Something that I've always wondered about...

[marrek]

What about this?

Your isolation raise is a +EV play due to the intial limper/raisers weak requirements. And when theres a loose call behind you, you still figure to have the best preflop hand.

However, versus 2 opponents, you may become a dog to them collectively ( say only a 45% favorite in the hand). This combined with ( as another poster pointed out) the facts that these players aren't giving up all that much preflop, and they may get away from their hands very cheaply when YOU do hit means that there may not be a HUGE profit in this situation.

Make any sense?

Marrek

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that this third guy is taking money from you? This would imply that he's making it from you and the other guy. This isn't correct, I don't think, because otherwise, you should start playing lots of hands here, and I'm not ready to start doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the implication is that he's losing money to you preflop, but if he's playing well postflop then he's costing you some postflop profit. I don't know if this is enough to cost you money overall. Also as David Steele said, when you have a hand like AQ the cold caller may not be making a big mistake, but he is making a big mistake against your entire range of hands there which includes the big pairs.

[adios]

FWIW:

[ QUOTE ]
However, we also know that doing this calling is a money loser, especially calling the three bets. My question is where is my perception wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not acting last after the flop anymore and if the player behind you is adept at knowing where's he's at, perhaps better than you post flop, he'll tend to dump his hand when he should and continue on when he should.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have a bad player in front of you worth isolating, he's losing cash in the hand. Likewise, you have this guy behind you playing hands he shouldn't, so he's losing money, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

The question in my mind is how much ground does he make up after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
However, it feels like you don't make as much money in these situations as you should. Where's the money going? Are we still getting it and are blinded by the greatly increased variance of the moment? I'm honestly not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you fold once in awhile when you shouldn't and/or play on when you shouldn't, to me it's clear that this is where you'd lose some ground. If you have a very marginal hand after the flop, in my mind it's inevitable that you'll make some mistakes to an excellent player, who reads hands well that has position on you. If the hands he plays are on average better than the live one's hands but not that much worse than your hands I can see how they may gain after the flop.

[J.A.Sucker]

There are two issues. First, let's assume that I play better postflop than my opponents do. I still don't like the tag-along in the pot.

Second, the very nature of hold em is that I'll usually have a marginal hand. Usually you miss the flop. How does this affect your thoughts?

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two issues. First, let's assume that I play better postflop than my opponents do. I still don't like the tag-along in the pot.

Second, the very nature of hold em is that I'll usually have a marginal hand. Usually you miss the flop. How does this affect your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Despite the fact that you play better than them postflop (though I'm guessing it's not by a wide margin here,) these pain in the ass type players are very adept at using position to its fullest extent.


Would you really give a [censored] if one of these guys calls out of the bb in your scenerio?

[DpR]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, here's a post that I hope gets some good discussion going. It's basically a summation of thoughts that I've had about the topic of those "pain in the ass" guys who are on your left.

Here's the scenario. You raise in MP or so. This raise can either be first in, or more importantly, as a semi-isolation. Let's also assume that you aren't raising light, though. You may be reraising a loosish raiser in front of you, too. In fact, this makes the situation even more interesting and clear-cut, so one can go with this scenario if you want. Remember, you aren't raising light, but you don't have AA or KK, either. Let's say you have something like JJ, AQs, or AK - something like that.

Now, this pain in the ass guy on your left is the type to cold call a lot and who plays very well after the flop. He is surely a fly in the ointment.

The question is this:

When this guy calls, I really don't like it. When guys start doing this, it limits your profitable opportunities for isolation, because you really can't go as light, since they will be in there a lot. Also, it sqeezes you in between to aggressive players after the flop in a large pot with a hand that likely has to hit to win. Not great.

However, we also know that doing this calling is a money loser, especially calling the three bets. My question is where is my perception wrong? If you have a bad player in front of you worth isolating, he's losing cash in the hand. Likewise, you have this guy behind you playing hands he shouldn't, so he's losing money, too. However, it feels like you don't make as much money in these situations as you should. Where's the money going? Are we still getting it and are blinded by the greatly increased variance of the moment? I'm honestly not sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, jsut trying to come up with some theoretical possibilities here.

1. If we define his cold call as a negative EV, the only way it can be worse for us is if his presence in the pot makes the first guy play better. If the first guy EV increases (due to his accidental better play) more than cold callers EV given up then we can be worse off. Perhaps the cold caller is isolating us after a rag flop and pushing out the fishy guy or the fishy guy is giving up on his hands easier against two opponents and the cold caller is not playing bad enough to make up for that loss. I doubt this scenario is true, but it is the only way I can think of that we can be worse off if we define the cold call to be negative EV.

2. Another possibility is that given his position, and the fish already in, that the call is not negavtive EV vs. the field (whereas it would be HU vs. our hand). So perhaps the CC'er is grabbing more of the EV the fish is giving up then his fair share, thus we get less from the fish. Meanwhile, the CC'er plays pretty well so we don't make up for our loss from him.

I don't necessarily believe either of the two possible explainations to be correct - but I also don't believe in intial assertion that we are worse off with that caller in there. (i.e. I do think the perception is such due to the variance - your EV probably increases while your EV/sd decreases).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
There are two issues. First, let's assume that I play better postflop than my opponents do. I still don't like the tag-along in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure about this but perhaps his loss to you post flop is less than what he gains from the live one. I need to think about this more but is it possible that he cuts into your profit from the live one more than he loses to you?

[ QUOTE ]
Second, the very nature of hold em is that I'll usually have a marginal hand. Usually you miss the flop. How does this affect your thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right and my point is that since your hand does turn marginal after the flop often, the fact that you're out of position to a good post flop player means that you'll make some "mistakes."

[Diplomat]

Ahh, the power of the floater. Always the fly in the ointment.

In seriousness though, the addition of this player takes away some of your equity and changes your positional advantage, which you don't like. But does add 3 more bets to the pot, which you do like. Also, the assumption that you play better than your opponents post-flop buffers this somewhat.

It is also the nature of holdem that they will miss the flop a fair bit too. Assuming that you are not raising too light, and that the floater is floating a wide range of hands, often you will "miss" but still be ahead.

I'm still struggling though with whether or not the three extra bets (and any future action) compensate enough for the loss in equity and position. Given that they play decent, it's probably not enough, but it's probably close.

-Diplomat

[J.A.Sucker]

I'm not sure if the floater is a true fit here, because they do what's always predictable, and wrong if you have any kind of cajones.

Note that true floaters often make it easier to play here, because you make a ton of money off of them if you play right. That is, bet the flop and let the floater call. If the live one folds, fine. If he calls, fine. Then, bet the turn and let them raise. If the live one folds, you call (or reraise). If the live one calls, then you usually fold, unless there is a draw that seems likely for the live one (or maybe you reraise if you think the floater will fold, which is a good play, but highly specific).

The PIA type is a bit different, and will leverage themselves more differently than a typical floater. These PIA types are usually losers or break-even in the game, IMO.

[J.A.Sucker]

No, because it's not only my absolute position, but my relative position. Last is best, middle is worst, oftentimes in these spots. However, there are more stealish situations where I definately do care.