"Miller - SSH", Question about protecting your hand...

Hi everyone.

I'm reading SSH by Ed Miller & CO but there's one "concept" I don't get.

I'll post an example (it will not be completely accurate or "complete", I hope it won't matter) to try and better explain my problem:
I have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], my opponent has 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
The flop is K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
I raise so my opponent doesn't have the pot odds to call.

Here's where I don't quite follow:
If he folds here then I understand, no problem. But what if I know he will call me regardless of if I raise or not.
If I understand the book correctly, I should still raise (to protect my hand). What I don't understand is how that helps me?
Sure, it's bad for him (in the long run this play will cost him money). But how does that benefit me now, in this hand?

Maybe it's obvious but I just don't get it...

Thanks in advance...

// Roger

PS
Sorry if this have been covered before on this forum (searched but couldn't find) or if I posted in the wrong place...

[stenaf]

Not to be rude or anything, but maybe you should start with a simpler book than SSH?

First of all, your example is pretty bad =) No matter what you do, he won't have odds to call you as any T would give you a higher straight. Only time it would be correct for him is the pot was big enough to chase runner runner two-pair/trips.

"Sure, it's bad for him (in the long run this play will cost him money). But how does that benefit me now, in this hand?"

You kind of answered your own question here. In the long run, he will lose money. This is the backbone of poker. You can't win them all, but in the long run you will (if you play good) win.

Take this example instead. You have the same hand, AKs. Flop is K53 and turn is 9. There are three of you in the hand at this point. One of your opponents has A2, let's say he's on the button. An early player, who you think you have beat, bets into a pot of 10BB. If you call, you are giving the opponent on the button direct pot-odds 12-1. As a gutshot is about 11-1 to make it, he should call. But if you raise, you give him 13-2 or 6½-1, and he should fold.

Why? Well. Let's say we play this exakt hand 12 times. If you just call, he will lose 1BB 11 times for a net total of 11BB and win 12BB one time for a net total of (you guessed it) 12BB. 12-11 = 1 so he will make 1BB with his call.

On the other hand, had you raised. Then he would lose 2BB 11 times (22BB) and win 13BB 1 time. 13-22 = -9 so on he will lose 9 BB with his call. If we say you have the original bettor beat 100% of the time and he will never draw out on you then you make this money. IN THE LONG RUN.

edit: I think this post should have gone into the "beginner" forum. Maybe "Poker theory", but I think they are fed up with all the pot odds questions there =)

Also. I hope the "tone" in my post wasn't to harsch. Keep asking questions!!

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be rude or anything, but maybe you should start with a simpler book than SSH?

[/ QUOTE ]
I did that years ago, been doing quite well. Bought this one in the hopes of maximising my earnings (and it helped a lot, just this one thing I don't understand yet)

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, your example is pretty bad =)

[/ QUOTE ]
I know, that's why I made a comment about it. Didn't think it really mattered for the issue and didn't want a debate about the example instead of my question, obviously it didn't work :-)

[ QUOTE ]
You kind of answered your own question here. In the long run, he will lose money.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't think I answered myself, I'll ellaborate:
Against a good opponent I understand raising, he/she cares about the odds and knows to fold.
But the book is aimed (or at least that's why I got it) towards playing bad opponents. So why raise against a player who will call anyway?

He'll lose money in the long run (we covered that already ;-), but I don't get that money for myself, do I?
Wouldn't the money he loses be distributed to all the other players (so if we, for example (simplified again), my opponent and I, play at a pokersite and I "force" him to this mistake that costs him 1000BB/year wouldn't I make 1000BB/"nr of players at site -1" from it?) That doesn't seem like a very good deal for me.

Sorry but I just don't get it, maybe I'm just plain dumb [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Also. I hope the "tone" in my post wasn't to harsch. Keep asking questions!!

[/ QUOTE ]
No problem, thanks for answering.

edit: it's not that I disagree with Miller on this, it's just that I want to know/understand why I do things (and not just because someone said so)

[Jordan Olsommer]

[ QUOTE ]
Against a good opponent I understand raising, he/she cares about the odds and knows to fold.
But the book is aimed (or at least that's why I got it) towards playing bad opponents. So why raise against a player who will call anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you're selling him a wager when he has the worst of it; the higher a price at which you can sell it to him when he has the worst of it, the more profit you make. Could you imagine a casino pit boss saying "why do we even bother offering this guy insurance against dealer blackjacks? He's just going to take it every time!"

You would never hear that come out of a pit boss's mouth because pretty much every time that player takes insurance, it's profitable to the house whether he ends up winning that particular bet or not.

You want to charge people the maximum amount that you can when you have the best of it - be glad that some of them pay every time, because that simply means more profit for you.

[jwombles]

Think of the problem this way:

By raising the pot instead of calling (regardless of the fact that you think he is a poor player and will call anyway) if he calls you trying for a gutshot straight draw, he is 11 to 1 to hit it, yet the pot isn't offering him the correct odds to draw to it.

Why should you care if he is making a mistake? Because according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker (Theory of Poker by Dave Sklansky) Every time your opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards you lose.

So let's say you turned both opponents cards face up, your AK and his gutshot. He knows he's behind to your top pair now. If you don't raise the pot he will be getting 12 to 1 to beat your hand and should call regardless of being behind. THATS WHY YOU RAISE. He should then fold. If he calls anyway, thank him for paying your bills!

I can't make it any simpler than that.

Best of luck -
Wombles

[Matt Ruff]

[ QUOTE ]
Against a good opponent I understand raising, he/she cares about the odds and knows to fold.
But the book is aimed (or at least that's why I got it) towards playing bad opponents. So why raise against a player who will call anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason you're having trouble understanding this is that it requires a different mindset than other types of pot odds problems. In cases where you're deciding whether to call a bet or raise, you have to think like a (smart) gambler. But in cases where you are forcing someone else to decide whether to call, you have to think like a casino, which is a more alien perspective.

[ QUOTE ]
He'll lose money in the long run (we covered that already ;-), but I don't get that money for myself, do I?

[/ QUOTE ]

You may not get the money from him, just as Caeser's Palace may not make any money off a player who wins one hand of blackjack and then goes down the street to another casino. But that's OK -- just like Caeser's, you've got more than one customer. The idea is to give the same bad odds to every player with a gutshot straight draw you come up against. Yes, some of them will "beat the house," but on balance, you'll make a profit.

-- M. Ruff

[stenaf]

[ QUOTE ]
He'll lose money in the long run (we covered that already ;-), but I don't get that money for myself, do I?
Wouldn't the money he loses be distributed to all the other players (so if we, for example (simplified again), my opponent and I, play at a pokersite and I "force" him to this mistake that costs him 1000BB/year wouldn't I make 1000BB/"nr of players at site -1" from it?) That doesn't seem like a very good deal for me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well. That's why I made the assumption that we had our opponent beat and that he would draw out on you 0% of the time. =) In reality it's not really that simple. But on the other hand, you don't have to think about it either (as you can't know). But say that he has a 20% chanse to have a better hand than you on the river (let's say he just picked up a flush draw on the turn). Then the 9BB that the button loses with his call of your raise would be distributed 80% to you and 20% to the early player.

EDIT: You should be aware that even though you both make money from the button, you still make money from the early player in the example.