Something that I've always wondered about...

[Nate tha' Great]

Regardless of whether the floater's play is correct, it's not at all uncommon for him to be making money for the initial limper/raiser, and taking money away from you.

Ex: limper limps A9s, you raise with AJo, the blinds fold.

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...+9c%0D%0AAd+Jh

Without considering postflop play, your equity here is roughly 68% of the 5.5 SB that goes in before the flop, less the 2 SB that you put in yourself, or 1.74 SB. The limper's EV is -.24 SB, while the blinds lose 1.5 SB.

Limper (A9s) -0.24 SB
Sucker (AJo) +1.74 SB
Blinds (Fold) -1.50 SB

Now say things go the same except the floater cold calls with 76s, which we'll assume is of a different suit than the A9s.

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...+Jh%0D%0A8h+7h

The EV works out as follows:

Limper (A9s) -0.12 SB
Sucker (AJo) +1.07 SB
Floater (87s) +0.55 SB
Blinds (Fold) -1.50 SB

The cold call makes the floater money (which will usually be the case when he isn't dominated). However, almost all of that money is made from you. In fact, the initial limper, while still losing money on the hand, is actually doing a bit better than before - now he's only losing .12 SB, rather than .24 SB.

Another example: LAG raises in EMP with KTs, you 3-bet with AJo, blinds fold. EV's are:

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...+Th%0D%0AAc+Jd

LAG (KTs) +0.07 BB
Sucker (AJo) +1.43 SB
Blinds (Fold) -1.50 SB

Now, let's say that the floater cold calls with 66.

http://www.twodimes.net/poker/?g=h&b...+Jd%0D%0A6h+6c

LAG (KTs): +0.60 SB
Sucker (AJo): +0.52 SB
Floater (66): +0.38 SB
Blinds (Fold): -1.50 SB

Again, both the floater *and* the initial raiser have gained, but at your expense.

This is getting tiresome, but you can also come up with some scenarios where the floater costs himself money, and costs you money, but makes money for the initial raiser.

[MMMMMM]

The PIA guy is giving up some to you preflop, but postflop he is cutting into your profit from the guy you are targeting: he is taking some profit from the live one for himself as well. This of course reduces the profit you gain from the first guy postflop.

As you mentioned, your position has seriously deteriorated by the presence of the PIA/floater.

The PIA or floater is also making it significantly more difficult for your hand to win without improvement. A lot of your equity against the fish or light raiser in front of you comes from your potential to win unimproved headsup. In a lesser sense, his presence may make it harder for you to manipulate the first player (especially in live play).

Depending on hand ranges and relative skill levels, it may not be so bad for the PIA to give up some to you preflop if he has a decent chance of extracting some extra from the first guy postflop--especially if the first guy in is a fish and not merely a light raiser.

Whether the PIA guy is cold-calling one raise or two is also pretty significant IMO. He is making less of an error calling one cold raise than two cold raises (both in terms of dollars invested and in terms of relative hand strengths), so the situations you initially outlined are not really all that interchangeable (or at least possess different ranges and implications).

A question: Does the presence of the PIA/floater cost the first player money, or does it buffer his losses somewhat?

If the first-in player loses more postflop when facing two opponents rather than one, the PIA/floater guy may actually do pretty well. You may do worse if the presence of the third guy buffers the first player's losses. I would suspect the PIA does much better when only calling one cold raise cold rather than two raise, and of course the first player's degree of fishiness matters here too.

So, to me, the following appear to matter: 1) how much the first player loses in each scenario (headsup or vs. two opponents), 2) how much you gain preflop from the PIA/floater, 3) how the first player's losses are distributed between you and the PIA/floater, 4) how much the PIA/floater costs you postflop due to positional considerations, 5) the fact that your equity in the posted blinds this hand has decreased. And not necessarily in that order.

By the way, I don't much like the PIA/floater tagging behind me, either.

[Noo Yawk]

When your isolating a poor player, a good deal of your profits come from:

1) Missed high cards that hold up at showdown.
2) small pairs that hold up at showdown, or middle pairs that are worth a value bet against a poor opponent, heads up.
3) Bluff potential
4) the fact that poor players never punnish you.

With a 3rd player in, that plays well postflop, and has position on you, all of these scenarios are either gone or less likely to achieve. That's where the floater hurts you.

You will, however, make money pre-flop, as was already mentioned, by the floater calling with worse hands. You'll also make money post-flop, but you won't extract that extra EV.

[andyfox]

I think this nails it. We think we don't like it because we know it lowers the % of hands we're going to win.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

good post nate,

so if you were going to float, you'd do it with suited connectors and pairs but not Ax or broadways since you're likely to be dominated right?

but i'm more interested in knowing how those types of hands you mentioned (76s and 66 for 3 bets) fare against a range of hands rather than specific examples where it shows profit or losses.

thanks.

[Senor Choppy]

[ QUOTE ]
but i'm more interested in knowing how those types of hands you mentioned (76s and 66 for 3 bets) fare against a range of hands rather than specific examples where it shows profit or losses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Comparing 66 or 76s to AJ and A9 is not exactly realistic. Take those 2 hands up against 99 and anything the limper might have, and the outlook isn't so rosey.

Any matchup for the 2 hands mentioned is going to be fairly good if it doesn't involve an overpair and the raiser/limper are sharing cards.

[fnord_too]

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying that this third guy is taking money from you? This would imply that he's making it from you and the other guy. This isn't correct, I don't think, because otherwise, you should start playing lots of hands here, and I'm not ready to start doing that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is what BK was saying. What I think he is saying is that when the floater comes in, it is easier for the weak player to your right to fold post flop since now there are two opponents and it's not HU. Also, do to the nature of the game, if the floater plays well post flop, he is only giving up a small amount of his call in the long run. The isolation target is giving up more (since he is presumably weaker, and also OOP against you). Since the floater is going to do things like raise to knock him out with marginal hands, not to mention slow you down since there is now a good post flop player on your left, you are going to wring less out of the guy on your right.

In short, it's not that money is going to the floater, it's just not going in, (so I guess that means it's going to the isolation target by means of him folding more and you betting less).

[Gabe]

If you're trying to isolate a weak limper and a third player calls after you with hands that, on average, breakeven, he's taking about a third from the weak player and a third from you. If the weak player is playing hands, as weak as, 86s and you're only raising with the hands you said, the third player is taking more percentage wise from the weak player. If the you are isolating with hands ,as weak as, A8s and 77, then he's taking more percentage wise from you than he is the from the weak player. If he's playing breakeven hands, and getting a third from each of you, you make the same. If you're trying to isolate with hands as weak as A8s and 77, and a third guy calls, in LP, with QTs or better, he's costing you money.

[Victor]

you cant view you moderately good holdings in a vacuum. he is not only calling aq, but also aa at times.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're trying to isolate a weak limper and a third player calls after you with hands that, on average, breakeven, he's taking about a third from the weak player and a third from you. If the weak player is playing hands, as weak as, 86s and you're only raising with the hands you said, the third player is taking more percentage wise from the weak player. If the you are isolating with hands ,as weak as, A8s and 77, then he's taking more percentage wise from you than he is the from the weak player. If he's playing breakeven hands, and getting a third from each of you, you make the same. If you're trying to isolate with hands as weak as A8s and 77, and a third guy calls, in LP, with QTs or better, he's costing you money.

[/ 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).