Trying to help a fellow player - feedback please!

[Bob T.]

Exactly. I think that playing weak preflop, probably cost more than getting sucked out on. I would raise those hands, not only to eliminate players behind me, but also just for value, I am going to win more than my fair share with those hands, so lets jack it up!

[banditbdl]

I think the 89o coldcall is just terrible, but its also the kind of thing that happens all the time.

As for your friend's defense of making these kinds of plays it is also pretty common as well. He's convincing himself that these poor starting hands go up in value at these tables both because he'll get paid off when he hits and because maybe he can trick and bluff some of the players out of the pot. He can't have it both ways. You always want to play more hands because playing good poker on these tables is pretty boring, and you end up trying to justify your poor plays with faulty arguments like this. If you can get your friend to recognize this type of thinking then you can help him stop it.

[John Biggs]

It's not the one yutz you're worried about in a super-loose game, it's the crowd of yutzes who will not only call your raise preflop, but call your flop bet with middle or bottom pair, a gutshot, or a backdoor, and call your turn bet ditto. Against just one yutz, you're a favorite. Against many yutzes, your one-pair hand (which is what AQ or AK will usually build) is a dog.

PLEASE read Morton's Theorem, then come back and post again when you've thought it through. I believe if you search the Web you'll find not only the original theorem, but discussions of it by Mike Caro and others.

[Bob T.]

I think the point is, although you are an underdog, against the pack of yutzes, you are still a money favorite, because your share of the pot is larger than any of the yutzes, so you still go ahead and raise.

I've read Mike Caro's thoughts on this, and I think that he misses the point here.

[Aaron Lovi]

The John Biggs and GuyOnTilt responses are on the right track, even if I doubt they've quite got the technique down. The big key in these games isn't "textbook poker"...it's maximing the payoff on your big hands and minimizing the amount you're paying off someone else's big hands. The reason this is so important is that with the increased number of players seeing flop, big hands are more likely to be out there--no matter how unlikely they look. And both John Biggs and GuyOnTilt are right...AKo, AQo, and KJo type hands quite often turn into the hands with which you are paying off.

So in this context, how should your friend look upon that hand with the 98o? If the preflop raiser is on his direct right, quite often on the flop everyone will check to the raiser and the raiser will bet. Now if the 98o flopped a gutshot or a weak top-pair hand, what can he do with it? There are so many players left to act that he is often stuck in raise or fold situations with a marginal hand. In other words, he can neither minimize the amount he pays off nor maximize the amount he will get paid off. This is an artifact of his position relative to the raiser. He would rather there be several players in between himself and the raiser whom he can just call with a marginal hand, or raise with a big hand/big draw without driving players out. And this is the way that you have to think about almost every decision at the low limit tables.

[sucka]

The big key in these games isn't "textbook poker"...it's maximing the payoff on your big hands and minimizing the amount you're paying off someone else's big hands.

Uh, isn't that pretty much the definition of 'textbook poker'? Granted, maybe not verbatim out of HEPFAP - but when I say 'textbook' I mean playing smart and not take the 'monkey see monkey do' approach I discussed earlier.

[Ed Miller]

Against many yutzes, your one-pair hand (which is what AQ or AK will usually build) is a dog.

This is where you are mistaken. Yes, you are correct. In a 3-way pot where you hold the boss made hand, there are two draws against you, one solid and one weak, there is a range of pot sizes where the weak draw loses money by calling... and so do you.

Your problem is that you are vastly overestimating this effect. The made hand virtually never becomes a dog (at least a money dog) to the draws.

Let me show you the leap of logic you have made. Your claim is that sometimes weak draws cost you money after the flop by calling. That is certainly true. You therefore conclude that you should keep the pot small preflop with offsuit hands. But the information that weak draws cost you money after the flop is not enough to draw that conclusion. You also have to take into account how much money you lose preflop by failing to raise.

For instance, say we played a headsup no limit holdem game. We both have $1000 in front of us. I have AA and make it $999 to go before the flop and you call (you don't have AA). Then the flop comes and I bet my last dollar. I lost money (a lot of money, actually) from you calling. I would prefer that you fold. But that does not mean that my preflop raise was bad. In fact, it was good. If I know you will call my $999 bet before the flop, then it is simply wrong to bet anything less. The reason is that I am granting reverse implied odds after the flop. That is, I am going to put my money in after the flop no matter what, but you (as the drawing hand) have a choice. So I make the most money if I get as much money as possible in before the flop.

In other words, simply because weak drawing hands can cost you money after the flop by calling does not mean that it is wrong to raise preflop. There is a tradeoff, and to draw an informed conclusion you need to balance the tradeoff. Unfortunately, it is difficult to do that (which is why this debate still rages) as poker is a pretty complex game. The bigger your edge preflop (the poorer the hands that your opponents will enter the pot with) then the more correct it is to raise preflop. The smaller your edge preflop, then the more correct it is to keep the pot small. The edges preflop, however, are usually pretty big in these very loose games. The "schooling" effect that people love to talk about, however, is often not particularly big, even when there are several draws against you. This is because it is difficult to improve to the best hand in holdem. Most draws are quite weak. You are usually much more desperate to knock people out in 7 card stud if you have a hand like Kings on 5th street in a multiway pot than you are to knock people out with a top pair of Kings on the flop in holdem.

[Mike]

Two thing, first a true story.

There is a boy in my extended family who at eight years old could beat anyone who played him at chess. He learned chess moves by watching the Ninja Turtles on TV he used to say. When things got tough he would say out loud, "What would the Ninja Turtle do?" His game wasn't textbook, but he knew what had to happen on the end and he did it.

Of course many of the adults he beat started explaining to him about the bad plays he made against them and insisted he modify his playing style. Now this boy is 14, and can barely beat a beginning child player. There are some things to be said about developing your own game style and making mistakes along the way.

Secondly, I understand he is your friend, but it is his money, and maybe he plays for different reasons than yourself? What is more important to you, your friendship or his poker?

[John Biggs]

Go re-read the loose games section in HPFAP. Think about why they would say it's better not to raise in a loose game with AQ after many limpers have already come in. Now think about if you have that AQ early, but you know that raising won't narrow the field and you'll get that same number of limpers. Do you still want to raise? Do you still think that's giving you your best expectation?

And I'm not talking about "schooling" when I bring up Morton's Theorem. Have you read it yet?

[John Biggs]

They have agreed that this effect exists, only they call it the "horse race phenomenon" or some such. If you don't like Caro's reasoning, would you listen to S/M?

Besides, I assume you know that S/M in HPFAP advise that in a very loose game, you shouldn't raise with AQ after four loose limpers. If that's the case, why would you raise with this same hand in early position if you know you'll get four or more callers after you?

Please, class, repeat after me: The point of raising with an offsuit hand is to NARROW THE FIELD. If you can't do that, you are better off not raising. Anyone who doesn't understand this doesn't understand hold'em.