The Crux of it All

[Sarge85]

Ok Ok -

Kong has started a revolution on 2+2 regarding doing whatever it takes to win the big pots. Kudos.

Not to sound trite...but what's the measuring stick to what a "big pot" is?

I don't mean to sound like a goob, but where's the bar...

Obviously if there are 5 limpers, and 2 raises, the pot is "big". Do you consider the pot "big" if there was 2 limpers, a raise, and both call?

Or on the flop only 3 limpers, but then the flop was 2-bets a piece?

PF - your on the button with 5 limpers - is the pot now "big?"

[dirty_dan]

Maybe I'm the goob. I can't seem to find majorkong's big pot post that everybody is referring to. Can someone help me out with a link?

[BottlesOf]

Lol, we never hammered down a hard and fast rule, as that is not what poker is about /images/graemlins/grin.gif but usually a raised, multiway pot (several opponents) does the trick. Clearly, it's a sliding scale, and the importance of you winning the pot is directly related to the size of the pot.

How'd I do???

[Ed Miller]

Start thinking "big pot mode" whenever the pot was raised before the flop. That's as good a bright-line as any.

Think, "would I be willing to risk losing the pot to try and win an extra bet?" If the answer is no, the pot is big. If the answer is yes, then it's not.

[JTG51]

It's a recursive definition. You should risk an extra bet or two to win a big pot. Therefore, a pot is big when you should risk an extra bet or two to win it. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Sarge85]

Now that is thinking outside the box