Something that I've always wondered about...

[Gabe]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't true, mathematically speaking.

Say that the limper's range of hands is 22-77, A2s-A9s, suited and unsuited broadways, suited connectors down to 65s, suited two-gappers down to 86s, plus Q9s, K9s, A9o and A8o.

Sucker's range of hands is JJ, AQs, AKo.

Heads up here Sucker has 66% equity, and the limper has 34% equity.

The third player will cold call with suited aces through AJs, pocket pairs 22-99, suited broadway, suited connectors 65s-T9s, as well as KQo, AQo and AJo.

Now, the limper has about 26% equity, sucker has 46% equity, and the floater has 28% equity. So floater has taken 8% of his 28% from the limper, and the other 20% from Sucker.

There's a pretty powerful intuition behind this, which is that the limper will usually need to catch some cards to beat Sucker. The only way that the limper can be hurt by the presence of the third player is if the limper catches cards, and the floater catches better cards still, which isn't all that common a parlay.

Whether or not the floater's play is correct is an open question, and depends on exactly what cards everyone holds as well as things like how the blinds play, but his presence will almost always be more harmful to the player who has the best hand presently (Sucker) than the player who is drawing (limper).

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe we're talking apples and oranges. I don't know.

in your example the third player isn't really taking anything from Sucker or the limper. he's donating.

If there were no blinds, and each player has $50, the limper limps for $25 sucker raises to $50. the third player folds. the limper calls. Sucker gets $66 and the limper gets $33.

Now if the third player is in, the sucker gets $69 ($3 more), the limper gets $39 ($5 more), and the third player gets $42 back for his $50.

Now this is subjective, but I think in actual play, that given the third players superior position, and sucker's superior cards, the third player will break even on his hands, sucker will give up a third or less so that he's still making as much or more money as he did heads up against the limper, and the limper, because of his bad position and poorer abilities is giving money to both the third player and sucker, some of which sucker is giving to the third guy. The limper, with draws, especially the weak ones, is losing a percent of each future bet he puts in. Sucker with the best hand, is making money on each future bet he puts in. and of course, many of the limper's, as well as the third players hands, sucker has dominated.

(with pokercalc, for the hands you list, on the all-in scenarios I get 31%-68% and 24%-49%-27%. that would make the limper gain $5 from the third player and sucker gain $6. maybe I'm doing something wrong.)

[1800GAMBLER]

Shredi (i've totally forgotten his name - the guy who made up the term 'shania') made a thread on this and i think he may have called it 'implied collusion' in which two situations which should both be +EV become -EV when together. Ikke posted a lot in the thread too. I have no idea where it is though.

[shemp]

To extract money from your left you need to flop a better hand or be better postflop. I think the pre-flop advantage is at minimum mitigated by the postflop push. I don't cold call nearly as much as I think experts can, which is fine with me, because coldcallers almost always suck and are not experts.

(Of course, since I'm not an expert, you don't need to be one to coldcall against me to show a profit...)

Anyway. People who cold call to my left raise my raising standards.

[Thomsen]

he might not take them directly from you, but he is taking some of the money that the guy to your left was supposed to lose to you. The money he loses by cold calling is not big enough to outweigh this so result is a smaller win for you alltogether.

[The Dude]

I would wager to say that the player to your left calling 3 cold when you have marginal 3-betting (the ones you mentioned, where you're happy to have it HU on the flop) costs himself money, but it's not really going to you. When I raise from EP w/ KQs then get 3-bet behind me, I don't mind the siutation nearly as much when there's one or two others still in when it gets back to me. The original raiser will likely benefit some if there's somebody calling three cold with AJ, 88, or some other such hand.

Edit: I just read all the replies in this thread, and I think Nate nailed it.

[The Bear]

[ QUOTE ]
Shredi (i've totally forgotten his name - the guy who made up the term 'shania') made a thread on this and i think he may have called it 'implied collusion' in which two situations which should both be +EV become -EV when together. Ikke posted a lot in the thread too. I have no idea where it is though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is the thread you're talking about:

http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/...t=all&vc=1

[DpR]

Gabe's comment is similar to what I was going to post. If you include the blinds, Sucker actually loses a little pre-flop (but this will always be the case with the first couple players to enter the pot). However, we have defined a scenario where Sucker has the best hand, thus Sucker will make more post flop then he would have if it was only two players (I think this is obvious). The only way Sucker is not making money post flop from the limper is if the limper is WAY better than him (i.e. is somehow not losing money to him when Sucker has AK and limper has AQ - which I don't really think is possible).

[J.A.Sucker]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway. People who cold call to my left raise my raising standards.

[/ QUOTE ]


This was the whole point of my posting this whole discussion. I intentionally made a false assumption in the original post, and that was the cold-caller guy was losing money by doing so. I don't think that this is the case.

These PIA types cause you to play FEWER hands, and this reduces how much money you can make, not only on this hand, but, more importantly, on future hands, by preventing you from playing hands in the first place.

The other side of this coin is that you should be playing more hands with position against players who are good enough to adjust to semi-isolate. There's money to be made here, especially if they play too timidly or too wildly after the flop. There's a careful medium that one must be exist in to be this middle guy, even with premium cards. It's kind of a tricky spot. Further, if you are this PIA guy, you may get the other tough players in front of you to play fewer hands, or start limping more. Either scenario is a dream for you.

[Ray Zee]

move seats as its is very possible his play could make you a losing player in the game. it ruins your play of weaker hands than you stated and hurts your play of the ones you mentioned.
as some have said. the weak one gets to play better- bad for you
your tools are limited with the tag a long- bad for you
even if you can outplay him he has position which means he outplays you-bad for you

bigger pot- good for you
no chance to steal or win without improvement on the non pair hands- bad for you

change seats.

or play more hands and less raising.

[Ray Zee]

pia takes money from you. not so much from you as from the other guy and also forces him to lose less. plus he takes away from your share of the blinds which is significant. move seats.