KK in LP, everyone is playing

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]

3. Would you have been so quick with the retort had I used ~6-9 instead of ~6-10?
4. Would you raise the turn if you were against opps with ~6-9 outs?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point isn't the number of outs. The point is that when collectively people have a large sum of outs against you, it doesn't make their individual calls correct.

For example, the pot is 4BB on the turn I hold AA. The board is 4589. One of my opponents holds A6 and the other holds A7. If I bet and both of them call, I have just profited from both of their calls. Although they have a collective 8 outs against me, they have each made FTOP mistakes and I have profited from each individual mistake. I will still lose the pot ~20% of the time, but I would rather them both call my bet than fold, because I am making money from each call.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

3. Would you have been so quick with the retort had I used ~6-9 instead of ~6-10?
4. Would you raise the turn if you were against opps with ~6-9 outs?

[/ QUOTE ]
The point isn't the number of outs. The point is that when collectively people have a large sum of outs against you, it doesn't make their individual calls correct.

For example, the pot is 4BB on the turn I hold AA. The board is 4589. One of my opponents holds A6 and the other holds A7. If I bet and both of them call, I have just profited from both of their calls. Although they have a collective 8 outs against me, they have each made FTOP mistakes and I have profited from each individual mistake. I will still lose the pot ~20% of the time, but I would rather them both call my bet than fold, because I am making money from each call.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good. But...

1. If they are "wrong" to call the turn than they must be more wrong to call a turn raise.
2. If they fold to my raise, I am immediately increasing my equity so I am not that distraught about losing an immediate turn bet.

Lastly, I do believe (but am open to being shown differently) that your example contains a logical fallacy; that is - and please forgive my lack of articulation -

you say that if 1 opp has 3 outs and incorrectly calls and another opp has 3 different outs and incorrectly calls that you make money because they both made FTOP mistakes and then a third opp has 3 different outs and when he calls you make even more $$... this is flawed logic. I'm certain you see that at some mathmatical point verus n nuber of opponents, hero is the one drawing to runner runner Ks which may not even be the nuts here.

Do you see my point? Simply... the more that hero's opponents outs are overlapping the more that a call MAY be better (but if they will call 2 cold a raise would still seem better) but the more exclusive villains' outs are the more a raise TO REDUCE THE FIELD is mandated, imho.

[einbert]

Their outs most likely are overlapping. Only Aces and Eights can really beat us if they are drawing.

Reducing the field is nice, but having our opponents make FTOP mistakes is really the goal in poker. And yes, having a player with J8 or 77 call two bets cold is great here, but the reason a call might be the correct play is that they might (and I believe they would) very frequently fold for two more bets when they would call for one more bet.

In the example you listed, depending on the size of the pot (assuming that for the first person the pot odds aren't there), the first person has handed us EV by calling incorrectly. Then the pot becomes larger, but with this size of pot and 3 outs each still each opponent is going to be making a substantial mistake--until the pot becomes much larger from their many calls. Then the last few opponents might be able to make barely barely +EV calls. And yes that would definitely work against us. But in this case, there are only a few cards they can collectively be drawing to, and the pot is just not big enough and there aren't enough players for this type of scenario to occur. "Reducing the field" doesn't apply when our hand and the pot size is such that they are making a substantial mistake in simply calling one bet.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most hands that can draw out on you have only two or three outs to do it. With loose players behind you, you should definitely slowplay and call the turn.

After you see the turn action and river card, you can consider raising the river for value.

-eric

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The key is trusting yourself to act correctly if someone reads your turn call as AK or some such and then overplays their A8-ish hand with a checkraise. You can get in some tricky spots by appearing weak here. But in general, this post is spot-on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Raising is not good here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely wrong if the other players are willing to call 2, THAT's the hard decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Belaboring a rare, but obvious exception isn't particularly useful. The vast majority of players, even in LL games, are folding anything less than specifically TPTK here for 2 bets. However, a great number of them will gleefully call one bet drawing to between 0 and 3 outs.

And I'd dang sure collect 3 bets in this pot with those 3 people collectively drawing to ~7 avg total outs than have them fold. Especially when you factor in that the original bettor could easily be donkbetting trips, in which case we want their bad overcalls to help fund our own bad call.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]
Their outs most likely are overlapping.


[/ QUOTE ]

1. Of course their outs are most likely overlapping but your "proof" was offered up even in the scenario where they were not overlapping. As such, unless they are, in fact overlapping, then n opponents drawing to 2 outs each, while each making a FTOP mistake will, indeed, take your money. I don't want to beat this with a stick.

[ QUOTE ]
Only Aces and Eights can really beat us if they are drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

PPs hitting on their 2 outers also beat us.

[ QUOTE ]
But in this case, there are only a few cards they can collectively be drawing to, and the pot is just not big enough and there aren't enough players for this type of scenario to occur.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is maybe where we disagree most, then, because I "see" this as a sufficiently large enough field of players with independent outs, as I said. I see the Equity gained by knocking out even 1 opponent benefitting us more than the extra bet or 2 by having the opp call the turn and maybe call the river.

[elindauer]

hi molawn,

you make an insightful point that lots of bad calls can, conceivably, still cost you money. The reason is that each call donates part of their mistake to you, and part of their mistake to the other draws.

However, this theoretical possibility would require such a goofy distribution of cards as to be almost unimaginable on this board. I suspect this concept is only of theoretical interest, with little or no application to real world poker.

Call the turn because you profit greatly from their mistakes, if not quite gathering in 100% of the mistake.

-eric

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I don't disagree with any of this, but his description of the game made it seem very possible that they may be willing to call 2 cold. I'm pretty sure someone playing live should be able to get a pretty good read on what those chances are.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
I "see" this as a sufficiently large enough field of players with independent outs, as I said. I see the Equity gained by knocking out even 1 opponent benefitting us more than the extra bet or 2 by having the opp call the turn and maybe call the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no need to speculate, the case can be proven mathematically. I'll spare you the details and just give the results:

if we assume a raise folds everybody, it's EV is 9 BB vs folding. What about a call? Should we risk the pot to get the bad calls? How many bad calls do we want?



1st, assume that everybody in the pot can see your cards, and that a bad river costs you 2 BB, but a good river wins you nothing on the river. Clearly, far too slanted against us. What are the results though?

Well, under these assumptions, the function is increasing in EV up to 2 callers, but never quite gets to 9. This isn't terribly surprising I suppose, since we're giving the bettor a free draw and giving everyone perfect information.

ok, so tweak it a bit. Let's say that for every player in the pot on the turn, they each give us on average 1/2 a bb on a river where we win. Now what?


Now the function increases up to about 4 callers, and calling gives an EV higher than raising for all numbers of callers up to 6.


What if we push it up to 1 BB for each caller given to us on good rivers? This is probably too high, but just to check it out...

Now calling is hugely profitable, probably gaining over 1 BB given the conditions in the OP. The function increases for every caller up to 4, and it's better to call than raise for all numbers of callers up to 7.



ok, this doesn't even PROVE it, but these assumptions seem pretty reasonable to me, and strongly suggest that calling is better than raising if your opponents will call down for 1 bet on each street but won't call for 2 cold on the turn. Note that I also assumed that everybody's outs were independent, and that nobody was drawing dead. Clearly in real life this is not accurate.


On a side note, I found it interesting assuming 2 outs produced functions that topped out at 2-3-4 callers. Giving all the callers 4 outs, so that if you think your opponents may have stronger draws like gutshots and 5 out middle pair hands, you're probably always going to be better off raising.

With 4 outs and everybody paying off .7 BB on the river the function is decreasing all the way and always less than 9.


To sum up: you should almost always stay aggressive when you think you have the best hand and there are multiple callers with hands that likely have 4 or more outs. In this case though, because everybody is drawing so thin, the pot isn't enormous, and there are only a couple potential callers, calling is best.

good luck.
eric