Raising low pp PF for value

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to slow down somewhat on a paired board, just like if it's monotone. If we flop a set, we might be able to cap the flop and even the turn before someone realizes that yeah we can beat top pair (or top two). When the flop is paired and we be jammin' an otherwise uncoordinated flop, we often can't go as far before folks start giving us credit for trips and slow down. Make sense?

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to slow down somewhat on a paired board, just like if it's monotone. If we flop a set, we might be able to cap the flop and even the turn before someone realizes that yeah we can beat top pair (or top two). When the flop is paired and we be jammin' an otherwise uncoordinated flop, we often can't go as far before folks start giving us credit for trips and slow down. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[tiltaholic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

[/ QUOTE ]

People tend to slow down somewhat on a paired board, just like if it's monotone. If we flop a set, we might be able to cap the flop and even the turn before someone realizes that yeah we can beat top pair (or top two). When the flop is paired and we be jammin' an otherwise uncoordinated flop, we often can't go as far before folks start giving us credit for trips and slow down. Make sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[/ QUOTE ]

55 does have a hot/cold equity edge against 6 random hands. so, i guess we could try to put them on ranges and be more precise about it (since neither we or them are going to the river necessarily) add to this that we have the potential to flop a set, the potential to get a free card, and absolute position i think we raise.

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you've built up a big pot pre-flop vs. 5+ opponents, your scenario of 7 players going to the river is much more likely to occur.

Your implied odds increase with the size of the pot.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase that. I'm comfortable with the concept of implied odds, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think it relates to our preflop pot equity. Great, we'll make a fortune on the flop when we hit a set, but the EV of a value-raise only depends on the equity we have pf and the number of pf callers. Even if I knew it was going to be capped 7-ways if I flop quads, I still don't see any value in the pfr because we don't have sufficient equity to do so. While it's arguable that we'll bloat the pot, get a free card, etc, the 'implied odds' we're getting don't change the fact that there's a value deficeit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah I see what you're saying, and you're right. As I understand it, betting for value applies to any round but the one you're currently on, due to the change in equity as the board is dealt and because it's limit and they can only call for as much as you're betting right now.

[ QUOTE ]
55 does have a hot/cold equity edge against 6 random hands. so, i guess we could try to put them on ranges and be more precise about it (since neither we or them are going to the river necessarily) add to this that we have the potential to flop a set, the potential to get a free card, and absolute position i think we raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have an edge, but equity assumes that we're going to showdown here, improved or not. Since we're almost certainly folding if we don't improve and are bet into, I think it's more appropriate to use the 12.5% chance that we hit our set, which is behind six random hands.

[magates]

55 vs. 6 opponents:

This is obviously a simplified estimate, and you can manipulate the size of the pot you win however you want, but I don't think these are unrealistic at all, in fact, the second is rather conservative.

These assume you fold on the flop UI, and win if you hit a set or better.

Call Pre-flop vs. 6:
8(-0.5)+1(9)=5BB

Raise Pre-flop vs. 6:
8(-1)+1(14)=6BB

The size of the pot you win only has to increase by 4BB to make raising pre-flop breakeven relative to calling. Just by raising pre-flop vs. 6 opponents you increase the size of the pot by 3BB. The increased action you get post-flop in a pot that's twice as large should be more than enough to make up the difference.

[Eeegah]

A couple points.

1) I don't necessarily agree that loose passives (and if there's 7 callers here that's quite frankly what this table is full of) are going to give us more action in a large multiway pot than otherwise. If this were true, the concept of raising for a free card would be counterproductive. Folks like to check to the preflop raiser; that doesn't generate action. Furthermore, if someone early likes the flop after you've raised he's likely to checkraise you, driving out our action instead of increasing it.

2) Suppose you are right, our bloating the pot increases action, and we might be able to pick up an extra 4BB by raising. The question is, how do we know that it worked? How do we distinguish between action generated because people like their hand (and if it's 6 to the flop, the odds are pretty good that someone will) and action generated because people like big pots and they cannot lie, and like to see them bigger? Or for that matter, pseudo-action from people calling because that's what they always do, Jack High or no? I don't see how we can differentiate one way or another, so this profitability may be placebo.

3) Saying we're a lock if we hit a set is a pretty big overestimate. Even with a flop like 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] our equity is only 75% vs 6 people playing any two, and any sort of connectedness (2-straight or 2-flush) drops us to 70%. If the flop is monotone, we're winning just over half the time. Additionally, unless they're completely daft they'll have at least some range of hands that they play, decreasing our odds further: about 70% vs 6 people who play the usual ultra-loose range on an ideal flop. Thus we'll need to generate at least 1/[.70*.125]=11.5SB rather than 8SB for this to be profitable, more if it's a coordinated flop (which admittedly we could get from draws, but they'd give us action anyway). The decreased implied odds from possibly folding out the blinds with our raise alone may be enough to make this -EV, but I dunno.

4) If all this does work, why do we not do this with other speculative hands? Would you raise here with A2s? What about 65s?

SSHE mentions briefly that raising preflop actually decreases our postflop expectation, and while its featured reason doesn't apply here* it says there are a number of them which it doesn't elucidate on. I admit a lot of my misgivings about the issue is based on just a gut feeling, but something does smell odd about this.

* SSHE's main example was that if we raise we'll tie ourself to the pot by bloating it, but since we're folding the flop U/I this isn't an issue for us.

[magates]

[ QUOTE ]
A couple points.

1) I don't necessarily agree that loose passives (and if there's 7 callers here that's quite frankly what this table is full of) are going to give us more action in a large multiway pot than otherwise. If this were true, the concept of raising for a free card would be counterproductive. Folks like to check to the preflop raiser; that doesn't generate action. Furthermore, if someone early likes the flop after you've raised he's likely to checkraise you, driving out our action instead of increasing it.

2) Suppose you are right, our bloating the pot increases action, and we might be able to pick up an extra 4BB by raising. The question is, how do we know that it worked? How do we distinguish between action generated because people like their hand (and if it's 6 to the flop, the odds are pretty good that someone will) and action generated because people like big pots and they cannot lie, and like to see them bigger? Or for that matter, pseudo-action from people calling because that's what they always do, Jack High or no? I don't see how we can differentiate one way or another, so this profitability may be placebo.

3) Saying we're a lock if we hit a set is a pretty big overestimate. Even with a flop like 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] our equity is only 75% vs 6 people playing any two, and any sort of connectedness (2-straight or 2-flush) drops us to 70%. If the flop is monotone, we're winning just over half the time. Additionally, unless they're completely daft they'll have at least some range of hands that they play, decreasing our odds further: about 70% vs 6 people who play the usual ultra-loose range on an ideal flop. Thus we'll need to generate at least 1/[.70*.125]=11.5SB rather than 8SB for this to be profitable, more if it's a coordinated flop (which admittedly we could get from draws, but they'd give us action anyway). The decreased implied odds from possibly folding out the blinds with our raise alone may be enough to make this -EV, but I dunno.

4) If all this does work, why do we not do this with other speculative hands? Would you raise here with A2s? What about 65s?

SSHE mentions briefly that raising preflop actually decreases our postflop expectation, and while its featured reason doesn't apply here* it says there are a number of them which it doesn't elucidate on. I admit a lot of my misgivings about the issue is based on just a gut feeling, but something does smell odd about this.

* SSHE's main example was that if we raise we'll tie ourself to the pot by bloating it, but since we're folding the flop U/I this isn't an issue for us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me preface my response by saying that I'm far from qualified to even be participating in this discussion, but since I did . . . [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

I never said we were a lock if we hit a set, but we could lose with the set whether we raised pre-flop or not, so I assumed adding the chance wouldn't make much of a difference. I just did a simple calculation to illustrate a point, however . . .

Including an estimated chance to lose when you hit a set does change the results significantly.

I'll just use a 65% chance to win if you hit a set on the flop, and again, this is by no means an accurate measurement of the play's EV.

8(-0.5)+.65(9)+.35(-3.5) = 0.625BB
8(-1)+.65(15)+.35(-3.5) = 0.525BB

We'd need to win about 6.5BB more after a pre-flop raise with 6 callers to make it profitable. 3BBs come pre-flop, so we'd need to make up 3.5BB+ post-flop. Still quite possible, as the large pot is giving people odds to chase weak draws, but it's also probably pretty marginal.

As for raising with something like 65s, it's a stronger hand vs. 6 30%vpip players than 55 is. It probably is +ev to raise medium suited connectors vs. a large enough field.

[Aaron W.]

Wow... there's so much stuff going on with this thread... Rather than making 4-5 different posts, I'm going to consolidate them into one post.

Re: Eeegah
[ QUOTE ]
4) If all this does work, why do we not do this with other speculative hands? Would you raise here with A2s? What about 65s?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're looking at two different types of speculative hands. 55 flops a made hand or (essentially) nothing, A2s and 65s flop draws. 55 also flops a hand which is rarely outdrawn, which is not true of A2s (flopping top pair) or 65s (when you catch two pair on the turn, you're often at risk to a counterfeit redraw -- and sometimes your turn flush is beat with the 4th suited card falls on the river).

Re: Magates
[ QUOTE ]
Raising vs. multiple opponents pre-flop with a pocket pair increases your implied odds if you hit a set because people are more likely to give you action in a large pot. With a small pot, you're less likely to get action when you do hit a set (or better).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and no. If the game is aggressive, then your implied odds go up in a big pot (players more willing to gamble with weaker hands, more hand "protection" raises). If the game is generally passive, then -- in this case -- no. You need to consider your relative position to the other players in order to make an accurate assessment. In this case, you've got an aggressor with lots of players acting between you. You want the aggressor to bet the flop when you hit your set so that you can raise him and trap everybody. A preflop 3-bet here would decrease the chances of trapping everyone for two bets on the flop, and you run the risk of getting check-raised by LAG, shutting out even more players and driving your implied odds down more.

If the game is very passive, you get more "action" by just getting more callers and chasers. People (correctly) chase more hands in a big pot than in a small pot. Sometimes a preflop raise will make the pot big enough that almost everyone will see the turn for one bet (as opposed to losing half of them with a flop bet). Sometimes this carries over with a couple extra callers on the turn.

Re: Redd
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand what all this talk about implied odds is.

Let's say we flop quads, and you and the LAG cap it 7-handed on every street. Does that make our pfr any more profitable? It certainly makes our flop, turn, and river caps more profitable but we already account for that in the (trivial) equity calculations for the postflop streets. If we counted this profit into our pfr equity, would we not be double-counting the profit?

[/ QUOTE ]

This play is more about implied odds than it is about pot equity and pot odds. ( Preflop play is NOT about "pot odds". )

I don't know why everyone thinks more "action" means bets and raises all over the place. More action may just be more callers. You usually *decrease* your implied odds with this raise (How often do you double the number of postflop bets you pick up by raising preflop?). However, a decrease in implied odds does not necessarily equate to losing money.

Let's make up a concrete example: You see a flop 8-handed for one bet. When you hit your set on the flop, you can make 5 BB postflop. When you miss your set, you give up on the flop. In 8 tries, you lose 1 SB 7 times and win 17 SB (= 7 SB preflop + 5 BB postflop) once. Your implied odds are are 1.25:1 and calling here is very easily profitable. (EV = 1.25 SB/hand, initial investment = 1 SB)

What about if you raised it? It's reasonable to assume you get a little more action, so let's say you can make 8 BB postflop when you hit your set. (3 BB extra = two extra calls on the flop, one extra player seeing the showdown, assuming nobody bets or raises except for you. This is a conservative estimate.) For simplicity, you still fold on the flop when you miss (although you'll often have odds to continue). In 8 tries, you now lose 2 SB 7 times and win 30 SB once. Your implied odds are 1:1, which is worse than before. (EV = 2 SB/hand, initial investment = 2 SB)

But 2 SB/hand is better than 1.25 SB/hand. Of course, this is idealized with concrete numbers used to make exact computations which you could never do in a real game. The main factor here is that the combination of extra preflop bets (7 SB extra) plus the extra postflop bets (3 BB = 6 SB extra) combine to give you something better than your odds of flopping your hand (7:1 to flop a set, 13:1 extra bet ratio).

Re: thesharpie

I don't like the raise in this spot. I want LAG to auto-bet this flop for me so that I can raise him if I hit my hand on the flop. I'd love to trap players in for bets after I hit my set, rather than trap them before. I don't hate the play, but I'd rather save it for when I've limped in early position and LAG raises a bunch of other limpers from late position.

[Eeegah]

Well, let's do some research. If this "bets beget bets" theory is true, there should be fewer mid-size pot sizes than small or large ones, because as the pot grows people are going to want to either chase more or build it up more by raising. If we make a histogram of pot sizes, the frequency should be somewhat parabolic.

I took my 30k hands from Stars .50/1 and below, adjusted them for rake and levels, and here's the result:



The hump is at 7BB or so, which makes sense, for if every street is bet/called heads up there will be between 6 and 6.75BB in the pot depending on if the blinds are involved postflop.

The point is, the result I'd expect from big-pot aggression doesn't seem to be present here: there's a big initial peak where hands are folded by the flop, peaks again for hands that were bet/called to showdown, then drops steeply thereafter. I'm welcome to other interperetations.