Raising low pp PF for value

[thesharpie]

I think I should've raised the first time around for value, but I didn't and I got a chance to reraise so I did against 6-7 opponents. VP$IPs are about 3 mid 20s, 1 lower 30s, 1 mid 70s, SB a rock and PFRer a 50/18 LAG. I guess the only thing I have to worry about is the LAG capping, but I don't think he does often, he's not the frisky type.

Cryptologic 2.00/4.00 Hold'em <font color="#0000FF">(10 handed)</font> link (http://www.darksun.lunarpages.com/poker/)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB calls, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>

[Eeegah]

You're going to flop a set 1/8 of the time and there are 5 opponents in the first time it comes around to you. Even if we don't factor in the rake and assume both blinds call I don't think we can bet this for value unless you think you may see showdown and win with U/I 55 often enough to compensate.

[Fadook]

You've got five people in front of you and you want to raise with a pair of 5s for value? Pocket pairs, particularly small ones like these, don't play well in mlti-way pots.

[lufbradolly]

small pockets pairs do play well in multi way pots like these because you either hit a set or some sort of one card straight draw or you fold simple.

[p@t@dds]

Low pocket pairs are good in multi-way pots only IF, and I stress IF, you can see the flop cheaply. I.E. one or two bets max. You will only flop a set roughly 15% of the time. Then if you miss your set, you have to dodge 8 overcards. Raising for value with pocket 5's is a really bad move and will cost you a lot of money in the long run if you continue to do it. The only time I would recommend raising with pocket 5's is in late position with no limpers and you want to win the blinds or keep it heads up. Hope this helps. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Fadook]

Maybe, but there's not enough equity to raise pf. If you're going to automatically fold to a bet if you don't hit your set, why raise with this hand?

[aK13]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but there's not enough equity to raise pf. If you're going to automatically fold to a bet if you don't hit your set, why raise with this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

7.5:1 to hit a set. We have 8 players in the pot. Already, that's enough equity to raise since we expect to win if we hit our set. Slap on gigantic implied odds when we hit a full house vs. trips/straight/flush since these will chase in a pot this big when they are virtually drawing dead, and this is a very very easy value raise.

We don't always fold the flop. Sometimes we flop a straight draw, and if not, we frequently have odds to draw to out set in this gigantic pot.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
You've got five people in front of you and you want to raise with a pair of 5s for value? Pocket pairs, particularly small ones like these, don't play well in mlti-way pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pocket pairs are awesome and extremely easy to play in multiway pots.

[jrz1972]

That said, I don't like this raise either. Even if both blinds come along (admittedly likely), you're only getting you're not even breaking even since you won't flop a set 1 time in 7.

Moreover, people forget that sets occasionally get cracked; a set is not as strong a hand as the nut flush. Granted, its very strong, but I would guess you'll lose about 20% of the time you flop your set. (I think my W$SD with a set is only something like 65%, but that doesn't include the times you improve to a boat, but even then my W$SD is under 90%). The interesting thing is that by raising preflop, you actually increase the likelihood of having your set cracked since you bloat the pot and tie all sorts of gutshots and backdoor flush draws to the hand.

All things considered, I'm pretty sure this is -EV. I know these sorts of raises are popular among the 22/12 crowd, but they don't seem to be supported by the math.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but there's not enough equity to raise pf. If you're going to automatically fold to a bet if you don't hit your set, why raise with this hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

7.5:1 to hit a set. We have 8 players in the pot. Already, that's enough equity to raise since we expect to win if we hit our set. Slap on gigantic implied odds when we hit a full house vs. trips/straight/flush since these will chase in a pot this big when they are virtually drawing dead, and this is a very very easy value raise.

We don't always fold the flop. Sometimes we flop a straight draw, and if not, we frequently have odds to draw to out set in this gigantic pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. (nit) You only have 7 players in the pot if both blinds come along, not 8. So you don't have the equity you need for your raise to be +EV.

2. Implied odds are irrelevant if you're considering a value raise. They matter when you're thinking about calling a bet, not when you're the one doing the betting. By raising PF, Hero cut his implied odds in half.

[Taxmanrick]

Don't like the raise. To me you are raising to knock players out here and I thought small pp like lots of opponents and cheap flop. BTW always hated the call/raise!

[davelin]

Does someone want to calculate how often you'll get a free card for the turn to make this raise worthwhile.

[benkath1]

I think, on the button, I like the raise....on the first time around. BB raising oop concerns me, but u say he is a lag. I might have just called his raise. I can't imagine getting a free turn, with a lag raising preflop, but you will have odds to continue, and who knows:

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP2 calls, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, BB calls.

Flop: (10.50 SB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

Turn: (7.75 BB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, UTG+2 folds, MP2 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, UTG folds, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

River: (17.75 BB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls, MP2 folds.

Final Pot: 19.75 BB

[theghost]

[ QUOTE ]
I think, on the button, I like the raise....on the first time around. BB raising oop concerns me, but u say he is a lag. I might have just called his raise. I can't imagine getting a free turn, with a lag raising preflop, but you will have odds to continue, and who knows:

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP2 calls, Hero calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, BB calls.

Flop: (10.50 SB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

Turn: (7.75 BB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG calls, UTG+2 folds, MP2 calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">BB 3-bets</font>, UTG folds, MP2 calls, Hero calls.

River: (17.75 BB) T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls, MP2 folds.

Final Pot: 19.75 BB

[/ QUOTE ]

What's up with this flop call?

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
By raising PF, Hero cut his implied odds in half.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think this is a good point. Hero may not get the same action on a flopped set if his raise puts everyone back on their heels.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think this is a good point. Hero may not get the same action on a flopped set if his raise puts everyone back on their heels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, the pot will be larger so people will chase with almost any draw.

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
What's up with this flop call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, definitely fold the flop here.

[imported_The Vibesman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think this is a good point. Hero may not get the same action on a flopped set if his raise puts everyone back on their heels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, the pot will be larger so people will chase with almost any draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but many top pair hands won't raise, being afraid of overpairs or better kickers. Pot will probably be checked to you more often, making it harder to trap multiple players with raises.

hm.
2 outs for a set, 1 out for the 1-gapped-backdoor-straight-draw, 1.5 for the (weak) backdoor flush draw = 4.5. Make it 4 for the hand being quite weak and you can call wenn you get 10.5:1. Although it's a very close decision.

Regards,
G.

[benkath1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's up with this flop call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, definitely fold the flop here.

[/ QUOTE ]

getting 14.5:1? really? implied odds not even close?

You're probably right. It was more of a situational call than anything else. Best 2/4 table I've seen in 6500 hands. Doesn't hurt that I was rushing like a MFer. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's up with this flop call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, definitely fold the flop here.

[/ QUOTE ]

getting 14.5:1? really? implied odds not even close?

You're probably right. It was more of a situational call than anything else. Best 2/4 table I've seen in 6500 hands. Doesn't hurt that I was rushing like a MFer. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
On the flop, you have 14.5:1 odds, needing 21.5:1. You would need to make up 7 SB. I think it's an easy call. You have perfect position if the flop bettor bets out again and you hit your set. You'll have made up those bets by the time his turn bet gets to you.

[afk]

I usually like to have the pot a liiiitle bit bigger before making this flop call... but what's up with not capping the turn?

[Fadook]

When I said "don't play well", I really meant "unlikely to win" in a multi-way pot. That's correct, right?

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
2 outs for a set, 1 out for the 1-gapped-backdoor-straight-draw, 1.5 for the (weak) backdoor flush draw = 4.5. Make it 4 for the hand being quite weak and you can call wenn you get 10.5:1. Although it's a very close decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

No friggin way you can count the 2-high flush draw for 1.5 outs. The only real advantage of having the 2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif here is that if a 2 does come it won't make a flush. I'll be generous and give you .1 out. And I wouldn't count the bottom end of a 1 card 2-gapped straight draw for much either. Maybe another .1. So I'll give you 2.2 outs. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[numeri]

[ QUOTE ]
When I said "don't play well", I really meant "unlikely to win" in a multi-way pot. That's correct, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
How often it wins is unimportant. How much we win when we do win is much more so.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
7.5:1 to hit a set. We have 8 players in the pot. Already, that's enough equity to raise since we expect to win if we hit our set. Slap on gigantic implied odds when we hit a full house vs. trips/straight/flush since these will chase in a pot this big when they are virtually drawing dead, and this is a very very easy value raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're 7.5:1 to hit a set, but the rule of thumb is 10:1 to have a winning set by the river. These odds will likely go down with this many players in the pot too. We don't have 1/8th equity here, so this raise would need to be for more than just value.

edit: And implied odds don't really factor in here, since we're looking at pot equity, not pot odds. Just like how we don't care how big the pot is when we raise a flopped flush draw for value, we don't care how big the pot will be when we raise this for value. We're only concerned with the bets going in on this street and our equity share of those bets on this street. Our share of the bets going in on later streets will be dependent on future independent equity calculations.

[benkath1]

[ QUOTE ]
I usually like to have the pot a liiiitle bit bigger before making this flop call... but what's up with not capping the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. I pussed out thinking he could have a larger set. I kick kitten when he shows 94 at SD.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I should've raised the first time around for value, but I didn't and I got a chance to reraise so I did against 6-7 opponents. VP$IPs are about 3 mid 20s, 1 lower 30s, 1 mid 70s, SB a rock and PFRer a 50/18 LAG. I guess the only thing I have to worry about is the LAG capping, but I don't think he does often, he's not the frisky type.

Cryptologic 2.00/4.00 Hold'em <font color="#0000FF">(10 handed)</font> link (http://www.darksun.lunarpages.com/poker/)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, <font color="#666666">1 folds</font>, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls, SB calls, <font color="#CC3333">BB raises</font>, UTG+1 calls, UTG+2 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>

[/ QUOTE ]

well, we all agree the 3-bet is obvious, right?

now for the first pf raise opportunity. so, 5 people in already and the BB is a LAG - lets call it just 6 opponents. so, you are getting 6:1 immediate value on your 7.3:1 shot. and if SB calles 1.5 SB (he might - is he a rock in the blinds? most people aren't) maybe we have 7. i think it is good enough to raise pf since sometimes you'll even get a free card on the flop and see the turn...if this happens always (not that i'm saying it does), you're odds of flopping or turning a set are 5.25:1 and the pf raise is easy.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
well, we all agree the 3-bet is obvious, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't - would you be able to voice your opinions on my earlier post?

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
7.5:1 to hit a set. We have 8 players in the pot. Already, that's enough equity to raise since we expect to win if we hit our set. Slap on gigantic implied odds when we hit a full house vs. trips/straight/flush since these will chase in a pot this big when they are virtually drawing dead, and this is a very very easy value raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

We're 7.5:1 to hit a set, but the rule of thumb is 10:1 to have a winning set by the river. These odds will likely go down with this many players in the pot too. We don't have 1/8th equity here, so this raise would need to be for more than just value.

[/ QUOTE ]

hey-

this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

however, i didn't mention this before, but the presence of the lag in the hand should make OP more confident that he can make up additional bets postflop so i think we're ok with being short on immediate odds (using 10:1)

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
however, i didn't mention this before, but the presence of the lag in the hand should make OP more confident that he can make up additional bets postflop so i think we're ok with being short on immediate odds (using 10:1)

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, see my edit about this. This should've been a new post. I actually think it should be a new thread since it's come up a couple times for me recently; I might try to start one later on, but I'm interested about how you feel it applies to this hand.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is debatable, because we'll see the same fraction of bigger pairs and overcards (to our 33) in a raised or unraised pot. But regardless, this is a raised pot.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that this is debatable, because we'll see the same fraction of bigger pairs and overcards (to our 33) in a raised or unraised pot. But regardless, this is a raised pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok. yeah. i know. realized i should have been more specific. when the action comes to us the first time, we are (i was) talking about an unraised pot. here, i tend to think less about needing 10:1 (since the pot is unraised) -- this is probably wrong on my part, however, i think it is an acceptable simplification since we have other advantagees in the hand such as ultimate position and might get a free card...etc. so i think an initial raise is good on the button against 6 likely opponents, one of whom is a lag.

anyway,ok, so now specifically about the pf 3-bet.

in our favor:

7 opponents (giving us a lot of immediate value in a raise)
a LAG (giving us more confidence we can make up the bets postflop that we are short now)

against us:

poor poor poor relative position to the LAG. he might cap pf, and everyone could fold (or at least some of them could fold - and that will drastically reduce the value of our raise).

so i am rethinking whether a limp-reraise is great here.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
this may be way off base -- but usually i assume a set is good enough to win 100% of the time in an unraised pot. when i'm thinking about raised pots, i start thinking about being up against stronger hands and needing 10:1 instead of 7:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

My PT stats show that an unimproved 3 of a kind wins 68% of the time for me, but this includes trips and trips on board. They also improve fairly often: they boat up 20% of the time and improve to quads 6.7% of the time (mathematically speaking--they never do that for me /images/graemlins/mad.gif ) so I think it's reasonable to say we have somewhere between 70-90% equity (in a nightmare monotone-flop scenario we have 58% equity vs 4 random opponents). Even so, this is enough to make it even more difficult to raise a low PP like 55 for value, since we're folding on the flop if we don't make our set.

Edit: Even with a 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/club.gif board Hero only has 82% equity vs 4 opponents holding any two.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
but this includes trips and trips on board.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know what you are saying, but it's just not even in the same ballpark.

it's like asking how often AA holds up UI and including the times that AA is on the board.

having a set (pair in hand, one on board) is much more profitable than having trips (one in hand, pair on board).

you know this...i'm just venting.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
having a set (pair in hand, one on board) is much more profitable than having trips (one in hand, pair on board).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, but for equity considerations they're nearly equal (about 7% difference in the uncoordinated flop scenario above even with a 2 kicker, and even slightly more equity if we held A5s on a 59K rainbow). It's the implied odds that make a set more profitable, since no one's going to suspect you hold 55 until it's way too late /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

The point being, sure when we flop a set we'll always have enough equity to value jam the living crap out of the pot, but until we flop that set we can't, again presuming 55 is folding U/I on the flop.

And you know this as well, I'm just venting.

[bozlax]

[ QUOTE ]
...sometimes you'll even get a free card on the flop and see the turn...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you raise the first time around and everybody calls (14SB), and you don't hit your set but the flop is low-raggy (say, J73r) and it's checked to you, don't you bet, and try to take your freebie on the turn if needed?

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...sometimes you'll even get a free card on the flop and see the turn...

[/ QUOTE ]

If you raise the first time around and everybody calls (14SB), and you don't hit your set but the flop is low-raggy (say, J73r) and it's checked to you, don't you bet, and try to take your freebie on the turn if needed?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have my doubts as to whether or not a free card play would work often enough against 5 opponents to make the extra 4.5% chance to river a set we gain worthwhile, particularly after factoring in the (admittedly small) chance that we could be checkraised. Not saying that it's absolutely not worth it, but I have my doubts. If someone wants to quantify this go right ahead, but I'm heading out right now /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[Redd]

I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

Let's say we flop quads, and you and the LAG cap it 7-handed on every street. Does that make our pfr any more profitable? It certainly makes our flop, turn, and river caps more profitable but we already account for that in the (trivial) equity calculations for the postflop streets. If we counted this profit into our pfr equity, would we not be double-counting the profit?

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

Let's say we flop quads, and you and the LAG cap it 7-handed on every street. Does that make our pfr any more profitable? It certainly makes our flop, turn, and river caps more profitable but we already account for that in the (trivial) equity calculations for the postflop streets. If we counted this profit into our pfr equity, would we not be double-counting the profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising vs. multiple opponents pre-flop with a pocket pair increases your implied odds if you hit a set because people are more likely to give you action in a large pot. With a small pot, you're less likely to get action when you do hit a set (or better).

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to slow down somewhat on a paired board, just like if it's monotone. If we flop a set, we might be able to cap the flop and even the turn before someone realizes that yeah we can beat top pair (or top two). When the flop is paired and we be jammin' an otherwise uncoordinated flop, we often can't go as far before folks start giving us credit for trips and slow down. Make sense?

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to slow down somewhat on a paired board, just like if it's monotone. If we flop a set, we might be able to cap the flop and even the turn before someone realizes that yeah we can beat top pair (or top two). When the flop is paired and we be jammin' an otherwise uncoordinated flop, we often can't go as far before folks start giving us credit for trips and slow down. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to slow down somewhat on a paired board, just like if it's monotone. If we flop a set, we might be able to cap the flop and even the turn before someone realizes that yeah we can beat top pair (or top two). When the flop is paired and we be jammin' an otherwise uncoordinated flop, we often can't go as far before folks start giving us credit for trips and slow down. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[/ QUOTE ]

55 does have a hot/cold equity edge against 6 random hands. so, i guess we could try to put them on ranges and be more precise about it (since neither we or them are going to the river necessarily) add to this that we have the potential to flop a set, the potential to get a free card, and absolute position i think we raise.

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you've built up a big pot pre-flop vs. 5+ opponents, your scenario of 7 players going to the river is much more likely to occur.

Your implied odds increase with the size of the pot.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I see what you're saying, and you're right. As I understand it, betting for value applies to any round but the one you're currently on, due to the change in equity as the board is dealt and because it's limit and they can only call for as much as you're betting right now.

[ QUOTE ]
55 does have a hot/cold equity edge against 6 random hands. so, i guess we could try to put them on ranges and be more precise about it (since neither we or them are going to the river necessarily) add to this that we have the potential to flop a set, the potential to get a free card, and absolute position i think we raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have an edge, but equity assumes that we're going to showdown here, improved or not. Since we're almost certainly folding if we don't improve and are bet into, I think it's more appropriate to use the 12.5% chance that we hit our set, which is behind six random hands.

[magates]

55 vs. 6 opponents:

This is obviously a simplified estimate, and you can manipulate the size of the pot you win however you want, but I don't think these are unrealistic at all, in fact, the second is rather conservative.

These assume you fold on the flop UI, and win if you hit a set or better.

Call Pre-flop vs. 6:
8(-0.5)+1(9)=5BB

Raise Pre-flop vs. 6:
8(-1)+1(14)=6BB

The size of the pot you win only has to increase by 4BB to make raising pre-flop breakeven relative to calling. Just by raising pre-flop vs. 6 opponents you increase the size of the pot by 3BB. The increased action you get post-flop in a pot that's twice as large should be more than enough to make up the difference.

[Eeegah]

A couple points.

1) I don't necessarily agree that loose passives (and if there's 7 callers here that's quite frankly what this table is full of) are going to give us more action in a large multiway pot than otherwise. If this were true, the concept of raising for a free card would be counterproductive. Folks like to check to the preflop raiser; that doesn't generate action. Furthermore, if someone early likes the flop after you've raised he's likely to checkraise you, driving out our action instead of increasing it.

2) Suppose you are right, our bloating the pot increases action, and we might be able to pick up an extra 4BB by raising. The question is, how do we know that it worked? How do we distinguish between action generated because people like their hand (and if it's 6 to the flop, the odds are pretty good that someone will) and action generated because people like big pots and they cannot lie, and like to see them bigger? Or for that matter, pseudo-action from people calling because that's what they always do, Jack High or no? I don't see how we can differentiate one way or another, so this profitability may be placebo.

3) Saying we're a lock if we hit a set is a pretty big overestimate. Even with a flop like 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif our equity is only 75% vs 6 people playing any two, and any sort of connectedness (2-straight or 2-flush) drops us to 70%. If the flop is monotone, we're winning just over half the time. Additionally, unless they're completely daft they'll have at least some range of hands that they play, decreasing our odds further: about 70% vs 6 people who play the usual ultra-loose range on an ideal flop. Thus we'll need to generate at least 1/[.70*.125]=11.5SB rather than 8SB for this to be profitable, more if it's a coordinated flop (which admittedly we could get from draws, but they'd give us action anyway). The decreased implied odds from possibly folding out the blinds with our raise alone may be enough to make this -EV, but I dunno.

4) If all this does work, why do we not do this with other speculative hands? Would you raise here with A2s? What about 65s?

SSHE mentions briefly that raising preflop actually decreases our postflop expectation, and while its featured reason doesn't apply here* it says there are a number of them which it doesn't elucidate on. I admit a lot of my misgivings about the issue is based on just a gut feeling, but something does smell odd about this.

* SSHE's main example was that if we raise we'll tie ourself to the pot by bloating it, but since we're folding the flop U/I this isn't an issue for us.

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple points.

1) I don't necessarily agree that loose passives (and if there's 7 callers here that's quite frankly what this table is full of) are going to give us more action in a large multiway pot than otherwise. If this were true, the concept of raising for a free card would be counterproductive. Folks like to check to the preflop raiser; that doesn't generate action. Furthermore, if someone early likes the flop after you've raised he's likely to checkraise you, driving out our action instead of increasing it.

2) Suppose you are right, our bloating the pot increases action, and we might be able to pick up an extra 4BB by raising. The question is, how do we know that it worked? How do we distinguish between action generated because people like their hand (and if it's 6 to the flop, the odds are pretty good that someone will) and action generated because people like big pots and they cannot lie, and like to see them bigger? Or for that matter, pseudo-action from people calling because that's what they always do, Jack High or no? I don't see how we can differentiate one way or another, so this profitability may be placebo.

3) Saying we're a lock if we hit a set is a pretty big overestimate. Even with a flop like 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif our equity is only 75% vs 6 people playing any two, and any sort of connectedness (2-straight or 2-flush) drops us to 70%. If the flop is monotone, we're winning just over half the time. Additionally, unless they're completely daft they'll have at least some range of hands that they play, decreasing our odds further: about 70% vs 6 people who play the usual ultra-loose range on an ideal flop. Thus we'll need to generate at least 1/[.70*.125]=11.5SB rather than 8SB for this to be profitable, more if it's a coordinated flop (which admittedly we could get from draws, but they'd give us action anyway). The decreased implied odds from possibly folding out the blinds with our raise alone may be enough to make this -EV, but I dunno.

4) If all this does work, why do we not do this with other speculative hands? Would you raise here with A2s? What about 65s?

SSHE mentions briefly that raising preflop actually decreases our postflop expectation, and while its featured reason doesn't apply here* it says there are a number of them which it doesn't elucidate on. I admit a lot of my misgivings about the issue is based on just a gut feeling, but something does smell odd about this.

* SSHE's main example was that if we raise we'll tie ourself to the pot by bloating it, but since we're folding the flop U/I this isn't an issue for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface my response by saying that I'm far from qualified to even be participating in this discussion, but since I did . . . /images/graemlins/blush.gif

I never said we were a lock if we hit a set, but we could lose with the set whether we raised pre-flop or not, so I assumed adding the chance wouldn't make much of a difference. I just did a simple calculation to illustrate a point, however . . .

Including an estimated chance to lose when you hit a set does change the results significantly.

I'll just use a 65% chance to win if you hit a set on the flop, and again, this is by no means an accurate measurement of the play's EV.

8(-0.5)+.65(9)+.35(-3.5) = 0.625BB
8(-1)+.65(15)+.35(-3.5) = 0.525BB

We'd need to win about 6.5BB more after a pre-flop raise with 6 callers to make it profitable. 3BBs come pre-flop, so we'd need to make up 3.5BB+ post-flop. Still quite possible, as the large pot is giving people odds to chase weak draws, but it's also probably pretty marginal.

As for raising with something like 65s, it's a stronger hand vs. 6 30%vpip players than 55 is. It probably is +ev to raise medium suited connectors vs. a large enough field.

[Aaron W.]

Wow... there's so much stuff going on with this thread... Rather than making 4-5 different posts, I'm going to consolidate them into one post.

Re: Eeegah
[ QUOTE ]
4) If all this does work, why do we not do this with other speculative hands? Would you raise here with A2s? What about 65s?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're looking at two different types of speculative hands. 55 flops a made hand or (essentially) nothing, A2s and 65s flop draws. 55 also flops a hand which is rarely outdrawn, which is not true of A2s (flopping top pair) or 65s (when you catch two pair on the turn, you're often at risk to a counterfeit redraw -- and sometimes your turn flush is beat with the 4th suited card falls on the river).

Re: Magates
[ QUOTE ]
Raising vs. multiple opponents pre-flop with a pocket pair increases your implied odds if you hit a set because people are more likely to give you action in a large pot. With a small pot, you're less likely to get action when you do hit a set (or better).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. If the game is aggressive, then your implied odds go up in a big pot (players more willing to gamble with weaker hands, more hand "protection" raises). If the game is generally passive, then -- in this case -- no. You need to consider your relative position to the other players in order to make an accurate assessment. In this case, you've got an aggressor with lots of players acting between you. You want the aggressor to bet the flop when you hit your set so that you can raise him and trap everybody. A preflop 3-bet here would decrease the chances of trapping everyone for two bets on the flop, and you run the risk of getting check-raised by LAG, shutting out even more players and driving your implied odds down more.

If the game is very passive, you get more "action" by just getting more callers and chasers. People (correctly) chase more hands in a big pot than in a small pot. Sometimes a preflop raise will make the pot big enough that almost everyone will see the turn for one bet (as opposed to losing half of them with a flop bet). Sometimes this carries over with a couple extra callers on the turn.

Re: Redd
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

Let's say we flop quads, and you and the LAG cap it 7-handed on every street. Does that make our pfr any more profitable? It certainly makes our flop, turn, and river caps more profitable but we already account for that in the (trivial) equity calculations for the postflop streets. If we counted this profit into our pfr equity, would we not be double-counting the profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

This play is more about implied odds than it is about pot equity and pot odds. ( Preflop play is NOT about "pot odds". (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Board=&amp;Number=495010&amp;page=&amp;v iew=&amp;sb=5&amp;o=&amp;fpart=) )

I don't know why everyone thinks more "action" means bets and raises all over the place. More action may just be more callers. You usually *decrease* your implied odds with this raise (How often do you double the number of postflop bets you pick up by raising preflop?). However, a decrease in implied odds does not necessarily equate to losing money.

Let's make up a concrete example: You see a flop 8-handed for one bet. When you hit your set on the flop, you can make 5 BB postflop. When you miss your set, you give up on the flop. In 8 tries, you lose 1 SB 7 times and win 17 SB (= 7 SB preflop + 5 BB postflop) once. Your implied odds are are 1.25:1 and calling here is very easily profitable. (EV = 1.25 SB/hand, initial investment = 1 SB)

What about if you raised it? It's reasonable to assume you get a little more action, so let's say you can make 8 BB postflop when you hit your set. (3 BB extra = two extra calls on the flop, one extra player seeing the showdown, assuming nobody bets or raises except for you. This is a conservative estimate.) For simplicity, you still fold on the flop when you miss (although you'll often have odds to continue). In 8 tries, you now lose 2 SB 7 times and win 30 SB once. Your implied odds are 1:1, which is worse than before. (EV = 2 SB/hand, initial investment = 2 SB)

But 2 SB/hand is better than 1.25 SB/hand. Of course, this is idealized with concrete numbers used to make exact computations which you could never do in a real game. The main factor here is that the combination of extra preflop bets (7 SB extra) plus the extra postflop bets (3 BB = 6 SB extra) combine to give you something better than your odds of flopping your hand (7:1 to flop a set, 13:1 extra bet ratio).

Re: thesharpie

I don't like the raise in this spot. I want LAG to auto-bet this flop for me so that I can raise him if I hit my hand on the flop. I'd love to trap players in for bets after I hit my set, rather than trap them before. I don't hate the play, but I'd rather save it for when I've limped in early position and LAG raises a bunch of other limpers from late position.

[Eeegah]

Well, let's do some research. If this "bets beget bets" theory is true, there should be fewer mid-size pot sizes than small or large ones, because as the pot grows people are going to want to either chase more or build it up more by raising. If we make a histogram of pot sizes, the frequency should be somewhat parabolic.

I took my 30k hands from Stars .50/1 and below, adjusted them for rake and levels, and here's the result:

http://ethelthefrog.net/sa/pot-sizes.png

The hump is at 7BB or so, which makes sense, for if every street is bet/called heads up there will be between 6 and 6.75BB in the pot depending on if the blinds are involved postflop.

The point is, the result I'd expect from big-pot aggression doesn't seem to be present here: there's a big initial peak where hands are folded by the flop, peaks again for hands that were bet/called to showdown, then drops steeply thereafter. I'm welcome to other interperetations.