Winning pots VS Theory of Poker

[hummusx]

One of the things I sort of struggle with understanding is the balance between 'take the pot down now' and 'when my opponent makes a mistake I profit'.

Let's say I hold AhAd and the flop comes K82 with 2 spades and the pot is T200 and my opponent has his QsJs face up on the table. 'Take the pot down now' says to bet and force him to fold so I can win the chips and increase my stack by 10% or 15% or whatever. But once I bet 150 into the pot, if he does the right thing and folds, aren't I losing money? Wouldn't I profit more if he were to call?

So lets say he calls, making the pot T500. The turn is a blank. If we both started with 800 chips, we've got 550 left each. Now with the pot being bigger I'm faced with the same dilemma. If know for a fact that he will fold to an all-in, and I also know for a fact that he will call a bet of 300 (2.6:1, a terrible call), how do I weigh the value of forcing him to make a correct play vs. risking the majority of my stack for a very profitable play?

[maddog2030]

The funny thing about tournament poker is that your opponent's mistakes do often hurt you.

[TheNoodleMan]

read tournement poker for advanced players, it should help you understand why winning the pot now is almost always a good thing.

[wiggs73]

Well for starters, pot odds shouldn't force your decisions in tournaments. They should be a factor, but that's it. We know odds to know what will make us money in the long run. Unfortunately, tournaments don't last for the long run. One suckout and it can be over. So...

The idea is that you want your opponent to make a mistake by calling (or by folding). In the example hand you gave, I would bet enough on the flop to make it 'incorrect' for him to call, but hopefully he still would. Neither of us have much of our stacks invested and I'd like for the pot to get a bit larger. However, on the turn with a substantial amount in the pot, I'm looking more to take it down. There are often times when you should be satisfied with the pot as-is. If you get a called for 300 more on the turn, you're pretty much pot committed at that point anyway. Either way, all of your chips are going in. So I'd just push the turn. Now, if he wants to call, then I don't mind it because he's incorrect to do so. At the same time, if he folds, I don't mind that either because the pot is already large and I'm satisfied with the amount of action I got with my aces.

[maddog2030]

[ QUOTE ]
Well for starters, pot odds shouldn't force your decisions in tournaments. They should be a factor, but that's it. We know odds to know what will make us money in the long run. Unfortunately, tournaments don't last for the long run. One suckout and it can be over.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there's still a long run with tournaments. You can, after all, play more than 1 tournament. You can you play an infinity amount of tournaments and that will still not make strictly pot odds considerations the most profitable decisions (and you will see every situation there is an infinity amount of times). The reason strictly pot odd considerations are incorrect is because chips and real money are two different things, and their exact relationship changes constantly. It has nothing to do with the long termity (is this a word?) of tournaments.

Edit: Let me just say this depends on your goals. If your goal is to make the most money, then what I said holds true. If your goal is to simply win all the chips (take 1st), then normal pot odds considerations apply.

[__Q__]

If you bet large and he folds, then there is no chance that you will bust out of the tournament and there is value in that beyond just what is in the pot. Since survial itself has value in tournaments, you need to add that "value" to the pots when you calculate your pot odds. In order to compensate for the value of survival, you want to force your opponents to make bigger mistakes than you would in a cash game.

The bigger you bet, the bigger the mistake your opponent makes if he calls. If he does call, you need the chips you get for the bigger mistake to compensate for the fact that you are putting your survival at risk.

Unfortunately, I don't have a good formula for how to balance all this. Its hard because you have to consider both your position in the tournament (to determine exactly valuable riskless survival is) and what other player is willing to call.

[hummusx]

[ QUOTE ]
read tournement poker for advanced players, it should help you understand why winning the pot now is almost always a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have read TPFAP. I still have questions. I just don't think you can make it as simple as 'winning the pot now is almost always a good thing'. I definitely think there is a balance between taking it down and getting some value out of your hands.

[wiggs73]

I agree with what you said for the most part, but I don't feel that what I said is wrong either. I think we are getting at the same point. There are times in a tournament that you don't want an opponent making a call, even though it would be incorrect for him to according to pot odds.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
But once I bet 150 into the pot, if he does the right thing and folds, aren't I losing money? Wouldn't I profit more if he were to call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you would profit more if he called. That would be a mistake by your opponent. Therefore, you bet enough that it makes it a poor play to call. And you did. If he folds, so what? It would have been better for him to call (for you) but far worse for you if you slapped 75 out there and he called getting odds.

[maddog2030]

We agreed on the conclusion, but we disagree with how we arrived there. Either way, I think the point was made that your opponents mistakes can hurt you, because they hurt both you and your opponent while helping everyone else at the table.