NL: Picking up the pot VS. Getting your oppenent to call with bad odd

[chipbrave]

I have a question regarding NL. Based on the fundamental theorem of poker, it seems that the optimal play in NL cash game would be to make it incorrect for an opponent to draw out on you, but to have him call anyway with incorrect pot odds. However, Sklansky also talks about the value of picking up pots when they are large, which is often the case in NL. Therefore, is there a point where you just want the pot, and avoid the bad beat by making it too expensive for your opponent to draw out on you, or do you always wnat to bet the most that you think your oppent will call giving him bad odds.

Example, you are heads up on the turn. You have a made straight, and your oppent is on a flush draw. There is $200 in the pot. Do you bet $200 to get him off of his flush draw, or do you bet say $75, which you know he will call, eventhough the odds are incorrect?

[DcifrThs]

this is very dependant upon stack sizes etc...

if you have a made straight on the turn and have lets say $2000 behind and bet $200 into a $200 pot he's getting 2:1 pot odds...but if you'll pay off to his $1000 bet he's getting $1200:200 odds or 6:1 since the amount in your stack is more than enough to compensate taking 2:1 odds on a 4.11:1 shot.

also, there are MANY more considerations in NL as to betting amounts. if you give off a tell by the amount you bet you may as well not be playing. that is to say if you bet smaller than the pot when you have it and more when you don't you'll get eaten alive...so most bets are usually pot sized. one of the most effective tools in NL is on the river a straight card comes and you have the straight, but you think you're opponent put you on a flush draw and it is quite obvious he has a good/great hand. if there is lets say $600 in the pot and you each have $2500 and you're in the BB with your made straight you should sometimes move in. the reason is that since he thinks you were drawing to a flush he'll likely pay you off much moreso since he thinks you're bluffing to win the pot.

just somet hings to thinka bout.

-Barron

[MatrixMunki]

how did they come up with about smaller than the pot size being the best bet, and what about implied odds concept that can determine a lot it seems sure u can mess up their pot odds, but what if they hit then they could get a big portion of ur stack, then u could say if they do that ill just fold, well then they can just do it more often and ud need game theory to figure out exactly what to do, so im in over my head here help

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Based on the fundamental theorem of poker, it seems that the optimal play in NL cash game would be to make it incorrect for an opponent to draw out on you, but to have him call anyway with incorrect pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Based on the same type of reasoning, bluffing is just throwing money away. In reality, though, you don't know exactly what your opponent has, and your opponent doesn't know what you have.

You need to consider implied odds. If the flush hits, are you going to pay off a pot-sized bet on the river? If so, the nut flush draw should be happy to call a pot-sized bet on the turn, since the return when the flush hits is 5:1.

Suppose you have an information advantage: you have a much better idea what your opponent has than vice versa (which may be the case if you have position). This improves your implied odds or weakens your opponent's implied odds. You may prefer that your opponent make what seems to be a correct call if you expect to collect more on the river.

[ QUOTE ]
However, Sklansky also talks about the value of picking up pots when they are large, which is often the case in NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you are taking this idea out of context. Sklansky mainly referred to limit games: If the pot has 20 bets in it, you may prefer to increase your chance of winning by a few percent rather than to get another bet in. You might raise on the turn rather than smooth-calling and letting people with a few outs call behind. In NL, even if the pot is huge, you can accept losing it up to 1/3 of the time in exchange for winning twice as much the other 2/3.