The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

So I was playing some 2/4 at Party today because I discovered they had given me some bonus money I didn't know I was eligible.

I played two hands that got me thinking about a very important poker concept, that of a protected pot .

In general, a protected pot is one in which the situation at hand makes it very unlikely that an opponent is bluffing. The most common reason a pot is said to be "protected" is because there are many opponents (basically any more than 2). Other reasons might be the presence of a very donky player who is not folding, the pot is large and so no one is folding, the board texture is such that your unlikely to get anyone to fold, and so on.


So I played two hands today which got me thinking about the protected pot effect. This not meant to be a prototype or example of when the protected pot effect obviously applies. In fact, this is more a borderline situation where I am interested in people's opinions about whether that effect should be considered and to what degree.

In the hand, the EP villain is unknown and the MP pre-flop raiser is generally unknown but seems pretty bad from what I can tell.

I am new to the table so there aren't image considerations.

Hero is BB with K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

Pre-flop: EP player limps, folded to an MP player who raises, one LP player colds calls, SB calls, Deranged calls.

Flop (5 players, 10 SB): K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

SB checks, Deranged checks, EP bets, MP calls, LP calls, SB folds, Deranged raises, EP calls, MP calls.

Turn (4 players, 9 BB): 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Deranged bets, EP calls, MP calls, LP folds.

River (3 players, 12 BB): 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Deranged bets, EP raises, MP calls, Deranged starts thinking about the protected pot effect and...


I encourage discussion about all aspects of the hand, including flop play, but the main question is the river. What range of hands can our opponents have? Can the river really have helped anyone? What effect does the MP player overcalling have on our decision?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Protected pot or not, this is a super easy river call at 2/4

You will cry when donkey turns over K9 and the PFR has JJ

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

How does your decision change if this is $3/$6? $5/$10? $10/$20?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I would definitely call here against an unknown, but I'm not sure the protected pot effect has that much bearing in this situation. I would take the raise a lot more seriously if the river action went bet-call-raise, rather than bet-raise-cold-call.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
Protected pot or not, this is a super easy river call at 2/4

You will cry when donkey turns over K9 and the PFR has JJ

[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. I'd reanalyze the hand to see what, if any, went wrong.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Its true MP coldcalling the river raise makes it less likely we're winning the pot, but at Party 2/4 I'll call expecting to win my fair share. At higher levels people tend to showdown less and fold when they're beat. They give up their hopeless holdings on the flop or turn. Here I'll fold. If I'm at a Party 2/4 table and notice that people are playing better than average I'll fold. If you felt the table was playing this way then I can agree with folding.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

The "bad" read you gave MP leads me think he's quite capable of hanging around with a weaker PP and gives me less reason to put stock in the "protected pot". Without that read, it's a different story.

I think YHIG more than often enough to make this call.

My gut says you're splitting this pot though.

Good post.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]


My gut says you're splitting this pot though.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting one of the opponents on exactly KJ? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


My gut says you're splitting this pot though.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're putting one of the opponents on exactly KJ? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be a requirement for splitting.
Damn my gut is a smartass [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

17:1 and closing the action... you call. no doubt about it.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I would definately call here. How many hands are there that limp in EP with a 2 in it. You have the 3rd best kicker and top pair. I think at 2/4 someone who was going to call anyways might try this play on occasion.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I haven't read the other responses, but I'm interested in what we're putting EP on here. On the flop, he's betting into the raiser on his left, presumably hoping he'll raise and thin the field. Maybe that's assuming too much thought from this opponent.

I just can't see any hand with a 2 in it that is betting the flop into the raiser. He more likely has a weak K and is bluffing at the board pair on the end. MP is having trouble getting away from his QQ. Is that close?

That's all hindsight analysis, and I'm not sure I have the presence of mind to think like that during the play of the hand. More likely, I wince, make the crying call, and am surprised when I'm good here more often than I think.

EDIT: I forgot this was about a protected pot, and I didn't address it. I said EP was *bluffing*, though I guess that's less likely with this multi way pot on the end. But it's certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities in a 2/4 game. I just can't put him on a hand here, and the weak K is still my best guess.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I would call.

I'm thinking MP probably has a pocket underpair like QQ.

I don't know what EP has. A turned set of 7's? K2s? AK? Those are all possibilities. But I think he'll have a hand like 55 or even 4 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] often enough. A worse king is also possible.

I would be more optimistic if the pot were heads-up, though.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I would call this at 5/10 also, actually, and let EP revel in his crafty slowplay or river suckout. And I still suspect my hand would be good often enough. The river raise is suspicious, and I think EP will be making it out of desperation on occasion.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Seems like a lot of you are thinking a call here.

Some things to consider:

1. I have shown quite a bit of strength. I check-raised a large field and bet both the turn and the river. There is little reason to believe I will lay down my hand.

2. The MP player is very unlikely to have a hand that is beating mine. He seems likely to have a hand that is either hopelessly chasing (AQ or something like that) or a made hand that he is incapable of folding (QQ or JJ). He will often have a hand with showdown value and doesn't seem to like folding much.

3. Because of #2, we have to think that the EP guy is going to be at least a little wary of bluffing into this pot. Even donkies have a sense that it's harder to bluff two people than one, and can have enough of a sense of hand-reading to put at least one of us on a decent hand the vast majority of the time.



So what interested me about the hand is not the fact that MP's overcall makes it less likely that we have the best hand. I think we're beating MP well of 90% of the time. My question is how much less likely is EP to be raising a worse hand because MP is in the pot?


Just a small addition. I'm interested in continued discussion.

Also, I'm interested again how this stuff changes at the different limits.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Protected pot or not, this is a super easy river call at 2/4

You will cry when donkey turns over K9 and the PFR has JJ

[/ QUOTE ]

No I wouldn't. I'd reanalyze the hand to see what, if any, went wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason,

Do you fold this at 2/4? How about 5/10 and 10/20?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

You're right that MP may be chasing hopelessly. If so, it's pretty clear he didn't catch on the river.

I guess if EP is thinking about it this way, he may figure the pot isn't very protected at all but only appears to be.

Plus, if EP has a weak king, I don't think he has to worry about MP's hand. He just has to hope his raise drives you out.

But EP's thinking doesn't have to be this complex -- especially at 2/4. I think he could be making a desperation raise with pocket 3's or a busted flush draw.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I'm interested again how this stuff changes at the different limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this changes everything. Or at least, the read on EP changes the thought process (and if we're new to the table, the limit we're playing at is often the best information we've got against unknowns).

Against better players, I'm really trying hard to put EP on a hand that will bet into that frop with the PFR on his left. Against a bad or merely straightforward player, it's likely that the weird flop bet, plus the turn call, plus the raise on the river deuce into two players, simply doesn't add up to some coherent play.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

EP's line is so bizarre that I'm calling. First he bets with the preflop raiser on his immediate left...signifying a vulnerable hand. And then he raises the 2 on the river? I'm having a lot of trouble reading his hand here...and I think he turns over KT/K9/busted flush draw enough to call. If he played a set this way good for him.

Will

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

So, the real debate here is in what situation would you fold here? If you're thinking fold in this hand, you're giving your opponents (especially after you told us they're unknown and possibly bad) way too much credit.

If I had a very good read on the player, I'd be able to fold at .5/1, but I wouldn't fold it against an unknown at 15/30. There are just too many weird/aggro/bad players online. At 20/40 and higher, I can consider folding.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
How does your decision change if this is $3/$6? $5/$10? $10/$20?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because people at 2/4 are [censored] retarded.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

don't fold.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I've never played higher (well, I've played like 2 hours of 3/6) so I can't tell you when I'd start to give unknowns the credit for thinking about what you're having them think about, but I wouldn't do it at 2/4.

You've got to have the winner at least 6% of the time because at least that often the river raise if some goof who is excited that they have 2 pair now.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I know this is a tangent, but have people been in situations where a bluff can work against better players, because it is obviously protected?

Edit: This is mterry posting under a friend's account.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a tangent, but have people been in situations where a bluff can work against better players, because it is obviously protected?

Edit: This is mterry posting under a friend's account.

[/ QUOTE ]

A pure bluff raise is only good if the players you're up against are folding rivers a ton or they're really scared of you. It's almost never a good play especially online. It's superrare that more than 1 player would fold the river for 1 more bet after already putting in a bet. Usually, it would be correct for them to call anyway.

A better play is when you have something like 2nd pair good kicker and an obvious draw comes in, a tight/good player bets, superdonk calls, and you raise. You're very sure you have the donk beat and it's very tough for the good player to call not closing the action after you raised two players on the river.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a tangent, but have people been in situations where a bluff can work against better players, because it is obviously protected?

Edit: This is mterry posting under a friend's account.

[/ QUOTE ]

These situations arise rarely, but they do happen. However, it wouldn't happen like the action in this hand. The raise here is facing the bad player with 2 BBs and makes it far less likely he will call. Raising as a bluff hoping MP would call 2 cold just won't work nearly enough for it to be profitable. The most likely occurance would be strong player bets-fish calls-you raise. It will be tough for the strong player to call because he thinks the chances of you bluffing in this spot are slim.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

This is a sure call. Whether it's protected or not, the pot is so big that calling is clearly +EV. You will be shown a worse king, a 7 or even a busted flush draw making a move on this big pot enough of the time. Him being unknown makes the call even easier.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I think this is an easy call. EP is unknown. At 2/4 odds are he doesn't even know what a protected pot is.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

This is a very clear call -- all of the factors you point out might lead me to feeling that I was behind a majority of the time -- but we only need to be ahead 7% of the time for this call to be +EV. I think we are ahead at least 25% of the time against low limit, virtually unknown players.

For what its worth, I would likely call this in the live games I play in as well.

Edit: I think the protected pot theorem doesn't apply very strongly -- I think you can rule out a complete bluff (like a busted flush or straight draw), but a weaker K or other two pair hand is very possible.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

I think so. A couple of times this happened to me. I raised KK or something got like 4 callers, flop is something like JTx, check, I bet, call, call, call. Turn is a T, say, and it goes check, I bet, call, call, check-raise. Now he's check-raising into a protected pot (the callers are super loose donks). I think this is a potentially good move with a hand like AJ, you may have the best hand, and sometimes you get the PFR to fold an overpair. I dunno how often that actually happens though.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Folks,

Thanks for all the replies. I thought this was an interesting situation and thought it was much closer than it would seem it actually was.

The key point for me is the inconsistency of the EP's play. There just aren't enough hands he could have that make sense played the way he did. I think we probably are ahead something like 15-20% of the time at least. So folding really sucks (even though that's what I did, because I suck [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]).

EP turns over K4, MP turns over QQ, and MHWHBG.

The play still surprised me. My sense is that at 5/10, which is what I usually play, the river is much closer to a fold.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

Here's another hand I played in that same 2/4 session on Party.

An EP, MP, and LP limper enter, SB calls, and Deranged checks J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the BB.

Flop (5 players, 5 SB): T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Deranged bets, EP player (unknown) calls, MP player (unknown player but probably not that good) calls, LP folds, SB folds.

Turn (3 players, 4 BB): K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Deranged bets, EP raises, MP calls, Deranged folds...


And I got screwed again. The river checked through, EP tabled 33, MP tabled AQ, and, again, MHWHBG.


I was just very interested to see these two hands in a short period of time, where opponents were raising inferior hands in odd places in multiway pots. I think this hand is a pretty easy fold, particularly as it'll take more than 1 BB on average to get to showdown and the pot was very small going into the turn.

It's certainly an observation I'm going to take to heart.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix *DELETED*
 

Post deleted by duckman

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

Yes... he didn't have a set. He had a super-underpair. I corrected it.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another hand...

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the size of this pot, I think this is one of those hands that teaches you a lot about your opponents and you can live with the results...

And makes me think of the not-entirely-appropriate-but-appropriate-enough cliche: "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice..."

I just realized -- didn't EP have a set? Doesn't he win the hand anyway? [NEVER MIND]

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4: Appendix
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's another hand I played in that same 2/4 session on Party.

An EP, MP, and LP limper enter, SB calls, and Deranged checks J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the BB.

Flop (5 players, 5 SB): T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Deranged bets, EP player (unknown) calls, MP player (unknown player but probably not that good) calls, LP folds, SB folds.

Turn (3 players, 4 BB): K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Deranged bets, EP raises, MP calls, Deranged folds...


And I got screwed again. The river checked through, EP tabled 33, MP tabled AQ, and, again, MHWHBG.


I was just very interested to see these two hands in a short period of time, where opponents were raising inferior hands in odd places in multiway pots. I think this hand is a pretty easy fold, particularly as it'll take more than 1 BB on average to get to showdown and the pot was very small going into the turn.

It's certainly an observation I'm going to take to heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because people at 2/4 are [censored] retarded.

[/ QUOTE ]


exactly what I meant, though I'm folding there without a read as well.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Well I guess this goes to show that in a big pot facing bizarre play, it's probably better to err on the side of calling. Like you said, a protected pot makes it less likely that an opponent is bluffing. However, very bizarre/confusing play makes it much more likely that an opponent is bluffing.

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

The question in my mind and this goes to a previous Deranged and Jason_t post is whether laying down is ev postive here and if not whether laying down would be ev+ any higher limit. Do you get more of these moves in upper limits where players are more aware that you are aware of the protected pot? Anyone? Anyone?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a tangent, but have people been in situations where a bluff can work against better players, because it is obviously protected?

Edit: This is mterry posting under a friend's account.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just recently on Doyle's room 2/4.
I have Q5s in BB.
1 MP limper (a thinking player, but weak-tight), SB completes, I check
Flop TJQr
SB checks, I bet out, MP raises, SB folds, I call deciding that 2 pair (or a better top pair) is most likely for villian but call anyway because I think/hope I can take the pot away later
Turn K (a beautiful card for the hand I am going to represent)
HERO checks, villian bets, HERO CR's, villian folds.

I believed the villian would not fight over this small pot with only 4 apparent outs to a full-house and the implied threat that he's going to have to call another bet from me if he doesn't improve on the river. With that board it is more unlikely that either of us is bluffing, and my read on villian was such that he could do that reasoning and fold to my CR bluff.

Is that the protected pot theory in action on a bluff?

Re: The Protected Pot Effect: A Study from 2/4
 

Gregor, I think the theory is part of the reason bluff-raises work.