When Pots Get Big.

[RocketManJames]

I read somewhere that when pots get big, your #1 goal is to win it right there.

Then, I think some more about EV-maximization, and somehow it seems that the two cannot live in harmony. Here's a simple contrived example to illustrate my point, and maybe someone can add to this and explain where I'm wrong or perhaps where I'm right.

Say that pre-flop round has gone 4-bets by 6 players. The flop is capped by 4 of you, and now you're on the turn against 3 opponents. Now, the pot is large (20BB).

Now, let's say that you have the current winning, but vulnerable hand, right now. Let's say you have AcAs vs KcKs vs Ts9d vs QhJh and the board is: Jd 8h 5h 4d.

So, KK is drawing nearly dead, but doesn't know it. Say QJh bets out, KK raises. Say that if you 3-bet, QJh and T9o will both fold (for whatever reason, maybe QJ no longer feels a heart will save him, and his pair is no good). Now, if you just call, say you can keep both of them in. Which is better? It seems that keeping them in is clearly +EV, as QJ will likely pay off a river bet if the river is a brick, as will KK. But, the pot IS big, so is the goal to win it by 3-betting? Why do I sense a conflict in maximizing EV vs. having the goal of winning a large pot as soon as possible.

Anyone care to shed some light?

-RMJ

[Kenshin]

Accruing additional bets in a large pot effects the pot size less than it would in a small pot. Although this explanation appears somewhat counter-intuitive, it actually makes senses.

For example.

Assume you you hold 44 in a 100 dollar 3-6 pot with a board of 4c 10d 2s Jh. A player bets into you with two people left to act behind you. If you smooth call, the two remaining opponents will also call and increase the pot size by roughly 10%. With the same board in a small pot, these two callers account for greater than a 20% increase in pot size.

In essence, in a large pot you risk a substantial amount to gain little. In a small pot you risk little and gain alot.

I hope this explanation helps,
Kenshin

I completely forgot about the fundamental theory of poker aspect whch sthief explains nicely.

[sthief09]

the problem with your logic is that you think that it's correct to keep QJ in when it's not. regardless of what you do, QJs is getting correct odds to call with his multitude of outs (he'll win the pot 27.5% of the time). why would you want to collect 2 extra BB from QJs but lose a monster pot 27.5% of the time?

when QJs folds, you gain.

[RocketManJames]

I am on crack. I misthought this severely... I kept thinking "the pot's money is not your money" and applied that incorrectly to this, and confused myself. This confusion led to my post.

I think I'm back on track again (well, back to where I was before I had this episode of mis-thinking).

Thanks.

-RMJ