Raising Preflop

When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

would a play like isolating a LAG type player when he raises by 3 betting with 66 be an exception?

At the tables I play at (loose and passive) I seldom have the occasion to make a play like this. Also, I think that type of play is highly over rated. I would be more apt to isolate a player who wants to fold alot than one who likes to bet and raise.

[krimson]

If this is your way of thinking, you may have an area of your game to work on.

You have JKo in MP2 with position on a loose passive fish, and tight players behind you. He open-limps, you...

You have J7s on the Button with tight blinds, it's folded to you and you...

#1 - Raise. The first opponent has a hand weaker than me and JKo plays favourably against the remaining opponents. They are probably NOT folding AJ or KQ if I raise so I am not forcing out a better hand by raising but that doesn't matter. Most of the time they have worse hands and I almost certainly have the first player beat.

#2 - I fold. J9s I would raise here.

[soweak.]

Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added.

Tell me how you play AA when you raise and receive 9 callers? I would much raither have an 80% equity to win a 5BB pot then a 10% equity to win a 14 or 15BB pot.

Of course a hand like AKs or KQs love big pots, they play well multi-way. but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not.

"Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added."

Prove it. This is not well known by me.

"but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not. "
KJo doesn't like multiway pots because it's dominated by AQo when not AK / bigger pair is out and JJ when no bigger pair is out love big pots. Don't they? Prove it one way or the other.

[Dhani]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]
So you want everyone to call you when you have AA? KK?
all those A rags that hit or ragged 2 pairs?

Yes I do want everyone to call when I have AA. 2 pair is like 35:1 to hit you're welcome to take a shot at hitting it.

Also, if you have 1 ace rag in, you want 2 more in, because they're only going to win when they hit their ace, so the more the merrier.

[bobhalford]

When I have AA or KK or AK and I get more than 3 callers preflop, I expect to lose the hand (and a lot of chips) more often than not. I'd rather win a small pot than lose a big one. Usually I'm comfortable with 3-4 callers, any more and I expect to lose. When I have AK I definitely don't want the whole table to call because my equity shrinks big time and the whole table will have odds to call to the river and there will be several "miracle" cards instead of 2-4 cards that will hit the turn or river (assuming an A or K flops for us) to lose the hand.

Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. I generally do too much "protecting" of the pot by getting aggressive on the flop with my good hands. I should be waiting to raise the turn or river more often, but I always get antsy and fearful, raising the flop to define mine and my opponents' hands so I don't spew on the turn or river. This aspect of my game I need to work on.

[Dhani]

[ QUOTE ]
Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added.

Tell me how you play AA when you raise and receive 9 callers? I would much raither have an 80% equity to win a 5BB pot then a 10% equity to win a 14 or 15BB pot.

Of course a hand like AKs or KQs love big pots, they play well multi-way. but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
My sentiments exactly, Thanks

[soweak.]

[ QUOTE ]
"Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added."

Prove it. This is not well known by me.

"but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not. "
KJo doesn't like multiway pots because it's dominated by AQo when not AK / bigger pair is out and JJ when no bigger pair is out love big pots. Don't they? Prove it one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

AA vs 9 randomed hands in two-dimes: ( LINK (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1366936))
Holdem Hi: 201376 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 46336 23.01 154940 76.94 100 0.05 0.230
Qd Jd 35012 17.39 166264 82.56 100 0.05 0.174
9s 9h 12600 6.26 186842 92.78 1934 0.96 0.067
8s 8h 28213 14.01 173063 85.94 100 0.05 0.140
4s Kc 6470 3.21 192968 95.82 1938 0.96 0.037
6s 6c 18051 8.96 183225 90.99 100 0.05 0.090
2c 3h 8167 4.06 191840 95.26 1369 0.68 0.044
9c 2h 137 0.07 198036 98.34 3203 1.59 0.008
Kh Th 18625 9.25 180813 89.79 1938 0.96 0.097
7s 7c 22724 11.28 178552 88.67 100 0.05 0.113

Pokerstove enumerates to about 30% equity with 9 random hands

Now... AA vs 2 other random hands
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards ( LINK (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1366951))
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 971323 70.86 395974 28.89 3457 0.25 0.709
Qc Jd 141501 10.32 1225796 89.42 3457 0.25 0.104
9s 9h 254473 18.56 1112824 81.18 3457 0.25 0.186

Pokerstove enumerates AA vs two random hands to 73% equity.

10 * .3 = 3
3 * .7 = 2.1

I win.

edited in :

While you clearly win more often in the second hand, the pot is so much bigger in the first hand. Your equity is 30% of 10 in the first and 70% of 3 in the second, hence my numbers.

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added.

[/ QUOTE ]
they "play better" in small pots because they dont make huge hands that often. that doesnt mean they don't have an equity edge against a large field (they do). with many callers, your KQo will win far less often, but it will win much larger pots and has a greater expected value. these hands, especially KQo, are much more difficult to play postflop in multiway pots, which is where the fear comes from.


[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you play AA when you raise and receive 9 callers? I would much raither have an 80% equity to win a 5BB pot then a 10% equity to win a 14 or 15BB pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
this is stupid. its a basic math problem and you fumbled the ball. you want everyone and their mom to call your raise because you have a huge edge, and the huge pots will more than compensate for the smaller win %. this is an ultra-fundamental poker mistake you shouldnt be making...


[ QUOTE ]
Of course a hand like AKs or KQs love big pots, they play well multi-way. but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not.

[/ QUOTE ]
they love big pots because they now make big flushes....and flushes win a high %. But JJ loves big pots because it can make big full houses, jacks up, and win UI. etc.

[bobhalford]

Looks like 23% equity when you have 9 opponents, not 30% though it's nice to round up.

Certainly AA is a favorite against 9 random hands, but you will pay a lot of money to the river only find you have the worst hand a fair portion of the time. That's why I get nervous playing AA or KK in a big pot with more than 3-4 callers.

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like 23% equity when you have 9 opponents, not 30% though it's nice to round up.

Certainly AA is a favorite against 9 random hands, but you will pay a lot of money to the river only find you have the worst hand a fair portion of the time. That's why I get nervous playing AA or KK in a big pot with more than 3-4 callers.

[/ QUOTE ]


I just looked at Pokerstove enumerates to about 30% equity with 9 random hands.

[Guruman]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're in the bb with the fifteen and thirty two of dinosaurs. a semi-loose/weak sb open limps.

me? I raise, hope for a call and a flop check so that I can bet and sb can fold.

If you check here, you're ignoring your opponent and waiting for a hand IMO.

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true. value raising is great, and you seem to understand it well. isolation raising is also great.

if you're facing a loose limper and hold a hand like K9o in the hijack, you have position and an equity edge against this weak player's range of hands. you also have the opportunity to steal the button and knock out the blinds (or force them to call OOP, etc.). Depending on table conditions, this can be a great raise, where you'd much rather be heads up or three-handed with a blind. the same concept applies to isolating light raisers, weak-tight limpers, and other predictable players.

blind stealing is also an interesting area. you will meet opponents against whom you should raise any 2 cards, because they defend poorly (by folding too much preflop or on the flop). simple math problem. you gradually tighten up as players become tougher, but sometimes this only means throwing away your weakest 25% of hands because the blinds still suck a fair amount. sometimes it means only open-raising your best 35% or so, large on a value basis. it's always a balancing act, but fold equity plays a crucial role, and it's tied to position.

[soweak.]

[ QUOTE ]
10 * .3 = 3
3 * .7 = 2.1

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand what these number represent. Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
this is stupid. its a basic math problem and you fumbled the ball. you want everyone and their mom to call your raise because you have a huge edge, and the huge pots will more than compensate for the smaller win %. this is an ultra-fundamental poker mistake you shouldnt be making...

[/ QUOTE ]

I proved in a previous post that you do not have a huge edge, in fact your edge is very small (even though you still have an edge) as you start to add opponents. I would also like to know where my math faltered here. 80% of a 5BB pot yields a EV or 4BBs, while 10% of a 14-15BB pot yields 1.4-1.5BB. Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
10 * .3 = 3
3 * .7 = 2.1

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand what these number represent. Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
this is stupid. its a basic math problem and you fumbled the ball. you want everyone and their mom to call your raise because you have a huge edge, and the huge pots will more than compensate for the smaller win %. this is an ultra-fundamental poker mistake you shouldnt be making...

[/ QUOTE ]

I proved in a previous post that you do not have a huge edge, in fact your edge is very small (even though you still have an edge) as you start to add opponents. I would also like to know where my math faltered here. 80% of a 5BB pot yields a EV or 4BBs, while 10% of a 14-15BB pot yields 1.4-1.5BB. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are numbers you made up and don't represent anything. Ok?

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
I proved in a previous post that you do not have a huge edge, in fact your edge is very small (even though you still have an edge) as you start to add opponents. I would also like to know where my math faltered here. 80% of a 5BB pot yields a EV or 4BBs, while 10% of a 14-15BB pot yields 1.4-1.5BB. Please explain.

[/ QUOTE ]

where does 80% of a 5BB pot come from? and the other figure?

you made them up. try some equity analysis and you'll see your mistake. also, this sort of analysis even underestimates your edge since you can significantly outplay your opponents postflop. this is why you can loosen up considerably in multiway pots with bad players, limping stuff like K5s in LP against a couple live players.

you may not have much of an edge, if any, but you are +EV postflop and want to play as many pots as possible against the weak players. the bigger the pot, the better for you. see an old post by ed miller about preflop training wheels.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true. value raising is great, and you seem to understand it well. isolation raising is also great.

if you're facing a loose limper and hold a hand like K9o in the hijack, you have position and an equity edge against this weak player's range of hands. you also have the opportunity to steal the button and knock out the blinds (or force them to call OOP, etc.). Depending on table conditions, this can be a great raise, where you'd much rather be heads up or three-handed with a BB. the same concept applies to isolating light raisers, weak-tight limpers, and other predictable players.

blind stealing is also an interesting area. you will meet opponents against whom you should raise any 2 cards, because they defend poorly (by folding too much preflop or on the flop). simple math problem. you gradually tighten up as players become tougher, but sometimes this only means throwing away your weakest 25% of hands because the blinds still suck a fair amount. sometimes it means only open-raising your best 35% or so, large on a value basis. it's always a balancing act, but fold equity plays a crucial role, and it's tied to position.

[/ QUOTE ]


I concede there are spots where the blinds may play so tightly that you should raise any two. I wonder if it should ever be any # other than :

mathematically defined superior hand range of remaining players compared to your hand

or

every hand

To explain further : if the blinds are playing so tight that raising makes a profit because they fold so often preflop (or to continuation bets) then you should be raising ATC. If they are playing any less tightly than this, what % of hands should you be playing? This appears to be a tricky problem to consider. Since raising ATC is not profitable anymore, is raising ATC - 5% going to be profitable? I would have to look into this.

Regardless, I refuse to play in games like this, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Isolation raising is really just value raising by another name.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to start stealing blinds.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to start stealing blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.

[sy_or_bust]

[ QUOTE ]
It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.

[/ QUOTE ]

you keep saying this, and its really dumb. if its true, than the games discussed here are vastly different (and tougher) than the games you play in. thats OK. but if you aspire to move up stakes or play tougher games, you need to learn how to play in these special situations where you can boost your winrate by punishing loose players and weak blinds. ignoring these situations cannot be good.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.

[/ QUOTE ]

you keep saying this, and its really dumb. if its true, than the games discussed here are vastly different (and tougher) than the games you play in. thats OK. but if you aspire to move up stakes or play tougher games, you need to learn how to play in these special situations where you can boost your winrate by punishing loose players and weak blinds. ignoring these situations cannot be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I punish loose players constantly. As for playing in tougher games I have no desire to do so. I am confidant I can find loose limit games as far as my foray into limit hold'em will take me.

[krimson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to start stealing blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Live 3/6?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.

[/ QUOTE ]

you keep saying this, and its really dumb. if its true, than the games discussed here are vastly different (and tougher) than the games you play in. thats OK. but if you aspire to move up stakes or play tougher games, you need to learn how to play in these special situations where you can boost your winrate by punishing loose players and weak blinds. ignoring these situations cannot be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I punish loose players constantly. As for playing in tougher games I have no desire to do so. I am confidant I can find loose limit games as far as my foray into limit hold'em will take me.

[/ QUOTE ]
What limit at what sites are you playing? If you're playing party 1/2 and have no desire to move up I can understand what you're saying.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you need to start stealing blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.

[/ QUOTE ]
Live 3/6?

[/ QUOTE ]

Live 3/6 - 10/20
Online $1/$2 - $3/$6

I agree with her about this and I cant see how it's dumb.

When I play 2/4 live in our casino I notice the same thing. The games are so loose that I rarely even get the chance to open, much less open raise to try to steal the blinds.

That's merely an observation, Im not sure why it would be "dumb".

And if I understand her point, I think she's just pointing out the reasoning behind raising, it's not like she's necessarily doing anything any diffrent than anyone else.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with her about this and I cant see how it's dumb.

When I play 2/4 live in our casino I notice the same thing. The games are so loose that I rarely even get the chance to open, much less open raise to try to steal the blinds.

That's merely an observation, Im not sure why it would be "dumb".

And if I understand her point, I think she's just pointing out the reasoning behind raising, it's not like she's necessarily doing anything any diffrent than anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think discussion is gooing anywhere, but playing 3/6 online you'll be facing steal/isolating-situations on a regular basis.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with her about this and I cant see how it's dumb.

When I play 2/4 live in our casino I notice the same thing. The games are so loose that I rarely even get the chance to open, much less open raise to try to steal the blinds.

That's merely an observation, Im not sure why it would be "dumb".

And if I understand her point, I think she's just pointing out the reasoning behind raising, it's not like she's necessarily doing anything any diffrent than anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think discussion is gooing anywhere, but playing 3/6 online you'll be facing steal/isolating-situations on a regular basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isolating is really just another name for value raising and I DO play 3/6 online, I just practice my game selection at this limit very carefully. I do not encounter these situations. I am not saying I never open raise on the button, I do that (although it is rare that it is very rare that it is folded around to me). I am saying I never "blind steal". My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I refuse to play in games like this, so it doesn't really matter to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok cool. Good for you. But then I don't see why you'd even bring this up. In this poker forum most of us are striving to improve, and not only to get better at beating loose passive games but all kinds, especially the tougher ones at higher levels. And most anyone who has posted here for any length of time should know that we raise most of our hands for value (AA, I want 9 callers, etc). So it's all well and good to say "I don't need to steal/raise for fold equity", but for most of the people here, we need to learn and work on those situations where our raise may not be for value in terms of pot equity but for fold equity. And so I guess I just don't see what relevance this whole thread has in really educating anyone. It's just sort of "This is what I do" and we say "good for you"? Or is there something I'm missing?


[ QUOTE ]
Isolation raising is really just value raising by another name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. If I raise a limper on the button with A7o or something and get called by the SB and BB, I'm not sure how much of an equity edge I have. Now if we're counting fold equity as a part of "value", then yes, raises are always for value. If you're talking in terms of pot equity, I don't know that it's always the case. I agree we aren't usually raising with a significant disadvantage, but that doesn't mean it's a pure value raise all the time either, it has to do with fold equity then and on later streets.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if we're counting fold equity as a part of "value", then yes, raises are always for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now if we're counting fold equity as a part of "value", then yes, raises are always for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's take this down a level. Explain fold equity.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I never "blind steal". My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take this as an insult, but this shows a poor understanding of the game. Let's say you're raising from Button or CO. SB folds, BB is getting 3.5:1 on his preflop call. You'll have to raise only VERY strong hands for him not having the odds to call. Even if his hand is worse than yours he'll be correct to call with many hands. You'll want him to fold these hands.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ok. But before you said you really never want people to fold. Your hands certainly do have an edge against whatever random hands they may hold. But like in my A7o example, iso-raising a limper, you have an edge against his range and probably against the likely holdings of the blinds too, but not necessarily WHEN YOU ARE CALLED (this obviously depends, but if they have quasi-reasonable standards then this is going to be a hit or fold flop oftentimes). Given how this hand will play out postflop, you probably do not want to be playing 4 ways. Hence, you probably want folds so you can win UI with Ace high/small pair either at showdown or on the flop/turn. So you are raising for value, but you really may not want to be called, which you disagreed with earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I never "blind steal". My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take this as an insult, but this shows a poor understanding of the game. Let's say you're raising from Button or CO. SB folds, BB is getting 3.5:1 on his preflop call. You'll have to raise only VERY strong hands for him not having the odds to call. Even if his is worse than yours he'll be correct to call with many hands. You'll want him to fold these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar manner to what you are describing it is heads up on the flop. I have JJ and the flop is J42, 4 and 2 of hearts. The pot is 4SB. I bet, and my opponent with A and K of hearts calls. Both he and I are making money on the call.

Similarly, the BB with 89s may be right to call my open raise with AK on the button. This doesn't mean I am blind stealing. It does mean he would be making a mistake to fold. This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. My hand compares favourably to his hand (and his hand range). He is right to call. This means nothing.

Ahhh... I see now the point. That I do in fact want 89s. This is partially correct. Because I make $$$$ on his call I want him to call. Because he makes $$$ on his call, I want him to fold. I want him to fold more than I want him to call.

So, I suppose, yes, this makes a little sense. In part I am wrong. I do want my opponent to call in this situation but I want them to fold more.

I hope this isn't too confusing : )

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added."

Prove it. This is not well known by me.

"but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not. "
KJo doesn't like multiway pots because it's dominated by AQo when not AK / bigger pair is out and JJ when no bigger pair is out love big pots. Don't they? Prove it one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

AA vs 9 randomed hands in two-dimes: ( LINK (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1366936))
Holdem Hi: 201376 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 46336 23.01 154940 76.94 100 0.05 0.230
Qd Jd 35012 17.39 166264 82.56 100 0.05 0.174
9s 9h 12600 6.26 186842 92.78 1934 0.96 0.067
8s 8h 28213 14.01 173063 85.94 100 0.05 0.140
4s Kc 6470 3.21 192968 95.82 1938 0.96 0.037
6s 6c 18051 8.96 183225 90.99 100 0.05 0.090
2c 3h 8167 4.06 191840 95.26 1369 0.68 0.044
9c 2h 137 0.07 198036 98.34 3203 1.59 0.008
Kh Th 18625 9.25 180813 89.79 1938 0.96 0.097
7s 7c 22724 11.28 178552 88.67 100 0.05 0.113

Pokerstove enumerates to about 30% equity with 9 random hands

Now... AA vs 2 other random hands
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards ( LINK (http://twodimes.net/h/?z=1366951))
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 971323 70.86 395974 28.89 3457 0.25 0.709
Qc Jd 141501 10.32 1225796 89.42 3457 0.25 0.104
9s 9h 254473 18.56 1112824 81.18 3457 0.25 0.186

Pokerstove enumerates AA vs two random hands to 73% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is there 5 pairs in this "random hand" distribution /images/graemlins/grin.gif 66, 77, 88, 99. At a 22/6 table you'd have 7 of these hands playing for sure.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
In a similar manner to what you are describing it is heads up on the flop. I have JJ and the flop is J42, 4 and 2 of hearts. The pot is 4SB. I bet, and my opponent with A and K of hearts calls. Both he and I are making money on the call.

[/ QUOTE ]
To make it simple I'm not counting your chances to re-draw.

He'll outdraw you ~18% of the time.

EV if he folds:
4SB

EV if he calls:
4*0.82 + 1*0.82 - 1*0.18 = 3.92SB

You'll be making money if he calls, but you'll be making more money if he folds.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I do want my opponent to call in this situation but I want them to fold more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! But since you want him to fold more than you want him to call you really want him to fold /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

If a call is +EV for him you always want him to fold more.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I do want my opponent to call in this situation but I want them to fold more.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly! But since you want him to fold more than you want him to call you really want him to fold /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

If a call is +EV for him you always want him to fold more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, almost no absolute statement is completely true. Regardless, the point of my post was that I want callers (almost all of the time).

something i find interesting about your post...

you want fewer callers in a hand that fairs better multi-way???
yet you want more callers in a hand that does better against a smaller field???
doesnt make much sense to me

[ QUOTE ]
something i find interesting about your post...

you want fewer callers in a hand that fairs better multi-way???
yet you want more callers in a hand that does better against a smaller field???
doesnt make much sense to me

[/ QUOTE ]

What hand does better against a smaller field?
When do I want fewer callers?

[jackdaniels]

I just noticed this:

[ QUOTE ]
Reged: 11/21/05
Posts: 244

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
**

[/ QUOTE ]

4 days and you managed 2 stars?!?!? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

AK you want fewer callers as the hand you'll make most often is top pair with the best kicker... a hand that doesn't fair well with 9 people chasing you...

J-10 suited on the other hand will always make the nut straight when you use both or a medium flush... which is far more likely to hold agianst a larger field

[ QUOTE ]
AK you want fewer callers as the hand you'll make most often is top pair with the best kicker... a hand that doesn't fair well with 9 people chasing you...

J-10 suited on the other hand will always make the nut straight when you use both or a medium flush... which is far more likely to hold agianst a larger field

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you prove this quantitatively. I agree that J10s wants more players; I think AKo wants more players as well.

simple logic...
assuming you are lucky enough to catch a piece of the flop with AK, you still have to fend off the drunk monkeys chasing you down with A-rag, or bottom/middle pair chasing their 5 out two pair draws, and any straight draws/flush draws... the more opponents you have the less likely your hand holds...
also, if you are able to isolate preflop and it comes 3 rags, there is a much better chance you still have the best hand...

J-10 on the other hand, you are likely to be the one drawing on the flop... and you want other players in, to provide you more than adequate odds to do your drawing... with only two callers, 8 out draws are barely profitable if they are at all if you miss on the turn

Quantitatively sir.

i thought i did prove it somewhat quantitatively... if you want me to spend my time doing monkey math and post five hands chasing down your top pair with the probability they do so you have the wrong fellow..

also, if you can't see why having improved odds of chasing a hand that is less likely to get cracked than top pair, like a nut straight or flush draw, is better, than i will need to fill two pages of poker logic

Well, I guess I do have the wrong fellow then. I regret to inform you that I cannot simply take you at your word that you are correct; I do require reasoned arguments to change my mind. Better luck on the next person!

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what the point of your post is.

"Thinning the field is a myth" - Edited: in the games I play. Great...what am I supposed to do with this? It's not in the games I play.

It seems all that some are saying here is that as there are more people in the hand, hands like top pair win less frequently, so some hands lose value. So, if you're raising KJo in the games you play getting nine to the flop, it's not a good idea. I'm assuming you already know this, though.

What is supposed to be gleaned from your original post?

Raising to 'thin the field' is a myth in every game. What is not a myth is that 'occasionally' (very occasionally) you actually want your opponents to fold.

Does that answer your question?

ok... here's two examples...
you have A /images/graemlins/heart.gif, k /images/graemlins/club.gif

you are unable to isolate, and the flop comes
7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 8 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K /images/graemlins/club.gif

you are up against:
7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif.... 5 outs to beat you
9 /images/graemlins/club.gif, 10 /images/graemlins/club.gif .... roughly 6 1/2 outs given runner flush potential... and removing the 6 and j of diamonds
K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 10 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif... 9 outs to the flush, and two more to the two pair (given the 10 of clubs is out)

4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4 /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 outs to beat you...

i'm not saying that isolating is possible in B+M's as it is often not... i'm just saying that it would be ideal... this is giving your opponents 22/47 and 22/46 chances of beating you twice... you're not likely to hold up

oops... assume you have k /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Of course the more opponents you play against the less likely you are to win. This is obvious. You have not yet mentioned my EXPECTATION (which is the failure of most arguments). Clearly, I can do with winning less often if I am winning 5x as much.

[private joker]

When I raise ATs, I am hoping AJo folds. When I raise KJs, I am hoping KQo folds. When I raise TT and JJ, I am hoping Kx, Qx, and Ax in the blinds fold.

Often when I raise PF, I want people to fold.

When a maniac LAG open-raises to my right, and I reraise with KTo, it's not because I think my hand is better than those to act behind me -- it's because I want those who act behind me to fold. I want it heads up because I think KTo is only a favorite against the maniac's range of hands, not the range of hands that will call if I just cold-call. A lot of hands that have me crushed will fold for 3 bets. I like that.

Yes you want AJ to fold but it won't. KQ also will not fold to a raise (barring the occasional rock, of course every rule has an exception). Therefor, you don't actually WANT folds (since these hands won't fold) you want calls.

Clearly if you can get better hands to fold than this is positive. It is not going to happen.

Your point about 1010 vs kx is salient but I am not sure if it is correct. This should be examined.

(edited in)

This also is not 'thinning the field', this is folding better hands. Thinning the field assumes that the fewer hands you play against the better, which is blatantly false.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising to 'thin the field' is a myth in every game. What is not a myth is that 'occasionally' (very occasionally) you actually want your opponents to fold.

Does that answer your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the difference, in your opinion, between thinning the field and wanting an opponent(s) to fold.

your hand is strong regardless of how many players are in, and how many outs your opponents have, and you are obviously getting the right price to play, but you'd have higher EV from fewer opponents. you are going to hold in this scenario approximately 22% of the time, so lets give you four to one, receiving 4 to 1 from your bets here on out plus the pre flop action (assuming the 2 and 5 outers remain in)...
it is still a profitable play...

now lets say you were able to isolate by making it 3 with 5-7 being an initial limper, and 4-4 being the donk raiser... if you making it 3 would eliminated the K-10 and 10-9, you are now only fearing seven outs, while having a much higher expected value despite only getting 2 to 1 the rest of the way

Thinning the field is when you open from UTG and hope to get say 2 or 3 callers (you hope to thin the field).

When you open raise on the button with AK and the BB has 89s you may want him to fold (I am not sure about this actually, since he will miss the flop so often). That is the difference.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes you want AJ [and KQ] to fold but it won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I, and most 2+2ers, fold AJo to a raise. I play Party 5/10, and there are usually at least 2 TAGs at a table. I try to sit to their right, and get the fish to my right. If I have achieved good seat and table selection, there will be plenty of times better hands fold when I raise PF, and I find myself in position against weaker hands held by worse players. Welcome to poker.

Ok, but again this is not 'thinning the field' and the amount of times this happens preflop is small (that you have A10 and your opponent has and folds AJ). Note Ed Miller in SSHE recommends cold calling with AJ and KQ and that was why I did not think these hands would be folded.

Regardless, this is not 'thinning the field'.

and again, if you look at my initial post, the thing that baffled me is why you would want less players with a hand that gets the majority of it's value from strong draws

[ QUOTE ]
your hand is strong regardless of how many players are in, and how many outs your opponents have, and you are obviously getting the right price to play, but you'd have higher EV from fewer opponents. you are going to hold in this scenario approximately 22% of the time, so lets give you four to one, receiving 4 to 1 from your bets here on out plus the pre flop action (assuming the 2 and 5 outers remain in)...
it is still a profitable play...

now lets say you were able to isolate by making it 3 with 5-7 being an initial limper, and 4-4 being the donk raiser... if you making it 3 would eliminated the K-10 and 10-9, you are now only fearing seven outs, while having a much higher expected value despite only getting 2 to 1 the rest of the way

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example is so contrived it is tough to give it any serious thought.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, but again this is not 'thinning the field'

[/ QUOTE ]

When did I ever mention 'thinning the field' in my post(s)? I never used that phrase.

[ QUOTE ]
Note Ed Miller in SSHE recommends cold calling with AJ and KQ and that was why I did not think these hands would be folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

No he doesn't.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinning the field is when you open from UTG and hope to get say 2 or 3 callers (you hope to thin the field).

When you open raise on the button with AK and the BB has 89s you may want him to fold (I am not sure about this actually, since he will miss the flop so often). That is the difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't think the distinction your making exists. You're describing 2 different scenarios.

There are times when a raise UTG is to get people to fold. There are times when a raise from UTG is for value.

There are times after 1 or 2 poor limpers that a raise is to get people to fold. There are times after 1 or 2 poor limpers that a raise is for value.

There are times when you open from LP that a raise is to get people to fold. There are times when you open from LP that a raise is for value.

These are certainly not concrete in every example, but nonetheless, example exist in each situation.

Meh, you're the boss. I'd check the section on cold calling preflop before you say that though. You're probably right... what do I know?

(I mentioned thinning the field in my post initially, I'm happy you agree with me that it doesn't exist)

i'm still wondering what the point of the post is... i've spent a half hour trying to explain that top pair holds up less often than a straight or flush to this ninkenpoop, and why you'd want better pot odds when drawing to a hand with J-10 suited...

My point is that I see the words "thinning the field" as a reason to raise in poker literature and throught this forum. I do not know why we would want to do that.

[Roadstar]

Please try to come up with a better way of asking a question or starting a debate if thats your intention.

Here is an example:

You have AA UTG you raise.

I'm in the BB with 22

Lets assume I know you are holding AA so quantitatively (since you like it so much) I'm a 4-1 dog. If everyone folded to me, I should fold (ignoring implied odds for a second since I don't want to make assumptions about post flop playing skills at this point).

So here you want me to call so I make a mistake.

But lets assume everyone on the table cold calls your raise. With 19 SB in the pot, I'm getting 19-1 so it is correct for me to call now my EV is now +.

because mathematically 19-1 is greater than 4-1.

Now why did this happen? because you WANT 9 callers didn't you?

The reason is when one person cold calls 2SB, most of it goes to you in terms of equity. So if you're 80% favorite, 80% of the 2SB or 1.6SB "is expected to belong to you" (EV). BUT as more ppl call, other hands gain in value, so their mistake starts getting distributed to other ppl with legitimate hands that can outdraw you at the right price.

Your incremental EV from each cold caller decreases (and starts shifting to me with the 22).

In other words, your second derivative starts getting smaller (the rate of change on incremental EV). Conceivably, you're not only raising with just AA and they would be hands where additional callers help allocate equity away from you and to someone else - making the incremental equity negative or simply put you want to thin the field.

BTW what does the 2 *'s mean /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Ok. You can also come up with elaborate scenarios where AA is a dog preflop. You can come up with elaborate scenarios where I want people to fold. I agree in this situation it is better for me if 22 folds. He never will, so if he does fold he is folding a hand like 810o that I want to call.

Two statements :
1) 95% of the time, if a player folds, you actually wanted him to call.
2) Thinning the fields is a myth.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever. In fact, when I play poker, I am not hoping anything; this is aside from the point.

When I raise AK UTG I want 9 callers. When I raise J10s on the button I want 2 callers.

I do not want to thin the field. I raise for value. Thinning the field is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must never raise to isolate . . .

Nothing in poker is absolute. Your statements are off base.

How about this scenerio which Ive found even in loose games: (I play a lot of 2/4 online).

In these loose games as Im sure you will agree you get a lot of people who constantly limp into the pot. Usually the ones who continuously do it all the time are your weaker players who are playing weak hands and provide you with the whole reason you might of chosen to play at that table.

The rest of the players are those such as yourself, or perhaps those that are not excellent players but not loose maniacs either. (vanilla players if you will, slightly loose aggressives, rocks, etc....) They are beatable perhaps but overall you wont get nearly as much money from them without some degree of luck.

If I was sitting in LP with a decent (but not great hand) or a drawing hand, I had a bad habit of always limping behind other limpers.

Now obviously there are all sorts of reasons why you wouldnt want to do that, but one reason I came up with is that I actually do want to isolate those bad players that have already limped in.

If I am successful and can isolate them there is more of a chance that I will take more of their money before anyone else since I am choosing way better hand selection, I have superior position and Im more likely to make the correct choices from the flop on.

If I dont isolate them then it's not as clear, you could have much better players in the pot with better starting hands (because you might not always just raise with your monster starting hands). Id rather take the worst players head on along with the huge implied odds that they are dragging along with them.

I know this might go against anything that's an EV consideration but I think it does address one area of "luck" in table selection which is getting a table with the worst players and having an oppurtunity to take as much of their money as possible before anyone else can.

Another scenerio that I go thru is that even when I raise a big hand, I would rather that anyone with a better position than I have would fold. (especially if they are a better player that I know doesnt play a lot of hands) If they are in the hand then I usually have to be a lot more careful. (not that I play careful, it's just not as desirable)

Im sure they can bring up tons of examples where you would want to thin the field that are far better than mine.

But I dont agree that your question is dumb. I just think it's kind of redundent. You are making a statement that you are "not hoping" people will fold, yet you "want" callers, yet "you are not hoping anything".

Obviously what you want and hope for is illrelevant and it doesnt seem that you are making a statement about how to play but merely what you should or shouldnt hope for...

[Roadstar]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. You can also come up with elaborate scenarios where AA is a dog preflop. You can come up with elaborate scenarios where I want people to fold. I agree in this situation it is better for me if 22 folds. He never will, so if he does fold he is folding a hand like 810o that I want to call.

Two statements :
1) 95% of the time, if a player folds, you actually wanted him to call.
2) Thinning the fields is a myth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know there are lots of elaborate scenarios but I can't name them all.

"I agree in this situation it is better for me if 22 folds. He never will"

Well no you are wrong , you want 22 to call if its folded to the BB because hes only getting 3.5 to 1 and you're a 4 to 1 favorite (calling would be a mistake here). So his call is incorrect. With everyone cold calling then you want him to fold (folding would be the mistake here).

BTW, I fold 22 facing a raise if I'm not in the blinds most of the time (unless I expect enough callers to justify adeqyate odds).

Your statements: 1) you assume you're superior at the table and know you have the best hand when you raise. Its a game of incomplete info you don't know precisely who you want to call or fold. 2) I have no idea what you mean when you say thinning the fields is a myth - are we in a fairy land when we raise and everyone folds but one. The field has been thinned. But you say thinning is a myth.

If you had KQ and raise in MP, 2+2er with AJo folds, you picked up some equity but raising and it happens to weed him out. Otherwise you would have been an underdog. I don't know how else to explain.

[sfer]

Generally, I agree, particularly given the quality of low limit games online right now, and for most live mid-stakes games that I've seen.

There are, however, plenty of games where I raise hoping that people behind me fold.

[UVaHoo]

I've just been skimming some of these posts, but you said, "1) 95% of the time, if a player folds, you actually wanted him to call."

This simply isn't true.

Isn't all of this a Fundamental Theory of Poker argument? If I make a play that's different from the play I would make if I could see your cards, then I've lost money for myself and made money for you.

If you raise with AKo, and I'm holding 22, I'm a slight favorite preflop. If you raise, and I could see your cards, it would be right for me to re-raise. However, in this situation, you'd want me to fold, because my hand is a favorite over your hand. You're making less money if I call or re-raise you than you are if I fold. Why wouldn't you want me to fold?

Also, say you raise with AKo again. I have JTs in the big blind. I'm getting 3.5 to 1 to call. Even though you make money if I call, you're making more money on me if I fold, because if I could see your cards, I'd call you with JTs and see a flop. The problem for you with my call is that even though you still make money, I make more money by calling you than folding. That money comes from someone, and that "someone" is you.

Out of curiosity, have you read "Theory of Poker"? It addresses the basic situation you brought up.

As a multiplayer example, suppose I have 55 on the button. You have AA utg. You raise, and 4 people cold-call. I'm now getting 11.5 to 1 to call, and I'm only a 4:1 underdog to your bullets. It's +EV for me to call you there, and that hurts your overall EV for me to call.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]


It is extremely rare for it to be folded to me in late position in the games I play in.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ending sentences in prepositions is not +EV.

[thejameser]

[ QUOTE ]
When I raise preflop I am not hoping people will fold. Ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

you lost me at "Ever".

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
What is supposed to be gleaned from your original post?

[/ QUOTE ]

First I thought she was just arrogant and ignorant...and then the more I read, the more I began to believe that she was a troll.

Oh, what the hell, it's the holidays--can't she be both? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Moozh]

Hmm, I don't post in this forum much anymore, but I'll take a shot at this.

There are times you want callers and there are times you don't. Raising only in one situation (where you want callers) may be a correct play at lower limits against players that don't pay much attention, but it can't be correct in tougher games.

Very simply. If you only raise in situations where you want callers, observant players will soon learn to fold to your raises correctly. Thus, your opponents will be playing fundamentally correct against you and by the fundamental theorem of poker, you will not win their money.