SSNL Theory Question: Controlling pot size?

[Kyriefurro]

In a previous post someone said that one of the mistakes that Limit players make when they move to No Limit is failure to control pot size. And I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm one of those players. I'm honestly not clear on this concept. So.....

1) What do meant by it?

2) How do you do it?

3) When does it apply?

[Andrew Fletcher]

LHE players love big pots because it allows them to chase draws. NL players want to avoid playing big pots unless they know they have a good hand. In NLHE, showdowns are much less frequent and the strength of your hand is often unknown in relation to your opponents hand. Therefore, good NL players try to control the size of the pot if they are unsure of their relative strength.

Let's say you've got AQo in the CO. A uber-tight player raises 3xbb from UTG. From playing with him, you know that this likely means AA-JJ or AK. You're the only caller. The flop comes As-5d-8c. He bets 2/3 of the pot, which is standard for him. You call. Flop is a blank and he checks. You check behind.

The turn check is an example of a move designed to keep the pot small. You want to get to a cheap showdown if he's got JJ-KK and avoid putting too much money in the pot if he has AA or AK. He'll most likely make a smallish bet (btw 1/2-2/3 of the pot) on fifth street, which you can easily call.

The main difference between NL and L is that a player can control pot odds and give their opponents opportunities to make mistakes. According to TOP, those mistakes equal money in your pocket.

As a note, the players in the very high-stakes NL games (like 25/50 and up) often wind up playing big pots with medicore hands. The theory doesn't change, but the players are so much better that they try to manipulate each other and throw eachother off balance. It's really pretty cool to watch.

[Kyriefurro]

So you're basically describing a standard WA/WB situation. You want to get to showdown, but you want to do it as cheaply as possible. Since in NL a bet tends to be sized in relationship to the pot, keeping the post small keeps the price of showdown small.

What other types of situation would this apply to?

And what would you do if you were OOP since a check will tend to induce a bet (and often a large bet) behind which may or may not be a bluff?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
And what would you do if you were OOP since a check will tend to induce a bet (and often a large bet) behind which may or may not be a bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the reasons playing NL OOP is so tough, esp against good players. It is quite difficult to control pot size by checking. Being OOP in NL just plain sucks and oddly enough this one of those things that took me a long time to really internalize, because a lot of the poor SSNL players wont put pressure on you when you are OOP.

[Andrew Fletcher]

bump. this is a good thread.

What does bump mean

[sourbeaver]

[ QUOTE ]

What other types of situation would this apply to?


[/ QUOTE ]

All this talk about not getting stacked with top pair ?
Well, obviously you're looking for that against some special opponents, but against a semi-thinking or even good opponent, a top pair hand isn't exactly a ticket to the bank. So you might consider keeping the pot small in these cases, "eliminate a street" (which is done by checking behind, but not necessarily on the turn, it depends), catching bluffs and the like.

[Mackerel]

[ QUOTE ]
And what would you do if you were OOP since a check will tend to induce a bet (and often a large bet) behind which may or may not be a bluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

Controlling pot size OOP in NL is difficult at best, and sometimes nearly impossible against tough opposition. Against weaker, straight forward opponents, you can sometimes make small (1/4 - 1/3 pot) leads OOP with weaker made hands and draws. They'll often freeze up and either just call or min-raise and give you good odds while keeping the pot size down. Against tougher opponents it's a lot trickier and your best bet is to avoid big confrontations OOP as much as you can. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you've got AQo in the CO. A uber-tight player raises 3xbb from UTG. From playing with him, you know that this likely means AA-JJ or AK. You're the only caller. The flop comes As-5d-8c. He bets 2/3 of the pot, which is standard for him. You call. Flop is a blank and he checks. You check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

waxie's whole post is gold, but I'd like to expound upon it a bit.

It's a good idea to check behind in the above scenario. Keeping the pot small in a WA/WB hand is one reason. You don’t want to pay too much for this marginal hand. But it's not the only reason, and frankly, it’s not the one that is foremost on my mind when I'm actually in this spot at the table.

Instead I'm thinking of the other side of this same coin: controlling aggression. In this hand you're either way ahead or way behind your opponent and it's hard to tell which. (this is what's meant by "WA/WB") If you're way ahead, you'll surely prefer to raise some amount the opponent will call, for value. But if we’re way behind, our raise will only be met by further aggression either right here or on the river. By reopening the betting, we expose ourselves to giving the opponent the leverage to force us in to a mistake. I’d prefer to control the opponent’s aggression so that I don’t make that mistake. Like I said, this is just the other side of the same “pot control” coin. But it’s another way to look at it.

It also gives you a way to look at other scenarios where you might not need to control pot growth but you do want to control aggression. For example, a big draw with multiple opponents. In this case if your draw is to the nuts, you don’t mind the pot growing. But you would mind if by reopening the betting you gave your opponent the chance to push you out of the pot. In that case, he had the leverage to force you in to a mistake. Not all opponents will take advantage of this opportunity when they should, so often times I’ll go ahead and raise my big draw. Sometimes I’ll even push. But not always, and one of the factors in deciding is whether reopening the betting is likely to force me out of the pot.

[floppy]

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you've got AQo in the CO. A uber-tight player raises 3xbb from UTG. From playing with him, you know that this likely means AA-JJ or AK. You're the only caller. The flop comes As-5d-8c. He bets 2/3 of the pot, which is standard for him. You call. Flop is a blank and he checks. You check behind.

The turn check is an example of a move designed to keep the pot small. You want to get to a cheap showdown if he's got JJ-KK and avoid putting too much money in the pot if he has AA or AK. He'll most likely make a smallish bet (btw 1/2-2/3 of the pot) on fifth street, which you can easily call.


[/ QUOTE ]

If this is Villan's known hand range, even with the A on board you're only ahead of half of his possible hands, so how can calling pre-flop with the intention of calling all the way down be +EV?

I realize that this was just an example, so I'm not trying to nit-pick. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of how strong (or weak) your hand should be in order to elect going into call-down mode.

The concept of "taking away a street" definitely makes sense, too, but doesn't that mean you're losing money to draws that would call a -EV bet on earlier streets?

Edit: With the A on board, I see that you're now ahead of 15 out of 24 possible hands Villan has.