Barron's Article.

[BeerMoney]

Barron ended up paying 6 big bets for a gut shot. I believe he will go broke if he plays 1 million hands this way.

His effective odds just aren't there.

[BarronVangorToth]

When you put it that way....

But is that the whole story?

I'll admit that this is VERY different from how I'll play out most hands ... but it was a VERY unusual situation, one that I think will come up often enough for those of us who log the hands that I do.

There were 12.75 big bets in pre-flop.

On the flop, folding for the two small bets is an error, as is folding when it comes back to me for two more small bets.

The turn is a VERY thin line of action, but the odds were still there, in my view, and they are elaborated extensively in the middle of the article.

The pot ended up as almost FORTY FIVE big bets -- that is an INSANE pot.

So it isn't as simple as calling six bets with a gutshot, is it...?

But, as to your main point, you cannot go "broke" playing like this, as these situations, while they will come up, are NOT that commonplace, even if it is "wrong" (which I don't believe it is).

I think it was Ed Miller who wrote about what mistakes will cost you what, and even if you assume this line was a "mistake," if it even came up once a month, it would be costing you 6 big bets once a month... But it's not even losing the 6 bb once a month, it's just a FRACTION of that, as even if you don't believe the line right, it's VERY close to right if you want to argue another side...

...admittedly a side that I won't agree with.

Much like you don't lose much by folding every time you have a royal flush (as his example was, if memory serves).

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[BeerMoney]

Barron, thanks for responding. After I made my post, I regretted the tone that I used. I've responded to your last two articles, and I think that's because I like your writing style over all. You are clear and precise .. sort of Ed Milleresque.

Its interesting that all of the calls were border line and those are the hands that separate the experts from people like myself.

Anyway, it was a heck of a hand, and quite an expensive gutshot. I'm sure the guy with the set of aces was happy you stuck around!

[BarronVangorToth]

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback (good or bad, it's all better than none at all).

I do believe their is some razor-thin profit to be made when you have knowledge of your opponents AND you can calculate your implied pot odds accordingly.

Even beyond that aforementioned razor-thin line there is more to be gained as well, which you sort of implied: when you play at the middle stakes online (say, $30-$60 and beyond) the quantity of your opponents is minimal so people oftentimes get to know each other very well. Likewise if you regularly play at your local B&M room.

The advertising you gain from something as simple as "he called 6 bets for a gutshot" can be HUGE, especially if people know you (and, from that, it makes it sound terrible, without hearing the situation or the monstrous pot involved).

Which can then, in many situations, let you get paid off even more.

FAR be it that I'm 100% convinced I played that (or every) hand correctly, but I believe it is ... and I'm always trying to constantly cycle through the math and lessons we all are trying to learn from the real experts: guys like David, Mason, Ed, and the rest of the 2+2 authors.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[StellarWind]

I liked your article and while several of your decisions are close, all of them seem reasonable. Nice hand.

[ QUOTE ]
I had a gutshot draw. Player No. 1 bet, the first cold-caller raised, two of the other three folded, one called, and it was to me. If I hadn't raised pre-flop, the original raiser could not have capped. There would just be 6.75 big bets on the flop, which would make facing these raises and reraises unprofitable on a gutshot, especially considering the reverse implied odds of someone back-dooring a flush or full house, not to mention there was a chance Player No. 3 held the same hand as I.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This pot wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't raised king-queen suited, which built the pot to a size where I could play a draw, whereas I wouldn't have had the odds otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are dancing very close to trouble here. You don't actually come out and say the wrong thing but I suspect many readers are leaping to a bad conclusion.

When you see the AJ6r flop with no backdoor and it is two bets to you, are you happy with your preflop reraise or do you want a mulligan? In other words, if you knew then what you know now, would you still reraise?

This isn't a practical question of course but it is still useful because of the way many players think about preflop play. As you observe, the preflop reraise is what makes it possible to continue playing this flop. Without it you would need to fold due to insufficient odds to draw.

Based upon that many players might conclude that the preflop reraise was successful. But it wasn't. The flop reraise was probably a +EV gamble but you lost. If someone gave you the option of taking back the preflop reraise and folding this flop you should happily accept.

That's not allowed of course, so you'll just have to make due with reality. The pot is huge and worth chasing. But it's just a salvage operation at this point. Most of your preflop investment is lost and the current value of your hand on this flop is less than 1 SB.

I think the reraise with KQs is an OK play because it probably gains when all the possible outcomes are considered. But let there be no doubt that getting capped and catching this flop is a very bad outcome. Proper analysis of preflop actions is impossible if we fail to classify results properly.

[BarronVangorToth]

Are you asking if I could go back in time, knowing the flop, and fold pre-flop, would I...?

Obviously, yes. But since that money is, as you point out, lost, you do what you have to do and figure out whether it is worth abandoning ship or trying to make your hand.

The main point was that the raise pre-flop is what distinguishes this hand, as, if we were to take a poll (and I haven't, so this is purely hypothetical) I imagine that a notable percentage (whether a minority or majority, I don't know, but it would be a decent amount of people) would call in this spot ... and that's where knowing the lessons backwards and forwards comes in handy, as hands like this illustrate.

Sure, it's high variance, sure, the flop was horrendous, but we really can't be results-oriented, as it's about the long term, as long as we're playing within our means*, and making the correct EV plays.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

*I know someone is jumping out thinking that "within our means" shouldn't be an issue with making EV plays, but this is assuming an unlimited bankroll, and, I don't know about you, but I'll make $100 bets every day of the week on a 50.01 vs. 49.99 gamble, but ask me to make $1,000,000 bets on the same odds, and I'm out of the there.

Just a question based on the theory of this situation.
Baron, according to your article, you are building the pot preflop just to get the odds you need to play post flop. So, if the situation came about where the fellow under the gun raised ($20) and then the pot got reraised ($30) and reraised again ($40) and there were 2 cold-callers all in front of you. Pot is ($185) or 9.25 Big Bets to you. It will most likely get to 12.75 Big Bets before the flop assuming you, the fellow under the gun, and the first reraiser all call.

I am fully a no limit player, so maybe I am completely wrong here, but are you saying that this is also correct call simply because you will be getting great odds after the flop? Here, you are getting 6.375:1 preflop with KQs. In limit is that enough to play KQs anytime? Would it not be better to play 67s to make sure that if you hit your straight you are not likely to be against a set who could draw to a full house?

Best Regards,

MG
NL Player

[StellarWind]

It is virtually never correct to call more than 3+ bets cold with KQs.

When it is four bets to you the borderline hands are usually QQ, JJ, and AK. Since you know it will be six-handed you might expand that slightly.

[ QUOTE ]
In limit is that enough to play KQs anytime? Would it not be better to play 67s to make sure that if you hit your straight you are not likely to be against a set who could draw to a full house?

[/ QUOTE ]
This illustrates a common misconception. At limit, the primary purpose of playing hands such as KQs and Axs it to flop top pair. There are not enough straights and flushes in the world to justify calling the blind much less paying multiple bets preflop. Flush and straight potential is an important source of extra chances that may be important to making a hand profitable, but most of your wins still come from flopping a pair and nursing it home.

In the giant pot described in the article a flop of Q86 is very profitable for KQs even though Villain sometimes has AA-QQ. You may already have the best hand and often you will hit your hand again and improve to a probable winner. Maybe you will lose more often than you win but that's OK because you are not at risk of losing your entire stack. You just payoff the rockets and move on to the next hand. The big wins more than make up for the losers.

76s is a trash hand because it lacks this big card potential. It's usually playable for at most one bet and even then it requires pretty favorable circumstances.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
It is virtually never correct to call more than 3+ bets cold with KQs.


[/ QUOTE ]

You disagree, then, with the tables laid out by Ed Miller in "Small Stakes Hold 'em," p. 83.

Do you disagree with other holdings in the list, or just that one?

Why? Why not?

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
You disagree, then, with the tables laid out by Ed Miller in "Small Stakes Hold 'em," p. 83.

Do you disagree with other holdings in the list, or just that one?

Why? Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

It really does say that, doesn't it?

[He says play TT+, AJs+, AKo, KQs for three bets in late position provided that at least four players are already in the pot. Ed has stated in these forums that some of the preflop advice in the book tables is slightly nonoptimal because he wanted to keep it reasonably simple.]

My comments: I would usually not play AJs or KQs in this situation. I think I would rather have 99 or AQo but I probably wouldn't play them either.

In a bizarre situation with six or seven opponents already in I might loosen up. It also depends on the raising standards of my opponents and how terribly they all play postflop. I think Ed is used to live players who play more terribly than anything I've ever seen online. So perhaps I am suffering from a failure of imagination.

If I thought the inital raise promised TT+ or AQ+ as you described I would play much tighter. That's a very dangerous situation.

[BarronVangorToth]

That page IS describing a loose table with that many players USUALLY in on the flop. In the live $5-$10 - $20-$40 games, I think it more often than not fits that definition of "loose" rather than "tight."

Plus, in the hand, I did meet the criteria that I quoted out of the gate:

"In loose games in late position, if at least four people have entered the pot in front of you, against a raise, typically reraise KQ suited." — Small Stakes Hold 'em, p. 83

Agreed, though, this situation is more true of a live game at these stakes than an online one.

Maybe when I'm 50 and I've seriously played for another pair of decades I'll have a more personal bag of tricks, for now, I'm looking at some of these "textbook" applications that turn into very decision-oriented hands.

Fortunately, we have the best textbooks going, as Mason, David, Ed, and the rest of the 2+2 gang haven't let me down thusfar...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[snoopdarr]

I gotta say I loooved the way you played the hand. Got some real gambol in ya. And of course mathmatically it was (barely) correct. From a literary point of view, the story would have been a better lesson if our hero didn't make the hand in the end. Then again, I never cared for happy endings...

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I gotta say I loooved the way you played the hand. Got some real gambol in ya. And of course mathmatically it was (barely) correct.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm glad you enjoyed it.

Imagine making 1000 "barely correct" decisions that each add a little to your profit. Then 10,000.

It's all about +EV'ness. Even if ... on the edge. (okay, that was forced)

Let me know what you think about the next On the Edge installment coming up in just a few weeks...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[phish]

I thought your example illustrated a point opposite of the one you made. I thought it showed the error of raising pre-flop with a dominated hand because it can trap you for so many more bets post-flop.
Yes, building the pot pre-flop will cause people to chase when you hit a good flop, but the bad players would've chased anyways and you want them to chase with worse odds.
One of the greatest advantage a good player has is that he can outplay his opponents after the flop. But by making the pot so big, the bad and good players will now be playing pretty similarly.
You happened to have gotten lucky in the hand, but in most cases, I think you would've preferred to have not raised pre-flop so that you don't feel obliged to chase a gut-shot for 2 bets cold on the turn.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you would've preferred to have not raised pre-flop so that you don't feel obliged to chase a gut-shot for 2 bets cold on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]


If we want to be results-oriented as to what the flop was and knowing my competition, I would rather fold pre-flop.

In this situation, though, the key to the hand is the barrage of cold-callers. I don't care if I have a weaker hand than my opponent pre-flop IF there is enough dead money in the pot and if I believe I'll make better decisions then them after the flop -- especially easy when I have position.

With the hand being a live game at these stakes, remember, the competition is softer than the similar stakes online. Regardless if the original raiser has solid standards, while that would make my decision different if it was folded to me, I believed (and still do) that you raise this pre-flop every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

It's all about making the +EV plays. Even given the read on the early competition, that's what this is.

PLUS, something people always forget when you put a range of hands on an opponent, they might sometimes deviate from that range ... for whatever reason. Not always - but that has to factor in, at least to a degree.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
This pot wouldn't have been possible if I hadn't raised king-queen suited, which built the pot to a size where I could play a draw, whereas I wouldn't have had the odds otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to point out that this is a very bad way to think about it. Raising so that you have odds to draw later is not correct. Raising when you know you're dominated by all but one of the raiser's hands is not correct.

[BarronVangorToth]

I raised because I believed (and still do) that raising in that spot is correct.

Because I did, it gave me the odds to draw correctly -- whereas if I hadn't've, I wouldn't've....

How do you believe that is not correct?

Worrying that one player might "dominate" me when the action is what it is, the money in the pot is what it is, my position is what it is, and my knowing I can lay down post-flop as I do, doing differently (or, THINKING differently) is almost bordering on being weak-tight... Perhaps still profitable, but not +EV to what it should be.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
I raised because I believed (and still do) that raising in that spot is correct.

Because I did, it gave me the odds to draw correctly -- whereas if I hadn't've, I wouldn't've....

How do you believe that is not correct?

Worrying that one player might "dominate" me when the action is what it is, the money in the pot is what it is, my position is what it is, and my knowing I can lay down post-flop as I do, doing differently (or, THINKING differently) is almost bordering on being weak-tight... Perhaps still profitable, but not +EV to what it should be.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[/ QUOTE ]

You stated yourself that the PF raiser's hand range was AA-TT, AK, and AQs. Yes the hand is profitable to play in this spot, but not for a reraise. Putting in four bets preflop with a hand that is dominated by almost all of the PFR's holdings is not correct. You most likely have to catch a straight or flush to win this hand, and KQ suited just will not do this often enough.

I don't believe the statement I quoted was correct because you can't justify your reraise by saying that it gave you odds to draw later.

[BarronVangorToth]

Again: the key is the people in the middle and their card selection.

If it's me vs. Guy 1, that's another story.

If it's me vs. Guy 1 + a lot of others ... we have this story. I think I had just the right number of people to make this reraise correct; even one fewer people in the middle and then I'd 100% agree on the call rather than reraise.

As the cliche goes, it's a 7 card game, and even if one guy may have me dominated, I still rather get the extra bets out of the dead money in the middle.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
doing differently (or, THINKING differently) is almost bordering on being weak-tight

[/ QUOTE ]
This borders on an ad hominem argument. You want to call so you must be weak-tight. Whenever I see "weak-tight" used in poker analysis I cringe. It never adds anything to the logical force of an argument.

[ QUOTE ]
and my knowing I can lay down post-flop as I do

[/ QUOTE ]
This is actually a point in favor of just calling. The preflop 3-bet would be more beneficial if you were a compulsive chaser.

Clearly we want to play this hand. That means the basic pot and implied odds aren't really an issue because we are determined to see the flop somehow. 3-betting instead of calling affects your profit in two ways:

1. You are getting 5-1 odds on the extra preflop action. This needs to be compared with your chance of eventually winning the hand. In theory you are good here if you win more than 1/6 of the time, but of course an adjustment needs to be made for the times you are capped by a dominating hand.

This aspect of the preflop 3-bet clearly is more favorable to the chaser. He wins more than you do precisely because he cannot get away from his hand. He is more likely to meet the 1/6 standard for making the preflop reraise profitable.

2. You may change your postflop profits. Here the preflop 3-bet penalizes you in a way that does not affect a compulsive chaser. Consider what happened in the actual hand. You called multiple bets on the flop at 3-1 direct odds. You certainly don't have anywhere near a 1/4 chance to win so you lost money on every bet your opponents forced you to call. You didn't really have a choice because giving up your equity in this big pot is even more costly than accepting the bad odds on the flop bets.

Now consider what happens if you just call preflop. You're still getting 3-1 direct odds on flop bets where you don't have a 1/4 chance to win. The chaser will not be influenced by the smaller pot. He will call the flop action and lose just as much on these 3-1 flop bets as he did when he 3-bet preflop.

As a good player you have a better option. You don't have to suffer the full loss of calling bets at 3-1 odds. Your equity in the smaller pot is worth less than the loss involved in calling the flop bets (the popular pot/implied odds computation is a quick method for doing this comparison). Using your skill to fold allows you to save yourself some money.

By 3-betting preflop you lost the opportunity to save yourself some money by folding when the weak flop hit. Your skill in folding trouble hands postflop is a reason to just call preflop.

The compulsive chaser of course does not need to concern himself with this issue because he isn't going to fold anyway. 3-betting is not costing him any opportunity.

[BarronVangorToth]

Much as you cringe when you hear weak-tight, I do when I hear "chase" as a negative...

Repeat after me: chasing your hand isn't a bad thing IF you have the odds to do so.

AK isn't a "made hand" -- you need to hit the board (usually) in order to win.

And "made hands" like AA sometimes need to do likewise in order to win.

It's all about the odds and equity and texture and everything else ... and chasing isn't bad, in and of itself.

So, to "compulsively chase" -- close, if you add to it: "compulsively chase when it is correct to do so."

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[BeerMoney]

Stellar, do you think an advantage to calling would be letting the blinds in cheaper?

[kidcolin]

I think the real advantage to just calling is you aren't opening yourself up to a cap from a guy who only plays premiums up front.

Barron, I still see you dodge the initial cold caller when giving your dead money theory on your 3-bet. Your read on the table gives you the knowledge that two players likely each have hands in the AA-TT, AK-AQ range. With this knowledge, you're pretty much praying for two pair or a strong draw. You're on very shaky ground if you hit top pair with what is predominantly a top pair hand. That's never a good position.

I've still yet to see you give a solid argument for the 3-bet other than citing SSHE, and saying you only did it because of the weak cold callers. Forget about what happened post-flop. Against this lineup, two strong players with strong hands and 3-weak cold callers, what do you think the advantage of 3-betting is? What do you percieve to be the value in it? What might be the disadvantages?

Spell these things out. Put a little more weight into your arguments. Don't just say "I believe the 3-bet is +EV". Back it up a little more.

[BarronVangorToth]

1. I'd rather further punish the cold-callers for cold-calling by getting more money out of them, whether another SB from me OR via a BB if the 1st guy caps (which he did).

2. Control the hand - you have a different control when you three-bet and then call a cap vs. calling a raise. If people miss, even if one of the early ones has AK / AQ, I will have the worse hand, but I will get him to fold.

There is a common misconception among poker players when thinking about hands in terms of odds, which often justifies them calling from the BB with a meager holding because they know (from TV, oftentimes) that they are getting "the right price on their money."

While if you have 90 in tourney chips and the BB is 50 and someone raises to 90 you are getting the odds, it is an entirely different scenario in limit hold 'em when you have to call a bet on the flop, turn, and river "chasing" what may (or may not be) the best hand.

That's a whole other scenario that is leading towards that aforementioned point that I would rather control the tempo and give the impression of something else so that I get all sorts of opportunities to further make other moves on the hand.

Given the range of hands, it's about even money calling vs. three-betting and calling a cap ... but the latter affords me greater opportunities than the former, IF you're confident of being able to play post-flop correctly on wholly different boards and situations.

A 2+2'er at Foxwoods the other day was talking to me about these very threads and this very article and thought that part of it has to do with table image and gaining extra value from other plays - while that is a side benefit, I would say that even if I thought I would never play with these people again, I would've done the same thing I did.

Obviously: that's gravy, but that's not part of it, despite what some may think.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

Some decent points, and I like this reasoning much more than the articles, which was ripe with results oriented thinking. But I really don't like the following:


[ QUOTE ]
Control the hand - you have a different control when you three-bet and then call a cap vs. calling a raise. If people miss, even if one of the early ones has AK / AQ, I will have the worse hand, but I will get him to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. a lot of people are in the hand, so it's very unlikely the board misses anyone.
2. There's a strong chance that 1 or 2 players has big pairs.
3. Any board that hits you likely nailed the first two players hand ranges. You could be in trouble.
4. Even if it does miss both those early players (say AK and AQ and a raggedy flop), the pot is now huge, so they're probably seeing the turn. You'll have to invest multiple bets if you think you can push them off of a hand.. not to mention the 3 other weak players who are less likely to fold give the pot size.


[ QUOTE ]
That's a whole other scenario that is leading towards that aforementioned point that I would rather control the tempo and give the impression of something else so that I get all sorts of opportunities to further make other moves on the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This point seems marginal at best. I guess it depends on the 3 weak players. Even if you can represent something to knock out the two premium hands (which is a somewhat scary thought in a big pot, as I mentioned above), are you going to be able to push the weak players off a middle pair or top pair?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
1. a lot of people are in the hand, so it's very unlikely the board misses anyone.
2. There's a strong chance that 1 or 2 players has big pairs.
3. Any board that hits you likely nailed the first two players hand ranges. You could be in trouble.
4. Even if it does miss both those early players (say AK and AQ and a raggedy flop), the pot is now huge, so they're probably seeing the turn. You'll have to invest multiple bets if you think you can push them off of a hand.. not to mention the 3 other weak players who are less likely to fold give the pot size.


[/ QUOTE ]


1. I'm not pointing this out to be anally obnoxious about language / typos, but I'm assuming in point 1 you meant to write "everyone" and not "anyone" - as while it is unlikely to miss EVERYONE, there is still a chance that it will ... and that the people it does connect with won't connect well enough to call down three streets, seeing as how they saw me 3-bet pre-flop and for all they know I have a big pair. Remember: this isn't online, this is a live Foxwoods game, and while people will call the flop and sometimes the turn, my take of the land in this situation is that if one of them hit a mid-pair they wouldn't call through the river.

2. I don't agree, as it's always more likely for overcards rather than an overpair - even if the pre-flop cap would indicate otherwise; I didn't know about the cap UNTIL I 3-bet, which further let me know what type of hand he had ... if I had simply called the raise, the range would be FAR greater and my decisions far less focused on the variety of boards that could come.

Getting the information (via the cap) helps define his hand, and immediately lets me know that I will be in trouble with him - and will need to hit something hard.

3. I agree; but if I didn't 3-bet, I wouldn't know this, as I got the cap which indicated said strength. Folding is obviously out of the question pre-flop and 3-betting builds the pot, collects more dead money, allows me options, gives me a stronger hand in their minds then they might imagine, plus lets me see him cap. I know almost exactly what he has; he has no clue now what I have ... and all the people are throwing in even more dead money in the middle.

4. Playing live you can get a good sense of people and how they are looking at the hand ... oftentimes you'll be able to buy pots more often than you'd imagine at these particular limits where players aren't as sophisticated as their online counterparts at the same level and won't want to call down 2.5 Big Bets with some random bottom pair IF that is the situation at hand.

With the multiverse of flops that could come out ... the more I've thought about it, discussed it, and analyzed it, I think it's clear why the lesson is in SSH to begin with and why it was 100% applicable to this situation: it's the right move to 3 bet here.

Not only in this situation (results-oriented thinking ahoy!) but in the near infinite other scenarios that on can contrive. Sure, you'll sometimes lose, and you'll sometimes win, but it's the +EV move for the above reasons, the reasons I stated in my article, and others, when you think in those terms.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[MaxPower]

Barron,

You are right that you should 3-bet pre-flop due to your pot equity. Even if you are dominated by the raiser.

But the last sentence of your article is very misleading. It implies that the purpose of the pre-flop raise is to make the pot big enough for you to draw post-flop.

The real reason for the pre-flop raise is your pre-flop equity. The real benefit of increasing the pot size is that when you do flop a big hand, you increase the likelihood that your oppoents will chase you with a hand that is drawing dead.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

But the last sentence of your article is very misleading. It implies that the purpose of the pre-flop raise is to make the pot big enough for you to draw post-flop.


[/ QUOTE ]


Very true. In hindsight, I would clean this point up as I did not mean to have that as the implication, but rather as a side benefit of the correct course of action, specifically giving me the odds in this situation.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

That's the problem. Keep in mind, you aren't just worried about the original raiser. He also puts the first cold-caller on a premium hand. He is potentially dominated twice.

I can't find the post, but StellarWind posted some PokerStove simulation results based on hand ranges for the two strong players and the 3-weak cold callers. He was even pretty liberal with the ranges, and KQs had about break even equity, if that, if I recall correctly. There really isn't any preflop edge to push.

Even if there were some preflop edge to push, his article is still geared towards how 3-betting and getting capped gave him correct odds to draw to a gutshot post flop. He made, IMO, a preflop mistake (though not a large one) that resulted in favorable post-flop conditions to drawing. Nothing more, nothing less.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

There really isn't any preflop edge to push.


[/ QUOTE ]


If the mathematics work out equally, you are always best off raising as you give yourself the opportunity to make better hands fold.

This isn't NL where we are all going all-in and then let's see what wins ... this will have three streets of betting.

It's a big difference.



Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
If the mathematics work out equally, you are always best off raising as you give yourself the opportunity to make better hands fold.


[/ QUOTE ]

In heads up situation, I'd generally agree. In a 6-handed pot with two premium hands already involved? Don't kid yourself. You're not folding anything better on the flop.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

In heads up situation, I'd generally agree. In a 6-handed pot with two premium hands already involved? Don't kid yourself. You're not folding anything better on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


Not always, but sometimes.

Not to mention you add some disguise to your hand as people will potentially put you on other hands when you three bet.

There simply are too many reasons to 3-bet the more I've participated in this discussion and further thought about the hand so long after the fact (I initially wrote the article, I think, six or seven months ago).

Give me any situation where you believe it's even money pre-flop and it is without question the right move to push as hard as you can in position in limit poker. That extra bet gives opens up doors that the call simply does not.

It's not a matter of kidding myself ... it's knowing the reality of the situation in a live game like that.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[BillC]

[ QUOTE ]
*I know someone is jumping out thinking that "within our means" shouldn't be an issue with making EV plays, but this is assuming an unlimited bankroll, and, I don't know about you, but I'll make $100 bets every day of the week on a 50.01 vs. 49.99 gamble, but ask me to make $1,000,000 bets on the same odds, and I'm out of the there.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I surmise that your Bankroll is in the millions. That is, assuming typical risk profile.

BillC

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

So I surmise that your Bankroll is in the millions. That is, assuming typical risk profile.

BillC

[/ QUOTE ]


Inquiries about personal details ahoy!

Suffice it to say that I know the amount one should have to make certain bets and that I would be adequately covered to make the bet I talked about at those stakes.

That is neither here nor there, though....

The point is that while talking about EV plays is fine and dandy, there are some EV bets you should NOT take. I would not mind that play at $100 a shot ... but not at $1,000,000 - even though the odds are the same.

That is the point; hopefully it's straight-forward enough.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[BillC]

Barron,

I only wanted to point out that you can quantify how to factor in variance and bankroll. Otherwise what good does it do to say that just EV is not sufficient for decison-making? You have to quantify things.

I assumed a typical Kelly fraction to compute how big your bankroll must be to bet 100$ on a 5051:4949 shot. I mean, would you bet 500$ or 1000$?

The topic "Expectation isn't Everything", is discussed in my July Magazine article.

In particular, a close call on a longshot draw is might be best avoided, depending on the size of your bankroll.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

In particular, a close call on a longshot draw is might be best avoided, depending on the size of your bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a key reason why you shouldn't play at stakes beyond your means.

Whether at poker - or flipping coins - or anything in between - you have to make that determination.

Far be it that I think we disagree with each other ... or that I disagree with what you talked about in your article.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Chris Daddy Cool]

i just read the last month's article.

and it makes me cringe.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
Barron,

You are right that you should 3-bet pre-flop due to your pot equity. Even if you are dominated by the raiser.

But the last sentence of your article is very misleading. It implies that the purpose of the pre-flop raise is to make the pot big enough for you to draw post-flop.

The real reason for the pre-flop raise is your pre-flop equity. The real benefit of increasing the pot size is that when you do flop a big hand, you increase the likelihood that your oppoents will chase you with a hand that is drawing dead.

[/ QUOTE ]


Since I just linked to this thread from another thread, as I said in that thread, there are bits I would expand upon and clarify, but the above quote is definitely one area I'd change and Max is 100% correct in his correction.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

I don't play live so much anymore, but when I do if I saw an UTG raise from a tight player and 4 callers I cant imagine having positive pot equity. Not only are you going to have to make at least 2 pair to win, the deck is VERY rich in low cards. If I can't have a pair here I dont want to be in it, but if i'm playing a suited connector i want it lower than JTs. There just isnt enough left in the deck for a hand that needs to catch a lot.

The other problem is with calling 2 bets cold. I the situation you decribed on the flop and turn, i would expect the pot to get 3bet about 50-60% of the time and 4bet about 30-40% of the time. If im in a place that allowed 5 bets I wouldnt have even considered calling. Am I just really bad at game selection?

[BarronVangorToth]

You mentioned the five bet thing and, as a point of reference that is something I should always include when talking about Foxwoods, is that it's a four-bet place unlike, say, Vegas where you can five-bet.

I don't know about your game selection one way or the other.

I will say that game selection is huge, though, which I'm sure you do know.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com