Using relative position to clean up outs

I think the guys who are saying bet/3-bet to build the pot are right. Let me see if I can quantify this:

If I get the three limpers to fold to my C/R, I may gain 3 outs, or about 12% equity. That means I go from 40% equity in an 11.5 SB pot to ~ 50% equity in an 15.5 SB pot (ignore the 3-bet for now). The EV is .5*15.5 - 11.5*.4 - 2 = 1.2 SB. So it costs me 2 SB to get another 1.2 SB in profit. If my math is right, the pot needs to be at least about 20 SB on the flop to make protection more profitable than pot building.

If I hope to keep the 3 limpers in the pot and can trap them for 2 bets by betting out, then I get an additional 10 SB in the pot for a 2 SB investment. My equity (assuming a bare flush draw) is about 40%, so 4 SBs put in on the flop belong to me for an additional 2 SB investment, so I'm doubling my money. If I can trap them into a 3-bet, I'm even better off.

So if my math is right, when the pot size is less than 8 times the number of players minus 20 (in SB units), you should build it. If it is larger, protect. When you have a flush draw + overcards that is.

[gharp]

Good post -- it seems like a lot of times these well thought out responses just fly off the front page.

[ QUOTE ]
So it costs me 2 SB to get another 1.2 SB in profit...

[/ QUOTE ]
But doesn't it just cost you 1SB? You're obviously calling anyway, but you're risking an extra bet to gain the equity edge. So it seems to me like the pot probably is the right size to make check-raising the right play.

[ QUOTE ]
Good post -- it seems like a lot of times these well thought out responses just fly off the front page.

[/ QUOTE ]

*sigh* You don't have to tell me. I posted a huge probabilistic discussion of WA/WB OOP strategy in the theory forum and got zero responses. There are a lot of good players here, but I think too many of them shoot from the hip more than they realize.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So it costs me 2 SB to get another 1.2 SB in profit...

[/ QUOTE ]
But doesn't it just cost you 1SB? You're obviously calling anyway, but you're risking an extra bet to gain the equity edge. So it seems to me like the pot probably is the right size to make check-raising the right play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could look at it that way. But in that case, you are also only risking 1 bet when you value bet and then expect a raise to your right. It's all in the timing. The question is: do I put in an extra bet or not? And if so, when? If I put it in first, I get another 2 SB in EV. If I wait to put it in after the PF raiser bets, I only get 1.2 SB in EV.

[gharp]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is: do I put in an extra bet or not? And if so, when? If I put it in first, I get another 2 SB in EV. If I wait to put it in after the PF raiser bets, I only get 1.2 SB in EV.


[/ QUOTE ]
The more I think about all this it's getting pretty murky -- there's a whole bunch of variables involved in making these calculations.

I feel like the reasoning your using when you calculate EV in these posts is sound, but I'm having a hard time squaring it with the idea that you should try to win the big pots immediately by knocking out players. The risk-reward part needs to enter the calculation, right? You can bet out and try to build a pot with lots of players, but it carries with it the risk that you'll be outdrawn (for a lot of money) when Mr. KQ, AT or <shudder> 72o sticks around because you offered him 12:1 on the flop.

Discounting the top pair outs to 1.5 each is like taking that into account, though just on the recommendations of SSH. I don't know what the true values would work out to be in this situation.

One could argue that the small extra EV in building the pot isn't worth the effect that losing the pot to a super suckout would have on your play. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]