mathmatics of strategy: contradiction?

i have really been wrestling with this issue for awhile.

i see most poker books somewhat apologizing for all the math, but i find the math pretty elementary and very necessary.

but then there are all kinds of statements and so forth that aren't proven mathematically or with simulation (although i'm sure the authors have done or could do it)

but assume i have KK or QQ. pretty much most books say raise to thin the field...... that's fine, but do i really want 37o folding or A7 folding or pretty much most hands folding?? i know the answer is yes, because i see it recommended so much. but isn't the 37o player making a huge mistake calling my KK or QQ, when that player is making a huge mistake.

basically, that's my question. i want to thin the field with KK (or maybe QQ is a better example?) but aren't my opponents making a huge mistake calling my large raise with really any cards (other than AA)??

i get the idea when you have 4 callers of huge raise, then the probability skyrockets in terms of you being beat on flop, but you are also fantastic odds with a very strong hand, so i'd think that would be o.k. too.

i guess the problem in no-limit is that not knowing where you stand can be very expensive. limit isn't so bad, just call it down with your strong hand at worst.

any thoughts? and, i've read alot and played alot, just have never seen any mathematical proofs or simulations on this, it's just given as gospel (don't get me wrong, it's given by experts as such)

don't i want my opponent to make mistakes (ala sklansky)? and i'd say calling with about 99.5 of hands is a mistake (maybe suited connectors are ok with enough other callers)

thanks in advance for any responses!

[UATrewqaz]

Well its a trade off really.

By raising and getting lesser hands to fold you win the pot MORE OFTEN.

By letting them remaing in you will most likely win a bigger pot but win it less often.


The fundamental point is simply this. The 73o will only continue to play with you IF he has you beat. He will simply fold if he doens't flop good (barring insanity). Thus you are granting HIM good implied odds by not raising (good being relative to you raising).

Thus by not raising you do not increase the pot size on later streets by that much but decrease your % chance of winning it substantially.

If you RAISE preflop with KK two things happen:

1 - junk hands are forced to either fold (thus increasing the % chance you win) or begin bloating the pot you are favored to win.

2 - hands that will continue to put in bets with you are hand that would have anyway. If someone is holding JJ they are going to probably pay you off the entire way (assuming a low board). Might as well charge them the whole way, you see.

As Ed Miller states in SSHE, "Take their money now while you have the chance!"


To put it in math terms, say if you raise with KK you win the pot 75% of the time (on average let's say it's a 5 BB pot). Every 100 KK you have won 75 x 5 = 375BB.

Let's assume by not raising you win the pot 50% of the time. In order to win the same 375 BB the average pot will need to be 7.5 BB. Thus you need to find a way to get 2.5 MORE BB into the average pot and you are starting from behind (because preflop the pot will have LESS money than if you raised most likely).

[ QUOTE ]
Well its a trade off really.

By raising and getting lesser hands to fold you win the pot MORE OFTEN.

By letting them remaing in you will most likely win a bigger pot but win it less often.


The fundamental point is simply this. The 73o will only continue to play with you IF he has you beat. He will simply fold if he doens't flop good (barring insanity). Thus you are granting HIM good implied odds by not raising (good being relative to you raising).

Thus by not raising you do not increase the pot size on later streets by that much but decrease your % chance of winning it substantially.

If you RAISE preflop with KK two things happen, 1 - junk hands are forced to either fold (thus increasing the % chance you win) or begin bloating the pot you are favored to win.

Also, hands that will continue to put in bets with you are hand that would have anyway. If someone is holding JJ they are going to probably pay you off the entire way (assuming a low board). Might as well charge them the whole way, you see.

As Ed Miller states in SSHE, "Take their money now while you have the chance!"

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks for the response. it was very good.. although SSHE is for limit, where i'm quite happy to keep tons of people in. but no-limit, it can just get suicidal to keep these guys around (you mentioned the implied odds).

UAT,

one more thing. i wasn't against raising. i would always raise QQ or KK (unless you get into harrington randomization stuff, but i think i'm miles away from that).

my question was more about raising and WANTING PEOPLE TO FOLD ... i think it's also pretty good to get people to put big $$$$ in pot with garbage.... but it can get very, very expensive in no-limit.... but i would never let them hang around cheaply with junk. and don't forget, against KK there's little difference between 27o (bit of a ludicrouis sp? example) and Q9o (they might call). suited connectors are a somewhat different story.

[UATrewqaz]

That is true, oddly enough when you raise giving someone improper odds to call you actually WANT them to call, even though if they fold you win the current pot. (i'm a limit player so alot of my analysis might be tilted that way).

I think it's ToP that goes into this.

It talks about how when you bet and someone has the proper odds to call on their draw, that's when you want them to fold, but if you bet and they do NOT have proper odds on their draw, that's when you want them to call.

Long term that's the maximum EV approach.

The goal is to INDUCE MISTAKES.

NL, preflop you have AA and you are first to act. Well you have the preflop nuts so anyone calling you is making a mistake, but you still don't go all in and blow everyone out because your big raise forced them to play correctly.

If however you make a raise 3x or 4x the BB you may be a caller or two (thus you have induced mistakes, thus you gain long term).

[Toonces]

Another way to put it is from best to worst EV with KK:

7 opponents for 2 bets
2 opponents for 2 bets (plus possible blind dead money)
7 opponents for 1 bet
2 opponents for 1 bet

In both cases, you want as many of your opponents to call as possible. However, with a very good hand like KK, making extra money pre-flop by charging 2 bets and having many of your opponents fold is worth more than having all of your opponents in for only one bet.

So, having your opponents fold is a bad side effect of raising, but it is outweighed by the fact that others paid 2 bets to see the flop and the big blind doesn't get a free look at the flop.

[winky51]

[ QUOTE ]

To put it in math terms, say if you raise with KK you win the pot 75% of the time (on average let's say it's a 5 BB pot). Every 100 KK you have won 75 x 5 = 375BB.

Let's assume by not raising you win the pot 50% of the time. In order to win the same 375 BB the average pot will need to be 7.5 BB. Thus you need to find a way to get 2.5 MORE BB into the average pot and you are starting from behind (because preflop the pot will have LESS money than if you raised most likely).

[/ QUOTE ]

Zakley. There is and old saying that goes "you either win a small pot or lose a big one with aces"

Same applies to hands like KK or QQ many times.

Think about how many times you limped and there is action behind you and you tell yourself "I limped they have no idea I got AA" So now you play more aggressively or pay off a hand you wouldnt of if you raised. Also by raising and them calling you have an easyer time putting them on a hand.

Lets say you limp, 1 caller, the BB checks. You got AA.

flop comes Q73 rainbow. BB bets. What hand does he have here? You have no clue, Q7, Q3, 73? Qx? "Why is he betting into to callers. Doesnt he know I got AA? I raise" and now the 73o you let into the pot proceeds to bust you.

When instead you raise BB calls and the flop is Q73 rainbow. He checks you bet he raises you. Now you can consider the hands he would call a raise with, QQ, 77, 33. This makes easier decisions. Now you can play your hand accordingly losing less money.

I hope that makes sense.

In limit most of the time I limped with AA early in my playing I lost and paid more when losing. If I won, I won a tiny pot because no one called or won as much as if I raised PF but with more opponents in the pot.

I never limp with premiums in limit, I raise, raiase, raise. I'd rather win someone's $6 by calling my PF raise then folding the flop to my bet than playing vs 4 players OOP on a dangerous board.

Limping is for losing money. Only once or twice did I get lucky flop a set of aces with a moron that limped also with AQ and hit something like 2 pair on the flop.

[AaronBrown]

UATrewqaz gave you an excellent response, but you are specifically asking why you might want people to fold.

I agree that you'd rather 72o calls than folds, and that's true for every other hand except a higher pair. But that's only true if only one other player calls you. As more and more players call you, your chances of winning can decline faster than the pot increases.

Suppose, for example, that four players call you with four different suited hands. Now any three-suited board beats you. It's the negative correlation between their hands that kills you. The same thing is true to a lesser degree if they are just holding different ranks.

Of course, all four players might be suited in the same suit, or holding the same ranks. But this is less likely than the opposite.

So my answer is you hope one other player stays in, more if they are very loose or weak players. But with top competition, if two or especially more people stay in the pot, your EV is lessened as a result. You still have a good hand, you expect to make money on this deal, but you do better if more people fold.

[ QUOTE ]

but assume i have KK or QQ. pretty much most books say raise to thin the field...... that's fine, but do i really want 37o folding or A7 folding or pretty much most hands folding?? i know the answer is yes, because i see it recommended so much. but isn't the 37o player making a huge mistake calling my KK or QQ, when that player is making a huge mistake.


thanks in advance for any responses!

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, in Theory of Poker, Prof. Sklansky says that it's more important to take down the pot early with JJ as opposed to AA or KK, as with the latter two there's less of chance of a scare card coming on the turn.

I assume the same would apply, only to a lesser extent, to QQ.

If the flop comes raggedy and you don't take it down right then and there, and an Ace or a King comes on the turn, you could suddenly find yourself behind or vunerable to a bluffer representing AA or KK.

thanks guys, those were all good answers and very informative... so important to get this stuff straight in your mind from a logical point of view (not just a rules-based action).

BTW, i wasn't suggesting limping with AA-JJ, unless you need to add some variation ala harrington suggests (but he plays the same people alot)..... was more curious about whether i wanted people to fold or play (and you guys gave good answers to that)

the one poster was very right, if you don't raise, you have absolutely no idea what anyone (blinds especially holds)... although sometimes with low level players you're still not sure (although i suppose you can assume 52o or 72o are unlikely).

thanks again!!