PF Raising Standards - Poll

[dark_horse]

regarding this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2914171&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1) post from earlier, how many of you routinely raise with AK from either blind when 4 people have limped in a small stakes game, regardless of table type?

[Dariel86]

almost always raising at 2/4

[MEbenhoe]

The answer is absolutely 100% always raise, next question.

[Emmitt2222]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to hear someone disagree with this and tell me why, aside from the obvious pot equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not just some thing to take lightly, that is THE reason to raise this pf from the blinds, punish those crap aces that limped. In small stakes holdem I think you are giving up a lot by not raising this hand from the blinds. A hand like 99 can be very tricky to play postflop when you raise from the blinds so given your bad position you may want to pass up the equity edge, but AKo plays very differently postflop and you have a bigger edge against most people's limping hands.

[ QUOTE ]
When raising into a multiway pot from the blinds with AK and then not hitting the flop 66% of the time, I often feel pressure to bet, knowing I'm getting called. It's yucky. Lately in a loose game I'm just checking a missed multiway flop, which looks awful weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

This whole quote seems quite disturbing. Basically what you have to do is learn how to play overcards better. Most of the time you shouldn't be betting into 4-5 people when you miss postflop with overcards, but you have to learn how to read a board well/know you opponents and pick your spots correctly. It should feel yucky to bet into people with nothing at the wrong time when you know noone will fold. It doesn't matter that it looks "aweful weak" to other players, when you hit you will bet and then they will still just happily call away.

In conclusion, I am still always raising this from the blinds at the levels I play. The only reason I can think not to is that you suck at playing overcards so much that you feel obligated to bet out at the wrong times even when you miss after raising pf. If this is your dilema, it can be fixed by learning how to read a flop and your opponents.

[OnkelHotte]

I even cap AK from every postion, unless a raiser has such a low PFR that I can conclude, his only raising hands are AA-QQ

Personally I wouldn't cap AK in the BB but definately would raise 4 limpers.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
I even cap AK from every postion, unless a raiser has such a low PFR that I can conclude, his only raising hands are AA-QQ

[/ QUOTE ]

huhu hotte /images/graemlins/smile.gif

i know your chart, but i think it is wrong in this case. against a raise and a reraise, from reasonable players, with the original raise in early or middle position i fold AKo in any position but the BB. in the latter i make a call, planning to fold my hand asap if i don't hit.

@topic
i think it is an easy raise. i posted a reasoning in the thread "PF Raising Standards From Blinds". and i agree completely with emmitt2222.

[Bascule]

[ QUOTE ]
Lately in a loose game I'm just checking a missed multiway flop, which looks awful weak.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. It doesn't really matter. 1/3 of the time you flop TPTK, and you will make more in these situations than you lose when you miss.

2. Checkraise the flop sometimes when you hit after raising preflop to give some cover to those checks when you really have nothing. (It helps to have an aggressive player in late position who is likely to bet if checked to.)

From jjacky:
[ QUOTE ]

against a raise and a reraise, from reasonable players, with the original raise in early or middle position i fold AKo in any position but the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against reasonable players, I think this is a cap. I might fold to a raise and reraise from two rocks.

[Paxosmotic]

I would lean towards an 80/20 mix of raising and calling in a mid to high stakes game where I felt the added deception would give me an edge. In your standard 2/4 and 3/6 game, however, I don't think the edge it'll give me in deception outweighs the immediate EV. Rizzaise.

[Octopus]

If this table is routinely 4-5 to the flop, then this is a trivial raise. If it is normally 2-3 to the flop, then it depends on my opponents (not just their PF standards, but their post-flop aggressiveness and how observant they are). Even then, it is a raise for me almost all of the time.

[SmileyEH]

I can't see how not raising could ever be correct. This is a trivial question.

-SmileyEH

[meep_42]

Raise 100%.

I only cap (offsuit) out of position against aggressive players, though, so about 80-85% of the time, overall.

-d

[sfer]

Ugh. Someone search the archives for "Crime against humanity."

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Someone search the archives for "Crime against humanity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Have a poster in mind? There's a ton of reply results, not all applicable.

Edit - nm, found it -

here. (http://tinyurl.com/bc5u2)

-d

[dark_horse]

[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Someone search the archives for "Crime against humanity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, David says it's a crime to not raise with AKs against 3 limpers. We're talking about 4 or more, and mostly about offsuit overs.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Someone search the archives for "Crime against humanity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, David says it's a crime to not raise with AKs against 3 limpers. We're talking about 4 or more, and mostly about offsuit overs.

[/ QUOTE ]

How bout just a felony then?

-SmileyEH

[nightlyraver]

Anyone who DOES NOT raise or reraise from ANY position w/ AKo has a big leak in their game. I can't even believe that some people say they fold from LP after an early raise and a reraise w/ AKo. So glad there are people like that at my game. Anyway, it's almost laughable to argue with David Sklansky in a simple paragraph no less. Read his book on small stakes hold'em and you'll see why you should always raise/reraise UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME CRAZY READ. If you disagree, you better bring some very strong argument to back it up, including some serious math.

In short, look at this illustrating example:
UTG raises holding KJs
MP2 reraises with 99
You have AKo in the CO - YOU RERAISE!
(Note: This is a very typical scenario in small stakes hold'em)

Why? You increase your cash equity in the hand; You probably knock out the button and blinds; You may get it heads up with MP2; You have position; Your hand has showdown value; You will be VERY predictable if you only reraise with AA or KK; etc.

This laundry list of reasons why to raise and reraise far outweighs the weak argument of, "I only hit my A or K 1/3 of the time..."

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh. Someone search the archives for "Crime against humanity."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, David says it's a crime to not raise with AKs against 3 limpers. We're talking about 4 or more, and mostly about offsuit overs.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's also assuming decent players and here we're assuming donkeys with trash.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who DOES NOT raise or reraise from ANY position w/ AKo has a big leak in their game. I can't even believe that some people say they fold from LP after an early raise and a reraise w/ AKo. So glad there are people like that at my game. Anyway, it's almost laughable to argue with David Sklansky in a simple paragraph no less. Read his book on small stakes hold'em and you'll see why you should always raise/reraise UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME CRAZY READ. If you disagree, you better bring some very strong argument to back it up, including some serious math.

In short, look at this illustrating example:
UTG raises holding KJs
MP2 reraises with 99
You have AKo in the CO - YOU RERAISE!
(Note: This is a very typical scenario in small stakes hold'em)

Why? You increase your cash equity in the hand; You probably knock out the button and blinds; You may get it heads up with MP2; You have position; Your hand has showdown value; You will be VERY predictable if you only reraise with AA or KK; etc.

This laundry list of reasons why to raise and reraise far outweighs the weak argument of, "I only hit my A or K 1/3 of the time..."

[/ QUOTE ]

this post is ridiculous. please take out your copy of SSHE and have a look at the starting hand chart for tight games.
quote from the book: against a raise and a reraise play: AA-QQ and AKs.

next time read sklanskys books before telling us what he writes, ok?

[nightlyraver]

I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about a loose game. In the OP 4 limpers entered the pot and Hero is certainly going to play. This is a loose game in both my book and Sklansky's (had the SB completed, it would have been 6 and the SB will only fold in this spot VERY rarely).

Additionally, the OP stipulates Hero is in the blind. SSHE clearly states on page 83 that against a raise you reraise w/ AA-TT, AKs-AJs, KQs, and AK from either blind.

In addressing my hypo that takes this concept a step further, you are correct that it states on the Tight Game chart to "Play: AA-QQ and AKs" against a raise and a reraise when you are in late position. However, it states rite under that line that you should reraise with that exact range! True, I said AKo in my added hypo, but I wasn't aware that we were sitting here nitpicking like this (be aware that a suited hane increases your preflop edge quite marginally if you actually look at the percentages - example: KJs,99, hero has AKs - he's 35.7% to win as compared to KJs,99, hero has AKo - he's 32.1% to win. I strongly prefer spending about 7 cents on the raise [in a 2/4 game] if it helps to get even 1 player out of the pot.)

Anyway, I digress. Given all that was stated above COMBINED with the fact that my hypo stipulated UTG would raise with KJs (and I didn't even say that such a hand would be his lowest raising hand - and it isn't for many small stakes players) and that MP2 would reraise w/ 99, we could throw that "Tight Table" chart right out the window and proceed to the "Loose Table" chart regardless of the fact that less than 4 players are in this pot at this point. I know what you're thinking - that chart still states to play AKo and reraise AKs. Even as stated in SSHE, sometimes these decisions are very close; this is one of those decisions IMO. As stated above however, I'll gladly throw in the raise every time for all the reasons stated in my earlier post and all the reasons stated above. Most importantly, I want to get the pot shorthanded and perhaps HU, which will increase you cash-equity FAR more than the 7 cents you lose with the raise.

Please note, this board is about intellectual debates about poker and such. I'm more than happy to post these types of analyses, but try any reply with something more intelligent than "this post is rediculous" and a page citation.

[J. Sawyer]

It seems pretty obvious that its a raise.

[TiltsMcFabulous]

I call every once in a while here to mix it up, based on my table image and the state of the game. Sometimes if there is a nut in EP that just limped, and I know I might be able to CR the field if I hit, I will sometimes simply call. If there is a nut in LP that I can raise on the flop to possibly get it head up, I sometimes call. If my table image has taken a beating and people think I will raise with anything, I will raise for sure. If I am unknown or new, sometimes I simply call, because when the hand is shown down, it makes me look like a fish.

There are many variables. I would say 95% of the time I raise, but not always.

~ Tilts

[tipperdog]

I expect to be flamed. I believe that automatically raising AK from the blinds is an error (similarly, always NOT raising is an error).

The primary reason is that a raise pre-flop simply builds a large pot, which makes your opponent correct to call on the flop with gutshots, bottom pair and other misc. crap. By contrast, a check puts you in great position to check raise and confront the field with a double bet, particularly if the button is an aggressive player. Against a double bet, the field will either fold or make a badly incorrect call to chase.

If the button is the type of player who'll automatically bet the flop if there's no action to him, I will check/complete preflop and attempt a check-raise on the flop if I hit (and sometimes when I miss /images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
I expect to be flamed.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to flame you, but I will point you to the section called "Building Large Pots Before the Flop" in Ed's book. He puts together a counter better than I could.

[oreogod]

What to do with most hands is situational...limping with AK is never a situational situation u will ever come across.

[jjacky]

well, at first i am going to explain why i called your post ridiculous. it's because of the followin paragraph:

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone who DOES NOT raise or reraise from ANY position w/ AKo has a big leak in their game. I can't even believe that some people say they fold from LP after an early raise and a reraise w/ AKo. So glad there are people like that at my game. Anyway, it's almost laughable to argue with David Sklansky in a simple paragraph no less. Read his book on small stakes hold'em and you'll see why you should always raise/reraise UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME CRAZY READ. If you disagree, you better bring some very strong argument to back it up, including some serious math.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is obviously wrong and impolite. especially the sentence "Read his book on small stakes hold'em and you'll see why you should always raise/reraise UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME CRAZY READ." is terrible. that's why i refered to a page in SSHE that clearly states that you are wrong.

and now i am going to tell you why i fold AKo if i am not the BB and an early position player raises and someone reraises and both are reasonable players:
i put the raiser roughly on this range: AA-99, AK-AJ and KQ and the reraiser on AA-TT, AK.

and here is the result of a pokerstrove simulation:

1) 99+,AJs+,KQs,AJo+,KQo: 28.655%
2) TT+,AKs,AKo : 44.248%
3) AKo: 27.098%

note that the first range i have given is the SSHE tight games table +AJo, KQs, KQo and the second range is exactly the SSHE tight games range.

hope you understand now, why "Anyone who DOES NOT raise or reraise from ANY position w/ AKo has a big leak in their game" is not true.

ps: the results with the original SSHE tight game chart are even worse:

1)99+,AJs+,AQo+: 32.643%
2)TT+,AKs,AKo: 41.964%
3)AKo: 25.393%

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to flame you, but I will point you to the section called "Building Large Pots Before the Flop" in Ed's book. He puts together a counter better than I could.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for your courtesy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I am well aware that Ed disagrees, but I think he is wrong, with all due respect (though I will re-read the section you referenced...it's been a long time). Generally, I think Ed and other posters overvalue the immediate equity edge of AK vs. the field and undervalue the post-flop "playing edge" (a made up term?) and flexibility you gain from holding a well-disguised big hand in the blind.

[elindauer]

Do you guys understand why it is a bad thing to give your opponent odds to draw? What is the problem?

Well, the problem is that every time your opponents call correctly, they are gaining a little from you. That is, you raise preflop and now there are 10 SB in the pot. Your opponent calls on a gutshot needing 11:1, and getting, with implied odds, maybe 16:1. Ok, he called correctly. So he made money.

The question is, has he made more money than he lost by you raising preflop? This is the crux of the argument. Remember, he will often just miss the flop and have nothing.

Many people seem to think that "giving your opponent odds to draw" is somehow the final argument, that you can state this and then say, there, QED. I've proven the raise is wrong.

No! All you've done is show that, in some situations, you don't capture all the equity you gain from you preflop raise, because you give some back postflop. ok, this is obviously true. But do you give back more than you gained? That is the question.

Put another way, let's say you look down in the big blind at AK, and you have another option, bump it up $20. Let's also say that your opponents will foolishly just call along for the twenty, just as they call along for $1 normally. After the flop, you will return to the normal 1/2 game. You would be a fool to pass up on this raise! The equity gained from the raise is HUGE and cannot possibly be made up for by the fact that everyone will correctly see a showdown with anything that has a chance.

To answer this question once and for all, you need to do some math. How big an equity edge does AK have over the field, ie, how much is gained preflop? How much is lost postflop because the bigger pot gives players profitable drawing opportunities?

I don't know the answer, but there's the fundamental question. I suspect the answer is that more is gained from the raise than lost, because so many players will flop nothing, not to mention that YOU gain some too postflop the times you miss and your preflop raise now gives you odds to draw and catch a pair on the turn... you will always flop at least overcards. Your crap card playing opponents aren't so lucky.

Good luck.
-Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
What to do with most hands is situational...limping with AK is never a situational situation u will ever come across.

[/ QUOTE ]

You may be right, but you just saying it doesn't make it so. If it's so clear, why don't you show the math? Or give some kind of logical argument, or...

My math intuition is that raising is better, but I have to admit that raising does produce unprofitable situations for you postflop which you would not be in by checking. Checking conceals your hand sometimes getting you extra action you would not get by raising. Checking saves you money when you miss completely, which is often. It's not at all clear cut, and deserves more than a dismissive comment.

my 2 cents.
-Eric


edit: by the way oreogod, I now see that your post is identical to about ten others on here, I could have written the same thing to anyone and in fact others deserved it more. Just happened to read yours first.

[elindauer]

Let's talk about the math and see if we can actually figure it out...

1/3 of the time you flop TPTK. In reality, with 4 limpers in, your odds of hitting TPTK are lower than this, since it's quite likely that these any-ace-playing fools have some of your "outs". So let's discount this a touch and call it 1 in 4.

Now, the thing to understand is that when you hit TPTK, you make LESS postflop if you raised than you would have if you didn't raise. This is a simple consequence of giving players with weak draws the correct odds to draw out.

On the other hand, when you raise preflop, there are 2 extra big bets in the pot. That's good.


raise pf and hit: 1/4 (+2 BB - some loss to the draws that are now correct to draw)

When you MISS, which is 3/4 of the time, raising costs you an extra SB. This is offset by the fact that the pot is bigger and you may have given YOURSELF a profitable opportunity to draw to your overcards. So:

raising EV = 3/4 (-5 + some small profit postflop with your overcard draw in bigger pot)

adding these up, we get the following


EV raising: 1/4 (2) - 3/4 (.5) - 1/4 (EV_lost_when_flop_TP_postflop) + 3/4 (EV_gained_when_we_miss)

simplifying...

EV (raise) = .125 - 1/4 (EV_lost_when_hit) + 3/4 (EV_gained_when_miss)


hmmm... is it obvious which is bigger? Well, how much does it cost you when that player calls correctly with his gutshot? If he's getting 10:1 immediately, he's looking at maybe 18:1 overall. so his flop call is worth 7/11 BB, or more than 1/2 BB. 1/4 of that totally cancels out the gain preflop... Similar effects happen for ALL draws though... everything is more profitable to call with given the preflop raise, and you, as the current leader in the hand, are the one PAYING THE DIFFERENCE.

Note that I haven't yet even factored in the excess action you can get from a hand like AT if you check your AK and play it deceptively. I think I'm on the brink of proving that the raise is wrong. It's certainly worth more than a "raise 100%" response.

Good luck.
Eric

[chief444]

Eric,

AKo has about a 6% equity edge on 4 limpers with 30-35% VPIP (and at small stakes you'll usually have at least one or two even looser) according to pokerstove. But as with any simulation that assumes everyone goes to showdown. BB has less equity than everyone with a random hand obviously. So I'm going to keep raising.

Also, you'll hit TPTK or better 1/3 of the time not 1/4. 1-44/50*43/49*42/48 ~ 1/3.

Chief

[tipperdog]

I appreciate your efforts (especially as the lone poster who argued that auto-raising in this spot is wrong). However, I don't think there is an one-size-fits-all answer to this question. Unlike Oreogod, I think this is highly situational.

Specifically, the correct play depends upon your liklihood of successfully executing a check-raise on the flop, the limping standards of your opponents, and the propensity of your opponents to make incorrect calls when drawing.

If, for example, your early position opponents routinely limp with hands like 78 and other hands that tend to make bottom/middle pair and weak draws AND they tend to call those weak draws without proper odds AND your late position opponents tend to be extremely aggressive when confronted with passivity (indicating that your odds of executing a CR were high), then limping PF, CR on the flop seems the best choice. In this scenario, you could contfront drawers with a double bet on the flop and expect they will call incorrectly--a bad call that makes you money. By contrast, if you raise pre-flop and lead at the flop, your play has induced your opponents to call correctly, which is a real mess.

Conversely, if your chances of executing a CR post-flop are poor (due to relative position against aggressive players), the PF check/complete loses some of its appeal.

I don't know that it's possible for an EV calculation to account for these situational variables. At minimum, if it is possible, I don't know how to do it /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[elindauer]

Chief, seriously. Did you even read my post? I already answered both of your objections. I'll repeat myself to make it clear:

[ QUOTE ]
AKo has about a 6% equity edge on 4 limpers with 30-35% VPIP... So I'm going to keep raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's great, we've already acknowledged that AK has an equity edge and you gain preflop by raising. The problem is that you give back much of this postflop by making the pot bigger so that draws are more profitable. A 6% edge over the extra 2.5 BB plays out a .15BB edge. Note that this term practically appears in the "formula" I laid out. I think you can make a very reasonable argument that the downside to making it correct for other players to call postflop + gains from concealing your hand outweigh this preflop advantage. Note that a flopped gutshot becomes MUCH more profitable to play if AK raises preflop than if it doesn't. Similarly, flush draws, middle pair, etc, type draws are all more profitable. This profit comes primarily from the guy holding TPTK.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you'll hit TPTK or better 1/3 of the time not 1/4. 1-44/50*43/49*42/48 ~ 1/3.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this. You're assuming that all the aces and kings are equally likely to be in the deck as in your opponents hands. The presence of the 4 limpers though is highly correlated with some of your cards being in their hands and no longer available for the flop. It's more likely that the flop will contain a 6 than an A. 1/4 may be too low, but your calculation is definitely too high.


-Eric

[elindauer]

Hi tipperdog,

You make some great points. In particular:

[ QUOTE ]
If, for example, your early position opponents routinely limp with hands like 78 and other hands that tend to make bottom/middle pair and weak draws AND they tend to call those weak draws without proper odds AND your late position opponents tend to be extremely aggressive when confronted with passivity (indicating that your odds of executing a CR were high), then limping PF, CR on the flop seems the best choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo! And doesn't this describe a huge percentage of online games? Lots of players will bet the button if checked to. Lots of players call 2 cold with middle pair in spots where they shouldn't. Clearly, under these conditions, it seems reasonable to think that the edge gained postflop by checking outweighs the preflop edge gained by raising.

The thing I take issue with in your response is your assertion that, absent these conditions, raising is best. Whether or not you can check-raise doesn't change the fact that offering draws better odds when you hold TPTK gives them extra profit that comes at your expense. So you can't face them with 2 cold? So? That just means that when you bet your top pair, they call barely correctly with middle pair in the unraised pot, but VERY correctly in the raised pot. The difference between these is all that matters.

Good luck.
Eric

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this. You're assuming that all the aces and kings are equally likely to be in the deck as in your opponents hands. The presence of the 4 limpers though is highly correlated with some of your cards being in their hands and no longer available for the flop. It's more likely that the flop will contain a 6 than an A. 1/4 may be too low, but your calculation is definitely too high.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is purely speculation, your honor, and we ask that it be stricken from the record. We strenuously object.

We can not discount outs preflop based on our speculation of what a limp means. This is akin to saying "I haven't flopped a set in an hour, this next one is mine."

[tipperdog]

[ QUOTE ]

The thing I take issue with in your response is your assertion that, absent these conditions, raising is best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to be clear, I didn't say that raising is best absent these perfect conditions. I said only that the limp/CR play "loses some of its appeal" when conditions are not met. In other words, it may still be correct to limp (it depends, IMO), but it's not so obviously correct as in the near-perfect situation I described.

That said, there certainly are conditions under which raising is correct--for example, if your opponents are weak-tight and show great respect for your raises. Here, a PF raise will put you in a great position to steal the pot if you miss. In this situation, your PF raise may induce your opponent to incorrectly fold a hand like bottom pair on the flop, which would be a real coup.

My primary point is that like the vast majority of poker decisions, proper play is situational. I am quite surprised that so many posters appear to disagree with this view.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
That's great, we've already acknowledged that AK has an equity edge and you gain preflop by raising. The problem is that you give back much of this postflop by making the pot bigger so that draws are more profitable. A 6% edge over the extra 2.5 BB plays out a .15BB edge. Note that this term practically appears in the "formula" I laid out. I think you can make a very reasonable argument that the downside to making it correct for other players to call postflop + gains from concealing your hand outweigh this preflop advantage. Note that a flopped gutshot becomes MUCH more profitable to play if AK raises preflop than if it doesn't. Similarly, flush draws, middle pair, etc, type draws are all more profitable. This profit comes primarily from the guy holding TPTK.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your argument should be that they'll chase anyway. Because you're not necessarily losing money by opponents having correct odds to chase weak draws.

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this. You're assuming that all the aces and kings are equally likely to be in the deck as in your opponents hands. The presence of the 4 limpers though is highly correlated with some of your cards being in their hands and no longer available for the flop. It's more likely that the flop will contain a 6 than an A. 1/4 may be too low, but your calculation is definitely too high.


[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. You have a lot of loose limpers who don't have completely random hands but will play connector type hands, any pair, most suited hands, etc. But this has been discussed before. I think Mason wrote something on it in one of his essays. My opinion though is it's basically negligable in loose games. However, if some of your outs are in other opponents hands that's certainly more reason to raise since you have any A or K dominated. The fact that many opponents limp in with any Ace or any decent King is IMO what makes this raise even easier.

I just pointed out the equity difference because I think the 6% is fairly significant and again that was assuming all somewhat reasonable limpers which we all know isn't usually the case. That means on average you're gaining about 3% of 5-6 SB's or about .1BB. Also, getting BB to fold sometimes both gets dead money in the pot and increases your own edge slightly.

My only other comment is that I disagree at lower levels that the deception is worth much. You could flip your cards over on the table and a lot of these opponents will still make unprofitable calls. Folding top pair doesn't happen often.

[Derek in NYC]

The math behind the raise is clear. 35% of the time you will flop the TPTK. Since you have 4 people along on the flop with you, your contribution is 20%. So on the money going in pre-flop, you enjoy a 15% edge, assuming that TPTK is good on the flop. The real problem with hands like this is how do you protect your hand after the flop. Another, more interesting question, is how to play AKo from the blinds after the pot has been raised and reraised by fairly normal players.

[Derek in NYC]

[ QUOTE ]
1/3 of the time you flop TPTK. In reality, with 4 limpers in, your odds of hitting TPTK are lower than this, since it's quite likely that these any-ace-playing fools have some of your "outs".

[/ QUOTE ]

In an unraised pot, it is less likely you will run into an ace or king. This may be less true at 2/4, but even in a standard 3/6 game, I think you're finding people raising hands like ATo.

[nightlyraver]

I think you are seriously missing the point of when it comes to profit at a small stakes games - and I don't mean this to sound impolite. A skilled pro generally will be happy to gain 2 big bets an hour on average at a mid-high stakes game. However, a skilled amature can sit down at any 'ol 3/6 table in a casino and expect to pick up far more; not because the amature is twice as good as the pro, but because the players at most 3/6 tables are at least twice as bad as at a 20/40 table for example.

In short, I simply will identify these 3/6 players as "unreasonable" and that leads to profit. Those players will have MUCH looser raising/calling standards. True, the reasonable player will use the calling/raising standards outlined in SSHE, but if I observed a player acting like that in a casino, I would catagorize that at "some sort of crazy read." For example, if a player that will only raise UTG w/ AA-QQ or AK has just raised from up front, it's worth folding everything and reraising w/ AA or KK.

On the flip side, I constantly see people raise early with something like A7o and someone may reraise w/ pocket 8's. This happens all the time at 3/6 (it may happen at a tough 20/40 game as well, but for different reasons). Those same players play poorly after the flop (NOT like at the tough 20/40 game, btw). Thus, it's good to reraise IMO w/ AKo and you could very well get paid off all the way when the flop comes something like As5c4c. At this same table, if you just call you may get someone else calling behind you w/ 76s or something like that and the hand now changes considerable.

This is why I believe that calling or folding is not wise. However, if I do find myself at a small stakes limit game and most players actually are playing according to SSHE strategy, trust me that my play will alter - probably it will shift more towards the play described in Hold'em for Advanced Players.

In short, we make money at 3/6 by capitalizing on the horrible preflop and postflop decisions of the other players, who, by definition, are not "reasonable."

[jjacky]

two points:
1. i gave clear conditions in my posts, under which it is correct to fold AK imo (and in sklanskys opinion too, btw). that obviously doesn't mean, that the play is correct under very different conditions and i think it is absolutely pointless that you argue that there are conditions that make it a clear mistake to throw away AK. it should be obvious to any reader that it is a mistake to throw away AKo if the raiser and the reraiser had something like 20% PFR.

2. i don't have the opportunity to play SS brick and mortar. i refered to SS games online.

please have a look what the average PFR is at most tables. it is almost always less than 10%, which makes the gives SSHE tight table ranges correct or even too broads, but definitely not too narrow on average. that means my description of player ranges are the rule and not the exception (what is obviously not important for the quality of my previous post, but for yours).

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Now, the thing to understand is that when you hit TPTK, you make LESS postflop if you raised than you would have if you didn't raise. This is a simple consequence of giving players with weak draws the correct odds to draw out.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. This must be the most misunderstood concept in poker.

Every time you are ahead and make a bet and your opponent calls because he has odds to call, you do NOT lose money. You only make less than if your opponent had folded.

Let's take a simple case. You flop a straight and your opponent flops a flush draw. You will win roughly 2/3 of the time. Let's say there's 6 sbs in the pot. On the average you will win 4 of those sbs and your opponent will win 2. Now let's suppose you bet. Of course your opponent has the odds to call so he does and now there's 8sbs in the pot. 2/3 of the 8sbs (your share) is now 5.33. You put in an sb and gained 1.33 sb. Clearly you gained on the bet.

The concept of pot odds and correctly drawing only means you'd make MORE if you could get your opponent to incorrectly fold, not that you lose when he correctly calls.

In the case where you have a big equity edge preflop (such as the hand in this thread), you want to make people put in chips and get tied to the pot. Over time, you will make way more having your opponents put in additional money at long odds than you will forcing them to fold because they've only invested a sb or two.

[W. Deranged]

Nice SeaEagle,

Totally right, this is often misunderstood. When you raise pre-flop you do NOT cost yourself money in the long run:

Imagine a hypothetical situation where after the flop you will have 80% equity in the pot and one other opponent will have 20%. Only two players hit the flop and from then on it gets checked down.

If you raise pre-flop there will be 4 bets in. With two more on the flop, that makes 6. You will rate to win 4.8 of them.

Villain, who will be getting 5-1 on his flop call, can call the flop profitably. He will win, on average, 1.2 bets out of the 6 bet pot.

If you don't raise pre-flop, there will be two bets in pre-flop and 4 after the flop. You rate to win 3.2 of them.

Here, villain's flop call will be a -EV one. Villain will rate to win .8 of the bets in the pot.

BUT!!!! in the first case hero wins MORE!!!! Even though we've allowed villain to make a profitable flop call, it doesn't mean it's best for us.

People learn the fundamental theorem of poker and then don't realize it applies ON EVERY STREET and you must aggregate across the streets to make the best decisions. By raising pre-flop, you make villain's effective odds on the whole hand WORSE, even though his immediate odds on the flop will be better. Basically, you steal a bunch of money from him pre-flop and give a little bit back to him on the flop, but you steal more than you do overall if you don't raise pre-flop.

This was something it took me a long time to realize.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, you steal a bunch of money from him pre-flop and give a little bit back to him on the flop, but you steal more than you do overall if you don't raise pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, even this isn't quite right. You make money postflop as well. In my original example, the guy with the straight is making money on every single postflop bet where he has an equity edge.

[W. Deranged]

Right... that's a better way to put it. You are giving your opponent profitable situations post-flop but with all the money already in the pot those situations are still significantly (3x) more profitable for you.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, the thing to understand is that when you hit TPTK, you make LESS postflop if you raised than you would have if you didn't raise. This is a simple consequence of giving players with weak draws the correct odds to draw out.


[/ QUOTE ]
Sheesh. This must be the most misunderstood concept in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Add yourself to the list.


[ QUOTE ]
Every time you are ahead and make a bet and your opponent calls because he has odds to call, you do NOT lose money. You only make less than if your opponent had folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like saying, "raising when your opponent has the nuts does NOT cost you money. You just make less than you would have if you'd folded." Um yeah. "Making less" is the definiton of losing money. What kind argument is this? Your preflop raise is the reason your opponent can call. His call causes you to make less. Therefore, you are losing money postflop because of your raise preflop. Yes, you made money when you raised preflop. But now you must give some of that back as you take the role of the "house" offering numerous +EV bets to your customers, bets you would not have been forced to offer had you simply checked preflop. The question is not whether or not you lose money postflop when you offer these bets. You do. The question is simply whether or not the money made preflop is enough to cover your expected loss postflop.

[ QUOTE ]
In the case where you have a big equity edge preflop (such as the hand in this thread), you want to make people put in chips and get tied to the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hand waving arguments carry no weight. The whole debate is about whether or not putting a small pot at risk in an effort to win a larger one is correct. You saying it doesn't make it so.

[ QUOTE ]
Over time, you will make way more having your opponents put in additional money at long odds than you will forcing them to fold because they've only invested a sb or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prove it. I've already given a mathematical framework for discussing this, and made argument within that framework as to why it the answer should be close. You've chosen to ignore this and simply say "I am SeaEagle. Listen, my children, and I will tell you the answer".

If you do not raise and flop top pair, you are in position to face opponents with calling incorrectly. In this case, if they play well, you win the pot, and if they play badly, which they often do, you win the pot and then some.

If you raise, you no longer have this option, which means that you have given up the pot that would have been yours in order to chase a larger pot. This drawback in itself is not enough, but you don't know you're going to flop top pair. Many times you will miss, and your raise will cost you more. Other times you will miss out on excess action because you've given away the strength of your hand.

Which is greater? I don't know. But I've given you a "formula" to discuss it, where some of the terms have not yet been quantified (and, I would concede, some smaller terms may have been missed). If you want to add to the discussion, simply try to put some numbers in the formula and defend them. Another person shouting "raise preflop" does not get us any closer to the answer.


-Eric

[nightlyraver]

This is a good summation and it should clarify things for many new players. Couple of comments...

First, we should not be too concerned about the extra raise substantially affecting our ability to protect our hand on the flop in most situations. I suppose the biggest concern is that we flop TPTK from the BB and one of the limpers flops a flush or str8 draw. However, neither of these hands will or should fold for 1 bet on the flop weather or not you raised preflop (5.5SB w/o raise 10.5SB w/ a raise still gives proper odds). It has already been proven that even though drawing hands receive proper odds to call, you still make money when they do. Adding the extra 5 bets now only provides the WEAK draws with good odds to call. However, you still make money when these guys call. When they draw out, they are making money off of each other and not you unless you insist on a showdown.

Second, when you do raise you still can protect your hand against a large field w/ carefull flop play. Generally, players with weak draws will check/call and players with strong draws will bet if checked to (as they should) and perhaps raise if they are in LP (as they also should). That said, against a field of players who will bet draws you can protect your hand by checking TPTK from the BB. If it gets bet by a player from LP, raise it and drive out or properly charge the drawing hands (who definately should not call and you make the most when they do). If you check and an early player bets, do not raise it if most call. By doing this you get to see if the turn is safe and then bet. This gives drawing hands worse odds on the turn (you make more), allows you to get away from the hand if scary cards fall (be carefull though) and charges the truely bad players with weak draws A LOT to call. This play is the most powerfull if the flop bettor will likely raise the turn with top pair.

Third, I suspect this poster considers "normal" players to be the type who raise/reraise according to SSHE standards. If this is so, you should fold AKo from the blinds since you will usually be a big dog and will have to pay people off if you flop TPTK or 2 pair. HOWEVER, about 85% of all players I see in a B&M cardroom are not "normal" players at the 2/4, 3/6 or even 4/8. On the internet players are a bit more skilled, but I constantly sit at 1/2 and 2/4 tables online where players will raise and reraise with a much wider range than the one from SSHE. If this is the case, you probably don't lose that much by folding AKo against a raise and reraise, but if you play well postflop (and most 2+2'ers do I think) I feel that you are losing a lot. I feel that against bad players who play poorly after the flop, AKo has plenty of value against a raise and a reraise, especially from the BB.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove it. I've already given a mathematical framework for discussing this, and made argument within that framework as to why it the answer should be close. You've chosen to ignore this and simply say "I am SeaEagle. Listen, my children, and I will tell you the answer".

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, I gave you a specific example of a the results of a post flop bet between a made hand and a draw that shows the made hand making money on the bet. If you don't take this as proof then dispute that example. Don't dispute it by saying "prove it" and insulting me.

[ QUOTE ]
"Making less" is the definiton of losing money. What kind argument is this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, then. How about I give you the choice of sending me $50 or $25. If you only send me $25, I must be losing money. I admit I suck at money managment but, even though it'd cost me money, could you send me the $25?
[ QUOTE ]
If you do not raise and flop top pair, you are in position to face opponents with calling incorrectly. In this case, if they play well, you win the pot, and if they play badly, which they often do, you win the pot and then some.

[/ QUOTE ]
You somehow have the impression that you only make money when your opponent plays incorrectly. This is simply not true. You make money every time you have an equity advantage and money goes into the pot.

Using my madehand vs. drawinghand example: At the time of the flop with a 6sb pot, Madehand's EV for the hand was 4sb and Drawinghand's EV was 2sbs. If this hand plays out, Madehand will make more than 4sbs, on average, because he gets to put additional money in the pot with an equity advantage. Even before we see the turn, Madehand can increase his EV by 1/3 of a sb simply by betting and forcing DrawingHand to correctly call.

I'm probably wasting my breath but the point here is that not only do you make money preflop by putting in money when you're ahead, you continue to make more money postflop. You say you gave a formula to calculate the value of the preflop raise, but your formula is fatally flawed because it assumes you lose money postflop if you're ahead but that you gain money postflop if you're drawing. And of course the opposite is true.

[nightlyraver]

You are correct SeaEagle. This is not my opinion, or David Sklansky's for that matter, it is mathematical fact (Sklansky just pointed it out in his books). Beginners should not listen to the dribble posted above about not raising with the hand that will win most often. You should always raise with these hands unless you are trying something trickey to either 1) limit the field thus making your edge higher; 2) give up a small amount of equity now in exchange for larger equity later (like waiting for the turn to raise w/ a monster hand). In many cases you should also raise with a hand that does NOT have the best chance of winning, but for a different yet related reason.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
"Making less" is the definiton of losing money. What kind argument is this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, then. How about I give you the choice of sending me $50 or $25. If you only send me $25, I must be losing money. I admit I suck at money managment but, even though it'd cost me money, could you send me the $25?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example simply proves my point. Let me recap. You are trying to show that your current EV from me is 0, and that it is silly to claim that your EV is 50 simply because I could send you 50. You use this to show that me sending you 25 would be a gain for you, not a loss.

But this is exactly my point! To understand this, we have to figure what the obviously-he-isn't-going-to-do-this-so-I-can't-call-that-zero event is in our argument. Is 0 EV the one where he calls correctly, or the one where he folds incorrectly? Should we expect him to take a profitable bet when he has it?

Of course, we know that he will call. It's absurd to say that 0 EV is the situation where he folds and we are gaining when he calls, just as it is absurd to say that YOUR 0 EV is when I send you $50 and you lose if I only send $25. The expectation is that I will send you nothing, and that he will call. You can't possibly gain when he calls, just as you can't possibly lose when I send you money.


[ QUOTE ]
Using my madehand vs. drawinghand example: At the time of the flop with a 6sb pot, Madehand's EV for the hand was 4sb and Drawinghand's EV was 2sbs. If this hand plays out, Madehand will make more than 4sbs, on average, because he gets to put additional money in the pot with an equity advantage. Even before we see the turn, Madehand can increase his EV by 1/3 of a sb simply by betting and forcing DrawingHand to correctly call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example uses a false EV for the made hand on the flop. It assumes that he chooses an inferior line of play, which is to simply check it down. All you've proven is that betting is better than checking.

Here is, fundamentally, the source of your confusion. You understand, correctly, that the best hand makes money ON EACH BET that goes into the pot. This is true. What you are missing is that, in this case, your preflop raise has caused you to risk THE WHOLE POT. If you had not raised, you bet and they fold (or call and you make even more). Since you raised, they can call and take the whole enchilada away from you. You are not just risking that 1 bet. You are risking the 1 bet + the pot you could have won if hadn't raised.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm probably wasting my breath but the point here is that not only do you make money preflop by putting in money when you're ahead, you continue to make more money postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are only wasting your breath if your messages are not preceeded by serious consideration to the possibility that you are wrong. I can honestly say that I have thought about what you have written, considered that I may be wrong, and decided I am not. Can you say the same?

Good luck.
Eric

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is, fundamentally, the source of your confusion. You understand, correctly, that the best hand makes money ON EACH BET that goes into the pot. This is true. What you are missing is that, in this case, your preflop raise has caused you to risk THE WHOLE POT.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is boring. Simply stated: I would rather have 75% equity in a 4bet pot than win a 2bet pot. Furthermore, I would especially like to have 75% equity in a 4bet pot where there's 3 more rounds of betting.

Passing up a positive EV bet preflop to effectively reduce your chance of making more positive EV bets postflop is seldom correct.

Suppose I'm on the button and it gets folded to me and I have AA. I'll have about a 85% equity edge over the individual hands in the blinds. If I raise and get a single caller, there will be 5+ bets in the pot after my inevitable flop bet and villian will have odds to call with virtually any hand that has a piece of the flop.

Are you suggesting I don't want this situation and that I would be better off limping PF so that there's only 3+ bets in the pot and villian should either fold to my flop bet or make a mistake calling?

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
First, we should not be too concerned about the extra raise substantially affecting our ability to protect our hand on the flop in most situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is EXACTLY what we should be concerned about. It is the crux of the whole debate!

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose the biggest concern is that we flop TPTK from the BB and one of the limpers flops a flush or str8 draw. However, neither of these hands will or should fold for 1 bet on the flop weather or not you raised preflop (5.5SB w/o raise 10.5SB w/ a raise still gives proper odds).

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing you are ignoring is the difference in EV between these calls. When a flush draw calls in a small pot, he's making money, but not NEARLY as much as he's making when he calls in a large pot. Where does the extra postflop profit come from? We'll address this in a minute.

[ QUOTE ]
It has already been proven that even though drawing hands receive proper odds to call, you still make money when they do.

[/ QUOTE ]

So EVERYBODY makes money after the flop? What a wonderful game! This simple statement shows how absured it is to talk of TPTK making money after the flop when the draws call correctly. If you want to call all the money already in the pot dead, you can talk this way. Your description is quite deceptive though in that it makes it seem you want them to call, that you should be glad they call because you continue to profit. This is silly. The whole point is that having them call is BAD, and raising puts players in position to call when they otherwise could not have.

[ QUOTE ]
Adding the extra 5 bets now only provides the WEAK draws with good odds to call... When they draw out, they are making money off of each other... and not you unless you insist on a showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aha! A new argument! While there is some truth to this, your portrayal is quite flawed. In the case of being up against, say, a gutshot and a flush draw, some of the profit for the draws comes at the other draws expense, but only the fairly small percentage of the time that both draws come in. The vast majority of the profit comes from the currently best hand. You make it sound like they are costing each other and giving it to you, which is false.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, when you do raise you still can protect your hand against a large field w/ carefull flop play. Generally, players with weak draws will check/call and players with strong draws will bet if checked to (as they should) and perhaps raise if they are in LP (as they also should). That said, against a field of players who will bet draws you can protect your hand by checking TPTK from the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a great point, and suggests a strategy for playing your hands from the big blind, ie, do a lot of check-raising even if you are the pfr. Certainly, you can mitigate some of your postflop disadvantage by playing this way. In fact, in a generally aggressive game, other players may jump in and help you out too. This suggests that raising preflop is more correct in an aggressive game than a passive one.

Still, your play has some risks. Perhaps it gets checked through, for example. If you raise preflop, you need help from other players to knock out those weak draws / cut down the EV on good draws that you don't need if you don't raise.

[ QUOTE ]
...If you check and an early player bets, do not raise it if most call. By doing this you get to see if the turn is safe and then bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh. I'm not sure your strategy suggestions here are best. In fact, I'm pretty sure they're NOT best, but you make some interesting arguments. I'll think about it some more.


So at this point, I'd say that if the game is aggressive, raising AK preflop is more solidified in my mind as the correct play. Check-raising TPTK and having other players raise for you both mitigate your postflop disadvantage enough that your preflop edge probably outweighs.

In a very passive game, the kind perhaps found live at low limits, checking preflop still feels pretty close to me.

Good luck.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
This is boring. Simply stated: I would rather have 75% equity in a 4bet pot than win a 2bet pot. Furthermore, I would especially like to have 75% equity in a 4bet pot where there's 3 more rounds of betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously correct. Raising preflop is clearly better the times you hit the flop. This doesn't prove the point though, as raising is clearly worse the times you do not hit the flop (much more common).

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I'm on the button and it gets folded to me and I have AA.... Are you suggesting I don't want this situation and that I would be better off limping PF so that there's only 3+ bets in the pot and villian should either fold to my flop bet or make a mistake calling?

[/ QUOTE ]

With AA, you know you are going to "hit the flop", so raising preflop is obviously best. You have no such assurance with AK.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
With AA, you know you are going to "hit the flop", so raising preflop is obviously best. You have no such assurance with AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the concept of postflop being +EV for draws (which is what we've been discussing) assumes that hero is ahead and has an equity edge.

I've never expressed an opinion on AK reraising PF. I've only been addressing your assumption that was baked into your formula that hero lost money postflop when he hit and gained money postflop when he missed but had a draw.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
So EVERYBODY makes money after the flop? What a wonderful game!

[/ QUOTE ]
Very possible. It's just some hands would prefer to pay a minimal amount to see future cards and some would prefer to see a maximum amount of betting on the current round.

[ QUOTE ]
This simple statement shows how absured it is to talk of TPTK making money after the flop when the draws call correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many times TPTK is making money on bets going in on the current round, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to call all the money already in the pot dead, you can talk this way.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand. There is no other way to look at the money already in the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Your description is quite deceptive though in that it makes it seem you want them to call, that you should be glad they call because you continue to profit. This is silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree...obviously we want anyone who should call to fold.

[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound like they are costing each other and giving it to you, which is false.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously sometimes they are costing themselves and benefitting you and stronger draws. So this isn't always false. But certainly with a smaller pot when they call it benefits you more. As I said earlier this should be the whole premise of your argument considering the level of play were talking about. Do you benefit more from what you gain postflop by people calling incorrectly (because they don't fold any piece) than you do preflop? It's not so much a matter of whether they can call or shouldn't call. We all know they always call. So if the difference in the size of their mistakes is greater than the amount you gain preflop then you have an argument. With AK I really doubt if it's true. With AQ it's probably close. With AJ/KQ I don't ever raise the offsuits multiway in the blinds. But this is next to impossible to calculate. That's why I said you'd have to have a substantial sample of both raised and unraised and compare BB/hand numbers from basically the same player in very similar games. Also, Just because they can now sometimes call profitably doesn't mean you're still better off raising preflop. If there calls are just barely profitable then you gain more preflop then you lose when they call marginally.

I'm really not disagreeing with you Eric. I understand your point completely. But you're asking for math proving/disproving this and this math has so many factors in so many different situations that no one can really complete it accurately. It really has to be a sample and I'm sure as hell not going to be the one to not raise AK from the blinds the next XXXXX times I get it.

[Stefan_K]

how can you not rais. slowplaying is stupid

[jjacky]

i have read the discission between you and seaeagle and came to the conclusion that you missunderstood each other.

this was probably caused by your thinking in terms of what is if you hit the flop / not hit the flop instead of pot equity edge / disadvantage, what is more common (not necessarrily better, of course).


here is my criticism.

1) the chance to hit the flop ist almost 1/3, not 1/4.
2) you overestimate the value of a weak draw (like a gutshot or a small pair). the pot will contain 11 - 14 bets in the flop, making it 15 if you bet when you hit. there is a decent chance that someone will bet before you or check/raise what would cut the odds to aproximately 10:1 what would make a gutshot worthless. i think the value increasement of a gutshot due to a PF raise is more like 0.3 SB.
3) even if your assumptions would be correct, the value would be 7/11 SB, not 7/11 BB.

[jjacky]

i think we have very different definitions of "making money".

when i use the term "make money" (and i think that is the case for the majority of the forum) i mean that i make a play that provides a higher EV than my pot equity would suggest.
that means if i have 90% pot equity and my opponent has 10% and i bet 1$ in a 100$ pot, he would certainly call. i have an EV of 90.80$ and he 9.20$. if i had not bet, i would have an EV of 90$ and my opponent 10$. that means to me, that my bet made me 0.80$ profit.

after reading your posts i have the impression that you would see the example this way: i am ahead in a 100$ pot and he calls my bet with an EV of 9.20$. that means he makes 9.20$ and i lose 9.20$. frankly, i don't think this point of view makes much sense normaly.

[dark_horse]

[ QUOTE ]
how can you not rais. slowplaying is stupid

[/ QUOTE ]

best post so far.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
i think we have very different definitions of "making money".

when i use the term "make money" (and i think that is the case for the majority of the forum) i mean that i make a play that provides a higher EV than my pot equity would suggest.
that means if i have 90% pot equity and my opponent has 10% and i bet 1$ in a 100$ pot, he would certainly call. i have an EV of 90.80$ and he 9.20$. if i had not bet, i would have an EV of 90$ and my opponent 10$. that means to me, that my bet made me 0.80$ profit.

after reading your posts i have the impression that you would see the example this way: i am ahead in a 100$ pot and he calls my bet with an EV of 9.20$. that means he makes 9.20$ and i lose 9.20$. frankly, i don't think this point of view makes much sense normaly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi jjacky,

You are right that on some level, there is a semantic disagreement. If this were all there was to it, I wouldn't bother.

You are also right that thinking in terms of the profitability of each bet that goes in the pot is a very valuable tool, one that can be used in a general way to decide whether you should be betting and raising or checking and calling (or folding). Usually it's good enough to think about each street individually like this, and choosing the highest EV choice is generally the best choice.

Sometimes though, things are not so simple. If you think of making money in these terms, you must be consistent throughout the hand. It's easy to confuse yourself, for example:

"We make money preflop because we have an equity edge. Raising is more profitable than calling. We make money postflop with every draw that calls. If we make the pot big, now even weak draws call and we make EVEN MORE on each bet we put in. Therefore, raising pf is better than calling."

Simple logic, seems sound, and it would suggest that raising is far and away better than calling. It can't possibly be close. In fact, looking at this, you could only conclude that raising with AQ must be very good, and AJ a little behind that, and AT and KQ...

My definition is much more attuned to the concept that if one player is making money, somebody else is losing it. The way to tackle this problem is to imagine that the player who is in the lead "owns" the pot and all the money in it, but he must pay out the EV of all the draws out against him. This works from anyones viewpoint (you could give the pot to the gutshot and have him payout TPTK's 43 out draw), but it makes most sense to view the world from the standpoint of the current leader.

Now with this view, we can begin to see the downside of creating a big pot. True, the pot is bigger, but all the draws out against have become much more profitable. We have to pay them a lot more money to buy them off.

See again my original formula, edited somewhat to include the terminology above. Hopefully it'll be clearer this time:


EV raising: (prob hit TPTK) * (bigger pot size - amount paid out to draws) - (prob we miss) * (cost of raise - amount paid back to us for our overcard draw)


To me, this seems like a pretty reasonable way to think about the hand, as I can imagine quantifying these things and in fact have already started trying. Cost of a raise is known, extra amount in pot is known, probability we hit the flop is basically known, given some assumptions about the limping standards of the players, and speculating about the overall value of a draw in a given sized pot is something you can guess at, although it will take some math to figure out the number of draws that will be out against you on the average flop you hit (and the value of your overcards on the average flop). This single term will be somewhat tricky, but it's just a mathematical exercise to plugin standard limping ranges, figure out how often they flop various draws, and put estimates on the value (or, for some bad players, the NEGATIVE value) of the various draws that can be made. Complicated, but very doable.

I don't see how you would begin a formulaic breakdown of the EV of raising using the "everybody makes money on every street" definition, and nobody has made any effort to show me one. They just use hand waving arguments that "you make money here, you make money there... raise!" and think the case is closed. I think it's still quite open to debate.

Now, it would take some work to really figure out this equation, and the values for the draws will change depending on the limping standards of the players and how well they play postflop (the old "it depends" argument). Still, putting in some work to nail down these numbers is worthwhile, because this formula essentially applies to ANY HAND. You could use the same method to figure exactly what hands to raise from the big blind with various assumption about your opponents. Would that have any value to anyone?

Good luck.
Eric

[jjacky]

good post. i agree in most points.

if someone uses my way to look at the term "make money" and someone else yours, they should come to the exact same conclusion, if they don't make any mistakes. the problem is, that if someone makes a mistake it is more difficult to compare the thought processes, what makes it more difficult to find the mistake.

with my definition, it is theoretically pretty easy to determine the best play:
if
money made on all strees with a PF raise > money made on all streets with a PF call
raising is correct.

with yours, it is a bit more complicated (basically the formula you have given) and it depends on who you chose is the person that loses money per definition on later streets (you have chosen the person with the best hand).

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how you would begin a formulaic breakdown of the EV of raising using the "everybody makes money on every street" definition, and nobody has made any effort to show me one. They just use hand waving arguments that "you make money here, you make money there... raise!" and think the case is closed. I think it's still quite open to debate.


[/ QUOTE ]

nobody uses this definition. have a look what i have wrote in my first reply: the guy with a weak draw loses money while the big hand makes money. that is consistent with common sense btw. if you put money in the pot with a good hand you gain and the opposition loses, if you put money in with a bad hand, the opponent gains and you lose.


i made a criticism consistent with your definition yesterday. maybe you want to have a look at that one and comment it.

[Erik W]

I always raise AJ,QK too.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
if someone uses my way to look at the term "make money" and someone else yours, they should come to the exact same conclusion, if they don't make any mistakes. the problem is, that if someone makes a mistake it is more difficult to compare the thought processes, what makes it more difficult to find the mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, and this is exactly the problem. No one has done the math correctly with that definition of making money. They mix definitions, saying that TPTK makes money on each bet, while the draws make money because they have odds to call (mixing making money / bet with making money counting dead money in pot).

[ QUOTE ]
with my definition, it is theoretically pretty easy to determine the best play:
if
money made on all strees with a PF raise > money made on all streets with a PF call
raising is correct.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is the general form of the formula. Quantifying these terms though is very difficult. I've given the steps for doing so with my definition. Can you explain how you are going to quantify "money made on the turn with a raise"? I think that when you consider the complexity of determining the best action (bet / 3-bet, check-fold, check-call unless it's 2 cold back to you, etc), combined with the added complexity that you are combining cases where you hit the flop and cases where you miss the flop into 1 term, you will find this to be VERY hard to figure out.

In my case, you can just look at averages. When you flop a 2-flush in this game, what is your typical net profit? You can do this with a SQL query in a large pokertracker database.

[ QUOTE ]
with yours, it is a bit more complicated (basically the formula you have given) and it depends on who you chose is the person that loses money per definition on later streets (you have chosen the person with the best hand).

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is this complicated?

[ QUOTE ]
nobody uses this definition (that everybody makes money postflop)

[/ QUOTE ]

read the responses again. There is huge confusion over this point.

[ QUOTE ]
have a look what i have wrote in my first reply: the guy with a weak draw loses money while the big hand makes money.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a fine definition, and if applied consistently with the strategy you laid out above, it would yield the right answer. No one has pulled off this feat yet, and I think it's because the definition confuses them.

[ QUOTE ]
that is consistent with common sense btw. if you put money in the pot with a good hand you gain and the opposition loses, if you put money in with a bad hand, the opponent gains and you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be, but the fundamental theorem is written more the way I view the world (at least, the way I view the world in the context of this discussion). When your opponents play correctly, you lose.


[ QUOTE ]
i made a criticism consistent with your definition yesterday. maybe you want to have a look at that one and comment it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did look at it and essentially agree with what you wrote. You gave arguments why some of the terms in the equation should favor raising more than I initially suggested. You didn't bother to plug these back in to the formula though and left the most important terms, ie, the EV sucked out of the pot by various draws, unanswered. As such, it's hard to know whether your arguments are enough to show that raising is correct. I didn't bother responding because it seems no one understands the math enough / is interested enough to continue with this line of thought. If you'd like to begin a discussion of the EV and probability of various draws, I'd be happy to continue, and do think it would be quite worthwhile. Personally, this whole discussion has me really tuned into hand protection. My poker recently has been particularly sharp, I think, and continuing to quantify the value of these draws can only help.

-Eric

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
"We make money preflop because we have an equity edge. Raising is more profitable than calling. We make money postflop with every draw that calls. If we make the pot big, now even weak draws call and we make EVEN MORE on each bet we put in. Therefore, raising pf is better than calling."

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. This is good. Hopefully we agree that this is true in most cases.

[ QUOTE ]
Simple logic, seems sound, and it would suggest that raising is far and away better than calling. It can't possibly be close. In fact, looking at this, you could only conclude that raising with AQ must be very good, and AJ a little behind that, and AT and KQ...

[/ QUOTE ]
Hopefully we agree that this is true as well. If you define true equity as that chance that you will win the pot, then all you have to do is figure out when the true equity is high enough that a raise makes you money and bet/raise. Of course true equity isn't completely quantifiable. From the sb, it's likely that by the time you get to about ATs, AJo, KQs, and, say 99, you no longer have sufficient equity to raise. And of course this changes from table to table and hand to hand.

[ QUOTE ]
My definition is much more attuned to the concept that if one player is making money, somebody else is losing it. The way to tackle this problem is to imagine that the player who is in the lead "owns" the pot and all the money in it, but he must pay out the EV of all the draws out against him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, this is where I lose you. I don't understand how saying one person owns all the money has anything to do with the concept of a zero sum game. In fact, if one person owns the entire pot, he can only lose from that point forward, which makes all calculations impossible. The fact is that as long as everyone isn't drawing dead, nobody owns the pot; everybody has some share of it.

I don't have a H&C tool handy right now, but I'd guess that with 4 people in preflop, AK has about 35% H&C equity - and his true equity is less than that from the blinds because of his position. If you assume that he has 100% of the equity then, in reality, no matter what he does he's instantly going to give back 65% of the pot to everyone else. The pot would have to be darn small for a bet to be correct if you were giving back 2/3 of the pot with it. In fact, with this theory the better your hand, the less value in a bet. You would never raise HU w/ AA because you'd be giving up 85% of the pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Now with this view, we can begin to see the downside of creating a big pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I have to agree. If you throw out the concept of equity (and the associated concept of pot odds) and just say that the guy in the lead has all the chips, then the guy in the lead isn't going to want to build a big pot.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
They mix definitions, saying that TPTK makes money on each bet, while the draws make money because they have odds to call (mixing making money / bet with making money counting dead money in pot).


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think you'll see anywhere where I say this. Poker is a zero sum game - whenever someone makes money, someone else loses it.

[ QUOTE ]
This may be, but the fundamental theorem is written more the way I view the world (at least, the way I view the world in the context of this discussion). When your opponents play correctly, you lose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ahh. Now we're on to something. Unfortunately, the FTOP deals with the theory of perfect play and can't be interpreted literally to fit with every situation. In the very first example after Sklansky states the theorem, he says something like this:

"If you are drawing dead and you still bet into your opponent and he just calls, you don't lose, you win! If your opponent knew you were drawing dead he would have raised."
Of course this is only true in a theoretical, FTOP sense. If you always bet when behind and your opponent always just called, you'd be broke in no time. The fact is that in many, many poker situations there is a choice that loses (or gains) you the least, and a choice that loses (or gains) you the most.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"We make money preflop because we have an equity edge. Raising is more profitable than calling. We make money postflop with every draw that calls. If we make the pot big, now even weak draws call and we make EVEN MORE on each bet we put in. Therefore, raising pf is better than calling."

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok. This is good. Hopefully we agree that this is true in most cases.


[/ QUOTE ]

lol. no. When I said "It's easy to confuse yourself, for example:" and then wrote the above, I was not-so-subtly suggesting that I think this logic is flawed. In fact, the statement above is totally wrong. If raising causes more draws to be played profitably, than your postflop bets are significantly less profitable, not more, when compared to the same bet in an unraised pot.

The fact that you have now defended this statement though really makes my day, as I couldn't have proven my point any better. Your way of looking at profit is tricky to apply, and leads to confusion.

I'll try one final time to explain, this time in your own terms. You want to calculate profit by looking at the amount of money gained by betting compared to checking, right? Well, when you bet in the small pot and the gutshot folds, your profit is 9% OF THE POT vs checking and giving him a free draw. When you bet in the big pot and he calls, you have made 9% of ONE SMALL BET versus checking and giving him the free card. The small pot with 4 limpers is still over 5 times bigger than 1 small bet, so your bet in the small pot is over 5 times more profitable than the same bet in a big one by your definition. Raising may have gained you money preflop, but it made your flop bet much less lucrative. Is it worth the trade? That's the question.

I can't believe how much energy I've spent just trying to clear up what we should be discussing. It took so long, we probably will never get to the actual discussion! Oh well.

Eric

[dark_horse]

This would be a perfect spot for Mr. Miller or Mr. Sklansky to chime in.

[jrbick]

[ QUOTE ]
This would be a perfect spot for Mr. Miller or Mr. Sklansky to chime in.

[/ QUOTE ]

People have already posted almost exactly what either Mr. Miller or Mister Sklansky would say. Still wondering why this is even a discussion, but I'm all for good discussion so carry on. I just wanted to point out to you that several people here have shown you VERY good reasoning (mathematical as well as implied theory) for raising AKo from the blinds 100% of the time. In fact, you would cap this sucker in EVERY situation, it's that valuable over the long run.

Post flop play w/ AK or any OC's that are raised PF is really where you would have to be careful so as to not create leaks in your game (i.e. spewing).

You don't limp because you minimize your winnings. If you want to do that, it's fine. Sure, for the big game against expert players, it is probably OK to mix it up SOME of the time, but we're posting here in SS so I doubt that the majority of us are mixin' it up in the 4k/8k.

Hope I don't come accross as a jerk, just wanted to point out the obvious and to remind everyone that we have a wealth of good teaching in here. Nothing intrinsically wrong w/ requesting the two head-haunchos or hearing from them (of course).

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
"We make money preflop because we have an equity edge. Raising is more profitable than calling. We make money postflop with every draw that calls. If we make the pot big, now even weak draws call and we make EVEN MORE on each bet we put in. Therefore, raising pf is better than calling."

[/ QUOTE ]
As a starting point, I would ask to tell me specifically which part of the previous statement is incorrect.

I would also ask you to address my comments in my last post regarding the fallacy of having the lead hand "own the whole pot". I think if you can answer those two questions, I'll have a much better understanding where you're coming from.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, when you bet in the small pot and the gutshot folds, your profit is 9% OF THE POT vs checking and giving him a free draw. When you bet in the big pot and he calls, you have made 9% of ONE SMALL BET versus checking and giving him the free card. The small pot with 4 limpers is still over 5 times bigger than 1 small bet, so your bet in the small pot is over 5 times more profitable than the same bet in a big one by your definition

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm hoping you just mistyped the above. You are correct than when the gutshot folds, he's giving up 9% (actually more like 12%) of the pot. However, when he calls your small bet, he's giving up 88% of his bet, not 9%.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the bet in a small pot being 5 times as valuable as a bet in the big pot. The EV you gain from a bet/call is the same regardless of the pot size. The pot size is only useful in figuring which is better, a call or a fold.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising may have gained you money preflop, but it made your flop bet much less lucrative. Is it worth the trade? That's the question.


[/ QUOTE ]
See this is the main problem with your analysis. You insist on believing that you lose money to draw when you are leading after the flop. Find some authors who talk about "tying people to the pot" or "making people pay to draw out on you". Specifically you might look at situations where authors recommend raising a medium/small pocket pair with the idea of tying people to the pot if you make a set.

Quite frankly, I'm done with this conversation anyway. If you insist on believing that making a bigger pot when you have an equity edge is bad, or that draws are somehow making money by calling postflop bets, then fine. All I can say it's a major, major leak in your game.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
If raising causes more draws to be played profitably, than your postflop bets are significantly less profitable, not more, when compared to the same bet in an unraised pot.


[/ QUOTE ]
Eric,

I'm sorry but this is just not necessarily true for reasons SeaEagle is pointing out. If draws call with say exactly their fair share of equity because of the preflop raise than you don't really care because you're not losing any money and you did still gain whatever your equity edge preflop was. Also, some draws will still call incorrectly where they may have just folded if the pot were smaller and in this case you'll gain more. Conversely, if you don't raise preflop and these draws now make incorrect calls postflop than you do gain. You seem to be ignoring this now for whatever reason but with all due respect Seaeagle seems to have a pretty good understanding of this. You're just assuming that you're now losing money postflop just because the pot is bigger and while I'm not disagreeing that a smaller pot postflop in general is an advantage to the better player(s) just assuming that you're now losing money postflop is simply not correct. It will be more often than with a smaller pot. But it won't always be. I think that's Seaeagle's point.

Also, with your example...if someone with 9% pot equity folds postflop you don't gain 9% equity most times. This is only true if all of the other remaining players are drawing dead or if it was HU. You only gain you're remaining pot equity after he folds * whatever his share of the pot was. And the same goes for Seaeagles respone...that is you don't gain 88% of his bet when he calls. That's only true if it's HU or if all other opponents are drawing dead.

I think this is a good conversation but as I've said already the reason no one is doing any numbers is it's just not possible without simulations or large databases to compare. It's really impossible to estimate with any accuracy what pot equities are on average for any flop, many opponents, and wide hand ranges. There are just too many possibilities to do by hand. So I'm not sure what good discussing the math would do. I would be interested though in what Ed or others have used in their preflop suggestions for an estimated edge for when you should raise and when you should not from various positions because as I said I'm not disagreeing with you that you are giving up some postflop EV by raising preflop...especially against very loose and poor playing opponents. It's just not as black&white as you're making it out to be.

Matt

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
And the same goes for Seaeagles respone...that is you don't gain 88% of his bet when he calls.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just a nit, but you'll notice I worded my response to say villain is giving up 88%, which is true. I specifically avoided saying hero gains 88%.

[chief444]

Nice catch. My apologies.

[elindauer]

1. I made a mistake. SeaEagle is correct that the bet in the big pot wins, not 9%, but 82% of the SB (91% equity for 1 card), and that is bigger than 9% of the pot.

2. SeaEagle, chief, there is no "fallacy" of giving the pot to the lead hand and having him pay out the other draws. You want to see the EV of the three players as fractions of the pot, A, B and C. I'm simply saying that A = (A+B+C) - B - C. When I say that you can give the pot to anyone, I'm simply stating in words that B = (A+B+C) - A - C, which is obviously true. As to the idea that if A owns the pot, he can't make any more money and this makes the math impossible, you either don't understand what I'm saying or are assuming that B cannot be negative, such as when a player draws incorrectly. The tactics of betting instead of checking simply changes the correct assignments of the fraction of the pot the leader must pay out to the various draws out against him. So if A bets correctly with the lead, then B and C are smaller, while A is bigger.




I have much more to say, but I'm starting a new thread on the topic, as we are hardly even discussing AK any more, and really discussing how profit is fundamentally calculated. This is all I felt needed to be said in this thread.

-Eric

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
I have much more to say, but I'm starting a new thread on the topic, as we are hardly even discussing AK any more, and really discussing how profit is fundamentally calculated. This is all I felt needed to be said in this thread.

-Eric

[/ QUOTE ]

I am genuinely very eager to read this thread. I don't always follow each point you make in various threads but I do always seek them out.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
2. SeaEagle, chief, there is no "fallacy" of giving the pot to the lead hand and having him pay out the other draws. You want to see the EV of the three players as fractions of the pot, A, B and C. I'm simply saying that A = (A+B+C) - B - C. When I say that you can give the pot to anyone, I'm simply stating in words that B = (A+B+C) - A - C, which is obviously true. As to the idea that if A owns the pot, he can't make any more money and this makes the math impossible, you either don't understand what I'm saying or are assuming that B cannot be negative, such as when a player draws incorrectly. The tactics of betting instead of checking simply changes the correct assignments of the fraction of the pot the leader must pay out to the various draws out against him. So if A bets correctly with the lead, then B and C are smaller, while A is bigger.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not disagreeing at all with the method you're using to look at it. It should lead to the same exact conclusion as just looking at it from a pure pot equity point of view. And like I said before I also agree that you're giving up some postflop since loose opponents play more correctly in a larger pot. I just don't think it's possible to calculate this accurately without simulations or hand samples. I'll be interested in reading the new thread. Thanks for the comments Eric.

Edit...also I meant to add that it sounded like you were assuming B couldn't be negative but thanks for clarifying. I did misunderstand that part of your post(s).