Another multi-way AA Limit Hold'em question

On the button with AA, 4 limpers (2 EP, 1 MP, and the cutoff, for example). To raise or not to raise?

Of course the answer is table dependent but if you raise you'll probably get 4, 5 or even 6 calls (who folds for 1 bet preflop when the button raised?), making the pot 11.5-14 small bets. A lot of hands will be correct in drawing against you here. If they make as little as a pair on the flop and are drawing to a 5 outer, they're correct in drawing on the turn, also.
Is it maybe better to just call and give bad odds to the gutshots on the flop? To give KQ a chance to pair and give you some good action (and drive out the draws)? You'll still run into the small sets, but that'd happen if you raise (and flush draws and good straight draws, and pair-overcard-backdoor draws).
So my question is this: Is the potential for incorrect action (and consequent expectation) after the flop worth the 4.5-6 small bets you don't get in before the flop?

Postscript thoughts: If the gutshots won't call at 7-1, but KQ will call on overcards and the pair-and-backdoor-draws will look at the turn and improve or release.

The best traps look natural. What's more natural than the button calling after 4 limpers?

Raising on the button doesn't REALLY give the strength of your hand away, you may get the loose action afterward anyway.

You only gain when the other player(s) make a mistake, so why encourage the small bet mistake and the correct action with the big bet? Manipulate the pot size in order to create mistakes.

If one of the blinds decides to raise with JTs (or AKs) or something, I can always make it 3 bets on my action. Either they'll go to 4 bets to narrow the field (and lots of bets die) or everybody calls 1 more bet and it's catch-me-if-you-can (because it's hard to fold before the river with 15-20+ smalls before the flop).

Is this the Key Lepanto?

[trumpman84]

You aren't raising to protect your hand, you are raising for value. Not raising is a huge mistake. If you have 40% equity (I haven't run the numbers but its possible its higher if you are against something like AK, KQ, KK, TT, and some random hands like T9, QJ) against 6 people preflop, for every dollar everyone puts in, you are getting a .40 return. In the most extreme case, its capped 6 ways preflop (at 1/2), you put in 4 dollars to win 26 and have 40% equity so thats a $9.60 profit. Also, the large pot might encourage people to put more money into the pot almost dead after the flop. I doubt AK isn't coming along for 1 or 2 more bets on an all rag flop.

[winky51]

Always raise with AA period, most equity no mattter how many callers. AND you will actually know better if your beat at some point. LIMPING is a losing proposition.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course the answer is table dependent

[/ QUOTE ]

No it isn't. If you want to give some exact hand ranges I can give back some pokerstove numbers, but not raising in this situation is criminal. You have too much equity to make it up with skillful postflop play, especially since you will rarely be able to fold postflop except in very extreme situations.

Your arguments do apply to hands like AJo or KQo where your edge is generally small, assuming you even have one. Not the case with AA though (or even AKo for that matter).

[Solami17]

I personally feel that raising here may be a mistake (some of the times). Depending on table image and the ability of your opponents, raising more often than not is very correct. However, I feel that inexperienced, low-limit players have a have a hard time letting AA go. Folding AA in a pot that has been raised may make it even that much harder to get rid of it when an unfavorable flop/turn comes. This is especially true with 6 players already in.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally feel that raising here may be a mistake (some of the times).

[/ QUOTE ]

You feel wrong. This is not a close decision, failure to raise AA on the button is terrible and that is a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I feel that inexperienced, low-limit players have a have a hard time letting AA go. Folding AA in a pot that has been raised may make it even that much harder to get rid of it when an unfavorable flop/turn comes. This is especially true with 6 players already in.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have a leak in your game, do not introduce an even bigger leak to "fix" it. In fact, if you're a weak postflop player you'd better raise NOW while you have the best hand possible. Automatically going to the river with unimproved AA (especially against the types of people that make six-handed pots in the first place) is a smaller leak than not raising it preflop.

EDIT: Just wanted to add that the reason why not giving up AA isn't a huge leak is because situations where you are clearly supposed to fold (not knowing your opponents' cards) don't come up that often compared to the times you make a big hand or hold up UI. Remember, you always have at least an overpair.

[RiverDood]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally feel that raising here may be a mistake (some of the times). Depending on table image and the ability of your opponents, raising more often than not is very correct. However, I feel that inexperienced, low-limit players have a have a hard time letting AA go. Folding AA in a pot that has been raised may make it even that much harder to get rid of it when an unfavorable flop/turn comes. This is especially true with 6 players already in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll have to disagree. The people who have the hardest time letting go of AA are the ones who limp preflop to keep all the suckers in and then can't believe that an unfavorable board has left them behind. The worse the board gets (i.e. a four-flush of a non-AA suit), the more they try to bully their way into a pot by betting too hard.

Bet when you're ahead. Fold when you're behind. . . . In situations like this, ABC poker works like a charm.

Thanks for the responses, guys, but you seem to have misunderstood my question a little. This isn't a low-limit, high limit question, it's thoeretical. In the main and in a vaccuum, you're correct and raising with this much equity in the pot isn't wrong. It just may not be the most right. I've played this and thought about it some and this is the horse race paradox for Hold'em (SCSFAP, p.141, also related to "protecting your hand when the pot is extremely large" SSHE p.163.). Briefly, anyone that flops a gutshot is ok (pot-wise) to draw at the Aces and profit (at least for 1 card and if enough do, then for both, I believe this is called "schooling") IF the raise goes in.
I'm looking for, among other things, the curve between hand strength and pot "juice" to cover the disparity on future betting rounds. I'm actually thinking this play would work better with KK, as I could just get out if an A flops (but more vulnerability on the last two cards is a downside). Trying it with QQ or JJ just seems like asking for it (even raising JJ doesn't seem very good here). It's not just a question of probability, however.
When I wrote the answer is table dependent, what I meant was "if they're going to take 3-1 to draw to a gutshot, charge them to draw at you, if they're limping with J5o, charge them to draw at you. If they're limping with 98s and TT and 45s, this is a different ballgame and at some point, between number of limpers and quality of hand, you'll end up with the worst of it against the field" (or maybe I've got it backwards and you raise the people who play good hands and let the trash go unraised). If all 6 other players have a PP and none conflict, you'll pretty much need a set in order to play after the flop, right? So you're a 7-1 dog to flop it and you're getting 6-1. Extreme example? Sure. Theoretical question. (I know there's a hole here. If you see it, you should understand why it's not really important. If I'm wrong and it is, let's talk about it)
The other part is looking for correct action from the field and very incorrect action from the second best hand. Imagine limping with TT UTG, getting 5 calls/checks to the flop and the flop AT6. As long as nothing too scary shows up, you'd cap it on every street, right? And what the hell does the button have that he's so proud of that he's pushing it right back at you? He can't have AA, he limped! He seems pretty solid, so that 8 on the turn didn't help him, must be a small set or AT or he's gone nuts with AK or something. Meanwhile, the betting between top set and #2 drives out the weak draws (even a nut flush draw has a pretty marginal call on the turn if the action is capping). Making "the 10 BB mistake" will shake that guy up and keep the table guessing for a while.
If limping with the AA makes someone incorrectly fold their gutshot a hand or round or day or week later, you keep gaining. But, some players won't care or remember or care if they remembered. How much is 40% of those 6 small bets really worth?
Against the bulk of circumstance, I think raising is the best play. But a point exists (I think) where limping is better.
Other related launching points for this question include the parenthetical section of the last paragraph of HPFAP p.93, when the pot gets big, ibid p.167 and Adjustment based on Players skill ibid p.177. These all fit together, somehow, I think, in this situation.
Position and table history also have to make some difference. How do these variables fit into the system? However the variables like player ability, hand distribution, position, recent history and long-term history fit into the equation, the math, function, curve, whatever you call it, it exists.

Anyone know what it is?

[RiverDood]

[ QUOTE ]
If all 6 other players have a PP and none conflict, you'll pretty much need a set in order to play after the flop, right? So you're a 7-1 dog to flop it and you're getting 6-1. Extreme example? Sure. Theoretical question. (I know there's a hole here. If you see it, you should understand why it's not really important.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop the insanity! You've got a million ideas going on in your post, some of them quite interesting and provocative -- but all too often you're skating from one muddled bit of analysis to another.

Lets slow down and take an accurate look at what happens when you play AA against six other pocket pairs. I've tried to randomize them for suits.

Holdem Hi: 501942 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
As Ac 155748 31.03 345266 68.79 928 0.18 0.311
Kd Kh 94765 18.88 406249 80.94 928 0.18 0.189
Qc Qd 72314 14.41 428700 85.41 928 0.18 0.144
Ts Th 59133 11.78 441881 88.03 928 0.18 0.118
8c 8h 48823 9.73 452191 90.09 928 0.18 0.098
5s 5d 41505 8.27 459509 91.55 928 0.18 0.083
2s 2h 28726 5.72 472288 94.09 928 0.18 0.057

AA has a 31% chance of winning, which is more than double the average for other PPs, and significantly more than the times that AA will flop a set. There are all sorts of non-set boards in which AA will win, unimproved. 334, 347, 34J, etc., etc., etc. Also, AA will win any four-flush board in its suit. Those show up about 1% of the time in each suit.

Yes, if there's a ton of dead money already in the pot, some thin draws can keep playing the turn and river against you. But -- guess what! -- you have enormous +EV in that exact situation, because you have by far the best shot at all that dead money, too. Each player gets to factor that dead money into his/her calculations. The EV of playing on does not sum to zero.

Would you rather have a 50% chance of winning a 10BB pot? Or a 31% chance of winning a 20BB pot? In any game where you can stomach the variance, the second is clearly the better choice.

[Xhad]

No, I understand the question and the analysis, and as I said everything you say is absolutely correct for certain hands (I don't raise KQo, KJo, or AJo in this situation for exactly the reasons you mention, and it's possible it might be true for certain PPs, but certainly not AA-JJ)

[ QUOTE ]
When I wrote the answer is table dependent, what I meant was "if they're going to take 3-1 to draw to a gutshot, charge them to draw at you, if they're limping with J5o, charge them to draw at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about charging them to see the flop in the first place? They won't ALWAYS flop a draw. Most of the time they won't flop anything (good hands or bad), take their money before they know that.

The thing I said about Pokerstove numbers? Here you go:

Hand 1: 51.0742 % 51.02% 00.06% { AA }
Hand 2: 15.7088 % 15.65% 00.06% { TT }
Hand 3: 16.1136 % 16.06% 00.06% { 98s }
Hand 4: 17.1034 % 17.05% 00.06% { 54s }

50% equity is not a small edge in a four-handed pot, that's enormous and failing to exploit it is atrocious.

The huge problem is that keeping the pot a certain size to induce a mistake is something you do when it is likely that bloating the pot will affect whether you call on a later round (hence, don't raise with KJo here as it will often force you to call a AT5 rainbow flop). Otherwise who cares if your opponent is correct to call on a later round if he already put in incorrect calls on this round? They're just chasing money that they were incorrect to contribute in the first place! As I said above, folding AA postflop just isn't something you're routinely doing so you're just throwing away money in your attempt to be clever.

[ QUOTE ]
The other part is looking for correct action from the field and very incorrect action from the second best hand. Imagine limping with TT UTG, getting 5 calls/checks to the flop and the flop AT6. As long as nothing too scary shows up, you'd cap it on every street, right? And what the hell does the button have that he's so proud of that he's pushing it right back at you? He can't have AA, he limped!

[/ QUOTE ]

I call FPS, even if you raise preflop they will know you could very well have AK. And more often what happens is that people who miss the flop (that would have called your raise) fold after the flop and you lose a bet from them, and then someone makes top pair and bets into you/calls down, which he would have done anyway.

I understand you pot equity argument, but this argument also makes almost all your decisions before the flop. Yeah 789 of the same suit that's not either A and getting 3-bet to me on the flop prompts a fold. Against the vast majority of boards, though, I don't want to play catch me if you can for 2 bets apiece (If it can go for 3 or 4 bets preflop, well, I like your argument better).

Phil Helmuth discussed a freak hand like this a couple years ago in Card Player, where AA, AK, AQ, KK and QQ all moved in before the flop. As I recall, Amir Vahedi got his money in with TT and made a set to win. I remeber reading it and thinking, "How much cooler would it have been if the BB or someone read the table reasonably accurately and called all the money with 76?" The most extreme example I can think of would be an 11-handed table with 10 players each having a top 5 pair. If player 11 has 65, suited or not, they seem a huge favorite in an EV sense (I haven't done the numbers, but I'd think its 65, AA, TT, and everybody else has zero. AA might be best, though).

If someone flops a set and I don't (against 3 random pairs thats 6 bad cards and avoiding 2 more, so {[(6*36*35)*3]/(44*43*42)} or 28.54%, 6 random pairs is ~39.25%), I have 10% equity in the hand and want to avoid getting half a small in equity, or less, in the next 2.5 bigs I put in.

I want to make a better decision on the flop and on the turn and on the river. I'm not looking for THE SOLUTION (but I'll take it if you've got it), just a workable set of guidelines in similar cases.

To put it another way: If my opponent is getting correct odds to chase, I stop making money. I may still make a profit on the hand, but skill no longer factors into my expectation. The example from Theory of Poker: Raising as a means of cutting down opponent's odds p.125-127 is what I'm drawing from here.
I'm thinking that by making a 4.5-6 sb mistake, I can force/encourage more than that in future mistakes, if not on this hand, than on later ones.
It's late and I'm tired. I'll come back to this in the next couple of days. Thanks for the discussion.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
To put it another way: If my opponent is getting correct odds to chase, I stop making money. I may still make a profit on the hand, but skill no longer factors into my expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who're you kidding? Skill will still be a factor in your expectation.

Probably because you're only thinking of one way to play the flop. Just because you raise preflop, doesn't mean you can't extract EV postflop or protect your hand. You just may not be able to do it with an ABC betting approach.

I'd say raise preflop until you learn these different ways of playing postflop. Then, after you learn those, still raise it preflop.

The only time you want to have seen the flop for only 1 bet with AA is on a missed limp reraise. Not because there are too many players already in the pot.

b

[ QUOTE ]
To put it another way: If my opponent is getting correct odds to chase, I stop making money. I may still make a profit on the hand, but skill no longer factors into my expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is fundamentally flawed.

If your opponent is getting correct odds to chase, you dont stop making money you just make a little less.

The fact that your opponent has a GS draw in the first place reduces your EV, not that he has correct odds to draw to it.

How do you know he has a GS?

Even if you knew for sure he had a GS, he still has a 16.5% chance of making it by the river or roughly 1:5 chance.
If you limp preflop, the BB comes for free and there is 5 - 6 sb in the pot. /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

Oh, but you meant that someone is going to bet because you didn't raise preflop. So now someone's going to flop a GS AND someone is going to bet into you AND that GS is going to fold now that you've raised./images/graemlins/shocked.gif So glad you didn't raise preflop./images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Anybody who has any piece of a board with 5 - 6 people to the flop, probably has the odds to call.

Don't make preflop decisions based on what you think might maybe happen post flop.

Preflop - The only thing you need to think about is getting as much money into the middle as possible with AA. Not knocking people out like some people like to think, you want everyone in and you want everyone to cap.

And the ONLY time that would mean limping is in early position when you were 100% of a reraise opportunity.

Not raising with AA on the button with 4 limpers makes baby Jesus cry.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone flops a set and I don't (against 3 random pairs thats 6 bad cards and avoiding 2 more, so {[(6*36*35)*3]/(44*43*42)} or 28.54%, 6 random pairs is ~39.25%), I have 10% equity in the hand and want to avoid getting half a small in equity, or less, in the next 2.5 bigs I put in.

[/ QUOTE ]

-You will not be against 3 pocket pairs the vast majority of the time
-You will not know if someone flops a set, at least not in limit

Again, the fact that you might be behind after the flop is irrelevant BECAUSE YOU ARE PLAYING THE FLOP THE SAME WITH LITTLE REGARD TO WHAT IT ACTUALLY IS. Other than a few freak flops like KK5 or 789 suited-not-your-suit you're not folding, so you're not making any money by keeping the pot small to induce a "mistake" because you are staying in almost regardless of the pot size. In fact, if your opponents are on drawing hands their implied odds postflop are often better than yours, which is another argument for taking their money now while you know you have the best of it.

[ QUOTE ]
I want to make a better decision on the flop and on the turn and on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does keeping the pot smaller make your postflop decisions better? AA doesn't flop many 4-5 out draws so how you play it basically boils down to if you think it's already the best hand and how best to protect it postflop.

Even if you don't raise, 5-6 BBs plus postflop action is usually going to be enough that you have to make crying calls if you're not sure about your hand. And in fact not raising preflop, disguising your hand, means that top pair may play more aggressively than usual because you showed no preflop strength. So you keep the pot small with the best hand while simultaneously forcing yourself to call down more often when you're outflopped.

[ QUOTE ]
To put it another way: If my opponent is getting correct odds to chase, I stop making money.

[/ QUOTE ]

As kwazzie said, you still make money when people correctly call with draws. FURTHERMORE, you also stop making money when you don't bet your damn hand.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking that by making a 4.5-6 sb mistake, I can force/encourage more than that in future mistakes, if not on this hand, than on later ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are overestimating your postflop playing ability by a ton. 6 sb is more than live players make after an entire hour of play.

[ QUOTE ]
Other than a few freak flops like KK5 or 789 suited-not-your-suit you're not folding so you're not making any money by keeping the pot small to induce a "mistake" because you are staying in almost regardless of the pot size

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the hand that convinced me to take another look at how I play AA in that spot. Calls-Too-Much limps in EP, gets a tagalong, Nutjob in MP calls, and Player calls in the cutoff. I raise AhAd and the BB and all limpers call (12.5 sb). flop 9c 7s 4d, 4 checks to Player, who bets. I raise. the named characters come in (10.25 bb). Turn Qs, EP bets, MP raises, LP thinks about it and 3-bets. I'm getting 16-3 on my action and this is a long way from a scary board. No straights or flushes are possible, yet the table worke up and started firing. You think I'm just supposed to call this, based on my "preflop EV"? Put in 4 more bigs (more than I "gained" from raising preflop) because I've got AA? Sure there could be a couple big draw hands out there semi-bluffing. The raise and reraise come from very aggressive and smart aggressive players, respectivly. The turn didn't finish anything exciting, so why are they raising now?
This is why I can't accept your argument that "most of the time you'll turn a profit, so just stay in till the end and it'll work out at the end of the month."
[ QUOTE ]
As kwazzie said, you still make money when people correctly call with draws. FURTHERMORE, you also stop making money when you don't bet your damn hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you and Kwazzie, Thoery of Poker, p.127, I stop making money when they play correctly. If a certain profit is the norm for a hand in a situation I lose when I play incorrectly and win when they play incorrectly. Play means each decision. I agree that raising here is usually a good decision, but it leaves me in an awkward spot after the flop. That is, I know nothing about the quality or character of my opponents's hands. Still, it's got to be best without specific information about their play.
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if your opponents are on drawing hands their implied odds postflop are often better than yours, which is another argument for taking their money now while you know you have the best of it....And in fact not raising preflop, disguising your hand, means that top pair may play more aggressively than usual because you showed no preflop strength. So you keep the pot small with the best hand while simultaneously forcing yourself to call down more often when you're outflopped.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I'm getting at. The implied odds of drawing hands will be better than mine, but not good enough to merit playing. Suppose UTG has AJo anf flops top pair of Jacks with a ragged 3 suit flop. They're giving 8-1 to the 3 players between them and me, and very well may reraise if I raise, offering 14-2 and implying 16-3. A hand that was correct in playing for 8-1 is now given the chance to make a mistake without seeing another card. Does TPTK 3 bet a preflop raiser? (Thanks for making me ask that question) With how big a pair? Suppose there is a flush draw, do I call down more often than I think he's bluffing (from a player that limp-called, called, called 2 warm, then called the cap)?
In regards to being "forced" to call down; What's forcing me to call down in a small pot? The extra 6 smalls are a significant inducement, not the lack thereof. Tying yourself to a good starting hand is a better idea in Razz than Hold'em (and you still get out on 5th without help).
I'm also of the opinion that raising with the button does very little to reveal my hand in this particular case.
Thanks for the input. Have a good one

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the hand that convinced me to take another look at how I play AA in that spot. Calls-Too-Much limps in EP, gets a tagalong, Nutjob in MP calls, and Player calls in the cutoff. I raise AhAd and the BB and all limpers call (12.5 sb). flop 9c 7s 4d, 4 checks to Player, who bets. I raise. the named characters come in (10.25 bb). Turn Qs, EP bets, MP raises, LP thinks about it and 3-bets. I'm getting 16-3 on my action and this is a long way from a scary board. No straights or flushes are possible, yet the table worke up and started firing. You think I'm just supposed to call this, based on my "preflop EV"?

[/ QUOTE ]

How in the hell is this even addressing any of the arguments I have made? If you think all these bets are definitely legitimate hands then chances are you have two outs which you can't call even getting 5-to-1 (but be glad you forced a mistake preflop when you still had the best hand). If these people are clowns or unknowns and you might still have the best hand then why do you mind having put in extra money when you had the nuts?

[ QUOTE ]
This is why I can't accept your argument that "most of the time you'll turn a profit, so just stay in till the end and it'll work out at the end of the month."

[/ QUOTE ]

This situation isn't even close to typical, maybe you shouldn't get all-in with Queens full when there's a possible straight flush out because that's how Jennifer Harman got knocked out of the WSOP. Get real.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As kwazzie said, you still make money when people correctly call with draws. FURTHERMORE, you also stop making money when you don't bet your damn hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
For you and Kwazzie, Thoery of Poker, p.127, I stop making money when they play correctly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read the Theory of Poker at least once a month for over a year, thank you. You are wrong. Kwazzie already explained why. If you have a set on the flop and your opponent has a four-flush would you bet if he has the pot odds to call? You can't make any more money by your logic so why bet? If your opponent is putting in money as an underdog, you are gaining some money, if you don't understand that you are misinterpreting the FTOP to mean something it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, if your opponents are on drawing hands their implied odds postflop are often better than yours, which is another argument for taking their money now while you know you have the best of it....And in fact not raising preflop, disguising your hand, means that top pair may play more aggressively than usual because you showed no preflop strength. So you keep the pot small with the best hand while simultaneously forcing yourself to call down more often when you're outflopped.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I'm getting at. The implied odds of drawing hands will be better than mine, but not good enough to merit playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about AJo (which you have horribly dominated, and is less likely to hit the flop in the first place since YOU'RE HOLDING HIS CARDS making it more advantageous to raise him in the first place), I'm talking about hands like 44 that tend to flop profitable hands/draws or fold the flop. Would you rather take a bet from them now while you're an 80% favorite over them individually, or let them find out they missed the flop and fold?

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose UTG has AJo anf flops top pair of Jacks with a ragged 3 suit flop. They're giving 8-1 to the 3 players between them and me, and very well may reraise if I raise, offering 14-2 and implying 16-3. A hand that was correct in playing for 8-1 is now given the chance to make a mistake without seeing another card.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is mostly correct actually, but the problem is that you're just totally hand-waving the fact that you threw away large amounts of equity preflop to get there. My entire assertion is that you don't have an advantage postflop because your decisions mostly boil down to "am I beat or not" (except on the rare occasions you strongly suspect two pair and might be able to win with "hidden outs", flop a four-flush, or the pot somehow gets to 20+ bets), so you're not gaining anything postflop by failing to exploit this edge preflop. You have yet to explain why keeping the pot smaller helps you.

[ QUOTE ]
Does TPTK 3 bet a preflop raiser?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually he will if he knows what he's doing because he'll want everyone else out as badly as you do, and hope you raise him with a lower pair or overcards (or he'll fear that you check behind and give the field a free card, which is a disaster if he has the best hand).

And if he doesn't know what he's doing? He'll generally bet because he likes his hand.

[ QUOTE ]
In regards to being "forced" to call down; What's forcing me to call down in a small pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say the flop is K-high, rainbow. The last limper bets, you raise and he calls making the pot HU. Unless you have some stellar reads on this guy you are a clown if you fold before the river regardless of what happens (go check out the Magazine Forum feedback on the latest "On the Edge" article). If on the other hand you'd raised preflop and the action gets crazy like your example hand above and then the board pairs and it gets even worse, you may be more easily convinced that you are beat.

[ QUOTE ]
Tying yourself to a good starting hand is a better idea in Razz than Hold'em (and you still get out on 5th without help).

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why is it that both HEFAP and 7SFAP both use Razz hands as an example of when you should keep the pot small to induce a mistake? (not a rhetorical question as I don't play Razz)

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

You only gain when the other player(s) make a mistake,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is horribly wrong. You also gain when you fail to make a mistake.

If someone came and dumped $1 million into the pot, players would get the odds to chase all sorts of ridiculous draws, e.g., runner-runner trips. AA would still be the main beneficiary.

[ QUOTE ]
Manipulate the pot size in order to create mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
No. Raise to avoid making your own mistake.

Suppose you are playing heads-up NL with someone with very deep stacks, and move all-in blindly every hand. Your timid opponent decides to call with AA only. Almost half of the time, your opponent makes a huge mistake, and lays down the best hand. You are inducing huge mistakes every other hand! However, your push is a mistake of about the same size. You will lose a lot on average, despite inducing many large mistakes, because on average, you are making larger mistakes.

Not raising with AA on the button after several limpers is a huge mistake.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
On the button with AA, 4 limpers (2 EP, 1 MP, and the cutoff, for example). To raise or not to raise?

Of course the answer is table dependent but if you raise you'll probably get 4, 5 or even 6 calls (who folds for 1 bet preflop when the button raised?), making the pot 11.5-14 small bets. A lot of hands will be correct in drawing against you here. If they make as little as a pair on the flop and are drawing to a 5 outer, they're correct in drawing on the turn, also.
Is it maybe better to just call and give bad odds to the gutshots on the flop? To give KQ a chance to pair and give you some good action (and drive out the draws)? You'll still run into the small sets, but that'd happen if you raise (and flush draws and good straight draws, and pair-overcard-backdoor draws).
So my question is this: Is the potential for incorrect action (and consequent expectation) after the flop worth the 4.5-6 small bets you don't get in before the flop?

Postscript thoughts: If the gutshots won't call at 7-1, but KQ will call on overcards and the pair-and-backdoor-draws will look at the turn and improve or release.

The best traps look natural. What's more natural than the button calling after 4 limpers?

Raising on the button doesn't REALLY give the strength of your hand away, you may get the loose action afterward anyway.

You only gain when the other player(s) make a mistake, so why encourage the small bet mistake and the correct action with the big bet? Manipulate the pot size in order to create mistakes.

If one of the blinds decides to raise with JTs (or AKs) or something, I can always make it 3 bets on my action. Either they'll go to 4 bets to narrow the field (and lots of bets die) or everybody calls 1 more bet and it's catch-me-if-you-can (because it's hard to fold before the river with 15-20+ smalls before the flop).

Is this the Key Lepanto?

[/ QUOTE ]

You waited a year to make your first post and this crap is all you could come up with?

Raise AA.

And wait another year before making your next post.