Stupid PF Thingy

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a raise or fold situation for me, I lean towards folding in this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think folding is the worse of the three options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agreed.

There is absolutely nothing about this situation that makes it "raise or fold." We're going to have a tough time getting position and taking complete control of the hand with a raise, so the question is basically whether or not we have a raise for value (in addition to its tactical upside, like folding out non-posting tags behind us) and such.

Folding here really sucks.

I think the differences between calling and raising are slight and probably balance out, and, ultimately, I don't think it matters enough for me to commit to a decision.

So flip a coin, raise if its heads and call if its tails, and then focus on playing good poker post-flop.

[deception5]

I'd usually raise with no limpers, but I limp here. A raise is likely to build a big pot with 3 likely callers (2 posters + bb) and others will follow with pocket pairs and probably suited connectors. I'm going to have to check/fold a lot of flops unimproved oop with so many opponents and my equity is not significantly higher than theirs so I don't mind passing up a small edge now for a potentially much larger one postflop when I hit.

I would normally fold this, but raising sounds real pretty in this situation. You're basically isolating from EP against 3 random hands. Depends on the general looseness of the game as well. KJo doesn't play well multiway from EP.

[thejameser]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow I raise this 100% at 2/4.

[/ QUOTE ]

[WillMagic]

I limp but, as Deranged said, it doesn't really matter whether you limp or raise.

Will

[einbert]

I think limping is quite a bit better than raising, contrary to what everybody else says.

I would really like an explanation as to why limping and raising are about the same EV as people are saying. I think that is simply a copout because people don't want to figure out which is better. The options may be close but in my opinion they definitely aren't, limping is quite a bit better.

[thejameser]

i raise b/c i like to take the initiative if i'm going to be in the hand, and put pressure on the other players. i raise b/c KJo plays better against fewer people. i raise b/c there are 3 random hands that have already put money in the pot. i raise b/c i want as few people to act behind me as possible. i raise b/c it is really cool to achieve the "triple blind steal". i am envisioning a typical small stakes table when i say i would raise here. sorry i didn't include EV analysis.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
I think limping is quite a bit better than raising, contrary to what everybody else says.

I would really like an explanation as to why limping and raising are about the same EV as people are saying. I think that is simply a copout because people don't want to figure out which is better. The options may be close but in my opinion they definitely aren't, limping is quite a bit better.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll start with this idea:

If it were not for the posters, raising in an attempt to isolate a very weak player against whom you have a clear equity edge would be correct. In fact, without posters, limping might be worse than folding as playing this hand out of position without initiative is hard.

So let's consider why limping becomes a more viable option in this pot:

1. With the posters behind us, raising is unlikely to buy us position.

2. With the posters behind us, raising is unlikely to keep the pot short-handed.

3. Because of the extra money in the pot, it becomes much more viable to play this hand for it's "fit-or-fold" value alone.

Now let's consider ways in which raising still has value, even with the posters.

1. The posters, because they are posting, will often call raises with much inferior hands than they normally would. Thus, when we raise and they call, in general our equity edge will be higher against their range of calling hands than it would be if no one had posted and players are simply cold-calling. Hence raising has more value in that sense.

2. Raising still forces the non-posters to face two bets cold, which will often encourage folds from hands we might like to fold (AT, A9, maybe KQo, small pairs, maybe suited As, and so on and so forth). Though in some sense that effect is lessened because the posters often won't fold and the pot is bloated, it still must be considered.

3. The extra money in the pot makes the additional fold equity we generate in this pot by raising pre-flop more valueable. Because there's more money in there to begin with, we want to be able to have as much leverage in winning that extra money on future streets.


So, there are some reasons. I honestly don't know which one's better and I really didn't even want to give an explanation for why I thought they were basically the same. Ultimately, I am pretty confident that they are quite close and it's the kind of decision that has little to no material effect on your bottom line in the long-run.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]

1. The posters, because they are posting, will often call raises with much inferior hands than they normally would. Thus, when we raise and they call, in general our equity edge will be higher against their range of calling hands than it would be if no one had posted and players are simply cold-calling. Hence raising has more value in that sense.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it will cause them to call our raise with a very wide range of hands. Which in turn will induce more coldcalls behind us. Now the pot has gotten huge and we are in awful position, and our postflop expectation has gone way done because of those two factors.

[ QUOTE ]


3. The extra money in the pot makes the additional fold equity we generate in this pot by raising pre-flop more valueable. Because there's more money in there to begin with, we want to be able to have as much leverage in winning that extra money on future streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Honestly, when we raise and get called by both posters, the BB, and the limper, there is going to be a huge pot. But I don't think we have any fold equity. People put their heads down and get to showdown in these pots. In fact if I did raise here preflop I would check the flop unimproved most of the time.

[W. Deranged]

Einbert,

The fold equity point comes into play mostly in the fraction of the times the pot remains relatively short-handed. It's at least reasonably likely that one of the posters folds, and if the pot ends up three or even four handed having initiative might be quite useful.

Another thought on raising:

What if we get no other customers but the limper and the two posters and play the hand four-handed. Even in bad position, I have to think that whenever that happens raising is clearly right because in general we have such an equity edge against the range of hands held by the limper and the two posters.