Comments on Ed Miller's Small Stakes book

[psuasskicker]

First an overall comment that I found the book extremely interesting and helpful. Many excellent concepts in the book, and I'd say it's the best poker book I've read since Super System.

I did however have one "issue" with the book. I post on another message board that has a much smaller poker contingent, though we typically have great discussions. They suggested I come over here with this, so here I am.

Rather than retype everything, I'll basically cut and paste from the other thread on the other board (which I started). Here are the pertinent points (bear with me, this is fairly long, but I think important to cover)...

-----------------------------------------------------

Me: This is what I felt to be the major short-coming of the book. They discussed the raising PF section (toward the end of the book, I believe in the Misc Topics section) with certain hands that give you edges vs. not. I was pretty disappointed with this section, actually. They mentioned the AJs hand sort of specifically, noting that you should raise with this hand from the blind because of your edge PF and enhancing people's mistakes PF.

I understand the underlying concept of the point, but what kind of irked me here was that they didn't discuss this in any sort of objective sense. I would have liked to see them break down, especially mathematically, why you should push your edges PF more than you should after the flop. More specifically, why is it more valuable to get people to make a mistake PF (i.e. via limping and calling a raise with 87o from early position with 5 players) than it is to get them to make a mistake post-flop (i.e. calling a bet with 87o from an unraised pot against five players with a flop of A64)? Take the example I just gave. When I'm on the blind with AJs and I raise, the player with 87 is now correct to stick around in the pot with me. But had I not raised, he wouldn't be correct to. What's the mathematical value between my forcing his mistake before the flop vs. allowing him to see the flop cheaply such that he'll make a mistake after it?

My gut feel tells me that it's more valuable to let people make mistakes after the flop. You build fewer monster pots with several players, but you don't lose the pot nearly as often, and you force worse mistakes for more money by waiting till after the flop. But I haven't done any sort of attempt at mathematically calculating this difference, and was fairly disappointed to see they didn't either.

It was the one short-falling of the book IMO...they approach everything else in a very objective and mathematical function. But for that section they seemed to simply say "you should do this cause it's just better to do it that way."

--------------------------------------------------

Poster X: I haven't read the book yet, so take this with a grain of salt. But I imagine that it's largely based on the number of players you can get to make a mistake.

Take your example. With five players limping to you in the big blind, you can put a raise to all five players. Not only is the guy with 87o making a mistake, but also the guy with KJo and 22. These latter players might not call a bet on an A64 flop, but it's almost a guarantee that they will call a raise from the blind pre-flop.

It depends on the game, of course; but the flop can't hit everyone. In the Party 3/6 games, you always lose players at the flop.

----------------------------------------------------

Me: Understanding that you can force more players to make the mistake PF, theoretically, doing so will cost you the pot on a more regular basis. In addition, because the pot you're building will be larger, you're more likely to invest more money into the pot protecting your hand than you would be in the smaller pot. For instance, take AJs vs. a field with that flop against four other players:

You raise PF
Committed 2 SB PF for a pot totalling 10 SB.
Flop: A64 two of a suit (or even rainbow)
With the pot so large, you may be more tempted to try a check raise rather than bet right out to knock more hands out early. I think it's likely someone would bet this flop if you don't, though not for sure. If you don't check raise, perhaps you check raise the turn, but let's say you cr here instead. 2 more SB.
Then bet out the turn and river for 2 BB, a total investment of 4 BB which doesn't include times you might get raised when you lose the hand.

You check PF
Committed 1 SB PF for a pot totalling 5 SB.
Flop: A64 two of a suit (or even rainbow)
Now with the smaller size of the pot, you can bet out and either force those marginal hands with winning shots (87, 76, 32) out, or force them to make a mistake by calling a bet. You invest 1 SB here and bet out the entire way. 1 more SB.
Then bet out again for 2 BB, a total investment of 3 BB which also doesn't include times you're raised when you get beat.

But in general, I think you lose the pot much less often in the second case, and you invest less money in the times you do lose the pot. Now, mathematically, the way I would be thinking about this hand is as such:

1) How many times does the flop miss me in such a way that I can't continue with my hand (remember that you'll be MUCH more committed to the hand with a mediocre flop if you raise PF than you would be had you just checked)?
2) How many times does the flop hit me in such a way that I will play my hand hard?

Does the combination of the times I:
- cannot continue with my hand,
- plus I'll have to continue cause the pot is so large now even though the flop missed me,
- plus the times I'll now lose a pot (which theoretically will have found me investing more money than in the smaller pot) that I would have won by forcing players out on the flop;
NOT outweigh the extra value I get when I:
- win a bigger pot due to forcing more people to make an early mistake,
- plus I'll win a pot I would have given up before because I made the pot large enough to be worth chasing and chased down a winner?

This is how I think players will have to think about it. Based on my playing experience and my overall gut feel, I think the first set of combos WILL outweigh the second set with those marginal hands. This isn't based on objective data, it's based on my experience seeing how often a hand like AJs doesn't hit a good flop against many players, and how little it catches up. I do think that it will win more than its fair share against four other random hands. I also think that the edge it has over four other random hands isn't big enough to justify raising with it out of position when you can limp and force people to either fold and give you extra equity in the pot or make a mistake by continuing play after the flop.

The problem I had with the book is that's my theory, and while they instructed me that my theory was wrong, they took no measures to prove to me why it was wrong and theirs was right. Every 2+2 book I've read, including Miller's, up to that section did just that when I thought of something one way and they said to do it another way. That disappointed me.

Important to note, I am not saying that they're wrong about this particular section of the book, either. I'm simply saying I'm not convinced they're right, because they didn't do a good job convincing me.

--------------------------------------------------------

Poster X: A typical full ring limit game yields an average end pot of about 15 SB (give or take). Getting an extra 5 SB into the pot prior to the flop represents a very large proportion of the end pot.

That's why the typical mistake of a rookie is playing too loose before the flop - and I think it's a mistake that's easy to make if you play NL as well. A great deal of the money that you make in full limit ring games comes in before the flop.

In the hands you've outlined, your final pot is drastically higher in the PF raise scenario than the check. Assume only a single opponent comes with you after the flop. The PFR has a final pot of 22SB, while the PFC has a final pot of 15 SB. As you've pointed out, the PFR is more likely to drag some extra opponents along, for a larger pot as well.

----------------------------------------------------

Me: This is helpful, getting to see this down on paper. My guess would be that's where their point lies...that the starting size of the pot is so much larger, causing the final size of the pot to be so much larger that you basically make up for the amount you lose when you don't win the pot.

I'm wondering if the point could also be that these players would make mistakes after the flop anyway, and that you may as well get more bets in before the flop to simply increase the size of the pot significantly. i.e. If you have four opponents, and they'll follow you to the end the exact same when you raise PF vs. just limp PF, it's better to get even more money in up front to increase the size of the pot.

That, I guess, is the problem I have with the section...I just don't know what their reasons are behind it.

---------------------------------------------------------


If anyone (especially the authors) can touch on this subject, I'd love to get into greater discussion on it. I love the 2+2 poker and gambling books and have significantly improved my play because of them. But this was a topic I felt wasn't covered very well...

Thanks.

- Chris

[Stork]

I didn't read the whole discussion, but I read your main question, and the reason you raise preflop with AJs and the like is because when your opponents are limping with hands like 87o, you show a huge profit with every bet that goes in before the flop. You just can't make up all the theoretical money lost from the flop on in these typical situations. Even in the example you described, calling a gutshot on the flop is not terrible. If the rest of the table calls behind, 87o calling wouldn't be a mistake at all. With hands that are barely +EV it can sometimes be correct to sacrafice a bit of preflop expectation if you can make more money postflop, but AJs is too strong, and you are missing too much by not raising.

[BradleyT]

[ QUOTE ]
why is it more valuable to get people to make a mistake PF (i.e. via limping and calling a raise with 87o from early position with 5 players) than it is to get them to make a mistake post-flop (i.e. calling a bet with 87o from an unraised pot against five players with a flop of A64)?

[/ QUOTE ]

At $2/$4 when you raise PF it's costing them $6 total to see the turn to hit their gutshot. When you don't raise it's costing them $4.

See the difference?

[ipp147]

[ QUOTE ]
First an overall comment that I found the book extremely interesting and helpful. Many excellent concepts in the book, and I'd say it's the best poker book I've read since Super System.

I did however have one "issue" with the book. I post on another message board that has a much smaller poker contingent, though we typically have great discussions. They suggested I come over here with this, so here I am.

Rather than retype everything, I'll basically cut and paste from the other thread on the other board (which I started). Here are the pertinent points (bear with me, this is fairly long, but I think important to cover)...

-----------------------------------------------------

Me: This is what I felt to be the major short-coming of the book. They discussed the raising PF section (toward the end of the book, I believe in the Misc Topics section) with certain hands that give you edges vs. not. I was pretty disappointed with this section, actually. They mentioned the AJs hand sort of specifically, noting that you should raise with this hand from the blind because of your edge PF and enhancing people's mistakes PF.



----------------------------------------------------

Me: Understanding that you can force more players to make the mistake PF, theoretically, doing so will cost you the pot on a more regular basis. In addition, because the pot you're building will be larger, you're more likely to invest more money into the pot protecting your hand than you would be in the smaller pot. For instance, take AJs vs. a field with that flop against four other players:

You raise PF
Committed 2 SB PF for a pot totalling 10 SB.
Flop: A64 two of a suit (or even rainbow)
With the pot so large, you may be more tempted to try a check raise rather than bet right out to knock more hands out early. I think it's likely someone would bet this flop if you don't, though not for sure. If you don't check raise, perhaps you check raise the turn, but let's say you cr here instead. 2 more SB.
Then bet out the turn and river for 2 BB, a total investment of 4 BB which doesn't include times you might get raised when you lose the hand.

Thanks.

- Chris

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Chris,

Thats a hell of a long first post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You should basically be raising your big suited cards (the suited helps a bunch) AK/AQ/AJ/AT/KQ (AKo also) and your big pairs (AA/KK) because you have such a big equity edge over everyone else. Basically you "own" perhaps 30% of every $ that is going into that pot. Your variance will go up as will your earn.

You are correct however in that it creates a bigger pot that gives people "more" correct odds to chase their hands with. It also makes it difficult to protect your hand on later streets.

My suggestion for you is this, have a look through the small stakes forum on this site. Have a lurk and look at the hands/discussions/debates. Then post some hands you are unsure about.

If you want to do some simulations on pot equity etc then download pokerstove.

The author of the book Ed Miller (NPA) posts on this site and will hopefully clear up the mistakes in my post [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

[eh923]

I'm at work so here's an abridged answer that doesn't touch on all you've mentioned...

AJs from the blind...
1. AK and AQ are pretty frequently raised. Since it got to the blinds WITHOUT a raise, you can feel very good that you have the best hand at the moment. You are most likely not dominated (which is the real fear for AJ), and you probably have at least one other player dominated.
2. The suitedness is very important as well. The times that you win a monster pot with the nut flush more than compensate for when you lose small-ish pots to someone who only stuck around because the pot was built pre-flop.

Remember...if the flop is a total brick, you can still get out for only 1 BB.

Hope that helps!

[Mason Malmuth]

[ QUOTE ]
why you should push your edges PF more than you should after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on the size of those edges. When they are very large preflop, you should go for them there. If they are small preflop, then it is sometimes best to wait to the flop.

In small stakes games where players are frequently playing virtually anything, your edge preflop can be quite large.

Best wishes,
Mason

[uuDevil]

I think you are on the right track. To decide the question you must estimate the expected value of raising versus not raising. I know of 2 ways to do this. One is basically as you have outlined. The other is with computer simulations. Both methods will be sensitive to the assumptions you make about how your opponents play. Arguments are bound to break out. For an example, see this EXTREMELY LONG thread involving John Feeney (2+2 author and very smart dude):

Just Calling with AK in the BB

[psuasskicker]

Thanks to all for the responses. I've now finished rereading the book and conceptually it's starting to come together for me. I'm starting to see it quite similar to the lines of waiting till the turn to (re)raise with a small edge vs just (re)raising the flop with a big edge. With the bigger edge hands, it's better to get the raise in sooner as the edge after the flop doesn't increase as much as it would with some of the other more marginal hands.

A couple follow-ups...

1) That part of the book - the two hands example (AA vs. TT on a 9c7c3x board) - was incredible, but extremely short. I really hope that when you release a later version of the book that you will strongly consider significantly expanding this section.

2) Does anyone care to go into why a hand like AJs has such a large edge PF? I tend to think that the hands with edges large enough to raise from a blind into a field are:
AA - TT, AKs - AQs, AKo
AQs I consider marginal here, but AJs I think is much more marginal as I've seen many people limp with AQ. AQo is also a hand I consider marginal due to its off-suit value. I'll also sometimes raise with weaker hands, but not due to pushing an edge, rather due to wanting to build a huge pot with a great multi-way hand against a large field (five plus opponents).

I had something else but can't remember off the top of my head...if I remember, I'll repost.

- Chris

[Toonces]

I think I see your logical fallacy on your original question. If you wish to frame the poker hand using the "Fundamental Theorem of Poker", then your results will be based on the EV of your opponent's mistakes SUBTRACTED BY the EV of your own mistakes. Let's take as a given that AJs have a reasonable pot equity edge over the typical limping hands. Therefore, the decision with the highest EV is to raise. By checking, you are making a "mistake". Even if the raise forces your opponents to play correctly from that point until the end of the hand, it could still be the correct play if you would not have been able to recover the lost EV of the check from future opponent's post-flop mistakes.

For situations with very small pre-flop equity edges, the deceptive check "mistake" could make more money overall, since the mistakes it induces post-flop can outweigh the preflop mistakes as well as your "mistake" of not raising. But the bigger your "mistake" of not raising is, the less likely that post-flop raises will outweigh it.

[psuasskicker]

Let's take as a given that AJs have a reasonable pot equity edge over the typical limping hands. Therefore, the decision with the highest EV is to raise.

I agree that AJs has an edge over typical limping hands. The question I have is, why is the edge with AJs over typical limping hands big enough to raise in this situation vs. waiting for the later situation?

Take the section of the book with the AA vs. TT. The TT does have an edge over other random hands that are out. But its edge on the turn if a blank comes off is MUCH bigger than its edge on that flop. Hence, it makes sense to wait for the turn, vs with AA the edge on the turn is only slightly better than the edge on the flop (which is very large). But with AJs, how is the edge PF large enough not to bother waiting for the flop, where if it hits you well you now have a VERY large edge?

- Chris