Strategy Question for 2+2 Authors

[Depraved]

Astroglide started a great thread a few days ago questioning the rationale behind calling with QQ on the button in a multiway pot. If I interpreted David's response correctly, he said the play is optimal if you want the overpair to hold up on its own, and the specific merits stem from the increased probability someone to your immediate right will bet into you given you're not the preflop raiser.

I'm still confused over when to favor tactics that maximize your chances for winning the pot, and tactics that maximize your chances for winning the most money. What factors should I be weighing when I decide to choose one strategy over the other? Is it even worth consideration at all? Specifically in another part of HPFAP, I believe the 2+2 authors suggest cold calling a raise in the big blind with KK if the pot is multiway. The rationale is you can bet out on the flop and expect the preflop raiser to raise, thus thinning the field for you.

At least one competing author advocates capping preflop with KK/AA, with the assumption you will make the most money this way. When is this wrong? What factors determine when it is wrong?

Do you think the difference is negligible?

[Dynasty]

I think that 95%+ of the posters here should accept that they aren't nearly good enough to limp with QQ or not reraise with KK and make up the lost equity after the flop.

Mason and David should also accept that any advice which suggests play in this manner is going to hurt the vast majority of their readers rather than help them.

[DcifrThs]

also notice that we are really talking about play of qq and jj IN THE BLINDS as you are out of position. i don't know ANYONE who wouldn't raise those hands in a late position. you have it and its important to get bets in there late. now if you want to debate raising b/c everybody and their mother limps to you on the button then jj has a legitimate argument but its still worth considering a raise in late position. calling allows the pot to be kept smaller and make more EV off of their mistakes on the flop and turn when the pot is not offereing as much as it would have been had you raised.

just stuff to think about, but note how important position is in deciding what to do.
-Barron

[Clarkmeister]

Its a terrible play in either position.

[astroglide]

my theory is that if you win more than your fair share, go nuts. meaning if you have 3 opponents and you rate to win more than 25% of the time, you should be pleased with each bet that all of them put in. if you do not (after factoring implied odds and other considerations), you should fold or do what is necessary to reduce opponents and get to a superior position. of course this cannot be veritably assessed at table time, but we all do what we can to figure it out.

the advice with which i take the most task is that which recommends knocking people out when their bets would be welcome in the long run. i see this far too often. i play for chips, not pots.

[Vehn]

I think the basic problem with the "check with JJ from the blinds" stuff in the book is that the authors presume that the limpers have much better hands than they would in reality.

[Ed Miller]

I'm still confused over when to favor tactics that maximize your chances for winning the pot, and tactics that maximize your chances for winning the most money.

While I'm not going to address your main question, I will correct you a little bit. The "delayed" raising tactics are designed to win the most MONEY. Unless your bankroll is absurdly short (such as in a tournament), you should never play a hand in a way that increases your chance to win the pot, but decreases your EV. You are always trying to maximize your EV.

[Depraved]

[ QUOTE ]
... I will correct you a little bit. The "delayed" raising tactics are designed to win the most MONEY

[/ QUOTE ]

OK major, I was willing to go along with this line, because it makes sense, but here's the excerpt I was referring to from HPFAP in the chapter "When the Pots Get Big":

[ QUOTE ]
Large pots create tricky situations from the flop on. Basically your number one priority is to win it. Not to win more money, but to win the pot....

For instance, suppose you have two kings or two queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raised, and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not reraise, and when the flop comes to bet out, unless it includes an ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original preflop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't seem ambiguous to me. The raise is not intended to be a value raise. It is intended to help you win the pot, not more money. The authors seem to believe that winning more of these pots is more important than winning more money in these pots, and they start the limit for this mentality at 7 big bets preflop.

Of course, the rationale is you will make more money in the long run, but not in the particular hand. What bothers me is that it seems very hard (perhaps impossible?) to determine what the borderline for this phenomenon is: where will more pots with less money become more profitable than fewer pots with more money, and how can I judge when that line has been crossed at the table? Is it even practical?

What's even more interesting is the fact that they root for a fold when a fold is the correct play to make. This blatantly violates the fundamental theorem of poker, and could be a subtle admission that the theorem did break down in multiway pots as others have shown (due to true full fledged implicit collusion). As far as I know, this is yet to be formally acknowledged and explained in any 2+2 text. Whether or not that's what was behind this logic is another topic, but if it isn't, their logic would appear to be incorrect as you would want your opponents to fold to the flop raise, but you'd be even happier with their calls. Could the entire issue rest on this?

Anyway, to me the subject has an uneasy dissonance surrounding it that must be resolved sooner or later. There seems to be confusion and disagreement within this forum and within the poker elite over the issue.

Now, given your original statement, would you say I've misconstrued that HPFAP material, or can you say you disagree with it?

I'm not a slave to HPFAP, but since this is Mason and David's forum, I was hoping they might have something to say about it.

[Depraved]

Thanks for your response - I liked it best because of its simplicity. I don't know if it is viable for other reasons, but I'm certainly thinking about it.

[Depraved]

Agreed, but I won't stop trying to become part of that 5%. In fact, that's mainly why I come to this forum. There are more important issues to tackle, but this isn't irrelevant, and I'll innevitably return to this issue.

I also think S&M should explain various risque concepts regardless. If there are caveats which are relevant (like skill level), then list those too.

[SLEEPER]

I don't know how the rest of you feel, but when I am playing 6/12 or 10/20, I would have to say that 80% of the players at the table do not understand any of these theories.... I can't speak for the higher limits, but from what I here, they don't get much better. Therefore, given QQ, JJ or even 1010 I am raising 99% of the time. There is no way that these other players are going to lay down the [censored] they play with either way. I say build a pot, cause you got the best of it..... If the cards don't come out the way you want, FOLD!

They stink! Most of them complain about dealers, seats, tables, cards...... They don't understand a thing...... They give no respect to a raise, and they don't fold until they realize they have 7 high on the turn, and it is $24 for them to call.....

Yah, if I am playing Mason, or David I would raise less often, and not becuase I want them to fold on the flop when they have a gutshot, but ONLY becuase I want to confuse them....

Sleeper

[Ahigh]

Even on the wildest Borgata 6-12 or 10-20 ot trop pink game i will just cold call with QQ and JJ on the botton. Yes they will call 2BB cold with just about anything but that would be 2BB that YOU want them to call in the spot that YOU picked for them ( and not many will do it in the right spot for a right reason) Isn't that what you are looking for when playing those people?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Even on the wildest Borgata 6-12 or 10-20 ot trop pink game i will just cold call with QQ and JJ on the botton. Yes they will call 2BB cold with just about anything but that would be 2BB that YOU want them to call in the spot that YOU picked for them ( and not many will do it in the right spot for a right reason) Isn't that what you are looking for when playing those people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making them call 2 more cold preflop IS the right spot with the right reason.

[Ed Miller]

Of course, the rationale is you will make more money in the long run, but not in the particular hand.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think you are confused. S&M suggest that you improve your chance to win the pot at the expense of some extra postflop bets because doing so increases your EV for THAT hand, not for the "long run." While this is a crude example, it demonstrates the point they are making:

Winning a 20 bet pot 50% of the time = 10 bets
Winning a 20 bet pot 30% of the time plus two extra bets = 8 bets

When the pot is large, improving your chance to win it often makes more money ON THAT HAND than does winning an extra bet or two.

This blatantly violates the fundamental theorem of poker, and could be a subtle admission that the theorem did break down in multiway pots as others have shown (due to true full fledged implicit collusion).

The FTOP does break down in multiway pots... and there's no need to be subtle about admitting it. The thing is, knowing that the FTOP breaks down in a multiway pot doesn't suddenly change your preferred play. You still want your opponent to raise the flop for you.. why does it matter what you root for your opponents to do? Either way (call or fold), it is clearly better for you that it be two bets to go and not one.

[Ahigh]

Preflop it would be one extra SB for them and it would not (most of the time) influence they decision to play one way or the other. They do not respect button raises (or almost any raises with 6 limpers) just as much as they do not respect their own money. Time and time again i see 6-7 to the turn no meter how jammed the pot was. Yes, i am ahead but there are a lot of "miracle" cards (with 7 people in) that could hurt me so if i can thin the field on the turn by making them call 2 cold .I'll take that any day over just just getting one SB from them preflop ( not to mention that pot gets huge if they do call and i am still ahead in that pot).

[SLEEPER]

The point is to make them pay from pre-flop all the way to the river when you have the best hand.... If scary cards come, then you fold! They are going to win some hands, nothing you can do about it. ( if they didn't, we would all be playing each other ) If someone wants to call my raise out of position with 6/7 then great. They will pay me off in the long run.

[Depraved]

Well, we're talking about the same thing albeit with different semantics. All I was saying was that when you win a pot, 20 big bets is less IN THAT HAND than 22 big bets. I thought it would be more clear (although perhaps non-standard to you) to limit the discussion of money won in a hand to that particular hand because of the nature of the discussion. I'm pretty sure it was clear the way I wrote it. In fact, it was written in the same style by David Sklansky so I'm not too worried about it, but I understand (and agree) with what you're saying. Sorry if I confused you.

Semantics aside, I think it's great that you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
When the pot is large, improving your chance to win it often makes more money ON THAT HAND than does winning an extra bet or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like a lot of people are indifferent to this notion. Never mind the fact that they are winning players, and play against zombies half the time. They don't seem interested in perhaps increasing their profits.

[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP does break down in multiway pots... and there's no need to be subtle about admitting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, but can you direct me to some 2+2 material that even discusses this? It's the authority on poker, and yet I can't find the said material in any of their books. If I've missed it somewhere, please let me know. Maybe you could include it in your book.

I disagree with you on this:

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, knowing that the FTOP breaks down in a multiway pot doesn't suddenly change your preferred play. You still want your opponent to raise the flop for you.. why does it matter what you root for your opponents to do? Either way (call or fold), it is clearly better for you that it be two bets to go and not one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else, it should definitely factor into the reasoning behind this play.

In terms of bets collected, putting two cold to them isn't different than one bet to them after you've 3bet preflop. Both situations add up to 4 small bets. The only difference is you've given them a chance to fold correctly. Why would you actively plan to give them this chance?

If there's a gigantic amount of money in the pot preflop, you would be unable to create this situation anyway (meaning your 20 big bet illustration isn't valid since they'd chase to the end no matter what), so were talking about medium-big sized pot situations. And at that point when you're faced with choosing a betting pattern that pumps up the biggest pot vs. a betting pattern than manipulates your opponents into folding correctly, why would a player choose the latter? You'll win your fair share anyway, but what isn't in your favor is the equity lost when many opponents call your bets, even incorrectly. It will end up costing you EV, and therefore, I contend it is perhaps the only issue driving this motivation to choose tactics which cut out many opponents by allowing them to fold correctly when the pot gets bigger.

[Franchise (TTT)]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP does break down in multiway pots... and there's no need to be subtle about admitting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, but can you direct me to some 2+2 material that even discusses this? It's the authority on poker, and yet I can't find the said material in any of their books. If I've missed it somewhere, please let me know. Maybe you could include it in your book.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's right where you'd expect it to be. TOP, Chapter 3, "The Fundamental Theorem of Poker".

[Ahigh]

My point that if I raise preflop i probably wont have a chance to put them on 2BB decision on the turn since very rarely someone will bet into me there...

[Depraved]

Thanks Franchise. I was unclear and also incorrect in my statement. I forgot that the TOP granted the FTOP breaking down in multiway pots. What I did remember (thus shaping my poor statement about it), what that the effects of implicit collusion have yet to be printed in the TOP or any other 2+2 book (to my knowledge).

The example given in Chapter 3 is far removed from implicit collusion, and the assertion that the FTOP holds for most multiway pots apparently ignores the issue altogether.

[Ed Miller]

In terms of bets collected, putting two cold to them isn't different than one bet to them after you've 3bet preflop. Both situations add up to 4 small bets. The only difference is you've given them a chance to fold correctly. Why would you actively plan to give them this chance?

This is not the correct way to view the situation. Your pot equity changes DRASTICALLY between the first two cards and the flop (depending on what the flop is). Three bets preflop and one on the flop is not at all the same as two bets before the flop and two on the flop.

Think about it this way:

You are in a four way pot. It is before the flop, and your hand will win exactly 26% of the time (you just happen to know this). Should you raise?

Well, a raise certainly makes money. You win more than 25% of the time, so you make money on every additional bet that enters the pot. But you make only a TINY BIT on every additional bet. In fact, you make about 0.04 bets by raising.

But just because a raise makes money doesn't mean you should do it. That's because not raising could make EVEN MORE money ON A LATER STREET.

Now assume that raising preflop changes the action after the flop. If you raise, your opponents will check and call your bet. If you don't, an opponent will bet into you, and you can raise if you choose to do so.

Say there are two possible flops.

Flop 1 is good for you. It gives you a 40% chance to win, and each of your opponents a 20% chance.

Flop 2 is bad. It gives you a 10% chance to win, and each of your opponents a 30% chance.

So say you didn't raise, and flop 1 comes. Your opponent bets, and you raise. All your opponents call. You now get 40% of all the extra bets... or 0.6 bets of added EV!

Getting to raise after a favorable flop netted you much more money than raising before the flop. Unfortunately, flop 1 doesn't always come... maybe it comes only 30% of the time. But that means that you get 0.6 extra bets 30% of the time.. giving you an extra 0.18 bets of EV by getting to raise the flop. You gave up 0.04 bets of EV preflop for the chance to make 0.18 bets on the flop. If you had taken your 0.04 bets preflop, you would have missed out on the flop raise.

Does this make sense? Sometimes your opponents will fold instead of call... but when they have a 20% chance to win the hand, YOU ARE BETTER OFF HAVING THEM FOLD FOR TWO BETS THAN HAVING THEM CALL FOR ONE BET. So it is STILL to your advantage to get a flop raise in.

Finally, the fact that the FTOP breaks down (i.e. that sometimes you want them to fold even though they should fold) is NOT RELEVANT. It is still WAY BETTER that it be two bets to them rather than one, no matter what you want them to do. This is why 2+2 hasn't discussed it before... knowledge of Morton's Theorem ALMOST NEVER changes the correct way to play your hand.

[karlson]

Ed, I think you forgot to take into account the bets that you'd win when you raise preflop and they call your flop bet. Now, you have to divide the final (0.18) number by two, and all of a sudden it's much closer. Make it 30% preflop, and I'd rather raise preflop.

[Ed Miller]

Now, you have to divide the final (0.18) number by two, and all of a sudden it's much closer.

No. That 0.18 is just for the EXTRA bet. I got the number this way:

40% of 4 bets (you get one EXTRA bet from each player when you raise the flop) = 1.6 bets. 1.6 - 1 (the bet you used to raise) = 0.6 bets.

[Ed Miller]

As your preflop edge gets bigger (26% to 30% to 40%), the more important it is to raise IMMEDIATELY rather than to wait for the flop. This is why I advocate raising preflop a lot more for value in loose low-limit games... your edge is larger against poor hands.

[karlson]

Sorry about that, you're right.