Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

I've been thinking about this for a while now. First and foremost, before anybody gets the wrong idea, I understand the merits of each and every preflop raise that is made in that we PFR for many reasons: including but not limited to raising for value, to thin the field, to gain fold equity, for postflop leverage, to define our hands, and for metagame purposes. I'm sure there are more, but since that is not the overall point of this post, I won't dwell on it. Now, I use all of these reasons and combinations thereof to make my raises and my PFR % falls in line with the normal standard at each limit I've played.

I've been thinking, however, that the wealth of preflop raises found in today's midlimit online game creates an environment in which there is much more luck than in games with lots of limping. Before you say it, yes, I fully know that passive games are easier to beat than aggressive games. I'm quite aware of that. That is generally thought to be because the preflop raises and reraises by your opponents can put you in particularly difficult situations pre and postflop.

Most of those difficult decisions are found postflop but there are a few times that preflop when this happens (AQ anyone?)

I have been thinking about what this does, however, to the amount of luck involved in the game. It is no surprise to anyone on this board that there is a lot that is dependant upon the flop itself. So, the more money that is dumped in before the flop, the more luck that is involved in comparison to the money that is in the pot. It's like one of that tables on Paradise when they dealt their 250,000.000th hand a long time ago. Each player seating and actively playing at the table got like $5,000; but the winner of the pot got $25,000...who in the hell is going to fold anything here? If I've got even a chance in hell of winning, I'm going to the showdown. (Needless to say, I actually saw someone fold on the flop here...and it was dealt on a 1/2 table or something like that).

My point is that a wealth of preflop raises creates a situation in which postflop skill is negated. Many times there is just too much money in the middle to fold. In other words, it doesn't matter what your opponent reasonably holds, the size of the pot has already made your decision. A typical example is this:

You have AKo on the button and a LAG raises UTG. MP2 (who is relatively tight on preflop raises) reraises. You cap and both call.

The flop comes K 8 3 rainbow. LAG checks, MP2 bets, you raise, LAG reraises, and you cap...all call.

Turn is a blank..both check and you bet...LAG checkraises (LAG has a turn aggression of 0.6 through 400 hands). Anyway, you know this checkraise is probably bad news and you calculate that you have a 90% sure that you are beat and are likely up against a set.

How much is in the pot? I count 13.5 SB preflop and another 12 on the flop...25.5 SB going into the turn or approximately 13BB. Add 3 more BB so far on the turn and we have 16BB. So you're going to have to call 2BB to get to showdown....and you realize that you are better off calling because the biggest mistake would be laying down inappropriately here.

Now...remove all of the preflop raises...so we would have 4.5SB going into the flop. If we replicate the flop action, we have 16.5SB going into the turn (the BB check-folded). This gives us approximately 8BB. The action on the turn is identical and now it is 11BB to you and you know it will be 2BB once again to get to the showdown. Once again, you calculate that it is 90% certain that you are beaten. You are effectively getting 5.5 to 1. Assuming that you are a good reader, your 90% just won't cut it here.

In the first example, you are not able to make a mistake by calling the turn and the river (even though you are about as sure as you could ever be that you are beaten here) whereas the second example makes it a mistake to call down.

Your reading skills have just been negated in the first example...yes? So that would mean that the greater the volume of preflop raising in a game, the higher the luck factor, correct?

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

Thinning the field is a myth. You almost never gain 'folding equity' and defining your hands to your opponents only makes them play better.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

One thing left out of your analysis is that the raising got the blinds out of the pot. So fewer competitors and thus a diminished chance that a "lucky" flop will hit an inferior hand. And, in general, players in a game where they suspect the pot will be raised are less likely to limp in from early positions, also cutting down on the luck factor. The fewer players involved, the less chance a high quality pre-flop hand will be drawn out on.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

What is luck anyway?

Who is luckier the guy who draws to a gutshot getting 4:1 or the guy who draws to a gutshot getting 7:1?

I don't have answers to these questions and I don't think luck is the right concept to describe what you are talking about.

I basically disagree with you. Reading skill are even more valuable in big pots. You need to be even more sure of your read to lay down a hand in a big pot and it is a big mistake if you are wrong. In a small pot, you don't need to be very sure and it is not big mistake if you are wrong.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

I like your thinking and I think this is a well thought out post FWIW. LAGGY action with big pots pre-flop with less of an edge after the flop leads to more fluctuations which IMO means that reducing the luck factor to the noise level takes a lot longer. In todays poker universe of 8-tabling, high speed internet action this probably is ok though.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge this assertion. When you raise AJs in the BB after 7 people limp in you have an equity edge. As your equity increases, your variance isn't as negative. For example win rate 5, variance 10 = swings from -5 to 15. win rate 15, variance 10 = swings from 5 to 25. This is just an example of how increasing your win rate makes your variance less noticable, these numbers do not represent anything real.

Certainly by raising more often there are some effects which mean higher variance, but there are other effects that make that variance not as "painful".

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

Ok I agree with you but doesn't the pot equity situation change alot depending on the flop which is more or less what the OP states. HFAP has a discussion about this in the section regarding loose games. Giving up some equity early to gain more later on. Let's change AJs to AKo in the BB, how would you respond then with 7 limpers?

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

Of course on the flop your pot equity changes, but unless the raise preflop forces you to make unfavourable choices post flop (like leading into a field of 7 players with unimproved ace high) these two need not have a direct correlation. None the less, there are some situations where raising preflop makes your opponents play better postflop. Miller has the example of the 4-1 underdog situation. In this game (which is just a thought example bear in mind) on the "flop" (there is no turn and river) one of you two will be a 4-1 underdog. Your opponent always calls, and you can choose your action. If you raise preflop, it is right for your opponent to call, if you don't it is not.

Still, my opponents are making terrible mistakes preflop (good preflop play does not make for 7 way pots) and so I make alot by punishing them (before they know the flop is gonna miss them).

I would raise AK preflop as well. It is almost certianly +EV to do so, and I obey all +EV decisions.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
One thing left out of your analysis is that the raising got the blinds out of the pot. So fewer competitors and thus a diminished chance that a "lucky" flop will hit an inferior hand. And, in general, players in a game where they suspect the pot will be raised are less likely to limp in from early positions, also cutting down on the luck factor. The fewer players involved, the less chance a high quality pre-flop hand will be drawn out on.

[/ QUOTE ]




I certainly don't disagree...the blinds are an X factor in the equation but its not quite as simple as it may first seem. Noone doubts that raising gives you a better chance of winning and many times creates some dead money in the pot from the blinds or from the occasional extra poster. These are things that argue in favor of raising, but there is another issue that lots of preflop raising creates:

Let's look at a hypothetical deal in an online game. Let's pretend that you're a very technologically intelligent cheat [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] and that, as a result, all of the cards on your screen are dealt face up. You are a mastermind and have virtually no chance of getting caught and therefore you are going to be able to play in a way that perfectly coincides with the fundamental theory of poker. You are in MP3 in this situation...here is what you see...

SB Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
BB J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (He correctly folds immediately)
UTG+1A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (He is passive preflop and limps)
UTG+29 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (Correctly folds)
MP1 Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (Correctly folds)
MP2 A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (Correctly folds)
Hero A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Well, since we're cheating here we should label ourselves villain [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], but now we've got to decide what to do. We look behind us and see:

CO 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (he'll call a bet but not cold call)
Button K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (hmmm, he would play that unraised from the button)


And then the blinds...SB is folding no matter what and the BB is calling no matter what.

So...do you want to fold, call, or raise now that we've seen the stone cold truth? We have the best hand, so we're not going to fold. Let's see how this works. If we raise, we are going to drive out button and the cutoff, the SB has already checked the fold box and the big blind is calling anyway.

So first we look at what a raise accomplishes. We raise and it gets folded to the BB, who calls, then UTG+1 calls. So, its 3 to the flop for 2 bets a piece and 6.5 SB are pulled to the middle.

What is our equity in this situation?

Our hero wins 56.21% against these 2 opponents.


So, we have 56.21% of a 6.5SB pot or a 3.65 SB slice...less the 2 bets of our own and we have a positive expectation of 1.65 SB.


Now, if we don't raise, the button and the cutoff will come in...we will have 5 people to the flop for 5.5 SB, thus:

UTG+1 22.19%
Hero 41.28%
CO 19.22%
BT 4.79%
BB 12.51%

So you have a 41.28% slice of 5.5SB, or a 2.27 SB piece. If you subtract your original bet, you have a positive expectation of 1.27SB.

So your profit from raising is only an additional 0.38SB in this situation because one of the byproduct of raising is to discourage dominated hands from making calls in position.

In this particular scenario, you would probably be better off not raising because you have some implied customers if you hit your hand...meaning that the pots you do win (which will be fewer) should be larger due to the implied payoff from not raising...specifically when one of our limpers we let in flops top or middle pair.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thinning the field is a myth. You almost never gain 'folding equity' and defining your hands to your opponents only makes them play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you including winning the blinds uncontested?

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thinning the field is a myth. You almost never gain 'folding equity' and defining your hands to your opponents only makes them play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you including winning the blinds uncontested?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am unsure as to what you are asking me, and what it has to do with what I said. Could you please respecify?

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge this assertion. When you raise AJs in the BB after 7 people limp in you have an equity edge. As your equity increases, your variance isn't as negative. For example win rate 5, variance 10 = swings from -5 to 15. win rate 15, variance 10 = swings from 5 to 25. This is just an example of how increasing your win rate makes your variance less noticable, these numbers do not represent anything real.

Certainly by raising more often there are some effects which mean higher variance, but there are other effects that make that variance not as "painful".

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand the assertion you are making. Have there been any studies on how marginal preflop raises affect variance and expectation....certainly they increase expectation but do they do so to the point where they actually reduce the variance from not raising?

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like your thinking and I think this is a well thought out post FWIW. LAGGY action with big pots pre-flop with less of an edge after the flop leads to more fluctuations which IMO means that reducing the luck factor to the noise level takes a lot longer. In todays poker universe of 8-tabling, high speed internet action this probably is ok though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the comments. I have wondered if passivity should be the most important part of table selection if most of your edge comes from postflop play.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thinning the field is a myth. You almost never gain 'folding equity' and defining your hands to your opponents only makes them play better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you including winning the blinds uncontested?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am unsure as to what you are asking me, and what it has to do with what I said. Could you please respecify?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was responding to Spoohunter's assertion that thinning the field is a myth.

genius n/m
 

.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

Good stuff there.

Your analysis indicates what percentage of the time you will win with the best cards. It doesn't indicate how many times you can win without the best cards; whatever that percentage is, it will be a much higher, one would think, without the two players behind you. The flop will miss everybody more often with just three of you and you'll be more confident betting it when they check to you than you will be with two others still to act behind you. So it's not just raising the blinds out, but raising the players out behind you that should be considered. This is especially crucial as one move up in stakes and a larger percentage of the pots are won not by having the best hand on the river but by having the only hand before the river.

BTW, when I plugged in the cards into Twodimes, it showed Ad-Ks winning 50.92% against Jd-9d and Ah-Jh.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

"This is especially crucial as one move up in stakes and a larger percentage of the pots are won not by having the best hand on the river but by having the only hand before the river."

maybe it was a misperception on my part, but it seemed like there was a dip in the number of showdowns around the 20-40/40-80 level but then that table showdown percentage went back up as i played higher. does that make sense?

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

I've played minimally at 80-160 and 100-200. You might be correct for So. Calif., especially Commerce. I would suspect not for Las Vegas, but hopefully others can chime in here, and for online too. Regardless, I think when you lose you lose more with the two players behind you, so when we say we win 56.21% (or whatever) of the time, I think we lose more $ with the two behind than we do, proportionately, when our raise buys us position. That, I would think, is especially true as you move up and the players are trickier and more aggressive, especially with position on the turn and river.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

I dont bump the pots as much now for these reasons. Unless you have a significant edge over an opponent or opponents then I prefer to hold back on the marginal EV raises.

Hands like AKo unimproved are harder to throw away in big pots plus your hand range becomes obvious. By just calling 3bets people are more likely to make mistakes with draws and dominated hands it also becomes easier to fold obviously beat hands.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"This is especially crucial as one move up in stakes and a larger percentage of the pots are won not by having the best hand on the river but by having the only hand before the river."

maybe it was a misperception on my part, but it seemed like there was a dip in the number of showdowns around the 20-40/40-80 level but then that table showdown percentage went back up as i played higher. does that make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually have a theory about this. I found that the 20-40 to 40-80 level games are the first level of pyschololgical barrier games, where people can lose thousands, rather than hundreds fairly easy, causing them to play weak-tight. The ones that get used to it, take advantage and beat the crud out of these players. When they move up, they refuse to fold as they believe everyone's trying to bully them the same way. Just an opinion I've formed while I was bored. Maybe it has some merit, maybe not.

my thoughts exactly! n/m
 

.

Aggression increases short-term luck, but skill still wins out
 

It's not limited to preflop. The more aggressive a game is, the bigger the swings of short term luck will be. Imagine you have Jh Jd and your very LAG opponent has 9c 8c and after the turn is Jc Tc 3s 2s. Let's say that every street has been capped to this point. Look at how big of a swing things take based on whether the river is the 7h or the 6h.

The short-term luck factor is both good and bad. It no doubt convinces a lot of losing players that they are really winners who have gotten unlucky somehow. They attribute the times of short-term good luck to their skillful play, while blaming times of short-term bad luck on luck alone (even though their decisions were far from optimal). On the other hand, it means that a winning player needs a bigger bankroll to withstand the short-term fluctuations and more psychological strength to avoid conflating short-term results (good or bad) and long-term winning strategies.

I don't believe that a higher luck factor is necessarily correlated to a decrease in skill. I think you are biased to seeing folding in a medium pot as a major skill in limit HE. In limit HE, folding moderately strong hands is not the key skill to the game. (That is a much more important skill in no-limit HE.)

More aggressive games require more skill because players must make more decisions, and consequently are in greater danger of making more mistakes that will cost them in the long-run. More aggressive games also generally tend to lower the quality of hand that should be shown down, but it still takes a lot of skill in applying this general principle in concrete situations. You will always come across hands where you have a tough decision, and making better decisions in these situations can give you an edge. Also, there are many times when the decision is very clear but counterintuitive; only by careful study of the game and the theory behind it can a correct decision be made. Finally, the sheer number of variables involved in a poker hand (which increase as players become more aggressive and ways are needed to distinguish between different styles of aggression) as well as the necessity of estimating these quantities with incomplete information available makes poker a challenging game that requires skill, no matter how bloated the pots get.

In summary, I agree that the short-term luck factor does increase in aggressive games. But I also believe that skill plays a very large role in these games. The way that these two claims are reconciled is that it takes longer for skill to make itself apparent and separate winners from losers, but because of the skill needed in the game, it will definitely happen in the long run.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

First of all, sorry I took so long to get back to you. I had a busy, busy weekend.

[ QUOTE ]


BTW, when I plugged in the cards into Twodimes, it showed Ad-Ks winning 50.92% against Jd-9d and Ah-Jh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ran it throught PokerStove...I included the dead cards since we knew the entire deal here.



[ QUOTE ]
Your analysis indicates what percentage of the time you will win with the best cards. It doesn't indicate how many times you can win without the best cards; whatever that percentage is, it will be a much higher, one would think, without the two players behind you. The flop will miss everybody more often with just three of you and you'll be more confident betting it when they check to you than you will be with two others still to act behind you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Granted...there is no doubt that the PFR gives you postflop leverage to steal some pots that are not mathematically yours. I do not know the average win% on a continuation bet (TAG stats) with AK. Our win percentage on the bluff against two opponents is considerable, but it is certainly not going to be a huge percentage. Of course, our bluff percentage on a 5-handed flop drops exponentially...we have virtually no chance of winning uncontested. I'm sure that you will agree that like everything in poker, there is a tradeoff here. You know that AK has a lot more postflop options unraised, of course. Also, when you are outflopped, it is very easy to get away from.

Some basic flops with AK are:

You flop TPTK and are not extremely vulnerable such as a flop of A 9 2 rainbow

You flop TPTK and are vulnerable such as a 2-flush of A 9 2

You flop TPTK and are extremely vulnerable such as a 2-flush of AJT

You flop a monster such as AKK or QJT

You whiff completely such as 9 8 5

You whiff but you've got a nice draw such as Q J x rainbow or J x x monotone where you have the ace of trump.

You flop TPTK and are losing with little hope of winning (up against a set or something like that)

You flop TPTK and are losing but have a decent draw such as someone flopping bottom 2 pair (where you have the 5 outer plus some counterfeit out potential that can be picked up on the turn).

If you flop a hand with AK in an unraised pot, you can cause opponents to make some huge flop and turn mistakes even if they are on good draws. It is more difficult to do this if you are the PFR (maniacs are an exception).

If you miss the flop with AK, you can muck it quickly in an unraised pot if it becomes immediately clear that you are beaten.

If you're up against a set with TPTK...you're going to lose either way.


Anyway, I'm not advocating not raising with AK at all. I'm just stating that not everything is as clear cut as it may seem. Poker can be played from varying angles of attack and there are times when you are better off taking the opposite of the textbook approach. I nearly always raise with AK...but there are situations where it may be clearly better to call, especially if the following conditions are met:

a) You have almost no fold equity...i.e., players have already entered the pot and one of them is almost sure to see you to the showdown
b) The players yet to act behind you will play hands that you will beat to a pulp when you both connect. This turns AK into more of an implied odds hand.
c) It could have metagame benfits.

That said, these situations are difficult to judge and you could almost never be wrong in making the opening raise with AK.

Of course, the point of this post was in relation to preflop aggression. I think that AK is pretty much an automatic raising hand preflop. Of course, we know that many of the hands raised in today's midlimit online games are not nearly as good as AK.

The main hypothesis of my post was this:

If you get into a game that is so aggressive that it requires you to put in a lot of money with marginal hands preflop, you are going to have higher variance outcomes and if you are a good postflop player, it will lower your expectation. The only leverage you have is to get your opponents to lay down incorrectly. This is often expensive and high variance. It does work, however. More often, though, your postflop reading skills are neutralized in the same way that a no-limit expert's postflop skill is nullified by "sliders" in tournament play.

So, how important is preflop passivity in relation to the following variables?

1) VPIP
2) Avg. Pot Size
3) Passivity

Re: Aggression increases short-term luck, but skill still wins out
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's not limited to preflop. The more aggressive a game is, the bigger the swings of short term luck will be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed


[ QUOTE ]
The short-term luck factor is both good and bad. It no doubt convinces a lot of losing players that they are really winners who have gotten unlucky somehow. They attribute the times of short-term good luck to their skillful play, while blaming times of short-term bad luck on luck alone (even though their decisions were far from optimal). On the other hand, it means that a winning player needs a bigger bankroll to withstand the short-term fluctuations and more psychological strength to avoid conflating short-term results (good or bad) and long-term winning strategies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that a higher luck factor is necessarily correlated to a decrease in skill. I think you are biased to seeing folding in a medium pot as a major skill in limit HE. In limit HE, folding moderately strong hands is not the key skill to the game. (That is a much more important skill in no-limit HE.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well....like I said in the example...we couldn't fold in that spot because of the pot size even though we were 90% sure we were beaten. I think what you mean to say is that it is not important in games with relatively large pots...which aggressive games normally have postflop. I think good postflop players are always aware of the mistake of laying down incorrectly. If someone doesn't understand this, he is not a good postflop player. I have seen many people, however, lay down just to save a bet or two...which is generally bad policy on its own merits. I think you are arguing that "knowing when to stay in" is a skill. I agree with that. Many players basically play their entire game preflop, however. When they see the flop only with correct values in aggressive games, it becomes difficult to create mistakes if they are playing no-fold 'em in big pots. How many times have you nailed the someone's hand exactly, knew he had nothing, and still couldn't get him to fold? This generally falls into the realm of FPS because a lot of people simply don't fold...because they feel tied to the pot because of the preflop action. These people are much more common than the quick folders.

[ QUOTE ]
In summary, I agree that the short-term luck factor does increase in aggressive games. But I also believe that skill plays a very large role in these games. The way that these two claims are reconciled is that it takes longer for skill to make itself apparent and separate winners from losers, but because of the skill needed in the game, it will definitely happen in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I do think that variance is just as important as expectation, however...and sometimes more important. I do think, however, that playing in a game with fewer average bets per player allows for some extremely profitable opportunties. You can readily steal if you pick your pots, and players often make huge mistakes postflop that are easily exploited. For that reason, I think your expectation may, in fact, be higher for these games. Exceptions, of course, occur....such as when you are facing a complete maniac.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]

I basically disagree with you. Reading skill are even more valuable in big pots. You need to be even more sure of your read to lay down a hand in a big pot and it is a big mistake if you are wrong. In a small pot, you don't need to be very sure and it is not big mistake if you are wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you can every get much higher than 90%. Often, 90% is still not enough certainty to make a laydown. Even when I'm "sure", I still believe in the Harrington "maxim."

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

I assume you meant AJo here. Not raising a decent suited A after 7 limpers would be borderline criminal.

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

I think the big advantage of raising with AK in this situation is that if all three of you miss the flop, then your continuation bet will win the pot, bringing your win % up from the 56% stated. Whereas, it is unwise to make a continuation bet in a 5 plr limped pot. In fact your actual win % 5 handed will actually be lower that the stated 41.3% because you often mucked on the flop and don't get a chance to hit your 6 outer on turn and river.

Re: Aggression increases short-term luck, but skill still wins out
 

[ QUOTE ]
How many times have you nailed the someone's hand exactly, knew he had nothing, and still couldn't get him to fold? This generally falls into the realm of FPS because a lot of people simply don't fold...because they feel tied to the pot because of the preflop action. These people are much more common than the quick folders.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a bit skeptical about knowing with certainty that your opponent has nothing, but supposing we did, there is still plenty of opportunity for skill to come in. The skill doesn't come in trying to keep coming over the top with worse rags, but rather in value betting weak hands that wouldn't be value bet otherwise.

In big bloated pots, the main skill is value betting and controlling the number of bets that go into the pot before showdown. This is just a different skill than pushing tight players off missed hands by raising raggedy boards or scary boards in relatively small pots. In a tight game, it makes to semi-bluff raise more often with draws. In loose wild games where the pots become bloated, it often makes sense to play draws passively and look for ways to extract the maximum when you hit. (A key exception is bloating the pot on the flop if your equity edge is big enough.)

Re: Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge this assertion. When you raise AJs in the BB after 7 people limp in you have an equity edge. As your equity increases, your variance isn't as negative. For example win rate 5, variance 10 = swings from -5 to 15. win rate 15, variance 10 = swings from 5 to 25. This is just an example of how increasing your win rate makes your variance less noticable, these numbers do not represent anything real.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect, because pot equity is a proportion of the pot, not a fixed number. For example, if your equity is .4, the variance will be .4*(1-.4), or .24. Playing an 8SB pot preflop, where you have .4 equity, has EV of 2.2SBs[3.2 pot share -1sb invested], with a Variance of 1.92SBs. Doubling the pot by raising doubles your expected value, to 4.4SBs, but also doubles your variance, to 2.84SBs.