Theory of Poker: Chapters 1-4 Discussion

[Yod]

My understanding concurs with jdl22.Huge ante means you must scoop your fair share of pots or be anted to death.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

High antes/blinds or small antes/blinds it doesn't really matter. What matters is the pot size in relation to the size of the antes/blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the key I think. If the ante is enormous relative to the bet size then it's pretty much optimal to try to win every pot. Imagine two crazy situaions:

1. ante of a million bucks with $.5 bring in and 1/2 betting in stud. Obviously playing this game you are best trying to win every pot.

2. "rack attacks" where the house drops a rack of chips into the pot randomly. If you were in a game where every hand the house juiced the pot by a huge margin relative to bet sizes then you would also want to win pots.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A K . Your opponent has A T . The board is A K 8 2 . The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me try this again.

Villain has 9 hearts as outs. There are 44 total cards to be seen. Hence the hero is a heavy favorite. Given that he should bet. Doing so the hero has gained (35/44)*10-(9/44)*10 or 10*26/44 in expectation as a result of the bet. As for the villain he will win 55 wp 9/44 and lose 10 with probability 35/44 so calling has an expectation of 55*9/44 - 10*35/44 or 145/44. Obviously folding is expectation 0 so by calling the villain gains 145/44 in expectation.

[CrazyEvan]

Maybe I'm wrong here (and I don't doubt it) but I think the answer is simpler than that. You gained because he called your much superior hand that he wouldn't have had he known what you had. (= you gain). And he gains from your bet because he avoided being checkraised. If nobody could see anybodies cards, and it was checked to him, the AT dude would have had to have bet, then would have been instantly been faced with a raise. So he saved a bet (on the expensive street no less).

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
What type of game conditions would make this strategy optimal?

Having a huge ante isn't enough, in and of itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huge ante is enough in itself. Huge in this sentence means huge in comparison to bets. When antes become large enough in comparison to bets you'll reach a point where chasing to the end with almost any chance to win is correct.

[ QUOTE ]
High antes/blinds or small antes/blinds it doesn't really matter. What matters is the pot size in relation to the size of the antes/blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

What matters is the pot size in relation to the BET size, not in relation to the original ante size.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
In 7 card stud you are dealt (8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) 6 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Would you rather play this hand in a small ante or large ante game and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to play this in a large ante game, as I need good pot odds to chase this draw.

[Luv2DriveTT]

[ QUOTE ]
Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Your opponent has A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. The board is A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I haven't started reading the book yet (traveling with it to the west coast this weekend) I belive I can answer this question. But betting into the pot, you are giving your opponent 5:1 odds, making his flush draw correct. By checking the pot, it would provide incorrect odds for your opponent to call - hence in this situation that would be the best option.

Is the moral of this lesson is to always consider not only your own pot odds to play a hand, but also how it will affect your opponent's ability to play?

[chaos]

The smaller the ante relative to the size of the bet the tighter you play. So the ante would have to be large to make paying that hand correct.

Ante structure does have some application to Hold'em. There are some games spread with a larger bet on the end. This effectively lowers the size of the "ante" relative to the average bet size. (For hold'em think of the ante as the sum of the blinds divided by the number of players.)

At some online sites they have some games with "mini" half size blinds in their hold'em games (e.g. $1 and $2 for a 4/8 game). So you should play tighter because of the smaller "ante." I think most people are playing looser because it costs them less to enter a pot.

[Rudbaeck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Another Fundamental Theorem question:

You are playing in a $5/$10 Limit Hold Em game. You have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. Your opponent has A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. The board is A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. The pot is heads up. You bet $10 into a $45 pot. Your opponent calls. According to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker you both gained from this play. How is that possible?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I haven't started reading the book yet (traveling with it to the west coast this weekend) I belive I can answer this question. But betting into the pot, you are giving your opponent 5:1 odds, making his flush draw correct. By checking the pot, it would provide incorrect odds for your opponent to call - hence in this situation that would be the best option.

[/ QUOTE ]

By checking you give your opponent infinitely good odds.

[Gamblor]

I think we're getting a little narrow-minded here - by trying to win pots, I don't think Sklansky is limiting himself to super aggression (i.e. in "big pots"), but also paying any amount to chase any cards, no matter how unlikely.

If you'll recall, he mentions on p. 27 (Ch. 4), that a large ante game would be like "someone walking by a $5-$10 game and dropping a $100 bill on the table, saying 'play for it boys'. With that big an initial pot, on which you would be getting at least 21-1 on your first call, it would be worth playing just about any hand right to the end.