Strategy Question for 2+2 Authors

[Depraved]

Astroglide started a great thread a few days ago questioning the rationale behind calling with QQ on the button in a multiway pot. If I interpreted David's response correctly, he said the play is optimal if you want the overpair to hold up on its own, and the specific merits stem from the increased probability someone to your immediate right will bet into you given you're not the preflop raiser.

I'm still confused over when to favor tactics that maximize your chances for winning the pot, and tactics that maximize your chances for winning the most money. What factors should I be weighing when I decide to choose one strategy over the other? Is it even worth consideration at all? Specifically in another part of HPFAP, I believe the 2+2 authors suggest cold calling a raise in the big blind with KK if the pot is multiway. The rationale is you can bet out on the flop and expect the preflop raiser to raise, thus thinning the field for you.

At least one competing author advocates capping preflop with KK/AA, with the assumption you will make the most money this way. When is this wrong? What factors determine when it is wrong?

Do you think the difference is negligible?

[Dynasty]

I think that 95%+ of the posters here should accept that they aren't nearly good enough to limp with QQ or not reraise with KK and make up the lost equity after the flop.

Mason and David should also accept that any advice which suggests play in this manner is going to hurt the vast majority of their readers rather than help them.

[DcifrThs]

also notice that we are really talking about play of qq and jj IN THE BLINDS as you are out of position. i don't know ANYONE who wouldn't raise those hands in a late position. you have it and its important to get bets in there late. now if you want to debate raising b/c everybody and their mother limps to you on the button then jj has a legitimate argument but its still worth considering a raise in late position. calling allows the pot to be kept smaller and make more EV off of their mistakes on the flop and turn when the pot is not offereing as much as it would have been had you raised.

just stuff to think about, but note how important position is in deciding what to do.
-Barron

[Clarkmeister]

Its a terrible play in either position.

[astroglide]

my theory is that if you win more than your fair share, go nuts. meaning if you have 3 opponents and you rate to win more than 25% of the time, you should be pleased with each bet that all of them put in. if you do not (after factoring implied odds and other considerations), you should fold or do what is necessary to reduce opponents and get to a superior position. of course this cannot be veritably assessed at table time, but we all do what we can to figure it out.

the advice with which i take the most task is that which recommends knocking people out when their bets would be welcome in the long run. i see this far too often. i play for chips, not pots.

[Vehn]

I think the basic problem with the "check with JJ from the blinds" stuff in the book is that the authors presume that the limpers have much better hands than they would in reality.

[Ed Miller]

I'm still confused over when to favor tactics that maximize your chances for winning the pot, and tactics that maximize your chances for winning the most money.

While I'm not going to address your main question, I will correct you a little bit. The "delayed" raising tactics are designed to win the most MONEY. Unless your bankroll is absurdly short (such as in a tournament), you should never play a hand in a way that increases your chance to win the pot, but decreases your EV. You are always trying to maximize your EV.

[Depraved]

[ QUOTE ]
... I will correct you a little bit. The "delayed" raising tactics are designed to win the most MONEY

[/ QUOTE ]

OK major, I was willing to go along with this line, because it makes sense, but here's the excerpt I was referring to from HPFAP in the chapter "When the Pots Get Big":

[ QUOTE ]
Large pots create tricky situations from the flop on. Basically your number one priority is to win it. Not to win more money, but to win the pot....

For instance, suppose you have two kings or two queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raised, and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not reraise, and when the flop comes to bet out, unless it includes an ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original preflop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't seem ambiguous to me. The raise is not intended to be a value raise. It is intended to help you win the pot, not more money. The authors seem to believe that winning more of these pots is more important than winning more money in these pots, and they start the limit for this mentality at 7 big bets preflop.

Of course, the rationale is you will make more money in the long run, but not in the particular hand. What bothers me is that it seems very hard (perhaps impossible?) to determine what the borderline for this phenomenon is: where will more pots with less money become more profitable than fewer pots with more money, and how can I judge when that line has been crossed at the table? Is it even practical?

What's even more interesting is the fact that they root for a fold when a fold is the correct play to make. This blatantly violates the fundamental theorem of poker, and could be a subtle admission that the theorem did break down in multiway pots as others have shown (due to true full fledged implicit collusion). As far as I know, this is yet to be formally acknowledged and explained in any 2+2 text. Whether or not that's what was behind this logic is another topic, but if it isn't, their logic would appear to be incorrect as you would want your opponents to fold to the flop raise, but you'd be even happier with their calls. Could the entire issue rest on this?

Anyway, to me the subject has an uneasy dissonance surrounding it that must be resolved sooner or later. There seems to be confusion and disagreement within this forum and within the poker elite over the issue.

Now, given your original statement, would you say I've misconstrued that HPFAP material, or can you say you disagree with it?

I'm not a slave to HPFAP, but since this is Mason and David's forum, I was hoping they might have something to say about it.

[Depraved]

Thanks for your response - I liked it best because of its simplicity. I don't know if it is viable for other reasons, but I'm certainly thinking about it.

[Depraved]

Agreed, but I won't stop trying to become part of that 5%. In fact, that's mainly why I come to this forum. There are more important issues to tackle, but this isn't irrelevant, and I'll innevitably return to this issue.

I also think S&M should explain various risque concepts regardless. If there are caveats which are relevant (like skill level), then list those too.