Preflop Aggression: More or Less Luck?

[Mempho]

I've been thinking about this for a while now. First and foremost, before anybody gets the wrong idea, I understand the merits of each and every preflop raise that is made in that we PFR for many reasons: including but not limited to raising for value, to thin the field, to gain fold equity, for postflop leverage, to define our hands, and for metagame purposes. I'm sure there are more, but since that is not the overall point of this post, I won't dwell on it. Now, I use all of these reasons and combinations thereof to make my raises and my PFR % falls in line with the normal standard at each limit I've played.

I've been thinking, however, that the wealth of preflop raises found in today's midlimit online game creates an environment in which there is much more luck than in games with lots of limping. Before you say it, yes, I fully know that passive games are easier to beat than aggressive games. I'm quite aware of that. That is generally thought to be because the preflop raises and reraises by your opponents can put you in particularly difficult situations pre and postflop.

Most of those difficult decisions are found postflop but there are a few times that preflop when this happens (AQ anyone?)

I have been thinking about what this does, however, to the amount of luck involved in the game. It is no surprise to anyone on this board that there is a lot that is dependant upon the flop itself. So, the more money that is dumped in before the flop, the more luck that is involved in comparison to the money that is in the pot. It's like one of that tables on Paradise when they dealt their 250,000.000th hand a long time ago. Each player seating and actively playing at the table got like $5,000; but the winner of the pot got $25,000...who in the hell is going to fold anything here? If I've got even a chance in hell of winning, I'm going to the showdown. (Needless to say, I actually saw someone fold on the flop here...and it was dealt on a 1/2 table or something like that).

My point is that a wealth of preflop raises creates a situation in which postflop skill is negated. Many times there is just too much money in the middle to fold. In other words, it doesn't matter what your opponent reasonably holds, the size of the pot has already made your decision. A typical example is this:

You have AKo on the button and a LAG raises UTG. MP2 (who is relatively tight on preflop raises) reraises. You cap and both call.

The flop comes K 8 3 rainbow. LAG checks, MP2 bets, you raise, LAG reraises, and you cap...all call.

Turn is a blank..both check and you bet...LAG checkraises (LAG has a turn aggression of 0.6 through 400 hands). Anyway, you know this checkraise is probably bad news and you calculate that you have a 90% sure that you are beat and are likely up against a set.

How much is in the pot? I count 13.5 SB preflop and another 12 on the flop...25.5 SB going into the turn or approximately 13BB. Add 3 more BB so far on the turn and we have 16BB. So you're going to have to call 2BB to get to showdown....and you realize that you are better off calling because the biggest mistake would be laying down inappropriately here.

Now...remove all of the preflop raises...so we would have 4.5SB going into the flop. If we replicate the flop action, we have 16.5SB going into the turn (the BB check-folded). This gives us approximately 8BB. The action on the turn is identical and now it is 11BB to you and you know it will be 2BB once again to get to the showdown. Once again, you calculate that it is 90% certain that you are beaten. You are effectively getting 5.5 to 1. Assuming that you are a good reader, your 90% just won't cut it here.

In the first example, you are not able to make a mistake by calling the turn and the river (even though you are about as sure as you could ever be that you are beaten here) whereas the second example makes it a mistake to call down.

Your reading skills have just been negated in the first example...yes? So that would mean that the greater the volume of preflop raising in a game, the higher the luck factor, correct?

[spoohunter]

Thinning the field is a myth. You almost never gain 'folding equity' and defining your hands to your opponents only makes them play better.

[andyfox]

One thing left out of your analysis is that the raising got the blinds out of the pot. So fewer competitors and thus a diminished chance that a "lucky" flop will hit an inferior hand. And, in general, players in a game where they suspect the pot will be raised are less likely to limp in from early positions, also cutting down on the luck factor. The fewer players involved, the less chance a high quality pre-flop hand will be drawn out on.

[MaxPower]

What is luck anyway?

Who is luckier the guy who draws to a gutshot getting 4:1 or the guy who draws to a gutshot getting 7:1?

I don't have answers to these questions and I don't think luck is the right concept to describe what you are talking about.

I basically disagree with you. Reading skill are even more valuable in big pots. You need to be even more sure of your read to lay down a hand in a big pot and it is a big mistake if you are wrong. In a small pot, you don't need to be very sure and it is not big mistake if you are wrong.

[phish]

Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

[adios]

I like your thinking and I think this is a well thought out post FWIW. LAGGY action with big pots pre-flop with less of an edge after the flop leads to more fluctuations which IMO means that reducing the luck factor to the noise level takes a lot longer. In todays poker universe of 8-tabling, high speed internet action this probably is ok though.

[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the situation, raising can either lower or increase the 'luck' factor. Like Andyfox says, if it's used to thin the field and increase your chance of winning a pot (albeit a smaller pot), it can reduce your variance.

But if you're raising AJs in the BB after 7 people have limped in, then it will have the opposite effect on your variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I challenge this assertion. When you raise AJs in the BB after 7 people limp in you have an equity edge. As your equity increases, your variance isn't as negative. For example win rate 5, variance 10 = swings from -5 to 15. win rate 15, variance 10 = swings from 5 to 25. This is just an example of how increasing your win rate makes your variance less noticable, these numbers do not represent anything real.

Certainly by raising more often there are some effects which mean higher variance, but there are other effects that make that variance not as "painful".

[adios]

Ok I agree with you but doesn't the pot equity situation change alot depending on the flop which is more or less what the OP states. HFAP has a discussion about this in the section regarding loose games. Giving up some equity early to gain more later on. Let's change AJs to AKo in the BB, how would you respond then with 7 limpers?

Of course on the flop your pot equity changes, but unless the raise preflop forces you to make unfavourable choices post flop (like leading into a field of 7 players with unimproved ace high) these two need not have a direct correlation. None the less, there are some situations where raising preflop makes your opponents play better postflop. Miller has the example of the 4-1 underdog situation. In this game (which is just a thought example bear in mind) on the "flop" (there is no turn and river) one of you two will be a 4-1 underdog. Your opponent always calls, and you can choose your action. If you raise preflop, it is right for your opponent to call, if you don't it is not.

Still, my opponents are making terrible mistakes preflop (good preflop play does not make for 7 way pots) and so I make alot by punishing them (before they know the flop is gonna miss them).

I would raise AK preflop as well. It is almost certianly +EV to do so, and I obey all +EV decisions.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing left out of your analysis is that the raising got the blinds out of the pot. So fewer competitors and thus a diminished chance that a "lucky" flop will hit an inferior hand. And, in general, players in a game where they suspect the pot will be raised are less likely to limp in from early positions, also cutting down on the luck factor. The fewer players involved, the less chance a high quality pre-flop hand will be drawn out on.

[/ QUOTE ]




I certainly don't disagree...the blinds are an X factor in the equation but its not quite as simple as it may first seem. Noone doubts that raising gives you a better chance of winning and many times creates some dead money in the pot from the blinds or from the occasional extra poster. These are things that argue in favor of raising, but there is another issue that lots of preflop raising creates:

Let's look at a hypothetical deal in an online game. Let's pretend that you're a very technologically intelligent cheat [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] and that, as a result, all of the cards on your screen are dealt face up. You are a mastermind and have virtually no chance of getting caught and therefore you are going to be able to play in a way that perfectly coincides with the fundamental theory of poker. You are in MP3 in this situation...here is what you see...

SB Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
BB J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
UTG 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (He correctly folds immediately)
UTG+1A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (He is passive preflop and limps)
UTG+29 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (Correctly folds)
MP1 Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (Correctly folds)
MP2 A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (Correctly folds)
Hero A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Well, since we're cheating here we should label ourselves villain [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], but now we've got to decide what to do. We look behind us and see:

CO 9 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (he'll call a bet but not cold call)
Button K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (hmmm, he would play that unraised from the button)


And then the blinds...SB is folding no matter what and the BB is calling no matter what.

So...do you want to fold, call, or raise now that we've seen the stone cold truth? We have the best hand, so we're not going to fold. Let's see how this works. If we raise, we are going to drive out button and the cutoff, the SB has already checked the fold box and the big blind is calling anyway.

So first we look at what a raise accomplishes. We raise and it gets folded to the BB, who calls, then UTG+1 calls. So, its 3 to the flop for 2 bets a piece and 6.5 SB are pulled to the middle.

What is our equity in this situation?

Our hero wins 56.21% against these 2 opponents.


So, we have 56.21% of a 6.5SB pot or a 3.65 SB slice...less the 2 bets of our own and we have a positive expectation of 1.65 SB.


Now, if we don't raise, the button and the cutoff will come in...we will have 5 people to the flop for 5.5 SB, thus:

UTG+1 22.19%
Hero 41.28%
CO 19.22%
BT 4.79%
BB 12.51%

So you have a 41.28% slice of 5.5SB, or a 2.27 SB piece. If you subtract your original bet, you have a positive expectation of 1.27SB.

So your profit from raising is only an additional 0.38SB in this situation because one of the byproduct of raising is to discourage dominated hands from making calls in position.

In this particular scenario, you would probably be better off not raising because you have some implied customers if you hit your hand...meaning that the pots you do win (which will be fewer) should be larger due to the implied payoff from not raising...specifically when one of our limpers we let in flops top or middle pair.