Making the Pot Bigger vs. Keeping it Small?

[cbloom]

BTW in this vein - David & Mason - I think your books are badly in need of updating. They all assume that your opponents are basically solid players. That may have been the case in the mid/high-limit games ten years ago, but these days we have a huge amount of 1) novices and "action players" in the low limit games, and 2) experts who are mixing it up a lot, deviating severely from the HPFAP guidelines. You guys should do a whole new version of HPFAP that deals more with the wide variety of opponents you may be up against.

[Bozeman]

Because hands that would have called on the flop in the bigger pot may now fold. Of course, the slight increase in the chance of winning the pot doesn't make up for the extra bets that aren't in the pot.

[Copernicus]

Either you are agreeing with me that you will win more often (not less) due to other players folding (I was talking pre-flop, you are talking flop), or you are saying your AK may fold more often on the flop.

The only way AK will fold more often on the flop is if the bigger pot invites more aggressive action on a ragged flop. I would think that will happen less often than the number of wins gained from pre-flop folds.

[pudley4]

The idea is that by raising, you are making the pot bigger, so more people will call (correctly or incorrectly) to chase their draws. With more people staying in the hand longer, you will obviously lose the hand more often. What needs to be figured out is if the bets that go in preflop outweight the number of times you lose due to the larger pot (I think they do).

Remember that when you raise from the BB, you are not doing it to knock people out - it is extremely rare that a player will fold preflop for that one bet.

[Louie Landale]

You've mixed two points.

[1] Bet and call. I have the best hand and the opponent has the correct odds to call. It is correct for me to bet and for him to call. I do better when if folds, and he does better if I check. There is no quandary here. It is the equity of my hand that makes the bet correct, and the equity in the pot that makes his call correct.

[2] Manipulating the size of the pot. So you are contemplating NOT raising PF as a clear favorite in order to keep the pot small. That's a mistake. Its only justified if that mistake causes the opponent to make an even greater mistake later. [2a] If he is going to call you on the flop regardless of your raise (he calls correctly) or you don't (the pot is small and he calls incorrectly), then you lose whateve equity you would have gained by your PF raise. Yes, you manipulated the size of the pot and caused the opponent to make a mistake, but it only costs you money: your chances of winning are the same but you engage a smaller pot when you are the favorite. [2b] If he is going to CORRECTLY fold on the flop if you do not raise or will CORRECTLY call on the flop if you do, it works out that you usually make more money by raising. Work it out.

Manipulating the size of the pot only has a chance of being correct if you can [1] get the opponent to CHANGE what he would have done, and [2] this change is a mathemetical "disaster" for the opponent, such as willingly draw dead or fold the best hand.

- Louie

Note: not raising on the flop figuring that will let you raise on the expensive turn is a valid play, but its NOT "manipulating the size of the pot".

[Louie Landale]

In addition to my other post, I would like to say that raising or not raising PF in this situation, say with QQ, is MOSTLY about [1] whether you can make up lost ground with a clever check-raise or 3-bet later, and [2] whether you can save a little money by waiting for a favorable non-AK flop.

[1] Raising PF pretty much announces your hand and its unlikely you will get raised later in the hand. Checking figuring to auto-fire on the flop MAY let you 3-bet since players can and will raise a bet from the blinds fairly liberally, and rightfully so.

[2] Check and fold if an A or K hits. I don't know how much this is worth, but its GOT to be less than a bet.

Not raising is "disguising your hand", not "manipulating the size of the pot".

- Louie

[Bozeman]

Read my response and Pudley's carefully, and you will see the error in your thinking.

But as I said, this does not make it a good play.

[Rook1]

in the end scarded money loses
but yeah having AA in the SB is dubious

[Copernicus]

Not an error in my thinking as much as being blinded by the correctness of the play in the context of the original question. If you can get more people to stay post-flop because you have "manipulated" the odds pre-flop to favor their call (but you will win if they miss their draw) then you have increased your EV.

Just to nail this down a little more directly, in the long run a raise from the BB will not, IMO, result in winning fewer hands. On balance you will get more folds pre-flop then you will get winning hands staying in post-flop solely because you have built the pot with the raise. Most often the players you lose to would have either had the correct odds whether you raised from the BB or not, or would have ignored the odds and played anyway. In this (imo) plurality of the cases you have not influenced the folding equity, so not only do you win more often, but you win more.

I disagree with the post that said a raise from the BB is not likely to get additional folds. In a limit ring game not populated by total fish, a raise from the BB is often read as AA or KK, or maybe a "loose raise" with AK, and will often induce folds from limpers. In a tournament setting a raise from the BB almost always loses the loose limpers, getting you heads up.