Different styles for BB defens
 

I learned shorthanded here on this forum. And here I did learn to call in the BB and then nearly allways cheackraise if I hit something. But today i rereaded Holdem for advance players. And they sugest to bet out and cheackraise the turn as a standard play.
Is there a big different between the opponents that the book thinks about and the online players? Or why have this forum choosen another standardplay?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Which page in HEFAP are u talking about?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

I'm at work now so I don't know the exact page. But it is in the shorthanded section. That section aint very big so it should not be so hard to find.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

ok, I'm off work now. The page is 199, "Leading on the Flop".

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

A correction to my first post. HFAP's standard line is to just bet out against the preflop raieser. I was off about the turn cheackraise, really sorry about that.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

I found myself thinking exactly this last night when considering my standard flop play in this spot, and came to the conclusion that the flop CR was questionable depending on the circumstances.

For example, if you are defending a raise in the BB with a hand like 97s and the flop comes 762, or similar. A CR will get 2 bets in against raisors "overcards"; in many cases where the flop comes ragged we will be against overcards (be they AQ, KT etc.). But when we check and get the bet, opponent will have correct odds to draw to his overcards on the Turn. Our CR may get extra money in the pot, but it does not force our opponent to make a mistake. Of course it can be argued that his flop bet was a mistake, but this is SOP after a PFR as a way to pick up the pot when the defender misses (which is about 66% of the time). The pre-flop aggressors play (betting the flop) is correct in a general sense, and his call of our CR is also correct with any two overcards.

When we bet the Turn the pot is 5.25 BB (assuming it was HU with the PFR and ourselves in the BB) opponent would be incorrect to draw with just his overcards (6.67:1), although it could be argued that with at least 1 more bet guaranteed on the River opponent is only making a small mistake by calling here. However, the flop CR makes life a lot easier for opponent on the flop, and if one other player also calls the PFR (for arguments sake, we say they fold the flop) putting 1 extra BB in the pot, then his Turn call is close enough to be justified. It is very close.

So why CR the flop? Betting out would make the opponent incorrect to call the flop bet on overcards, and again on the Turn.

As for betting the flop and CR the Turn, this is only going to work if, specifically, opponent will either

(i) Raise our flop bet AND bet the Turn (but the flop raise is to buy a free card...)
or
(ii) Opponent is sufficiently aggressive to bet the Turn when checked to.

So, in short, we need an opponent who is aggressive enough to bet the Turn with just overcards or a draw, and particularly after being bet into on the flop.

As the standard play for a PFR is to bet the flop, and to raise the flop for a Turn free card, I do not see many opportunities to both bet out on the flop AND gat a CR in on the Turn against PFR holding overs against our weak pair.

The situation may vary of course, we might pick up 2-pair or 2nd-pair (on a raggy board we can treat this the same as TP) or we may have a draw. CR the flop gets more money in but makes playing the rest of the hand easier for the pre-flop aggressor, he can certainly take one more off with overs (and correctly so).

When we pick up a pair, it seems to me we force the opponents holding overs to make mistakes on the flop and Turn by just betting out. The CR does not do this, both because the standard play of betting the flop after a PFR is (generally) correct AND because the CR gives overs correct odds to draw and therefore call.

A strategy that is more likely to work is check-calling the flop and CR the Turn. If opponent bets the flop and bets the Turn as standard then a flop check-call and Turn CR looks a better play, as we now force our opponent to call incorrectly on the Turn, a more expensive mistake (although this too is very close, see below). We need the Turn to be favourable of course but, as already stated, a flop CR is correctly called by the pre-flop aggressor so he is going to see the Turn at least, we cannot stop this (and our CR gives him the correct price to draw). I think we will see a lot more players betting the flop and Turn as standard (to prevent free cards) than calling a flop bet and then betting the Turn.

This requires some pretty good reads in order to be successful and the bet-bet line would appear to be more correct than CR-bet, even check-call-CR (folding to a 3-bet) gives opponent 6:1 on the Turn (HU from flop) with odds of 6.67:1. By playing bet-bet opponent is not getting correct odds to call on either street.

This issue of strategy when defending the blinds after the flop is highly dependent on pot size. In a typically small pot HU on the flop, the bet-bet line appears to be best and has the added benefit of being guaranteed to succeed (a CR can go wrong, of course).

Anyone care to discuss?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

My standard play, when defending the bb from an apparent steal and connecting in some way on the flop, is to bet out. I like to bet out regardless of whether I have a draw, top pair, second pair.

My attitude is that the really tight players may lay down their overcards, which is fine. The real aggressive players with overcards may raise, giving me chance to 3-bet. Other people may call but then fold to the turn bet, if they've picked up nothing. And by betting out all the time, my play is deceptive.

On the other hand, I must say that I've started to rethink this whole approach. It can't be right for me to check/raise the flop as little as I do presently.

As for the discussion about forcing your opponent to make a mistake is interesting, I think that's interesting but not dispositive. Seems to me that a bet may be correct at times even if your opponent is then given the odds to call.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Standard HFAP and TOP stuff really. A bet is always better than a free card when you are ahead, even when they are correct to call. Standard plays are fine, but the "standard" often does not differ much EV-wise from another "non-standard" play and will cetainly change quite significantly during a game according to your image and who you are playing etc.

Think on this. What will be the effect of CR the flop against an opponent who has only seen you bet out thus far? Will he be more likely to call you down, or more likely to fold? Your take on his reaction should be one of the determining factors in deciding how to play a given hand.

Obviously standard lines work, but sooner or later as we develop as players and move on to play better quality games, the standard line is not going to be enough. Developing additional moves (and they do not have to be "Fancy Play Syndrome") that you can use to specifically control or confuse an opponent, and understanding how they affect the play of a hand, is completely necessary if we are to becomes better, skilful players.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
In a typically small pot HU on the flop, the bet-bet line appears to be best

[/ QUOTE ]

Small pot play is all about extracting the most when ahead, and failing to take advantage of the tendency to always follow a PFR with a bet is throwing money away. Betting should only really be used against aggressive, stubborn opponents who will nearly always raise a flop bet. Checking is SOP.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

In my experience defenders lead into PFRs with a wide variety of hands including absolute nothing. If I have raised preflop with AT for instance and the board comes 7 high, I almost always raise if I am led into HU. I take it much more seriously when I am CRd, usually folding UI on the turn. Against me I think my opponents best line would probably be to lead out and then 3-bet my raise with any pair on an all low board (although he will bleed sometimes because I steal enough that I may have a piece of any board). Granted he will give me the correct odds to draw on the turn, it is well worth the extra money he gets out of me on the flop. Imagine for example that he has a pair on a 7 high flop and I turn my cards face up and show him that I have AK and explain to him that he better keep it cheap or else I'll have the odds to draw on the turn. He should bet $1000 if I will let him! You also learn virtually nothing about his hand if you lead out and get raised on the flop. Getting 3-bet when you CR him is a little more indicative of an actual hand IMO. Just my .02. The topic is definitely worth thinking further about.

Cartman

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]

But when we check and get the bet, opponent will have correct odds to draw to his overcards on the Turn. Our CR may get extra money in the pot, but it does not force our opponent to make a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If he knew your cards, then his betting the flop is a mistake, and his betting the flop when he knows you will raise is even more of a mistake. You have forced him to put in 2SB to look at the turn. If you bet out and he calls, you have forced him to put in 1SB to look at the turn. You are getting more money in when you have an equity advantage, and decreasing his effective odds on the flop, making it more expensive to draw to overs.

Sure, calling the check/raise after it has happened is not a mistake, but betting with the worse hand when he knows you are going to raise is the mistake we are inducing here.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

I don't really mind if someone makes two seemingly/general correct plays on the flop that in reality are one big mistake.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

If we talk about tuff games you clearly can't play it the same every time. So you have to use both cheakraise and betting out.
I figure one way to know when to do witch is to cheackraise those times he is less likely to draw out on you at the turn.
Exept the real strong hands this aply when you are likly to hold one of his outs.
So say you get raised in BB and call with A7s or K7s and the flope commes 7 high. Now it aint bad to go to the turn against a Ace or King hand.
Say you hold two low cards at the same flop say 97s. Know you want to chose the option that make him fold the flop the most, betting out.

This line is pretty easy to play by, but do you think it is a good line?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
Checking is SOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say it is SOP and it is my default line is to CR in these spots, but it should be clear from the above that if opponent has the correct odds to draw you are not taking any money off him. No matter how much money you put in on the flop, as long as opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money. With only two involved in the pot and opponent is not losing money, that does not leave a lot of people to choose from who are on the losing side?

I believe there is room to go beyond SOP if we want to becomes skilled poker players. Clearly in a very small pot, bet-bet is the most EV line on a money invested/returned basis.

Putting in any number of bets against flush draw while you are ahead but opponent is drawing correctly, who is making the money? We need to think about this. If our CR is not forcing opponent into a mistake, we need another reason/s to bet this way and simply stating you should be "getting the money in while you are ahead" is quite superficial. Putting money in when you get an equal share back (less rake) is not +EV is it? What do the extra bets achieve apart from bloating the pot, let's hear some solid reasoning.

One argument is a CR convinces opponent that his overcards are no good to draw to, and he folds on the Turn unimproved. Do we use this line as a bluff re-steal? If opponent will certainly see the Turn then surely we are better getting bets in on that street when there is just one card to come and the bets are twice the size, unless we feel there is a chance he folds the flop? The question is where is the value? where does opponent fold? how does he/we respond to a raise on which street?

If opponents standard line is to raise the flop, bet the Turn then it gets more money in the pot to bet-call the flop and CR the Turn, or check-call the flop and CR the Turn. It is quite likely that CR the flop gets less money from an opponent who wants to see the River.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

You raise PF, I call in the BB. You have overcards, I have top pair. I tip the dealer to look the other way and bet 2 SB. If you call this, drawing to overcards, are you making a mistake?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Absolutely. I was going to suggest that the CR is a good line when your opponent is likely drawing to just 1 overcard. If your opponent is likely to raise your flop bet, you could also argue that a bet-3-bet line is better when he has only 1 card to draw to. A more pasive opponent you should CR, more aggressive go for the 3-bet.

These spots require good judgement of opponent and consideration of the board.

With regard to the CR, as cartman says, it may make playing the rest of the hand easier. If opponent takes it seriously and only raises the Turn after a CR when you are seriously beat then it helps a lot and saves 1 SB when you are behind or drawn out on the Turn.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
but it should be clear from the above that if opponent has the correct odds to draw you are not taking any money off him. No matter how much money you put in on the flop, as long as opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're thinking is flawed. For one thing, just because your opponent has correct odds to call doesn't mean you aren't making money on the bet and call. It just means you would make more money if he folds. For another thing, if your opponent puts 2sb's in on the flop to win a 8 sb pot, but he's only catching an out on the turn 13% or so of the time, he is making a mistake. It doesn't matter if he puts the money in one bet at a time or not.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

I think you need to revisit TOP.

You can disagree with math all you like, but the math is correct. The flop bet after a PFR is +EV, of course he does NOT know you will raise, this is utterly moot. It is a mistake in terms of the Fundamental Theory of Poker but in a practical sense, betting the flop is correct. Calling the raise is not "even more of a mistake", it is correct to call the raise with correct odds. In poker decisions are taken one at a time and lumping all flop bets into one big bet is wrong thinking. It is wrong because that is not how limit poker is played. It does not matter how expensive you make it to draw when you can only do this one increment at a time (obviously different in NL or PL, but those games also have negative implied odds), as long as opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money, which means you are.

Can we try to keep this discussion practical? I really do not want to get into "well, if opponent could see your cards...blah blah". We are not talking about players with X-ray vision or even one hand in isolation, but a strategy that applies to many hands and which must counter apparently correct actions by our opponent.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're thinking is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really, well I am glad we cleared that up. Perhaps you could take this line of argument up with Mr. Sklansky?

If your opponent has correct odds to call, it means he is in a +EV situation when he calls. In a HU pot when one player has a +EV bet or call, where is that EV coming from? How can both players be in a +EV situation? If you can find a game like this then please let me know.

[ QUOTE ]
...just because your opponent has correct odds to call doesn't mean you aren't making money on the bet and call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what it means.

Jeezaz, I don't know why I bothered posting again. Perhaps it is better to stick to e-mail discussions, at least that way I don't have to answer posts as desperately stultifying as this one.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

This discussion is probably over my head, but it actually sounds like you guys are agreeing in practice, just disagreeing about the theory.

Doesn't everyone agree that there are times when it makes sense to bet, despite that the opponent might be correct to call?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

If the PFR has the worst hand in position, and you are going to raise him when he bets, betting the flop is -EV. He may not "KNOW" you're going to raise, but the flop bet is still -EV. Calling the raise is NOT a mistake, and I never said it was "even more of a mistake", but the inital flop bet is. A common concept is that your odds may not be as good as they seem if you fear a raise later in the betting round. This idea is what I am getting at. Drawing odds wise, what's the difference between the BB betting 2 SB, and the PFR calling, from the situation where the BB check raises the PFR? 2 bets go in either way, yet you would argue that the PFR only makes a mistake in the first situation.

Basically, every bet that he puts in to the flop with the worse hand is costing him money. So why not c/r?

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Naphand,

One important concept I think you're missing is the fact that our opponent will not have 2 overcards or a strong draw like a flush or straight draw every single time. People often steal with tiny pocket pairs, Ax such as A2-6 and Kxs and they are often correct to do so.

So we must take into account the times our opponent steals with a hand like that, you check/raise, and then he calls flop and turn bets incorrectly because he thinks you're bluffing and wants to hit something to show down on you, drawing to something like 3 or 2 outs.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Sounds to me like people are forgetting that the stealer with overcards doesn't know that he will be check-raised. Even if he knew a specific defender to always check-raise if he hit any pair at all he is on average betting somewhere around 1.35SB to either fold the defender at once or hit one of his overs on the turn. Draws obviously complicate things more...

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

I was not missing this, at least in a temporal sense, I was hoping the discussion would develop to include the things you have put down here as they obviously form part of an overall understanding of how to play HU blind defence. I chose a specific example to challenge the CR line as the "best" response. Of course there are other situations that must be considered, I did not want to make a post of Vedic proportions (on the other hand if...and if X does...on the other hand...etc.). You know how the trouble I have with short posts...[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

If we look at different situations and perceive that two or more plays have little difference EV-wise, or if one is clearly better then life is easy. But this is not what happens, in certain spots we need to exercise good judgement. By not discussing specifics we do not develop the depth of understanding of how each play can be used effectively according to our reads or the particular game, or the implications of choosing one play over another. Not understanding the implications of decisions we take at the table is a recipe for stagnation and confusion in terms of ability.

"Taking into account" can mean "take the best average" or it can mean "based on my reads of this player". Not the same thing at all. I was hoping we could avoid a "best average" line and really get into implications... [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

"If your opponent has correct odds to call, it means he is in a +EV situation when he calls. In a HU pot when one player has a +EV bet or call, where is that EV coming from? How can both players be in a +EV situation? If you can find a game like this then please let me know."

The situation only applies when two players are betting and there is no pot. In this case you are each vying for your share of what is in the pot, so both players can make thoeretically +ev plays. The -ev play that allows for multiple +ev plays by both players is the posting of the blinds.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
It should be clear from the above that if opponent has the correct odds to draw you are not taking any money off him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe this statement is incorrect. If you have the best hand on the flop with overcards, you are taking money away from the PFR for every bet which gets thrown in because you have pot equity. On the flop the % next to your name when you make a pair vs. overcards is roughly 70-75%. Even though the PFR has pot odds to call all the way to the river, for those bets that are being thrown in on the flop and turn, you'll be winning 70-75% of the money put in on the flop and turn, which is what you want. While it is not a mistake for the PFR to call your flop C/R and turn bet BECAUSE HE HAS TO CHASE THE DEAD MONEY FROM PREFLOP, failing to force the PFR to throw in money as a 75/25 dog is even a larger mistake because you are not putting in bets when you have the best of it.

I'm pretty sure this analysis is correct, although I have a feeling we may be discussing two different topics.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

For the hand in question we have a PFR raisor and a BB defender. The dead money in the pot is the SB. If the blinds were out and two other players were vying for the blind money then what you say would be correct. In this spot there is little dead money, and it will be likely gobbled up by the rake.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Naphand,

I didn't mean to offend you which I obviously did. I apologize if my post came across as condescending. I thought I'd start posting some more in this foum since I've been playing some 6-max lately and believe me the last thing I want to do is start off by offending some of the better posters.

As Tolbiny already pointed out, the pot makes calling as an underdog a +EV call at times for your opponent but that does not mean you don't make money on bets going in on that street if you're the favorite. You're opponent's EV would be higher if he's an underdog and gets to see the next card for free.

Chief

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds to me like people are forgetting that the stealer with overcards doesn't know that he will be check-raised. Even if he knew a specific defender to always check-raise if he hit any pair at all he is on average betting somewhere around 1.35SB to either fold the defender at once or hit one of his overs on the turn. Draws obviously complicate things more...

[/ QUOTE ]
No, I'm just saying it seems to me that the best line here is basically whatever line gets the most money in the pot when you likely hold the best hand. I'm not saying the opponent, those times he does hold just overcards, is playing the hand incorrectly since he doesn't know what we hold. But since we do know what we hold and we know we're pretty likely ahead on this flop choosing a line that gets the most money in the pot seems best. In other words, if the opponent were so aggressive that I was sure he would always raise overcards than betting would probably be better and either 3-betting the flop or check/raising most turn cards if he would bet overcards again.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jeezaz, I don't know why I bothered posting again. Perhaps it is better to stick to e-mail discussions, at least that way I don't have to answer posts as desperately stultifying as this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your posts are extremely valuable and I very much appreciate them. I hope you continue to post here.

Cartman

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the hand in question we have a PFR raisor and a BB defender. The dead money in the pot is the SB. If the blinds were out and two other players were vying for the blind money then what you say would be correct. In this spot there is little dead money, and it will be likely gobbled up by the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Preflop, the BB defender should not just be viewing the dead money as the small blind. The PFR should be seeing the big blind plus the small blind (1 2/5 SB in the 5/10 game) as dead money whereas the defender is seeing 3 SB + the small blind as dead money. You're getting (3 2/5):1 on your call in the BB making defending with hands like 97s correct. If you we're only getting the small blind as dead money, defending with hands like 97s would be incorrect, IMO.

I think Tolbiny's statement exactly explains the difference when he says:

[ QUOTE ]
The situation only applies when two players are betting and there is no pot. In this case you are each vying for your share of what is in the pot, so both players can make thoeretically +ev plays. The -ev play that allows for multiple +ev plays by both players is the posting of the blinds.


[/ QUOTE ]

The guy with AK will make a +EV call because he has odds since there is a reasonable amount of dead money in the pot. However, having a pair gives the defender much more equity per bet and therefore makes money every time he can get a bet into the pot. Therefore, if the defender can c/r the guy with overs, he is making money when doing so even though it bloats the pot making it correct for the PFR to call down with his overs.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]

Jeezaz, I don't know why I bothered posting again. Perhaps it is better to stick to e-mail discussions, at least that way I don't have to answer posts as desperately stultifying as this one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You and Chief are great posters, let's not get crazy here.

FWIW, this post has gotten quite confusing.

I hope the newbies reading this understand the difference between Pot Equity (which determines whether or not you are making money on your immediate bet or call and doesn't consider pot size) and a +/-EV call (which determines whether or not your call is profitable based on pot size/# of outs).

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

As I see it, according to TOP we make money from our opponents when they make mistakes. When our opponents correctly call they are not losing money, so we cannot be making money from them. In a multi-way pot made hands -vs- flush draw both players are in a +EV situation, and are making money from the other other player/s who are calling incorrectly. HU the situation is a little less defined, but surely cannot be accurately described two players chasing the (dead) blind money. For a start in a HU battle between PFR and BB defending, the only dead money is the SB and that is going to be gobbled up by the rake pretty quickly once we have a PFR and a flop raise (less the case at higher limits, clearly). This is not a question of PFR chasing dead money, as in most cases that amounts to nothing after the rake.

Note: I just realised that you are referring to the pot as "dead money", unfortunate choice of words as I was thinking dead money from the blinds. OK now it makes more sense.

[ QUOTE ]
...you have pot equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to TwoDimes in a pair -vs- overcards hand the equity is 76.26:23.74, your approximation of 75:25 is good enough. Now let's see if I can get this straight...

Pre-flop is where the players are "in a battle for the right to the blinds/ante" and pre-flop the PFR has the advantage (for the sake of argument we can ignore pure steal raises with garbage and PP in either hand). So we cannot just assume the defender has equity from the start and over the blinds, he didn't (in most cases, and in particular the one we are discussing here). So pre-flop the PFR was raising correctly with the best hand. The flop wipes the slate clean and the "dead" money is everything in the pot. In this example the pot is 2.25 BB (0.25 BB SB plus 1 BB PFR plus 0.5 BB plus 0.5 Defenders call from the BB). However, you are correct ot point out that the equity also applies to the money going into the pot, pot odds only applies to the money in the pot already.

The money in the pot belongs to no-one but is shared (approx.) 75:25 with the scenario discussed. With 1 card to come it is 86:13.

NB: When the PFR has a hand like A3 and pairs the low card versus TP to defender, the position is even worse at 78:22.

Given the situation where PFR bets and is raised he now has correct pot odds to call the CR. How does he lose money in this situation? From an equity point of view we are saying he owns only 25% of the bets he puts in, however pot odds make it correct for him to call. The money in the pot (much of which was from PF) makes the call correct and PFR is not losing money by doing this, in fact it would be more accurate to say that he has sufficient stake in the pot to justify calling ONE MORE bet. This is the critical point about limit holdem. He is not putting in chunks of money but in increments. After every increment the pot (the "dead" money") grows and his share of it also (at a slower rate than defender). PFR is not losing money by calling, yet defender is making more. However, there is an important consideration here.

It is not a question so much of failing to get money in when you are ahead, but a question of where the best value lies. CR the flop may be cool, but bet-calling and CR the Turn could be a lot better. Why? Well it does depend on your read of opponent. If you believe PFR will not fold before the River is it better to get extra bets in on the flop or the Turn? Particularly consider that if the flop is CR the chances of extra bets on the Turn is greatly reduced. The argument that we should put the most in with the best of it is too simple, surely? We do not know for sure we are ahead on the flop or the Turn, cheaper to find out we are behind on the flop but we make less when ahead as well, and given the 86:13 share we have with one card to the Turn I think it is better to set up the Turn raise or 3-bet the flop, which depends on read of opponent. If we think opponent is likely to fold if the Turn misses then clearly CR the flop or 3-betting is preferable, and we must choose according to our read (if opponents always bets flop but rarely 3-bets, or if opponent is very aggressive and will raise overs on the flop).


Addendum
I am still left with the question: how is it PFR is playing correctly and in a +EV situation when calling, when defender can also be +EV by betting. It is to do with the size of the calls versus the pot, of course, but it is still correct to call. As the pot gets bigger and bigger, it becomes more and more correct for prograssively weaker hands to call. It seems like a recipe for WEAK hands to get as much money in as possbile to start with (when they are uncertain of where they stand) so they can call later even as big dogs. Is this how the LAGs survive so long, they build big pots with smaller bets and more opponents, and consequently get better odds to play on through the later streets to draw out (a lot of losses being offset by the folds they get from better hands, of course). Am I missing something or does this make sense? It seems contradictory.

A player calling correctly is not losing money according to the TOP, yet the other player is taking his money? This is counter-intuitive and bloody confusing...yet clearly this can be the case for a caller versus a bettor when there is a pot of sufficient size to play for. The bettor bets according to hand equity (at a basic level, other considerations such as forcing out other players etc. not considered here). A player in 2nd-place bets/raises in order to increase his pot equity in a multi-way pot by folding out other players but NEVER HU unless there is a realistic chance his opponent will fold a better hand, but only calls with the worst of it when his share of the pot (i.e. pot equity), based on his odds of drawing out, justifies it. It is the incremental nature of limit poker allows PFR to call correctly even when a significant underdog and hence maintain a +EV position.

Apologies for the long ramble, but I think I was getting these concepts jumbled. I still find it hard to reconcile the fact that both players can be playing correctly and be +EV. This does not seem possible... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] If every call made is correct, the player cannot be losing money, if he is not losing money the opponent cannot be taking anything from him. So where is the profit? It can only come from other players money already in the pot or where a player is calling incorrectly, such as drawing dead or very thin. Obviously the Flop changes things a lot, and favourites becomes dogs etc., but we cannot consider pre-flop play excluded from pot equity considerations, there is still correct and incorrect play (the blinds being the "pot" pre-flop).

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
Apologies for the long ramble, but I think I was getting these concepts jumbled. I still find it hard to reconcile the fact that both players can be playing correctly and be +EV. This does not seem possible...

[/ QUOTE ]

It's definitely possible. Tolbiny's explanation above was quite good. Here is an example.

Your on the river. Your the BB with a set of aces. SB who is your only opponent has a 4 out gutshot. The pot is 200 dollars because the casino owner dropped 180$ on the table. You slowplayed preflop and the flop. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] When you bet the turn, SB is making a profitable call. But you get ~18 of the dollars going into the pot and he only gets 2. So in the absence of a pot, you are proffiting. Because the pot is so large, his call has a positive expectation. Both players have a +EV move. Moreover just because the SB can call profitably does not mean the BB should NOT bet. He makes money on the last bet.

Krishan

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a question so much of failing to get money in when you are ahead, but a question of where the best value lies. CR the flop may be cool, but bet-calling and CR the Turn could be a lot better. Why? Well it does depend on your read of opponent. If you believe PFR will not fold before the River is it better to get extra bets in on the flop or the Turn? Particularly consider that if the flop is CR the chances of extra bets on the Turn is greatly reduced. The argument that we should put the most in with the best of it is too simple, surely? We do not know for sure we are ahead on the flop or the Turn, cheaper to find out we are behind on the flop but we make less when ahead as well, and given the 86:13 share we have with one card to the Turn I think it is better to set up the Turn raise or 3-bet the flop, which depends on read of opponent. If we think opponent is likely to fold if the Turn misses then clearly CR the flop or 3-betting is preferable, and we must choose according to our read (if opponents always bets flop but rarely 3-bets, or if opponent is very aggressive and will raise overs on the flop).


[/ QUOTE ]
naphand,

I agree completely. And I really do hope I didn't offend you too much previously. You seem to be one of the better posters here. I think this is very read dependant as you say. And I also agree that it's not just a matter of getting the most money in NOW (on the flop) but rather what's likely to net you the most throughout the hand. If the opponent's hyper-aggressive I'll sometimes bet knowing he'll raise anything and check/raise the turn knowing he'll bet when checked to almost always. Against some check/raising is probably best. Against others maybe bet/3-bet.

[ QUOTE ]
Addendum
I am still left with the question: how is it PFR is playing correctly and in a +EV situation when calling, when defender can also be +EV by betting. It is to do with the size of the calls versus the pot, of course, but it is still correct to call. As the pot gets bigger and bigger, it becomes more and more correct for prograssively weaker hands to call. It seems like a recipe for WEAK hands to get as much money in as possbile to start with (when they are uncertain of where they stand) so they can call later even as big dogs. Is this how the LAGs survive so long, they build big pots with smaller bets and more opponents, and consequently get better odds to play on through the later streets to draw out (a lot of losses being offset by the folds they get from better hands, of course). Am I missing something or does this make sense? It seems contradictory.

A player calling correctly is not losing money according to the TOP, yet the other player is taking his money? This is counter-intuitive and bloody confusing...yet clearly this can be the case for a caller versus a bettor when there is a pot of sufficient size to play for. The bettor bets according to hand equity (at a basic level, other considerations such as forcing out other players etc. not considered here). A player in 2nd-place bets/raises in order to increase his pot equity in a multi-way pot by folding out other players but NEVER HU unless there is a realistic chance his opponent will fold a better hand, but only calls with the worst of it when his share of the pot (i.e. pot equity), based on his odds of drawing out, justifies it. It is the incremental nature of limit poker allows PFR to call correctly even when a significant underdog and hence maintain a +EV position.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only other comment I'll make on the EV math is that even though limit is an "incremental" game, it is a mistake not to anticipate raises and additional action. That is, there are times when instead of making a marginal call you should fold because of the possibility of a raise (ignoring a lot of other factors ie implied odds, overcalls, etc.). Although it really is just a technicality and obviously not the point of your post because generally speaking the preflop raiser isn't really making a "mistake" by betting a ragged flop with A-high or really any two since you will obviously be check/folding at times. But from a "fundamental theorem of poker" standpoint only the opponent is making a mistake in the first place betting the flop.

not a matter of odds?
 

The main reason I often checkraise preflopraiser when I hit something from big blind is because if I bet most of the time with a hand he can steal every time I check. Its more important to be unreadable then thinking about small differences in odds, isnt it?


(I am not sure I follow how u can say that when he bets flop with overcards and I got a pair on flop he is not making a misstake. Pair will be ahead 7/8 on turn so almost all money going in is his when he overcards bet. The underdog dont want any more money coming into the pot, no matter how big or small pot is. In this case he will have to invest 1BB to draw for his 6 outs, thats a lot.)

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
If every call made is correct, the player cannot be losing money, if he is not losing money the opponent cannot be taking anything from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The player calling IS losing money. His ownership of the pot relative to his investment is reduced. So while he may be making correct calls when behind, his winnings over the long haul will be lessened because he is losing money on each new bet.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

Now you are cheating, casino owners do not do this... [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Actually, I was going to use this example, except it was a random observer (Note: this is not possible on-line). It actually is correct as an example and I think I got it in my addendum above (edited while you were posting, I suspect). The question is, where does the profit come from? In your case it is the casino owner, mostly. If both players are playing correctly, they cannot be losing money even in the same pot. The profit must, therefore, come from the blinds or from other players (playing/drawing incorrectly, according to TOP).

So I am back again to the notion that if your opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money. His pot equity is less, but his proportion of it still covers his bets (short-term losses). He will win the pot enough times to recover his losses long-term with a profit. If he is not losing, how is opponent winning from him?

So we are back to profiting from TOP mistakes, which does include betting the flop with overs when opponent has a pair. His call (to a CR) is still correct though and cannot be losing money for him, as it is not a mistake according to TOP. It must be then, although defender (who holds a pair on the flop) is taking 75% of PFR's money on each bet, PFR is recovering more than this from his 25% stake in the pot. The flop bet is a loser, but even this TOP mistake is a long-term profitable play, which makes matters even more confusing. Clearly then if we are to profit from PFR we must extract additional bets from him.

Now something else occurs to me. Say PFR bets every street and Defender just calls down? PFR is making a TOP mistake on every street by betting. If Defender bets out the flop and PFR just calls down (calling correctly, assumng the pot is big enough), PFR makes no TOP mistakes as he calls correctly each time, yet the net result is the same. The pot is the same size at SD and each player put in the same money. Why are they different? You can argue that Defender made a TOP mistake by never raising, yet his pot equity was the same and the $$ in the bank were the same. How does "profiting from TOP mistakes" fit in with this, when in one case PFR makes 3 mistakes to Defenders one, and the in the other both played correctly? Profit identical.

Re: Different styles for BB defens
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can both players be in a +EV situation?

[/ QUOTE ]
The pot.

Re: not a matter of odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The underdog dont want any more money coming into the pot...

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. The underdog would like to draw FREE as this is the most favourable position. However, there are plenty of occasions when facing a bet when drawing, that calling is still profitable; it is an easy call. With 25% equity in each bet going in and only 1 opponent we are taking the worst of it, but with a 4-handed pot every bet going in is breaking even (ignoring for amoment how pot equity changes according to number opponents).

I can see how if we put in 50% of the bets in a given round with only 25% equity we appear to be losing money. When we put in 1 BB with 25% equity, we are losing 0.5 BB (2 BB goes in, 1 BB from each player, of which we own 25% or 0.5 BB, we paid 1 BB for a net loss of 0.5 BB).

If there were an infinite, or even just a LOT of betting rounds, then this loss would really add up and chip away at our profitability. But pre-flop PFR was the favourite and put in 1 BB as the favourite against Defender (the equity would be different (TwoDimes shows 97s -vs- overs as 40:60). PFR has made an "equity profit" on Defender pre-flop, which further reduces his losses, as well as on the SB. This "profit" is only hypothetical as the flop now changes everything. But the "dead" money on the form of the residual pot from the pre-flop action now exists.

With sufficient $$ in the pot for PFR to call and profit from calling, he is not losing money on any given call. Calling the flop CR with better than 6.67:1 odds is correct and so profitable, as it would be on the Turn. Calling one card on the flop with correct 1-card odds and folding the Turn without proper odds is also profitable. Folding with correct odds is unprofitable and a losing play, calling with correct odds is a winning play. PFR is not losing $$ by calling correctly.

Technically,calling two more bets as a big dog is a loss, but if the correct odds are available to draw then how can this be a losing play? Looking at all bets together we can say "ah yes he out in 2 BB as a dog". But he did not put in 2 Bb at once, he drew to live cards which arrive with sufficient frequency to make calling profitable long-term. So how can you say calling correctly is a losing play?