On the Edge Part VII

[kidcolin]

We're on the same page, but not totally. You're giving up too much if you fold this preflop because you read one guy as having AA-QQ, AK-AQ. He has you dominated, but you still have equity given the 3 or 4 weak players in the hand, and your position.

Now knowledge that TWO players up front have powerful hands, that changes things. I still don't think it's a fold, but a raise I'm not so sure.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop and turn we can debate - but when it comes to pre-flop, this is TEXTBOOK Small Stakes Hold 'em.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is very bad advice. Nothing is beyond debate just because a good player wrote a book. The textbook recomendation is necessarily general while you were at an actual table. Ed's advice to reraise is fine most of the time but circumstances here are very unfavorable. A good player cannot be playing soft hands like KQs for multiple bets by rote. You must look at the ranges of the preflop raiser(s) and any tight coldcallers.

[ QUOTE ]
The fellow under the gun (I had played with him more than I had with anyone else at the table) open-raised to $20, meaning he had something like ace-king or a big pocket pair; I hadn't seen him raise under the gun with anything below tens or ace-queen suited. His first cold-caller was another very aggressive player who, like the raiser, would zealously attack pots if he had a sizeable piece of the board. He slow-played his hands pre-flop, so I had no clue what he had, other than it was a premium hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
The opener is at worst AQ or TT? That gives him 48 possible starting hands of which 36 dominate you and 12 merely have an advantage over you. Many of those dominating hands will cap you.

The first coldcaller is more bad news. He also has a strong hand and it might even dominate you because he slowplays so much.

In a related thread I posted the results of a PokerStove simulation based on your reads. I assumed the three bad players had nearly any two cards and was very generous about what the first caller's premium hand could be. Despite that you don't even have 1/6 pot equity played hot-and-cold. To that you must add the cap risk and consider that your opponents will chase more than you will*. It seems pretty clear that your reraise is a money loser. You can get all the advantages of playing a big pot against bad players by just calling.

* Incorrect chasing will cost your opponents money postflop, but it allows them to win extra pots. This takes value away from a good player's preflop raises.

[BarronVangorToth]

I see the point, as I did know I didn't have the best hand going in, but given the other people -- isn't that the key...?

Do you fold every time you think someone else has a better hand than you, regardless of what the pot is laying you?

Also, as far as the notion of "just because it's in a book, doesn't mean it's true," while I will agree with that sentiment with regarding most poker books, when it comes to the 2+2 library - and the point to my series of articles - it is taking for granted that the lessons described in SSH, HEPFAP, TOP, are on the money. IF you don't agree that advice in SSH is correct, then we have a fundamental difference of opinions where that tangent will lead nowhere.

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

Hey SW, I just checked out your other post. Great analysis. Nice work. It was even worse than my gut was telling me.

Given this data, it's similar to situations where fish make really attrocious pre-flop plays, but due to the pot size they are schooled and post-flop they are priced into playing correctly.

I'm not calling you a fish, Baron. You're obviously a thinking player. An article that is proven bunk is useful in its own right.

[kidcolin]

The advice in SSH is correct, when applied correctly. We're arguing this isn't one of the correct scenarios to apply it.

I don't think any of the 2+2 books offer any advice without expecting the reader to apply things situationally. i.e., generally , Ed Miller thinks a raise is in order in similar situations. But if you ask him, "an UTG raiser who only raises premiums and another strong player who likely holds something very strong cold calls, if 3 more cold-call, does the KQs 3-bet principal still apply?" He'll likely say, "no."

Poker is a dynamic game and table conditions must be analyzed. SW is right, you have to be careful with tight-raisers.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
I see the point, as I did know I didn't have the best hand going in, but given the other people -- isn't that the key...?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. The other players make your hands playable. They don't make it raiseworthy. Look at it this way. Same table composition. Two strong players up front, 3 who are seeing any flop with any two cards for any amount of bets, and you on the button. If the second player 3-bet rather than called, and the 3 weak players still cold called, are you calling here, just because the amount of players in the pot? You're up against the same strong hands you suspected when he cold-called, now he's just announced his hand. Are you still willing to go in for 3 or 4 bets just due to those 3 players?

I think in the SSH example, Ed is figuring this, you might be beaten, or you might have 50-50, and 3-betting leads to some favorable conditions post-flop if he isn't likely to cap (i.e., could buy two dirty king outs if you miss your overs but flop a flush draw instead). Those conditions aren't met in this scenario.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

But if you ask him, "an UTG raiser who only raises premiums and another strong player who likely holds something very strong cold calls, if 3 more cold-call, does the KQs 3-bet principal still apply?" He'll likely say, "no."


[/ QUOTE ]


And there is the six million dollar question.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

This sounds harsher than I mean it to sound, but I'm really starting to question whether you should be contributing articles to a poker magazine if your thoughts on this subject come down to whether Ed thinks it's right or not.

[BarronVangorToth]

You misinterpreted what I wrote.

I am interested in what Ed has to say, as I make this play based on what I read from Ed.

The whole premise of my articles is applying things from poker books ... if something isn't applied correctly, then, obviously, the article isn't successful in that regard.

As far as contributing in general, if your thought is that no one should contribute if they are faultless, then, no, I shouldn't - but, then again, EVERY player makes mistakes from time to time.

HOWEVER, that all said, I still believe that I played this correctly, but I am very interested in what Ed has to say, as it is possible that I did make an error, even if I doubt it.


Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
You misinterpreted what I wrote.

I am interested in what Ed has to say, as I make this play based on what I read from Ed.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as contributing in general, if your thought is that no one should contribute if they are faultless, then, no, I shouldn't - but, then again, EVERY player makes mistakes from time to time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think what I said was anything close to that. I think that's obvious.

If anything, I'm glad you contributed this, because it has led to some srong discussion. I'm interested to hear what Ed has to say myself, but I'll be surprised if he favors the KQs raise based on your reads and the numbers presented by StellarWind.

Also, I'm interested in your thoughts on the scenario I posted, in which you are facing 3-bets instead of 2. As you said in your article:
[ QUOTE ]
His first cold-caller was another very aggressive player who, like the raiser, would zealously attack pots if he had a sizeable piece of the board. He slow-played his hands pre-flop, so I had no clue what he had, other than it was a premium hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you know he has a premium hand. Is playing KQs for 3-bets much different if you're putting in the 3rd bet or he is, given you have the same information on his hand range?