Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And what would you do if you were OOP since a check will tend to induce a bet (and often a large bet) behind which may or may not be a bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Controlling pot size OOP in NL is difficult at best, and sometimes nearly impossible against tough opposition. Against weaker, straight forward opponents, you can sometimes make small (1/4 - 1/3 pot) leads OOP with weaker made hands and draws. They'll often freeze up and either just call or min-raise and give you good odds while keeping the pot size down. Against tougher opponents it's a lot trickier and your best bet is to avoid big confrontations OOP as much as you can. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you've got AQo in the CO. A uber-tight player raises 3xbb from UTG. From playing with him, you know that this likely means AA-JJ or AK. You're the only caller. The flop comes As-5d-8c. He bets 2/3 of the pot, which is standard for him. You call. Flop is a blank and he checks. You check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

waxie's whole post is gold, but I'd like to expound upon it a bit.

It's a good idea to check behind in the above scenario. Keeping the pot small in a WA/WB hand is one reason. You don’t want to pay too much for this marginal hand. But it's not the only reason, and frankly, it’s not the one that is foremost on my mind when I'm actually in this spot at the table.

Instead I'm thinking of the other side of this same coin: controlling aggression. In this hand you're either way ahead or way behind your opponent and it's hard to tell which. (this is what's meant by "WA/WB") If you're way ahead, you'll surely prefer to raise some amount the opponent will call, for value. But if we’re way behind, our raise will only be met by further aggression either right here or on the river. By reopening the betting, we expose ourselves to giving the opponent the leverage to force us in to a mistake. I’d prefer to control the opponent’s aggression so that I don’t make that mistake. Like I said, this is just the other side of the same “pot control” coin. But it’s another way to look at it.

It also gives you a way to look at other scenarios where you might not need to control pot growth but you do want to control aggression. For example, a big draw with multiple opponents. In this case if your draw is to the nuts, you don’t mind the pot growing. But you would mind if by reopening the betting you gave your opponent the chance to push you out of the pot. In that case, he had the leverage to force you in to a mistake. Not all opponents will take advantage of this opportunity when they should, so often times I’ll go ahead and raise my big draw. Sometimes I’ll even push. But not always, and one of the factors in deciding is whether reopening the betting is likely to force me out of the pot.

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you've got AQo in the CO. A uber-tight player raises 3xbb from UTG. From playing with him, you know that this likely means AA-JJ or AK. You're the only caller. The flop comes As-5d-8c. He bets 2/3 of the pot, which is standard for him. You call. Flop is a blank and he checks. You check behind.

The turn check is an example of a move designed to keep the pot small. You want to get to a cheap showdown if he's got JJ-KK and avoid putting too much money in the pot if he has AA or AK. He'll most likely make a smallish bet (btw 1/2-2/3 of the pot) on fifth street, which you can easily call.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is Villan's known hand range, even with the A on board you're only ahead of half of his possible hands, so how can calling pre-flop with the intention of calling all the way down be +EV?

I realize that this was just an example, so I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how strong (or weak) your hand should be in order to elect going into call-down mode.

The concept of "taking away a street" definitely makes sense, too, but doesn't that mean you're losing money to draws that would call a -EV bet on earlier streets?

Edit: With the A on board, I see that you're now ahead of 15 out of 24 possible hands Villan has.

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If this is Villan's known hand range, even with the A on board you're only ahead of half of his possible hands, so how can calling pre-flop with the intention of calling all the way down be +EV?

I realize that this was just an example, so I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how strong (or weak) your hand should be in order to elect going into call-down mode.

The concept of "taking away a street" definitely makes sense, too, but doesn't that mean you're losing money to draws that would call a -EV bet on earlier streets?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my thinking too, originally. And I still agree with you on the first part. If villain's really that tight with his PFR's, I'm folding my hand heh.

As for the second part, the example was deliberately structured to eliminate the possibility of draws (I'm guessing here, but bet I'm right lol). Mathematically on this flop Hero has a pretty big equity edge here (a little better than 3:2), and you'd think he'd want to get as many chips in as he thought villain would call. So why wouldn't he? The answer is in GrunchCan's explaination. It's about agro control.

Since there are still a number of hand in villain's range that beat me (equity not withstanding), then a bet on the turn is dangerous. Why? Because villain can come over the top, and I still have no idea whether to call or not. If he's ahead, then calling is wrong and I loose money. If he's behind, but I fold, then I loose again. For that matter, he could just call here and then I REALLY don't know where he's at! There are just too many opportunities for me to make a mistake here. So checking behind is safest.

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

Another way to think is how many are in the hand and what could they be drawing to.
You are in the BB with Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] with the small blind and 3 limpers. The pot has $25 in it. Your flop is:
Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and the small blind checks.
You have Queens up but it's very vunerable to the flush, straight and even to a stronger Q if your second pair is counterfieted. Your bet should be enough to not give the pot odds to all the possible callers. If you bet $5 almost all have the odds to call. If you bet $10 and the next player has a pair and calls the pot is now $35 and the third to act only has to call $10. This is a 3.5/1 call, not ideal for a OESD or flush draw but you will frequently get the draws to call. If the third to act calls the pot is now $45 and the fourth to act and sm blind have pot odds of 4.5/1.If you bet $20 you will usually only get called by a big pair (which you beat), a person who has no care for odds, or someone who feels the implied odds of them making their hand will be strong enough (thus make it a wrong decision by not calling their bet if they hit their flush etc.)Thus the second to act calls making the pot $45 and the next to act must call $20. You controlled the pot odds to be 2.25/1.

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

bump

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

maintaining pot size is also a way to extract value out of your opponent's hand. checking the turn allows the villain to lead at the pot on the river or call a bet with a hand he normally wouldn't have paid for on the turn since he realizes that he'll be facing bets on 2 streets where the pot size may end up to be very big. this applies more as you go up in levels since at the very lowest stakes your opponents will be willing to showdown very mediocre hands.

Re: SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?
 

[ QUOTE ]
bump

[/ QUOTE ]
Hey man you're getting the hang of it now.