Where Is This Player's Money Going?

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine a bet where you can put in all your money today as a 52% chance and the result comes in a week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad analogy. Name one good player who advises consistently going all-in with only a marginal advantage preflop.

There are none.

[pudley4]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

To answer your questions:

The money he "loses" (or, more corerctly, "fails to win") goes back to (stays with) each player who is in the pot with him. Therefore, more of his "losses" are distributed to the looser players (since they're in more often). Finally, we can deduce that the way to "win" more of his money, is to play in more pots against him.

[Leonardo]

As I said, without real evidence. But I am still sure that I am correct and that limping preflop always may be a good way to play. I will try to come up with something more concrete to prove it in the coming weeks. I believe you could come up with a strategy both more profitable and with significantly less variance in limit holdem by just always limping (I am talking about playing reasonably weak opponents here)

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad analogy. Name one good player who advises consistently going all-in with only a marginal advantage preflop.

There are none.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the classic race? PP versus AK.

Happens all the time - and good players do it too. Of course, they usually don't really want to be called...

[Dov]

[ QUOTE ]
But I am still sure that I am correct and that limping preflop always may be a good way to play.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no good way to do this.

If you consistently play big pairs and big aces without raising, you will get crushed by the small pockets and suited connectors that limped into the volume pot you created.

Limping is ok sometimes, but not with premium hands against weak players. That's the whole point. They're going to call anyway. Your hand will be good more often than not, so get the money in while you are a favorite and still know where you are in the hand.

Also, the fish WILL start to realize that when you are in a hand, they will be putting a lot of money in the pot to make their hands. After a while, they will stop chasing so much and you will face a smaller field on the end.

They won't adjust enough though. That's why they're fish.

[cardcounter0]

phzon. if the bet is +EV, then ignore your bankroll, and bet the ranch.
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[sirtemple]

I really liked this counter point, but in it you have hero putting all of his money in pre-flop, or waiting to see what happens post flop. I see two flaws in this logic.

1 - The question is ablout limit HL, so if Hero fails to get money in pre-flop, he will never have the oportunty to get it in there. If his opps call all the way down he will still be short the small bet he could have gotten in preflop. So passing on this is losing money on pots he wins, but it does save him on pots he loses. This is why when you have a +EV situation it's best to get as much money in as you can.

2 - You seem to assume that post flop his opponents will pay him off regardless of the flop texture. If hero has AA and declines to raise pre-flop, what fish will call a raise w/ pocket 9's on a board of AKQ? That money will never go in post flop. Most situations where your opp gets overcarded on the flop will limit your wins.

Now if your playing NL and you opponents will call anything, then yes, wait as long as you can before getting your money in, but here the player in question is losing money, and most of it will not go to OP, since he should be playing fewer pots. But on the bright side, it is all staying at the table, so playing well can still get it to him.

I find that if I adjust my game to try to take a specific players money, my results plummet. If I play solid poker it will come to me in time. So I advise not adjusting your play much. You can limp into him ore often, since he rarely raises, but that'd be about it for me. I DO NOT recommend loosening up your game.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, without real evidence. But I am still sure that I am correct and that limping preflop always may be a good way to play. I will try to come up with something more concrete to prove it in the coming weeks. I believe you could come up with a strategy both more profitable and with significantly less variance in limit holdem by just always limping (I am talking about playing reasonably weak opponents here)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's a hypothetical game in which I am playing, so I don't think that everyone is a reasonably weak opponent.

Anyways, let me get the ball rolling on why you are wrong.

First, let us start with the simplest game, in which you are playing limit hold em heads up. Are you going to make the case that you should always limp in the small blind? I don't think I even need to explain why this is a bad strategy. Either you haven't been reading this forum or you don't understand what you are reading and, either way, you don't deserve to win.

Let's move on to another case, where the player is on the button, either three-handed or folded to him in a game of any size. Given random hands by the button and the two blinds, the player on the button has the most equity in the pot, due to his position. By opening with just a limp and not raising on the button, this player is not protecting his equity in the initial pot.

Let's consider a situation in which a player in middle position limps in to open a pot, and this player limp behind him with a good hand. As I mentioned in the previous case, position has value. Failure to raise makes it cheap from someone behind to call, when raising might "buy the button." This, incidentally, is why three-betting to isolate with a non-premium hand can be a smart play.

I think that these three cases are clear examples of occasions when always limping is a horrible play. You may be able to convince me that it will be lower variance, but the only way you could buy lower variance is by giving up EV (profit).

[Leonardo]

Lets start with heads up. What you said is not a reason for why limping would be wrong. If you want to show that someone is wrong, you need some kind of proof. Just saying that 'have you read the forum blah blah ' is not proof. Nothing you have said is anything but qualitative analysis of a quantitative game. You may be correct. You may be incorrect. What you have written is shows neither. As for having position to raise, I think the absolute opposite is true. The larger the pot, the less skill comes into play, the less position matters, you should just call. When the pot is small, that is when position matters the most in limit holdem. You are very confused I think. Making a big pot in limit holdem with position does not make your position worth more, it makes it worth less. A smaller pot means that every decision is more valuable and hence position is at its most valuable in small pots. Again this is not a proof, I will work on something more concrete. But be aware that making a qualitative argument really just isnt enough to make a statement stick.

[PokrLikeItsProse]

OK, I admit, I didn't give a rigorous proof.

In Theory of Poker, David Sklansky gives 7 reasons for raising.

One reason is to get more money into the pot when you have the best hand. You suggest that a big pot results in a less skillful game. Well, I think I can safely say that my edge over you is in creating big pots when I have the best hand and not cooperating in the creation of a big pot when I have the second-best hand. Avoiding creating big pots means avoiding winning big pots. One legitimate reason to avoid putting in a lot of bets early is if it allows you to put even more bets in on later streets. I think the burden is on you to prove it, if that is the case.

Another reason is to drive out opponents to protect the best hand. Let us assume that you have aces in middle position and it is folded to you. You should, of course, almost always raise (one exception being trapping with a maniac to your left). One reason that you should raise is because you do not want to offer the big blind infinite pot odds to outdraw you. You shouldn't automatically raise on the button to avoid giving the big blind infinite pot odds, but you certainly

A third reason is to bluff or semibluff. Preflop, bluffing mainly takes the form of stealing blinds. Are you really saying that you should pass up this opportunity if the players in the blinds are such to make it profitable?

Another reason is driving out worse hands when your hand is second best. When you raise or reraise to isolate a player, you are either raising with the best hand to either get more money in the pot or to protect your hand or else you are driving out other worse hands when your hand is second best. You may not have the best hand, but if you don't, you've usually given yourself a better chance of winning. I don't recommend isolating if you think it unlikely you have the best hand, but it is a side benefit that allows you to profitably raise with a wider range of hands. There exist hands that are said to play better heads up rather than multiway. Even if there a chance that you might not have the best hand, you are usually better playing heads-up with three bets in preflop than four-handed with two bets in preflop.

The other reasons (getting a free card, gaining information, and driving out better hands when a drawing hand bets are generally inapplicable preflop).

Is that sufficient to back up my point, or do you want me to start producing a lot of boring equations? (It will have to wait until after July 4 if you do.)

As for your statement that position is worth less as the pot gets larger, possibly, possibly not. But position is definitely not worthless with a large pot. For one thing, it is not inherently impossible to bluff at a large pot. One example is when you are on a straight draw and your opponent has the nut flush draw and you both semibluffed at each other, building a large pot. He may have the best hand, but you can bluff him if you can put him on a missed draw. It is a lot easier to put someone on a missed draw if you have position and he checks to you after missing than it is if you are first to act on the river. In a heavily contested multiway pot, if the river completes both a possible straight and a possible flush, you can easily throw away two pair if a bet and a raise come before when you when you are last to act, but you are often going to lose at least one bet with a bet before you and a raiser who has position on you.