Where Is This Player's Money Going?

[PokrLikeItsProse]

I've run up against this sort of player before. I am currently thinking of a specific player in a limit hold em game who plays well after the flop and is capable at setting traps if he flops good, but who never raises or reraises before the flop, but I have run into similar type players at no limit. I have seen this player cold-call a preflop raise with aces, but his calling standards seem fairly reasonable for the pot odds his calls are getting (except that he calls with hands he should reraise with). It is almost as if he has been rivered badly so many times that his mentality is that he should wait and see before putting in more money. Basically, we have tight-passive preflop and somewhat tight-aggressive and capable of bluffing after the flop (but still making some clear mistakes).

Unless this player has hit upon some new strategy whose mathematic foundations are clearly beyond me, this player is not maximizing his profits from his good hands. If a dollar saved is a dollar earned in poker, then a dollar not won is a dollar lost. If he is losing money, the other players at the table are the beneficiaries. Is there anyway I can increase my share of this money, or is it just a given that the primary beneficiaries are looser players who are able to see more flops with worse hands without being charged big for it and I only benefit indirectly by more money being left in the hands of players who are poorer post-flop?

[mosquito]

On pots he wins, it's the other players' keeping
the money in their stacks. Exception: someone who
plays because they get in cheap, and would have
folded a raise.

On pots he loses, it still stays in the other participants
stacks unless someone who was not raised out wins. Then,
that player gets it.

Also it's not real clean like that, but somewhat close.

How to get that money is your normal good play, with
adjustments when your buddy is in the pot, knowing
how he plays.

[Leonardo]

Without any evidence whatsoever, I dont think he is losing money, especially if he is playing at the mid-low limits. My thinking is this. If you never raise preflop you are keeping the pot smaller. In limit poker a smaller pot makes skillful play more rewarded. On the flop much tighter/selective play is required due to the small pot. If you raise preflop and have say 4 callers, it is almost impossible for them to make a mistake from there on because the large pot dictates calling a lot-which social players love to do. I have a lot of work to do in the coming days, but in about a week I will repost and try to come up with specific examples. I think that sometime in the next few years people will realise that raising preflop is not as good as once thought and that yes, this guy has come across a strategy that is very counter intuitive but may have some merit.

[k_squared]

the issue though is that you have to look at the question holistically. If the pot is raised pre-flop and there are a lot of callers, that does not mean they are playing correctly. It means they more than likley made a bad call and now are left in a situation where minimizing their mistake means continuing to play the hand if they hit any decent draw or hand. Just because they are playing correctly after the flop does not mean they are playing correctly overall. Often times the only reason the odds exist which now allow them to play their hand is that they made a mistake calling two bets with a mediocre hand.

For example (I will use a NL example to illustrate the point... even though it is really limit we are talking about). If you have a total of 100 Big Blinds (BBs). An opponent raises pre-flop to 75BBs and you decide to call with J-10s. Now the flop comes K-Q-3 rainbow without one of your flush cards. The pot has more than 150BBs (add the blinds) in it and you have only 25BBs to lose. It is clearly right to push in. Now, your opponent clearly had an advantage over you pre-flop and now even though you aren't making a mistake by playing your hand it was a huge mistake to commit yourself to a pot with that hand.

-K_squared

[bobman0330]

You're winning money from him whenever you hold better cards than he does or catch better and win pots. This is the same way you win money from everyone else. In this case, however, he is not taking money back when he holds better cards than you do. Off the top of my head, I don't see much of a way to take more of this guy's money. Just be grateful he plays so badly, and don't you dare believe that this isn't disastrously bad play.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
You're winning money from him whenever you hold better cards than he does or catch better and win pots. This is the same way you win money from everyone else. In this case, however, he is not taking money back when he holds better cards than you do. Off the top of my head, I don't see much of a way to take more of this guy's money. Just be grateful he plays so badly, and don't you dare believe that this isn't disastrously bad play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I know it's disastrously bad play. I just wish that I could take the lion's share of the money he is leaking the way I can usually victimize a maniac. It bugs me that someone is giving away money and I can't figure out how to be the main beneficiary.

[Leonardo]

Imagine a bet where you can put in all your money today as a 52% chance and the result comes in a week. Else you can pay 1% and wait until tomorrow, at which time you will find out some information that will be one of two things. The information either. You are a 65% chance; or you are a 35% chance. In the first case for each 100 times you win 52 times and lose 48 times for a profit of 4. In the second situation you pay 1, then wait. 50% of the time you find out you are a 65% chance and make 30 (65-35) for each 100 times. The other half you dont take the bet (like fold). Hence your profit is 50%*30=17.5 - 0.5 (half the time you lose your original 1) =17. See? It is like option theory, if you have ever taken a finance course. The option do do something in the future is very valuable and if you can buy an option (limp) and wait to see if things go your way before sticking all your money in (with a big advantage), it is much better than sticking all your money in as a tiny favourite up front. All of this assumes of course that the player in question is a good player and that he can play well on the flop and beyond, which is what you seemed to say. The idea that you put in as much money as you can whenever you are a favourite is just flat out wrong. If you can wait to become a bigger favourite, why not do it?

[Rozez]

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I know it's disastrously bad play. I just wish that I could take the lion's share of the money he is leaking the way I can usually victimize a maniac. It bugs me that someone is giving away money and I can't figure out how to be the main beneficiary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you should try isolating him by raising if you can act immediately after him. This way, there's only one player who can benefit from his mistakes: you [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Of course this advice is pretty useless if you play against opponents who are always cold-calling raises.

Rozez

[mshalen]

THANK YOU! This is probably the best post I have read in defense of limping. You hit the answer dead on. I look at the betting process the same way and am glad that someone else agrees with me. Sometimes these forums seems to be full of people who believe that you should always push whenever you have any slight positive advantage.

[bobman0330]

Bah, finance analogies. If you were a true gambling addict, you would've used a doubling cube analogy from backgammon. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

In any case, this is certainly not good as a straight analogy. What the situation is really closer to is that you can bet now AND bet later when you have more information. In that case, you place the 52% bet and place the later bet when it's favorable.

But there is some truth to the notion that raising preflop will give you fewer opportunities to outplay your opponents later in the hand, just because they'll be correct to call more frequently, and that's generally the type of mistake they make.

There are several problems with using this reasoning to decide not to raise preflop though. Firstly, as a skilled player, you may be able to manipulate your opponents into making mistakes even in large pots by strategically just calling the flop and raising the turn, e.g.

Secondly, you're overestimating the value of the extra mistakes your opponent will make in comparison to the extra flop equity you gain by raising. Premium hands like big pairs and big suited connectors have a lot of preflop equity. Postflop equities are generally larger, but they have to be discounted for the frequency with which they occur. Sure it's great when your opponent is drawing to 5 outs the whole way in a small pot. But it's going to happen somewhat infrequently, which must be taken into account.

Finally, not raising with some hands can be disastrous if you allow a multiway pot to develop with a hand that plays best short-handed.

In short, I'm not suggesting that your suggestion is illogical or could never be correct. I'm just saying that in the game of limit holdem, it's not right.