Strategy Question for 2+2 Authors - Page 2

SLEEPER · #11 03-09-2004, 03:29 AM

I don't know how the rest of you feel, but when I am playing 6/12 or 10/20, I would have to say that 80% of the players at the table do not understand any of these theories.... I can't speak for the higher limits, but from what I here, they don't get much better. Therefore, given QQ, JJ or even 1010 I am raising 99% of the time. There is no way that these other players are going to lay down the [censored] they play with either way. I say build a pot, cause you got the best of it..... If the cards don't come out the way you want, FOLD!

They stink! Most of them complain about dealers, seats, tables, cards...... They don't understand a thing...... They give no respect to a raise, and they don't fold until they realize they have 7 high on the turn, and it is $24 for them to call.....

Yah, if I am playing Mason, or David I would raise less often, and not becuase I want them to fold on the flop when they have a gutshot, but ONLY becuase I want to confuse them....

Sleeper

Ahigh · #12 03-09-2004, 03:45 AM

Even on the wildest Borgata 6-12 or 10-20 ot trop pink game i will just cold call with QQ and JJ on the botton. Yes they will call 2BB cold with just about anything but that would be 2BB that YOU want them to call in the spot that YOU picked for them ( and not many will do it in the right spot for a right reason) Isn't that what you are looking for when playing those people?

Clarkmeister · #13 03-09-2004, 03:50 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even on the wildest Borgata 6-12 or 10-20 ot trop pink game i will just cold call with QQ and JJ on the botton. Yes they will call 2BB cold with just about anything but that would be 2BB that YOU want them to call in the spot that YOU picked for them ( and not many will do it in the right spot for a right reason) Isn't that what you are looking for when playing those people?

[/ QUOTE ]

Making them call 2 more cold preflop IS the right spot with the right reason.

Ed Miller · #14 03-09-2004, 04:52 AM

Of course, the rationale is you will make more money in the long run, but not in the particular hand.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying, but I think you are confused. S&M suggest that you improve your chance to win the pot at the expense of some extra postflop bets because doing so increases your EV for THAT hand, not for the "long run." While this is a crude example, it demonstrates the point they are making:

Winning a 20 bet pot 50% of the time = 10 bets
Winning a 20 bet pot 30% of the time plus two extra bets = 8 bets

When the pot is large, improving your chance to win it often makes more money ON THAT HAND than does winning an extra bet or two.

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).

The FTOP does break down in multiway pots... and there's no need to be subtle about admitting it. The thing is, knowing that the FTOP breaks down in a multiway pot doesn't suddenly change your preferred play. You still want your opponent to raise the flop for you.. why does it matter what you root for your opponents to do? Either way (call or fold), it is clearly better for you that it be two bets to go and not one.

Ahigh · #15 03-09-2004, 02:37 PM

Preflop it would be one extra SB for them and it would not (most of the time) influence they decision to play one way or the other. They do not respect button raises (or almost any raises with 6 limpers) just as much as they do not respect their own money. Time and time again i see 6-7 to the turn no meter how jammed the pot was. Yes, i am ahead but there are a lot of "miracle" cards (with 7 people in) that could hurt me so if i can thin the field on the turn by making them call 2 cold .I'll take that any day over just just getting one SB from them preflop ( not to mention that pot gets huge if they do call and i am still ahead in that pot).

SLEEPER · #16 03-09-2004, 03:58 PM

The point is to make them pay from pre-flop all the way to the river when you have the best hand.... If scary cards come, then you fold! They are going to win some hands, nothing you can do about it. ( if they didn't, we would all be playing each other ) If someone wants to call my raise out of position with 6/7 then great. They will pay me off in the long run.

Depraved · #17 03-09-2004, 05:12 PM

Well, we're talking about the same thing albeit with different semantics. All I was saying was that when you win a pot, 20 big bets is less IN THAT HAND than 22 big bets. I thought it would be more clear (although perhaps non-standard to you) to limit the discussion of money won in a hand to that particular hand because of the nature of the discussion. I'm pretty sure it was clear the way I wrote it. In fact, it was written in the same style by David Sklansky so I'm not too worried about it, but I understand (and agree) with what you're saying. Sorry if I confused you.

Semantics aside, I think it's great that you said this:

[ QUOTE ]
When the pot is large, improving your chance to win it often makes more money ON THAT HAND than does winning an extra bet or two.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like a lot of people are indifferent to this notion. Never mind the fact that they are winning players, and play against zombies half the time. They don't seem interested in perhaps increasing their profits.

[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP does break down in multiway pots... and there's no need to be subtle about admitting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, but can you direct me to some 2+2 material that even discusses this? It's the authority on poker, and yet I can't find the said material in any of their books. If I've missed it somewhere, please let me know. Maybe you could include it in your book.

I disagree with you on this:

[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, knowing that the FTOP breaks down in a multiway pot doesn't suddenly change your preferred play. You still want your opponent to raise the flop for you.. why does it matter what you root for your opponents to do? Either way (call or fold), it is clearly better for you that it be two bets to go and not one.

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else, it should definitely factor into the reasoning behind this play.

In terms of bets collected, putting two cold to them isn't different than one bet to them after you've 3bet preflop. Both situations add up to 4 small bets. The only difference is you've given them a chance to fold correctly. Why would you actively plan to give them this chance?

If there's a gigantic amount of money in the pot preflop, you would be unable to create this situation anyway (meaning your 20 big bet illustration isn't valid since they'd chase to the end no matter what), so were talking about medium-big sized pot situations. And at that point when you're faced with choosing a betting pattern that pumps up the biggest pot vs. a betting pattern than manipulates your opponents into folding correctly, why would a player choose the latter? You'll win your fair share anyway, but what isn't in your favor is the equity lost when many opponents call your bets, even incorrectly. It will end up costing you EV, and therefore, I contend it is perhaps the only issue driving this motivation to choose tactics which cut out many opponents by allowing them to fold correctly when the pot gets bigger.

Franchise (TTT) · #18 03-09-2004, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP does break down in multiway pots... and there's no need to be subtle about admitting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, but can you direct me to some 2+2 material that even discusses this? It's the authority on poker, and yet I can't find the said material in any of their books. If I've missed it somewhere, please let me know. Maybe you could include it in your book.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's right where you'd expect it to be. TOP, Chapter 3, "The Fundamental Theorem of Poker".

Ahigh · #19 03-09-2004, 07:13 PM

My point that if I raise preflop i probably wont have a chance to put them on 2BB decision on the turn since very rarely someone will bet into me there...

Depraved · #20 03-09-2004, 07:21 PM

Thanks Franchise. I was unclear and also incorrect in my statement. I forgot that the TOP granted the FTOP breaking down in multiway pots. What I did remember (thus shaping my poor statement about it), what that the effects of implicit collusion have yet to be printed in the TOP or any other 2+2 book (to my knowledge).

The example given in Chapter 3 is far removed from implicit collusion, and the assertion that the FTOP holds for most multiway pots apparently ignores the issue altogether.