10-16-2005, 08:26 AM
I was just getting round to the August issue and I thought Barron's article was a little strange. Does everyone 3 bet kqs when facing a raise and a few callers? Maybe I'm not good enough at table selection, but this doesnt seem like such a great idea. Even so, the argument for it sounds a little flawed.
The reason winning players raise is because they think the bet has positive EV. When we say an action is correct, we take for granted that it's because there is a positive EV to be gained, but Barron's article doesnt really go that way. As I read on, I find out that the reason is so that future bets will have positive EV.
For those who don't see why this is wrong, an extreme case of this argument would be just asking everyone at the table if you could donate 500 bets into the pot before each hand is delt. Doing this would mean every future action you make in this hand will have positive EV.
Making as many +EV bets you can is not how you win. You win by making the sequence of bets that maximize your EV. Infact, winning players (at low- and mid-stakes) usually make fewer +EV bets than most players because they simply make less bets in general.
The reason winning players raise is because they think the bet has positive EV. When we say an action is correct, we take for granted that it's because there is a positive EV to be gained, but Barron's article doesnt really go that way. As I read on, I find out that the reason is so that future bets will have positive EV.
For those who don't see why this is wrong, an extreme case of this argument would be just asking everyone at the table if you could donate 500 bets into the pot before each hand is delt. Doing this would mean every future action you make in this hand will have positive EV.
Making as many +EV bets you can is not how you win. You win by making the sequence of bets that maximize your EV. Infact, winning players (at low- and mid-stakes) usually make fewer +EV bets than most players because they simply make less bets in general.