Making the Pot Bigger vs. Keeping it Small?

[Ed Miller]

This is actually the opposite of what S&M suggest. They suggest keeping the pot small against people who chase too much and building pots against people who fold properly (or too much).

[muck_nutz]

I'm not sure I follow your conclusion. I'm not particularly interested in maximizing precentage edge, I'm interested in maximizing my net win. I'd far prefer to have a net win of 3BB which corresponded to a 65% edge then 2.5BB which corresponded to 85% edge (numbers totally made up).

[Max Weinberg]

Using your numbers I'll run through it to try to explain what I'm saying.

You say you'd rather have a net win of 3BB corresponding to a 65% edge rather than a 2.5BB win corresponding to an 85% edge. Let's just assume you lose an even 4BB every time your hand doesn't hold up.

Playing it out over a hundred hands as a 65% favorite you stand to make a net of 195BB while losing 140BB, for a grand total of 55BB in the green.

If you take the smaller pay-out with better odds you stand to make 212.5BB while losing 60BB, for a grand total of 152.5BB in the green.

So my argument is that any extra thing you can do to screw up your opponent's pot odds is a very good deal for you. Any extra few percentage points you can squeeze out of a situation will pay off dividends in the future.

I'm not really advocating raising or not raising. There are way too many variables to contend with like player tendencies, skill, how often they fold in a huge pot, and other things I can't think of right now. In some situations raising might be the best play, and in some, just checking might be. Sometimes it might be worth it to squeeze out those extra percentage points and sometimes it might be worth it to go into the fray with guns blazing.

I'm probably more confused than I ever was, now that I know the concepts behind it than I was when I just took the raise vs. manipulation issue at face value.

[CMangano]

I understand what they mean in HPFAP, but it seems to me that if they are going to call no matter what, then making the pot bigger would be the best option. If you're going to get drawn out on, you're going to get drawn out on. I may be way off here though and would love to hear from others who disagree.

[CMangano]

I would much rather profit 70BB and make his call correct, then profit 43BB and make his call incorrect.

[Max Weinberg]

I think that can just be attributed to the fact that in my example there ends up being 8BB of dead money in the pot on the flop when you raise. My main point in that post was basically to show that manipulating the pot size to where they are incorrect (or less correct) in calling, you make a bigger profit per hand than you would have had you given everyone correct odds to draw to whatever. They eat into your EV on the hand when they are correct to call.

I'm sure a better example hand could be found instead of me artificially creating a bunch of dead money in the pot. If I could find a good example, I think the numbers would work out to show a greater EV when you manipulate the pot size to force your opponents into making mistakes. I'm not sure if it would be a huge discrepancy, but I think there would be a noticeable difference between when your opponent had odds and when they didn't. You'll still get sucked out on with the same frequency, but I'm thinking that you'll show more expected profit per hand on the times you kill their odds. I'll see if I can't figure out a real world situation to put this theory into test.

[Max Weinberg]

I think my previous post above this makes no sense now, as your odds to get win or get sucked out on don't change, simply the profit per hand that you expect to make.

Raising the pot or not doesn't change you to a 65% or 85% favorite. My conclusion in that post doesn't logically follow the information I've given, so just chalk this last post to being a dumbass and not paying attention to what I'm writing. I'll try to think of a better example.

My advice to take a 2.5BB profit as an 85% favorite over a 3BB profit as a 65% favorite stands, however. It just has nothing to do with what I was trying to get across.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Max:

I haven't read the other posts, so perhaps someone has already covered this.

First, you need to understand that if you raise before the flop, your raise will show a profit. So the question is whether you can show more profit in the long run by not raising than by raising?

In this spot an important thing to consider is: "How well do they play?"

Notice that if your game contains a bunch of good players who just happen to all limp in as opposed to a bunch of terrible players who all limp in, the profit on your preflop raise won't be as great. That's because the penalty for playing a terrible hand is more severe than the penalty for playing a decent one.

To see this, let's suppose you have a pair of kings. Would you rather raise someone who has limped with with 98 suited, or someone who has limped in with 93 offsuit. Notice that you make money in either case, but your raise obviously makes more in the second case.

So this is frequently the answer. If they play really bad, the amount of profit that you give up before the flop can easily be more than what you gain back on the flop and beyond. If they play pretty good, the opposite can easily be true.

Bst wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

In Poker, Gaming, and Life there is an essay by David that addresses how to play QQ in the big blind after everyone has limped in. It also addresses how to play AA and 99.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Copernicus]

The original question (at least as I understand it) is much easier to answer in the context of EV then it is in terms of "pot odds".

I'll reask the question in terms of a specific example: You have a hand that is the nuts unless a chaser hits his two outer. Are you better off if you had built a huge pot early on, or kept it small to minimize the chasers odds?

Round the 2 outer's probability of hitting to 5%, and call his probability of folding to a bet F%.

From your point of view:

EV = Pot* [F%+(1-F%)*(1-5%)] + Bet * 2 * [(1-F%)*(1-5%)]

Three things should be obvious. First, your EV goes up when the pot goes up (ie the bigger the pot the better) holding everything else constant. Second, your EV goes up when your Bet goes up (holding everything else constant). Third, the only thing that can reverse "the bigger the pot and the bigger the bet the better" is if you can influence F%.

When can you NOT influence F%? A) When the chaser is ignorant of pot odds B) When the pot is already so big that the chaser always has proper odds to call (as often happens in a limit game.) C) The trivial case where one of you is all in. D) The equally trivial case where he has overwhelming reasons to call despite not having pot odds (eg small stack in a tournament.)

F% is generally going to be 1 or 0....he will fold if he thinks he doesnt have the proper odds (ie youve manipulated the pot so he really doesnt have the odds, or bluffed him into mis-assessing his W%).

This then, I think, brings you to the essential "skill" difference between limt and PL or NL.

In limit you are limited in your ability to influence F%. When you cant influence F%, you should maximize the pot (which may be by jamming, slowplaying, whatever). When you can influence F% it is usually by aggressive play that causes the opponent to misjudge the odds he needs to call. That is why aggressive play is mandatory in limit.

In PL or NL, if you know your opponents will heed the call of "pot odds", each hand presents a challenge to balance W% and F% (ie your opponents perception of their pot odds). This is restated often in English as "playing the man, not the cards").