a bad idea to create a really big pot with 2 suited broadways and a lot of limpers.

[mtdoak]

Thats what started me thinking about it, as I was reading through it. My main question is how applicable is this in SSH.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats what started me thinking about it, as I was reading through it. My main question is how applicable is this in SSH.

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing with donks, I'm raising both of them. If I was in a tougher game, I'd just stick with the suited connecter.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was in a tougher game, I'd just stick with the suited connecter.

[/ QUOTE ]
How often in a tough game do you really expect to get AQ on the button with 5 limpers in front of you?

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I was in a tougher game, I'd just stick with the suited connecter.

[/ QUOTE ]
How often in a tough game do you really expect to get AQ on the button with 5 limpers in front of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not very, good point.

[swatkaizen]

Hey, I was just reading this over lunch in HPFAP! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

The reason they give for raising w/ suited connectors (but not AQo) in late position with multiple limpers is to build a pot so others will stick around and play if the flop is to your liking BUT if they will do that anyway, you should probably just call.

I assume it's b/c if the flop comes down with 0 (or only 1) of your suit, you may be quickly bailing. So in a game with people who will stick around anyway, you should see on the flop on the cheap.

[flair1239]

It's the implied odds vs reverse implied odds situation.

AQo has value HU, because it is very likely to win unimproved. With more people in the pot it's unimproved value is largely depreciated. As is it's top pair value.

Deciding whether or not to raise after 5-limpers largely depends on your preceived equity, and whether said equity is enough to warrant pushing the edge. I believe what S&M had in mind by limping, is that your equity edge after the flop might be much greater, and the pot would not be so bloated , so you would be able to outplay your opponents, by making them make mistakes.

The logic these days in our small stakes fourm is that our opponents, play so terribly (entering the pot with poor cards and playing them badly after the flop) that our PF equity is too large to pass up. Whereas S&M assumed players who may play poorly PF, but were at least reasonable after the flop.

Also at work here is a concept Lee Jones speaks on in WLLH. The concept of implicit collusion (Steve Badger calls it schooling). This is where poor players unintentionally help make each others play correct and work in tandem against the best hand. An extreme example of this is someone calling a a bet in a 5 bet pot with only a gutshot straight draw, but having 4-5 people call after him. While his initial play was incorrect (depending on his read) the players after him made it "correct at the end, by giving him odds to draw.

In the end what it comes down to is a hand like AQo will usually have some sort of equity edge over most fields of 5-limpers. IT is up to you to evlauate the situation and decide whether the edge is worth pushing, you will almost always be able to make a case for a raise with hands like this PF in a multi-way pot. What you must realise though, is that when you push a small edge, your variance increases. It can take a long time for a play with thin EV to show a profit. As a matter of fact I believe that there are some EV situations, where it is possible you will not live long enough to see it break even (AQo against 5 loose limpers is not one of them though).

Another thought is I believe that across our range of Small Stakes limits, the play varies widely. I read alot of the 2/4 posts and think "Man, at 5/10 I just don't see this that often.". Also even the play within the limits differs, I guess what I am saying is it is a mistake to just say "does not apply to our games", I think we should be looking for sitatuions where the concept does apply, so that when we run ito it at a table, we can be ready.

In his book Poker Essays (I forget which volume) Malmuth talks about how beneifcial it is thinking away from the table. Because when a situation arises that you have already thougt about, you know what to do.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Deciding whether or not to raise after 5-limpers largely depends on your preceived equity, and whether said equity is enough to warrant pushing the edge. I believe what S&M had in mind by limping, is that your equity edge after the flop might be much greater, and the pot would not be so bloated , so you would be able to outplay your opponents, by making them make mistakes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good post flair. Just to expand/comment on this a little...or just put it a different way...Having a slight equity edge makes raising profitable but doesn't necessarily mean raising is the most profitable line. And smaller pots give a greater advantage to better players postflop as typical loose players will make more costly mistakes. That being said, having position and AQo against really loose preflop opponents I'm definitely raising. I'm also raising JTs and on the button A6s wouldn't be a bad raise either.

[bobhalford]

[ QUOTE ]
Not raising JTs with 6 limpers to you is a fairly significant mistake I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really thought to raise JTs on the button with 6 limpers. Can someone explain to me why this is +ev? It seems that this builds a pot so you can correctly chase a gutshot. However, straight possibilities don't always arrive on the flop and there are 3 higher flushes possible that will extract a lot of chips on some occasions.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deciding whether or not to raise after 5-limpers largely depends on your preceived equity, and whether said equity is enough to warrant pushing the edge. I believe what S&M had in mind by limping, is that your equity edge after the flop might be much greater, and the pot would not be so bloated , so you would be able to outplay your opponents, by making them make mistakes.


[/ QUOTE ]
Good post flair. Just to expand/comment on this a little...or just put it a different way...Having a slight equity edge makes raising profitable but doesn't necessarily mean raising is the most profitable line. And smaller pots give a greater advantage to better players postflop as typical loose players will make more costly mistakes. That being said, having position and AQo against really loose preflop opponents I'm definitely raising. I'm also raising JTs and on the button A6s wouldn't be a bad raise either.

[/ QUOTE ]

After I got done I thought of a real simplistic way to say it:

Between AQo and JTs, JTs will probably tend to see a larger increase in it's equity from PF to post-flop and less of a decrease. Whereas AQo, will tend to see less of an increase and more of a decrease. In Multi-way pots.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not raising JTs with 6 limpers to you is a fairly significant mistake I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really thought to raise JTs on the button with 6 limpers. Can someone explain to me why this is +ev? It seems that this builds a pot so you can correctly chase a gutshot. However, straight possibilities don't always arrive on the flop and there are 3 higher flushes possible that will extract a lot of chips on some occasions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You take initiative in the hand with an excellent multiway hand. Just because there can be other larger flushes for example, is an extremely weak reason not to raise. That logic could make someone not raise with KK because AA could be out there.

[QTip]

Great post Flair! Love it.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not raising JTs with 6 limpers to you is a fairly significant mistake I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've never really thought to raise JTs on the button with 6 limpers. Can someone explain to me why this is +ev? It seems that this builds a pot so you can correctly chase a gutshot. However, straight possibilities don't always arrive on the flop and there are 3 higher flushes possible that will extract a lot of chips on some occasions.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't want the pot large so you can chase. You want it large so they can chase. But yes frequently what happens, is that you do end up tying yourself to the pot. A common situation with JTs, is you end up with a backdoor straight draw, a backdoor flush draw and a couple overcards. All-in all you are not thrilled with the flop, but your basically looking at a 5-6 out hand at that point. So yeah, your seeing the turn. I even raise sometimes in this situation on the flop, because I figure there are so many damn cards that improve me on the turn, I probably am going to want to see the river too.

Somewhere though, S&M talk about how PF raising cuts down on your post-flop implied odds. I have a vague idea of how this works (in my head), but I have trouble verbalising it. Maybe someone else can take a shot.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere though, S&M talk about how PF raising cuts down on your post-flop implied odds. I have a vague idea of how this works (in my head), but I have trouble verbalising it. Maybe someone else can take a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

SSHE mentions this as well, and I've made posts/replies regarding this several times. I'll have to see if I can find one.

At any rate, I think it's fairly simply as the converse that we talk about with topics like taking initiative in the hand, folding hands, etc.

[thejameser]

suited connectors work better multiway, while unsuited/unconnected highcards do better HU or in a limited field. i thought this was pretty standard theory.

[chief444]

If you have an immediate equity advantage, which JTs usually will and on average will, then the fact the total amount going in the pot postflop is now smaller relative to the amount going in preflop doesn't really matter much. "Implied odds" is a phrase typically used to discuss situations where your immediate odds on money going in the pot/the pot itself don't seem to justify a call. I think we almost need a seperate term for later bets (such as "implied bets") to discuss action on later rounds without relating it directly to the amount going in on the current round. DCifrThs had a post in mid/high a couple of days ago discussing this for anyone interested:

pot equity vs. implied odds (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=26 58366&Forum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Lim it=25&Main=2658366&Search=true&where=&Name=4192&da terange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype= &bodyprev=#Post2658366)

[QTip]

Great! Time for me to get wigged out with terminology again! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif Thanks for the link.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Somewhere though, S&M talk about how PF raising cuts down on your post-flop implied odds.

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO this is a concept that has little applicability to SSHE, and maybe not much at any level.

Example at 2/4:
You don't raise PF and net a pot of $20. Your implied odds were 10-1.
You raise PF and net a pot of $30. Your implied odds were 7.5-1.
By raising you cut down your implied odds...but you made the pot bigger. As far as I can tell, there aren't very many places where you'd pass up a PF value raise in order to increase your implied odds - and those places that I can think of only happen with good post flop players.

Regarding JTs vs AQo. High-card value is lost faster than straight/flush value as players are added to a hand. Straight/flush hands are also easier to play in a multiway hand because you'll generally know where you're at since you'll be drawing to (or make) a big hand. With high-cards, you have to play more cautiously, even if you pair one of your cards.

H&C against a random hand, AQ has a 64%-36% edge HU, while JTs only has a 57%-43%. By the time you are 5-way, AQ and JTs are roughly equal.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
If you have an immediate equity advantage, which JTs usually will and on average will, then the fact the total amount going in the pot postflop is now smaller relative to the amount going in preflop doesn't really matter much. "Implied odds" is a phrase typically used to discuss situations where your immediate odds on money going in the pot/the pot itself don't seem to justify a call. I think we almost need a seperate term for later bets (such as "implied bets") to discuss action on later rounds without relating it directly to the amount going in on the current round. DCifrThs had a post in mid/high a couple of days ago discussing this for anyone interested:

pot equity vs. implied odds (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=26 58366&Forum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Lim it=25&Main=2658366&Search=true&where=&Name=4192&da terange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype= &bodyprev=#Post2658366)

[/ QUOTE ]

Great thread, and I really like your response. I was sad to see that no one gave you feedback.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you have an immediate equity advantage, which JTs usually will and on average will, then the fact the total amount going in the pot postflop is now smaller relative to the amount going in preflop doesn't really matter much. "Implied odds" is a phrase typically used to discuss situations where your immediate odds on money going in the pot/the pot itself don't seem to justify a call. I think we almost need a seperate term for later bets (such as "implied bets") to discuss action on later rounds without relating it directly to the amount going in on the current round. DCifrThs had a post in mid/high a couple of days ago discussing this for anyone interested:

pot equity vs. implied odds (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=26 58366&Forum=,,All_Forums,,&Words=&Searchpage=1&Lim it=25&Main=2658366&Search=true&where=&Name=4192&da terange=&newerval=&newertype=&olderval=&oldertype= &bodyprev=#Post2658366)

[/ QUOTE ]

Great thread, and I really like your response. I was sad to see that no one gave you feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

However, let me ask this about your response.

You're raising just about any suited broadway on the button after any number of limpers right. I raise any of them against 1 limper or 7 limpers...the more the better, though. So...how's this different than the reasons you listed that you didn't like his lrr?

[chief444]

I don't really think his play was bad necessarily. As I said in the beginning I don't think really matters much from a numbers view.

He didn't have a suited broadway. He wasn't in last position. A limp/reraise vs. an LP raise doesn't have the benefit of possibly getting dead blind money in the pot. The blinds are already in or out. Pretty different situations really. Also, there are times I'll limp in...like if two really tight but solid players limp in front of me. Not normally though.

I never do seem to get any responses in mid/high for some reason. Oh well. I usually just read that and post here.

[Borno]

you should be raising those great multi way hands like JTs and QJs ... even hands like 89s

and you should be weary of hands like AQo.

you are exactly right.

HEPFAP preflop section page 18-50 or so. check it out