It is a commonly held belief that raising preflop
increases variance.  I have never seen any solid
reasoning for this commonly heald belief.

While this is something that I too have believed
to be true, some recent investigations (done by
Gary Carson) have lead me to believe that my own
intuition on the subject may be false.

Therefore I bring the question to RGP looking for
some foundation for my intuition to stand.

In general, does preflop raising increase variance?

Under what specific circumstances does preflop raising
reduces variance?

What I am looking for is more than just testimonials.
Rather, I am looking for something more experimental
or mathematical upon which to rest my intuition.

Anyone up to the challenge?

- Andrew

In the stereotypical low-limit games, where two or three bets won't drive
anyone out who would call a single bet, raising increases variance, because you
are increasing the amount you lose if beat, and increasing the amount you win
if not beat, while not affecting the odds of winning.

In the hypothetical game of educated players, my understanding is a bit
shakier, but I think it works like this: raising may actually decrease your
variance; by driving out players with hands that are worth one bet but not two
or three, you decrease your chances of being drawn out on. You therefore
increase your chances of winning (though you are increasing the amount of your
money at risk, without necessarily increasing the pot size, since one player
opponent paying two bets nets less than two or three opponents paying one bet.)

- JC -

-JC-

According to JChurch602 <jchurch...@aol.com>:

This *seems* correct.  It is actually what my intuition says
should happen.  But it does not convice my mathematical mind.
The problem of course is that raising is not independent of
the odds of winning a pot.

Actually, this seems true too.  There is another problem: *raising*
to knock out players seems like a high variance play.  It is often
stated that you should *raise* with the 2nd-best hand to knock out
other players.  But there is a finite probability that this won't
work.  If it doesn't then you've put *more* money in the pot with
a *worse* hand.  It seems to me that the variance of this play
depends on the liklihood that you will knock someone out.

I am starting to think about preflop raises as follows:

Preflop, the state of the game is very well defined.  That is
the probability of each hand winning is as independent as it
will ever be.  In particular, each hand has a "nofoldem" chance
of winning against a field of "random" hands.  In reality, the
actual chance of winning is distributed about this base value.

In general, I think that the distributions are "closest" (according
to some metric) to the base value preflop.  An interesting experiment
would be to determine the preflop variance of particular hands.

Anyways, I think that if you have a hand which is more or less
independent of the other starting hands, raising reduces variance.
I actually think that this holds whether the hand is a winner or
a loser, but I have no proof of this.

- Andrew

This game exists in theory only. There are always players that
can and do fold when it's raised and they are faced with a trash hand.
Finding 8 players that are calling robots is not possible, even in CA.
Ken Kubey will prove me wrong here ;-)

Reducing variance by limiting pre-flop raises is likely to damage
your expectation quite a bit. Find a game with the appropriate
level of action for your risk tolerance and you'll earn more.

   Best Luck,
                  Ed  (no, not that Ed!)

              "I used to play this game for fun. Now I
               play it for the sheer frustration"  -  TBill

news:7trdsa$51a@spool.cs.wisc.edu...

What you're really looking for is a mathematical model that doesn't exist.
Therefore, your intuition will prevail because you can't obtain solid proof
that you may be wrong.

If your play is based partly on "hunches," let me know when and where you
play. I want you in my game.

It also depends on the situation. Are you referring to low limit games?
There is more than one reason for raising. If you raise with the intention
of driving people out and it doesn't work (a common problem for low limit),
then that aspect of strategy is taken away from you. That increases your
variance. But to describe it in mathematical terms...?

Do you get "lucky" sometimes? Call anyway when you know you're behind? Does
beating the odds reinforce your strategy for playing the same way again when
you shouldn't in the long run? You already know the answers to these
questions, but getting "lucky" works too. Sometimes.

According to Gone Fishing <fishing@alldaylong>:

Why does it increase variance?  What do you base this on?  Remember that
you seldom have a situation where you know with 100% certainty that a
raise will (or will not) knock someone out.

Note, I think you are probably right, but the question is *why* is this
right.

- Andrew

In article <19991010233949.26567.00001...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
increases > variance, because you

It doesn't have much to do with thinning the field.  Thinning the field
can help, but it's not the primary factor.

You can increase your odds of winning by raising even if you don't thin
the field.

Also, high variance comes from making bets that are close to even
money.  The larger money favorite you are, the smaller the variance
that a raise has.

I've gotta run take my girlfriend shopping (She thinks I've got a job)
so I'll explain this later.  Or maybe Andrew can explain the part about
large varance being associated with even money bets (binomial has max
varaince at p=.50)

Gary Carson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

In article <7tt2jm$...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, jeffysr...@yahoo.com (Andrew

I'm not sure about any of this.  But, even though I think you're kinda
close above, I don't think it's really relevant.  You'r probablity of
winning can chance significantly with the number of callers.  For
example with AA it ranges from about .8 to about .3.

I think that your preflop probablity of winning is as independent of
actual hands your opponents hold then it will ever be.  But, it's not
independent of the range of hands they might have.  For example, I
recently did some sims with with AQ offsuit on the button with three
passive limpers.  If you call (and it matters whether you raise or
call), your probability of winning is .2 if they are tight players, .3
if they are typical players, and about .36 if they are very loose
players.

I think this is true and I suspect that's it's important.  But, I can't
really put my finger on exactly why it's important.

Hands don't have variance.  Sitiuations, (defined by your hand, the
range of hands they have, and how many of them are gonna call) have
variance.  The kind of experiment you're talking about can get real
complex, real quick.  But, I agree it would be interesting.

That's an interesting thought.  I don't know if it's true or not.  It
might be true.

I do think that much of what passes for knowledge about variance in
gambling is misconceived and often wrong.

Gary Carson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

In article <19991010233949.26567.00001...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
increases > variance, because you > are increasing the amount you lose
if beat, and increasing the > amount you win > if not beat, while not
affecting the odds of winning.

But, it does effect the odds of winning.  You can increase your odds of
winning even though you aren't thinning the field.

How does that work?  Well, think of the argument about keeping the pot
small you sometimes here.  Although, I think he's usually talking about
keeping it small on the flop, Sklansky argues that it's sometimes best
to keep the pot small so that they won't have odds to chase you with
thin draws.  He argues that waiting until the turn to raise cut's their
odds down enough so that it's often not right for them to call, where
if you would have raised on the flop they would have odds to call.
Some people have extended that idea to preflop -- thinking that raising
is more likely to give them odds to draw to overcards or gutshots on
the flop.  For example, say you've got AQ and raise with 3 or 4
callers.  Then if you flop a queen a player with KJ has odds to call a
bet (the overcard and backdoor straight).  Or if you flop two-pair the
KJ has odds to draw to the gutshot.

Well, that's all true.  But, if you're best before the flop then your
more likely to benefit from getting odds to draw yourself on the flop.
Just like the KJ would be getting odds, so do you if a king flops or if
KJ flops.  In fact, your AQ is more likely to see a flop where you're
getting the odds to draw to overcards than the KJ would, if you raise
preflop.  If you don't raise preflop then the pot will often be too
small to chase if it misses you.

Some TTH sims I've specifically done with AQ suggests that your chances
of winning increase by as much as 10% simply by raising preflop.
Specifially, against 3 tight limpers, you increase your win
probablility from 20% to 22% by raising.  Against 3 typical, slighly
loose limpers, you increase your win probablility from 30% to 33%.
That's a lot.  And, it's not from thinning the field.  It's from making
the pot big enough, when you've got the best of it, so that calling
later with weak draws to protect what equity you've got even when the
flop misses you.  If you've got the best of it preflop then it's more
likely that you'll benefit from picking up weak draws later than a
player with a weaker hand.

Raising just has all kinds of good things that can result.  Some of
them are a little surprising.

Gary Carson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

In article <19991010233949.26567.00001...@ng-ch1.aol.com>,
increases > variance, because you > are increasing the amount you lose
if beat, and increasing the > amount you win > if not beat, while not
affecting the odds of winning.

But, it does effect the odds of winning.  You can increase your odds of
winning even though you aren't thinning the field.

How does that work?  Well, think of the argument about keeping the pot
small you sometimes here.  Although, I think he's usually talking about
keeping it small on the flop, Sklansky argues that it's sometimes best
to keep the pot small so that they won't have odds to chase you with
thin draws.  He argues that waiting until the turn to raise cut's their
odds down enough so that it's often not right for them to call, where
if you would have raised on the flop they would have odds to call.
Some people have extended that idea to preflop -- thinking that raising
is more likely to give them odds to draw to overcards or gutshots on
the flop.  For example, say you've got AQ and raise with 3 or 4
callers.  Then if you flop a queen a player with KJ has odds to call a
bet (the overcard and backdoor straight).  Or if you flop two-pair the
KJ has odds to draw to the gutshot.

Well, that's all true.  But, if you're best before the flop then your
more likely to benefit from getting odds to draw yourself on the flop.
Just like the KJ would be getting odds, so do you if a king flops or if
KJ flops.  In fact, your AQ is more likely to see a flop where you're
getting the odds to draw to overcards than the KJ would, if you raise
preflop.  If you don't raise preflop then the pot will often be too
small to chase if it misses you.

Some TTH sims I've specifically done with AQ suggests that your chances
of winning increase by as much as 10% simply by raising preflop.
Specifially, against 3 tight limpers, you increase your win
probablility from 20% to 22% by raising.  Against 3 typical, slighly
loose limpers, you increase your win probablility from 30% to 33%.
That's a lot.  And, it's not from thinning the field.  It's from making
the pot big enough, when you've got the best of it, so that calling
later with weak draws to protect what equity you've got even when the
flop misses you.  If you've got the best of it preflop then it's more
likely that you'll benefit from picking up weak draws later than a
player with a weaker hand.

Raising just has all kinds of good things that can result.  Some of
them are a little surprising.

Gary Carson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

According to GaryCarson  <garypokerNOgaS...@email.msn.com.invalid>:

Wha ?  You told me that they did.  Now what am I going to do with
all the variance data I've calculated?

The data I computed was:

10 handed holdem
9  random hands against the hero
30 hand "rounds" to determine "mean win rate"
1000 rounds to determine variance.

Now I know that this is about as weak a statistical analysis
as you can get, but the data looked pretty cool.  (And that's
all that really matters right?)

Anyways here's a pictoral representation of the calculated
variances:

            AKQJT98765432
            |||||||||||||

       A-   #====+++-++++
       K-   +#===++-+--+-
       Q-   ++#=++++----- s
       J-   +++=++++----- u
       T-   ++++=++------ i
       9-   -----+++----- t
       8-   ------+-+---- e
       7-   - - ---+----- d
       6-   --     -+----
       5-   --       ----
       4-   --        ---
       3-   -          --
       2-   -           -
              unsuited

" "               var < .0025
"-"       .0025 < var < .0036
"+"       .0036 < var < .0047
"="       .0047 < var < .0058
"#"       .0058 < var

Kinda cute no?
Notice that medium suited connectors have a smaller variance
than the corresponding pair.  I do have the raw data as well.
Also notice that AA had the highest variance of all the hands.

Actually, that was my original point.  I don't have a strong enough
intuition when it comes to variance to feel safe in assuming that
raising with "weak" hands in a medium field increases variance, which
seems to be what common wisdom says.

- Andrew

GaryCarson wrote ...

Great chance to at least partly agree with Gary.  Odds on secondary draws
work both ways in raised pots, and the raiser generally also has the best of
it because their hand is more likely to be a better draw.  The AQ vs KJ.  If
either one flops two pair, the other has a gutshot draw, but the AQ has
other draws too (say flop KJ2, A on turn, 2 or Q on river).  People who
argue about keeping the pot small seem to usually just be blissfully
ignorant to how it benefits the raiser as much or more when it comes to the
"pot odds" long draws.

And it really is "more" for the raiser.  Compare AsQs on a Kd7s2h flip to
KsJs on a Ad7s2h flop.  Big difference.  Even more so with hands like AK vs
QT or 97.

A better hand has an edge over weaker hands in not just the surface way, but
in the backdoor and "emergency" ways too.  (Which should lead into a
discussion of why AQ is better raising hand than 88, but....)
--
Badger
"It's really amazing how uninteresting
most of my posts are." -- Gary Carson

In article <7u05g9$...@spool.cs.wisc.edu>, jeffysr...@yahoo.com (Andrew

I probably did say something like that.    But, now I think I was
probably wrong.

Submit it to the 2+2 website as a guest essay?

I think it really looks neat.  It probably even means soemting, I'm
just nort sure what.  I'm gonna have to think about it.

But, aren't you talking about hthe varaince of the win rate here?  zero
is you lose, one if you win?  That's just a binomial distribution, AA
will have the win rate closests to 1/2 against nine opponents.  It has
a win rate of about .3 and no hand has a higher win rate.  So, against
nine opponents it will have the highest win rate varaince.  That does
not mean that it has the highest bankroll varaince.

Gary Carson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

According to GaryCarson  <garypokerNOgaS...@email.msn.com.invalid>:

Yes, this is true.  The figure above is the variance of the win "rate"
(in a 10 handed nofoldem contest).  The most interesting thing though
is exactly what you point out.  High variance is *not* bad.  AA is the
winner in both ev *and* variance, but it is still everyone's favorite
hand.  The variance *does* highly correlate with ev here.

hmmm

- Andrew

Gary,
I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my post. I'm still unclear on a
couple of things:

First, I was referring to the hypothetical no-foldem game in which n players
call all the way to the river. Since your cards, their cards, and the board are
not affected by the number of raises, the odds of your hand being the best are
not affected by whether or not you raise the pot preflop,or any other time.
(However, if your expected value was positive, raising will increase it by a
factor proportional to the increase in pot size.)

OK, so in most real games we can assume that raising may actually cause players
to call later, rather than fold, because of the increased pot odds, your
argument seems to say that your expected value increases, which I agree with.
But I don't see how your odds of winning increases. If Player A has any chance
of beating you, then his calling rather than folding decreases your chance of
winning. In the extreme, if everyone else folds on the turn, your chance of
winning is 1, but if anyone stays in, your odds are less than 1. The point
again that your cards, their cards, and the board are unaffected by whether or
not your opponent folds; If he has a loser, you'll beat him whether he folds or
not. The times that he calls with a winner, rather than folds, will decrease
your overall odds of winning with a particular hand.

Am I just being thick-headed here?

- JC -

-JC-

: Gary,
: I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my post. I'm still unclear on a
: couple of things:

: First, I was referring to the hypothetical no-foldem game in which n players
: call all the way to the river. Since your cards, their cards, and the board are
: not affected by the number of raises, the odds of your hand being the best are
: not affected by whether or not you raise the pot preflop,or any other time.
: (However, if your expected value was positive, raising will increase it by a
: factor proportional to the increase in pot size.)

: OK, so in most real games we can assume that raising may actually cause players
: to call later, rather than fold, because of the increased pot odds, your
: argument seems to say that your expected value increases, which I agree with.
: But I don't see how your odds of winning increases. If Player A has any chance
: of beating you, then his calling rather than folding decreases your chance of
: winning. In the extreme, if everyone else folds on the turn, your chance of
: winning is 1, but if anyone stays in, your odds are less than 1. The point
: again that your cards, their cards, and the board are unaffected by whether or
: not your opponent folds; If he has a loser, you'll beat him whether he folds or
: not. The times that he calls with a winner, rather than folds, will decrease
: your overall odds of winning with a particular hand.

But by raising you're giving yourself pot odds to call on thin draws:

9 players see the flop for one bet, you have Axs. You didn't raise.

flop comes with no A and one of your suit. You're sure there's at least
one other ace with a better kicker than yours out there.

There's a bet to you; you expect that 5 people will call.

You're getting 13:1 on your call right now. Your chance of hitting a
flush is ~ 4.2%. Even though you might have sufficient
implied odds to call, it's a close decision, and you might fold.

But look how different if you raise! Now there are 18 small bets in the
pot before the flop, and you have an easy call.

Your preflop raise has given you an increased chance of /winning the
hand/, even though you didn't chase anyone out. You gave yourself pot
odds to call on longer shots.

Jerrod "if you always cap it before the flop, you're almost always
justified in calling to the river" Ankenman
jer...@crl.com

(Did you hear that Patri was ______ )
(insert your favorite slur here) :>

In article <19991013151504.01031.00000...@ng-cg1.aol.com>,

Am I gonna call to the river no matter what?  I so, then raising has no
effect on my chances of winning.

 Since your cards, their cards, and

your hand being > the best are > not affected by whether or not you
raise the pot preflop,or any > other time.

That's right.

Yes.

increased pot > odds, your > argument seems to say that your expected
value increases, which I > agree with.

Well, that happens, but that wasn't the point.

decreases > your chance of > winning.

If I call 3 loose limpers with AhQc and the flop is Kh Jc 7s and
someone bets, I'll problably fold.  But, if I raise those loose limpers
and somebody bets then there is enough money in the pot for me to call.
That's how my probablity of winning increases.

The arguement for not raising is that you make the pot big enough for
them to chase, decreasing your probablility of winning the pot.

But, that's a bullshit arguement.  Making the pot bigger will give
everyone the odds to chase later and if your hand is best to start with
then you're more likely to pick up some kind of weak draw that you'll
call with if the pot had been raised, but wouldn't call if the pot had
not been raised.

You're much more likely to pick up a weak draw than almost any hand
that's likely to call you after you raise 3 loose limpers.  Somewhere
up in this thread Badger gave a couple of other examples of when this
happens.

You give yourself odds to chase later if you raise.  And, those odds
come from money they put in when you had the best of it.  If you raise
when you have the best of it, and if you play well on later rounds,
then you will make more money by raising, and it often is at a lower
variance.  That's true no matter what the other players do.  Whether
they fold, whether they call, whether they re-raise, whether they
chase, it doesn't matter.  You make money no matter what.

The trick to good poker is not playing tight, it's not reducing your
risk, it's not learning a table of opening hands.  It's about knowing
when you've got the best of it and getting your money in the pot when
you do.

Knowing when you've got the best of it isn't always easy.  Things like
playing tight and memorizing a table of opening hands can help you with
that if you're not sure of your judgement.  But, these things are just
tools that can help.  The point is knowing when you are best.
Gary Carson

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

According to GaryCarson  <garypokerNOgaS...@email.msn.com.invalid>:

Actually, it's *not* a bullshit argument sometimes.  Certain "drawing"
hands, in particular {AKQ}xs, and medium-small pocket pairs (44/55/66) are
almost always going to fold if they don't flop well.  This despite the
fact that they have a good "nofoldem" rating.  Unless you *can* get the
16 or so bets into the pot with a raise, you probably don't want to
raise preflop.  

Here the idea is that, because the slim draws you will make are
probably slimmer than the oppositions, you don't want to encourage
their draws, unless you can encourage your own as well.

- Andrew

Also known as trapping yourself in a pot you really shouldn't usually be
in.  Very closely related to "I have too much money invested to fold
now."

23:1 for a backdoor flush is an "easy call"?  I'll grant that it might
be a call, considering implied odds and the possibility of other winning
hands, but I disagree that it's an /easy/ call.  It's not a call I'll
usually make, but then most folks here play more poker in a week than I
do in two months.  I pretty regularly sacrifice pennies of profit to
avoid massive bankroll swings.

At the cost of earlier bets.  This is /exactly/ what the fish do in the
low-limit games here.  "Oh, the pot is huge and I have two outs.  Must
call."  Yes, sir, the pot is huge, and you are getting correct pot odds
to call, thanks to the fact that you capped your 72s preflop.  Good luck
in your 23:1 shot, in all sincerity.  I'll make my money off your
astoudingly huge pre-flop mistakes.

Exactly.  The (il)logical extenstion to this line of reasoning is that
you should /always/ donate money to the pot pre-flop to finance any thin
draws the flop gives you.  Just toss it in there.  Hell, just /pretend/
it's in there.

I am obviously not a poker expert, and I'm willing to keep an open mind
about this.  I can even see its utility in limited circumstances.  But
as a regularly used weapon in the ol' poker arsenal?  Convince me.
Until then, I'll play Axs and my small pocket pairs as cheaply as I can,
and then hammer with them when they hit.
--
Jeff Wilder    wil...@REMOVETHISlogrus.com    San Francisco, CA
J.D. received in May '99, University of Kentucky College of Law

"I'm tellin' you guys: suin' people kicks ass." -- Eric Cartman

: > But by raising you're giving yourself pot odds to call on thin draws:

: Also known as trapping yourself in a pot you really shouldn't usually be
: in.  Very closely related to "I have too much money invested to fold
: now."

hmm? What difference does the money you've already put in the pot make?
All that matters is how much there is.

: > But look how different if you raise! Now there are 18 small bets in the
: > pot before the flop, and you have an easy call.

: 23:1 for a backdoor flush is an "easy call"?  I'll grant that it might
: be a call, considering implied odds and the possibility of other winning
: hands, but I disagree that it's an /easy/ call.  It's not a call I'll
: usually make, but then most folks here play more poker in a week than I
: do in two months.  I pretty regularly sacrifice pennies of profit to
: avoid massive bankroll swings.

Well, considering that there's enough money in the pot /right now/ to
justify calling, and also considering that if you /don't/ hit a flush
card next time you can fold easily, I'd say it's an easy call. YMMV, I
suppose.

: > Your preflop raise has given you an increased chance of /winning the
: > hand/, even though you didn't chase anyone out. You gave yourself pot
: > odds to call on longer shots.

: At the cost of earlier bets.  This is /exactly/ what the fish do in the
: low-limit games here.  "Oh, the pot is huge and I have two outs.  Must
: call."  Yes, sir, the pot is huge, and you are getting correct pot odds
: to call, thanks to the fact that you capped your 72s preflop.  Good luck
: in your 23:1 shot, in all sincerity.  I'll make my money off your
: astoudingly huge pre-flop mistakes.

Well, yes, that's correct. Raising before the flop should be done when
you have the best of it; one of the prime reasons that many people find
low-limit games so hard to beat is that as the amount of money that goes
into the pot preflop increases, the fishy calls postflop become closer and
closer to correct. Does this mean you shouldn't try to get money into
the pot preflop? Of course not. What it means is that you /should/ raise
*when you have the best of it* preflop, which is to say that "when your win
percentage against 8 or 9 random hands (which is what we're assuming
these people have) is better than the odds you're getting from their calls.

Remember that the fish is justified in drawing to the 2-outer, if the pot
contains 22 or 23 times as much monmey as he has to pay. This would
virtually never happen in even a normal game, but in those cases where it
does (low-limit clazy), that fish is NOT making a mistake.

: > Jerrod "if you always cap it before the flop, you're almost always
: > justified in calling to the river" Ankenman

er, this was a joke.

: Exactly.  The (il)logical extenstion to this line of reasoning is that
: you should /always/ donate money to the pot pre-flop to finance any thin
: draws the flop gives you.  Just toss it in there.  Hell, just /pretend/
: it's in there.

Of course not. You should put money in the pot preflop when you have the
best of it, or when you're getting sufficient odds to, just like any
other time. It just so happens that in a nofoldem type situation, yet
another way that raising preflop can help you is by giving you sufficient
odds later on to chase draws which are less likely to hit. You don't
raise because you want to chase later (I was kidding). You raise because
you have the best of it now. You chase later because you're getting
sufficient odds.

: I am obviously not a poker expert, and I'm willing to keep an open mind
: about this.  I can even see its utility in limited circumstances.  But
: as a regularly used weapon in the ol' poker arsenal?  Convince me.
: Until then, I'll play Axs and my small pocket pairs as cheaply as I can,
: and then hammer with them when they hit.

Then you're giving up a small amount of potential profit. Not a huge
amount, but some.

Jerrod "I've /never/ capped with 72s." Ankenman
jer...@crl.com

According to Jeff Wilder  <wilde...@REMOVETHIS.pacbell.net>:

Well, this is where you have to use your board reading skills.
Is there a pair on the board?  Then you probably need HUGE odds
to draw to a backdoor flush, like 40-1 or something.

Is the board two-suited?  Then you only have 3 outs to your gutshot,
effectively less, say 2, because the board could still flush out at
the end.  Of course, having a backdoor flush in this case makes your
hand easier to play effectivly adding an out or so, bringing you back
to the land of 11-1.

Then don't worry about it.  Not everyone has to play the game the
same way.  If they did, then it wouldn't be profitable for anyone.
But, with 18-1 odds, I'll call with Axs for a backdoor flush on a
non-paired board.  

You are right, capping with 72s *is* a mistake.  No one is talking
about that play though.  We are talking about raising an 8-way pot
with Axs, or 76s, or, 97s.  You can't just raise cause you have a
lot of callers, you also need a hand which is an odds winner.

Yes, what he says is true, and what you say is true.  It's very important
to know when you have an edge.  If you have an edge, ideally you should
always raise.  It is *not* as important to raise when you have a small
edge as it is when you have a large edge.  The bigger your edge, the
more you should be inclined to raise.  One reason for raising when you
have small edges is to "vary your play".  

This bears notice.  Many people often talk about advertisement, and
how important it is to make others think you don't know how to play
the game well.  This encourages others to pay off your good hands.
Now *if* you can effectivly advertise, *and* increase your edge, well
then you've got the best of both worlds.  Profit, and callers, the
two actually feed of each other in a very effective manner.

- Andrew

On Thu, 14 Oct 1999 06:39:43 -0700, Jeff Wilder <wilde...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

Why shouldn't you be in a pot with Axs?  And how can you possibly get
"trapped" with a draw to the nuts?  You know exactly what you're
trying to hit, and when you hit it, you'll know when you can bet and
raise with confidence.  Either the board is paired, or it isn't.
Getting trapped is holding 76s when the flop is JT6, two suited, none
of your suit, and sticking around.  That hand can get you into a world
of trouble--the backdoor flush draw is easy to play.

To the backdoor *nut* flush--yes, that's an easy call.  You'll hit
your flush about 1 in 24 times, so you have immediate pot odds, and it
will almost always be the nuts, so your implied odds are great.  

No.  Axs will win often enough against 8 loose opponents that you can
pay two bets with it.  As long as you win more than about 1/9th of the
time, you can raise profitably against 8 opponents, especially if a
large pot will cause them to chase more postflop, or you might get a
free card when you want it (check to the preflop raiser).  When 9
people are seeing the flop, we're talking about hands like K5o, T3s,
74o, and even worse.  You can profitably raise to punish these
hopeless hands.

I think you're having trouble recognizing that "fish logic" isn't that
far off from correct play in loose games.  It's just that the fish are
raising with J5s while we're raising with A4s.  The fish are chasing 2
outs that may or may not actually be outs, while we're chasing 2 outs
to the nuts.

An "astoundingly huge pre-flop mistake" would be in a tight game, cold
calling 3-bets from two tight, well-playing early position
raiser/reraiser with KQo.  It's hard to make huge mistakes preflop in
incredibly loose games as long as you use some semblence of starting
hand selection.

On 14 Oct 1999 19:21:33 GMT, jeffysr...@yahoo.com (Andrew Prock)
wrote:

I forgot to mention this in my other reply, but calling on your
backdoor nut flush draw with ~23:1 odds isn't really a case of
sacrificing a small profit to avoid bankroll swings.  It's a pretty
straightforward call--you'll make that flush about 1 in 24 times, it
will almost always be good, and you'll know exactly when it's good and
when it might not be.  You have immediate pot odds, and your implied
odds are excellent.  The part that would be sacrificing a small profit
to avoid bankroll swings would occur preflop--to just call with your
Axs in late position after a ton of loose limpers rather than to
raise.