Skansky-Malmuth HOLDEM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS contridition?
michael thies
In their book on page 23 , they suggest that from late position, it is
better to just call with AQ with many players. Yet on page 53, a principle
is stated that on the flop in an unraised pot, it is more probable that
someone else has top pair when top card is J or lower. This is because good
players are more likely either to raise or fold when they have A,K, or
Queen in their hand and less likely to just call. I'm confused, please
straighten me out.So now with AQ, good player will probably raise.I am a
fan of both writers, and will continue to buy their books(they are the
best). My e-mail is mpt...@worldnet.att.net Thanks, Mike
Thies(Cincinnati)
Jeffrey B. Siegal
michael thies wrote:
> In their book on page 23 , they suggest that from late position, it is
> better to just call with AQ with many players. Yet on page 53, a principle
> is stated that on the flop in an unraised pot, it is more probable that
> someone else has top pair when top card is J or lower.
The assumption here is that there were not a lot of callers preflop. Once
there are a lot of callers, hands like AQ become calling hands, as do hands
like K5s and Q9s. The probability of a K or Q in somebody's hand goes way up.
Of course, if the game is very loose and there are always a lot of callers,
then you can expect people to be coming in with K2o as well.
Jason Rosenburg
S&M have their own forum at 2&2 homepage.If you pose the question to
them you will get the answer straight from the horses' mouths.
Abdul Jalib
"michael thies" <mpt...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> In their book on page 23 , they suggest that from late position, it is
> better to just call with AQ with many players. Yet on page 53, a principle
> is stated that on the flop in an unraised pot, it is more probable that
> someone else has top pair when top card is J or lower. This is because good
> players are more likely either to raise or fold when they have A,K, or
> Queen in their hand and less likely to just call. I'm confused, please
> straighten me out.So now with AQ, good player will probably raise.I am a
> fan of both writers, and will continue to buy their books(they are the
> best). My e-mail is mpt...@worldnet.att.net Thanks, Mike
> Thies(Cincinnati)
Much of poker strategy is governed by contradictory rules of thumb that
have to be weighed against each other. A good player tends to raise
with AQ, but he tends not to raise with unsuited big cards with
many players already limped into the pot, particularly in late or
early position.
The problem with raising in late position is that then when you flop
an ace or queen, the betting tends to go: check, check, check, check,
check, check, you bet, call, call, call, call, call, call. Your
opponents are mostly making correct calls to suck out on you for this
monster pot you built before the flop, whereas if you could have raised
just after the player in front of you bet on a smaller (unraised preflop)
pot, then you would have knocked some players out (which you want,
since the "small" pot is already large enough to be happy with,
loosely speaking, and your pair is stronger versus fewer players).
And the ones that call two cold are probably calling incorrectly (which
you want if the calls are sufficiently bad, but with marginally bad
calls they are hurting both themselves and you while helping the
strong draws.) Got it? Somehow I had overlooked all this until
Ed Hill pointed it out to me years ago. Thanks Ed.
And the problem with raising in early position is similar, unless
you can pull off a check raise on the flop when an ace or queen
appears.
When you have unsuited big cards in a loose game, the goal is
to set things up so that if you flop top pair you can make a bet
on the flop that many of your opponents will be very incorrect to
call. And that means you should tend not to raise before the flop
both to disguise your hand and to keep the pot small. You are more
likely to be able to raise the flop if you didn't raise preflop,
and the raise on the flop will be a much more imposing bet relative
to the pot size, causing your opponents to fold or make bad calls.
In the case that you can't raise on the flop, all the fishes are
going to call a single bet on the flop, so you'd rather they call
with insufficient odds (small pot) than usually proper odds (pot
raised preflop.)
--
Abdul
Erik Reuter
In article <yerzpiy...@shell9.ba.best.com>, Abdul Jalib
<AbdulJ_...@PosEV.com> wrote:
> When you have unsuited big cards in a loose game, the goal is
> to set things up so that if you flop top pair you can make a bet
> on the flop that many of your opponents will be very incorrect to
> call. And that means you should tend not to raise before the flop
> both to disguise your hand and to keep the pot small. You are more
> likely to be able to raise the flop if you didn't raise preflop,
> and the raise on the flop will be a much more imposing bet relative
> to the pot size, causing your opponents to fold or make bad calls.
> In the case that you can't raise on the flop, all the fishes are
> going to call a single bet on the flop, so you'd rather they call
> with insufficient odds (small pot) than usually proper odds (pot
> raised preflop.)
I've never seen convincing proof about this argument one way or the other.
The other side of the argument goes:
1) By not raising, you are giving a free flop to the big blind, and a
cheap flop to the small blind. Not just a free card, but THREE free cards.
If either blind would have folded for a raise but goes on to win the pot
when you flop top pair, then you just calling pre-flop was a major
mistake. (However, only about 1/3 of the flops are good for AQ)
2) With all the pre-flop limpers your AQ is probably much the best hand
pre-flop and by not raising you sacrifice much pre-flop EV. Yes, by
raising pre-flop and making the pot big you have made many calling
stations correct to call on the flop (which they will do regardless of pot
size). However, just because they make correct calls does not prove that
you were wrong to raise pre-flop. Even a correct call adds EV to the best
hand, it just adds less than if the hand had folded.
--
Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Winner777
>>>1) By not raising, you are giving a free flop to the big blind, and a cheap
flop to the small blind. Not just a free card, but THREE free cards. If either
blind would have folded for a raise but goes on to win the pot when you flop
top pair, then you just calling pre-flop was a major mistake. (However, only
about 1/3 of the flops are good for AQ)<<<<
We are talking about a multi-way pot. The blinds are going to call anyway
(almost with any 2 cards). What are you giving up by not raising? Raising
causes everybody to check to you and you know the rest. If you find yourself in
a situation like this, I think that the correct play is to check when the field
checks to you. This gives you a shot of somebody betting on the turn, thus
allowing you the chance to thin out the pot!!! I know that you are giving free
cards, consider that when you are in a raised multi-way pot everybody is
getting the right price or almost the right price when you bet on the flop. You
are going to be called by as little as a back-door flush draw, by checking you
are not letting anybody beat you. If you get beat, they would have beat you
anyway.
Ed Hill
Winner777
When I said, "when you find yourself in a situation like this" I was refering
to when you have raised before the flop in a multi-way pot. For instance, you
have AQs.
Ed Hill
Dave Horwitz
Erik Reuter wrote:
> I've never seen convincing proof about this argument one way or the other.
Ahhh. We have this case *very* often out here in CA in the middle
limit games and I've given it some thought and observation the past
few months. 5 or 6 callers pre-flop and somebody in late position
raises (often for no reason other than 5 or 6 players called in
front of them..:) but we're talking about the cases when the raiser
has a large hand). Almost invariably all the callers call the raise.
The blinds definitely call the raise since its a given that everyone
already in will call the raise also. Very large pot and we haven't
seen the flop yet. Again, almost without fail, the pre-flop raiser
will bet on the flop (we're pretty sure its a CA law that you have
to bet the flop after raising pre-flop). Certainly everyone calls
the small bet into a very large pot thats rapidly approaching huge
status. In the case that somebody up front bets you can almost
count on the original raiser raising again. When you call the up
front bet you have already commited to calling the expected raise
coming. Only in the case that the flop hits almost everybody, does
calling 3 or 4 small bets cold thin the field on the flop. So,
by the turn we have achieved huge pot status with monster pot
potential.
>
> The other side of the argument goes:
>
> 1) By not raising, you are giving a free flop to the big blind, and a
> cheap flop to the small blind. Not just a free card, but THREE free cards.
> If either blind would have folded for a raise but goes on to win the pot
> when you flop top pair, then you just calling pre-flop was a major
> mistake. (However, only about 1/3 of the flops are good for AQ)
Consider my scenario above (very common occurrence whenever a player in
late position is dealt a big hand). Your only chance to thin the field
is to hope that the flop is checked to you because of your pre-flop
raise
and that nobody behind you bets. Now you have a *chance* to thin the
field with a large bet on the turn or a raise if your check on the flop
induced a bet up front.
> 2) With all the pre-flop limpers your AQ is probably much the best hand
> pre-flop and by not raising you sacrifice much pre-flop EV. Yes, by
> raising pre-flop and making the pot big you have made many calling
> stations correct to call on the flop (which they will do regardless of pot
> size). However, just because they make correct calls does not prove that
> you were wrong to raise pre-flop. Even a correct call adds EV to the best
> hand, it just adds less than if the hand had folded.
I guess the question is if a correct call by a *number* of these
lesser hands crosses over to negative EV when taken cumulatively (sp?).
I've decided that one's best chance with a large hand in late position
with a lot of callers in front is to play it to give you the best
chance of dropping as many of the callers as possible. This means
sacrificing what would have been a raise for value when the flop
hits you very hard (certainly not the majority of the time and not
often enough to make up for playing the hand against a large field).
-Quick
Erik Reuter
In article <3506C5...@NOSPAMtouchwave.com>, da...@touchwave.com wrote:
>Almost invariably all the callers call the raise.
> The blinds definitely call the raise since its a given that everyone
> already in will call the raise also.
Good. If the blinds have hands that should have folded, but they call, +EV
for you!
> Very large pot and we haven't
> seen the flop yet.
Good again. A large pot and we have a hand likely to be the best.
> Again, almost without fail, the pre-flop raiser
> will bet on the flop (we're pretty sure its a CA law that you have
> to bet the flop after raising pre-flop). Certainly everyone calls
> the small bet into a very large pot thats rapidly approaching huge
> status.
Good once again. If everyone calls, since there must be some people in
with random unsuited cards, several of the calls have only runner-runner
outs to beat top pair.
> I guess the question is if a correct call by a *number* of these
> lesser hands crosses over to negative EV when taken cumulatively (sp?).
That's one question. If you deal out a bunch of likely hands and flops I
bet you'll find that top pair with AQ will usually be positive EV even
with a family pot. A better question is whether there is a sharp peak in
EV vs. number of callers for top pair with AQ, and if so, at what N is the
peak? (I don't know) If it could be demonstrated that there is a sharp EV
peak, at say N=3 opponents, then you might argue that giving up the
pre-flop +EV raise is more than compensated by the post-flop +EV situation
of being able to eliminate enough opponents to get close to N=3.
> I've decided that one's best chance with a large hand in late position
> with a lot of callers in front is to play it to give you the best
> chance of dropping as many of the callers as possible.
This is a remarkable decision given the evidence you have presented. Do
you have any other evidence you did not present?
--
Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Erik Reuter
In article <19980311054...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
winn...@aol.com (Winner777) wrote:
> We are talking about a multi-way pot. The blinds are going to call anyway
> (almost with any 2 cards).
If they have hands like 72 offsuit it is +EV to the AQ for the blinds to
call the raise.
> What are you giving up by not raising?
If your chance of winning the hand is x and you expect the same number of
callers n whether you raise or not, then the answer to your question could
be:
(x - 1/N) N
small bets, where N = n + 1. For example, if x is 20% and N is 7, this is
0.4 SBs.
Of course, this doesn't take into account future betting, and poker has
more than one round of betting so it doesn't prove anything. Still, by
Occam's razor I tend to believe this argument until I see a clearer one.
> I know that you are giving free
> cards, consider that when you are in a raised multi-way pot everybody is
> getting the right price or almost the right price when you bet on the flop.
Is this true? I think not. Consider hands like 72 with a flop of Q93.
Even if it were true, does it prove your argument? I fail to see how
callers getting sufficient or almost sufficient pot odds to call the best
hand is a bad thing.
--
Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Dave Horwitz
Erik Reuter wrote:
> > I've decided that one's best chance with a large hand in late position
> > with a lot of callers in front is to play it to give you the best
> > chance of dropping as many of the callers as possible.
>
> This is a remarkable decision given the evidence you have presented. Do
> you have any other evidence you did not present?
hmmm... not really. Just a good bit of experience in a particular,
fairly specific, flavor of game -- so very small sample empirical
data, statistically speaking. Also, by "large hand" I'm refering
to something like AQs, AKo, etc. (so I guess my answer is "no".
I have no evidence other than gut feeling. I was hoping that you
would provide the numbers substantiating my claim and justify my
play of these hands in this situation :-))
-Quick (you forgot that i figure pot odds in terms of
small, medium, huge, and monster)
Winner777
One of the major reasons for raising with big cards is to thin out the field,
if you are not up against too many opponents you may be able to pick up the pot
by betting two overcards on the flop. This is not going to happen in a
multi-way pot! Since you have to hit the flop, isn't it better to not get a lot
of chips involved until you see what you have?
I personally don't like everybody checking to me on the flop when I have
flopped top pair with something like AQ. Since I am usually sitting on the left
of aggressive players, they are apt to stab at the pot and give me a chance to
raise. This is less likely if I have raised before the flop.
I just stated this earlier. Say you raise in a multi-way pot in late position
with KK, the flop comes small, the field checks to you. It is a viable option
to check, especially if there are agressive players sitting in front of you. I
understand how funny this sounds, kick it around.
Limit Holdem is a funny game. Take 15-30 stud, the bring in is $5 and the first
raise makes it $15. In 15-30 Holdem the bring in is $15 and the first raise
makes it $30. This is an unusal structure for a poker game, I make it $30 to go
and can only bet $15 when the flop comes. There are many situations where the
bet on the flop is not all that important.
Strange structures make strange styles correct. If you examine the difference
between spread limit and structure limit it starts to make more sense. Say 5
people see the flop for $2 in a 2-10 limit holdem game. There is $10 in the pot
and you bet $10, the next player is getting 2-1. If you were in a structured
limit game the next player in the same exact situation is getting 6-1. Doesn't
it make sense that what is right in the first situation may not be right in the
latter? The bet on the flop becomes more gray as the size of the pot increases.
Ed Hill
Erik Reuter
In article <19980312033...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
winn...@aol.com (Winner777) wrote:
> One of the major reasons for raising with big cards is to thin out the field,
How do you know thinning the field is the highest EV action? Or in what
situation it can be the best action? If your answer is "because S&M say
so" then don't bother replying because I've heard that answer already!
> Since you have to hit the flop, isn't it better to not get a lot
> of chips involved until you see what you have?
Ah, I see. Since you have to have the best hand at the river, why should
one ever get a lot of chips involved until you see what you have? Never
bet until the river, that's your philosophy carried to a logical
conclusion!
--
Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Abdul Jalib
winn...@aol.com (Winner777) writes:
>
> <<<Ah, I see. Since you have to have the best hand at the river, why should one
> ever get a lot of chips involved until you see what you have? Never bet until
> the river, that's your philosophy carried to a logical conclusion!>>>
>
> You get the most information on how strong your hand is when the flop is
> laying on the table, you see 60% of your hand simultaneously. You know that I
> am not implying what you stated above. In fact Erik, your entire post didn't
> say anything to contradict what I said. You have a right to your opinion, why
> don't you tell us where our logic is flawed?
The logic is "flawed" because you (and I) did not prove our assertions
mathematically. Erik has attempted to show some of the counterarguments.
Here's another attempt at a counterargument. "There is mathematical
evidence to support raising with AQ versus a multiway field. In no
fold'em simulations, this is a positive e.v. play, more positive than
just calling. In general, the big unsuited broadway cards do better
in big multiway no fold'em pots than S&M have hypothesized they do in
big multiway real world pots. S&M are pulling their hypotheses out of
their asses, as are Ed Hill and this Abdul The Fool guy. Since we have
mathematical evidence that raising with AQ produces the highest possible
positive e.v., and no mathematical evidence to the contrary, it would
be dangerous to propose that just calling with AQ preflop is best in
any position, any circumstance."
It's my strong intuition that despite this and other counterarguments,
essentially it is better to make your opponents pay you on the flop
if it hits you, than to make your opponents pay you preflop when you
only a tiny advantage and your hand very much depends on the flop.
Essentially it is better to thin the field once you know you have a
hand, than to thin the field before you have even seen the flop. If
you could both thin the field before the flop and then thin the field
on the flop if it hits you, this might be best of all, but we've
shown logically, if not mathematically, the problems in doing this.
But I cannot really offer more than my intuition weakly supported by
logical hand-waving.
> I still believe that the major reason for raising is to thin out the field
> allowing you an opportunity to pick the pot up with two overcards. Once
> this is lost, I see no reason to build a pot. Your raise also tends to
> make the field check to you on the flop, if you bet in this spot there
> will never be an opportunity to knock out any hand that may potentially
> beat you.
>
> Big cards go down in value in as the number of opponents increase. Suited
> cards go up in value. The hand made most often with big cards is top pair,
> which doesn't stand up very often if too many people are chasing you. Suited
> connectors go up in value because when they do connect they make hands
> that are capable of beating many opponents.
>
> If it were given that big cards do not play well in this spot, why do you
> recommend building a big pot when your hand has diminished value due to the
> situation?
Not only will these logical arguments not satisfy Erik's thirst for
mathematical proof, but I think this last point is logically flawed.
The value of AQ goes down versus multiple opponents, but who cares?
If the value is more positive from raising than from calling, then we
should raise, even if the value would have been even more positive if
we were facing fewer opponents to start with.
> As for pairs like QQ & JJ. They are a different situation. Although
> most of the time you will have only an overpair when you like the
> flop, they do have the propensity to make a big hand.
Also, S&M recommend limping in with JJ in early position in loose games.
In a loose game, there is a large chance that you'll need to flop a set
to win. If you do flop a set, you'll wish that everyone was in.
Therefore, you don't want to raise preflop to limit the field from 8
down to 5. Again, the no fold'em simulations only suggest that raising
with them preflop is better than calling. But no fold'em simulations
suck.
Recall that I said, "It's my strong intuition that despite this and
other counterarguments, essentially it is better to make your opponent
pay you on the flop if it hits you, than to make your opponents pay you
preflop when you only a tiny advantage and your hand very much depends
on the flop." With a hand like QQ, you have a large advantage preflop
and many flops are likely to "hit" you (if you count having an overpair),
and so you are not motivated to wait to see the flop and should normally
go ahead and raise preflop, though in a loose game it may be close
enough to the JJ border to consider just calling in some cases.
--
Abdul
Shirley Woo
What about with QQ or JJ? Would you raise with those hands with multiple
callers in front of you? It seems to me that the reason not to raise with
AQ is that if you don't flop A or Q, its almost worthless to bet on the
flop, since you know you'll get callers that have flopped a pair, but with
QQ or JJ, you would want to bet, assuming no A or K on the flop.
Winner777 <winn...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980312033...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> One of the major reasons for raising with big cards is to thin out the
field,
> if you are not up against too many opponents you may be able to pick up
the pot
> by betting two overcards on the flop. This is not going to happen in a
> multi-way pot! Since you have to hit the flop, isn't it better to not get
a lot
> of chips involved until you see what you have?
>
Winner777
<<<Ah, I see. Since you have to have the best hand at the river, why should one
ever get a lot of chips involved until you see what you have? Never bet until
the river, that's your philosophy carried to a logical conclusion!>>>
You get the most information on how strong your hand is when the flop is
laying on the table, you see 60% of your hand simultaneously. You know that I
am not implying what you stated above. In fact Erik, your entire post didn't
say anything to contradict what I said. You have a right to your opinion, why
don't you tell us where our logic is flawed?
I still believe that the major reason for raising is to thin out the field
allowing you an opportunity to pick the pot up with two overcards. Once this is
lost, I see no reason to build a pot. Your raise also tends to make the field
check to you on the flop, if you bet in this spot there will never be an
opportunity to knock out any hand that may potentially beat you.
Big cards go down in value in as the number of opponents increase. Suited cards
go up in value. The hand made most often with big cards is top pair, which
doesn't stand up very often if too many people are chasing you. Suited
connectors go up in value because when they do connect they make hands that are
capable of beating many opponents.
If it were given that big cards do not play well in this spot, why do you
recommend building a big pot when your hand has diminished value due to the
situation?
As for pairs like QQ & JJ. They are a different situation. Although most of the
time you will have only an overpair when you like the flop, they do have the
propensity to make a big hand.
Ed Hill
Ramsey
Abdul Jalib wrote (in part):
>Much of poker strategy is governed by contradictory rules of thumb that
>have to be weighed against each other. A good player tends to raise
>with AQ, but he tends not to raise with unsuited big cards with
>many players already limped into the pot, particularly in late or
>early position.
>
>The problem with raising in late position is that then when you flop
>an ace or queen, the betting tends to go: check, check, check, check,
>check, check, you bet, call, call, call, call, call, call.
The corresponding advantage of raising is that when the flop is KJx or
KTx or JTx and it is checked round to you you get a free gut shot and if
there is a bet the size of the pot justifies a call.
If you don't raise preflop you are (as you state) more likely to get a
bet on the flop and now you have to fold.
Similarly while I'm not a fan of playing overcards on the flop there
will be far more times when calling with them is +ev if you have raised
preflop than if you didn't.
--
'Dragon' Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
Ramsey
Abdul Jalib <AbdulJ_...@PosEV.com> writes
>And the ones that call two cold are probably calling incorrectly (which
>you want if the calls are sufficiently bad, but with marginally bad
>calls they are hurting both themselves and you while helping the
>strong draws.)
The quote above is taken out of context to enable me to make a point -
the full text is given at the bottom.
I used to be in the "raise - whats the problem" camp but am gradually
moving to "raise - I think". This is an enormously complex problem.
For example if the strong draw mentioned above is a flush draw (9 outs
say) you will be better off if you had raised preflop even though it
makes marginal calls correct(er) on the flop.
To see why this is so consider the situation where whether you raise or
not preflop you will get 5 callers. On the flop you have top pair and
an opponent has a flush draw.
If you don't raise preflop then at the point a player has to call there
will be 7sb in the pot (6 preflop and your bet). If he believes he has
6/47 outs he will be right to call. So the marginal hands which would
be correct to fold in an unraised pot will have 5 or 4 outs (3 or less
outs are incorrect even with a raise). 5 outs is typically middle or
bottom pair; 4 outs is typically a gut shot.
To take simple figures the flush draw will get there 35% of the time.
(a) if you don't raise preflop and you end up head-to-head with the
flush draw on the pot your equity is 3.2sb his is 0.8sb.
(b) if you raise preflop and end up hth your equity is 6.1sb; his 1.9sb.
(c) if you raise preflop and are called by the flush draw and the other
4 players your chance of winning the pot drops to 30%. [These other
players are calling because they *think* they have 4 or 5 outs but in
fact they have typically 3 because 1 or 2 of their outs beat you but
lose to the flush. So there are c21 cards that beat you.] So your
chance of winning the pot is 26.25/47.46 = 0.30. Your equity in the pot
is now 2.4sb; the flush draw is 3.3sb and the others combined is -5.7
(ie they should have folded)
(d) a similar calculation but with one player folding gives your equity
as 3.4sb.
So when there is a flush draw on the flop you will be better off having
raised preflop unless all the other 4 players call (and would have
folded if you hadn't raised). Even when this happens normally they
won't have 3 outs each - if they have 10 or less outs total the preflop
raise is still profitable.
(e) if there are a lot of callers then the flush draw will increase his
equity by betting/raising. If he bets/raises this will also increase
your equity whether the other players call or fold.
Ramsey
Abdul Jalib <AbdulJ_...@PosEV.com> writes
>
>Much of poker strategy is governed by contradictory rules of thumb that
>have to be weighed against each other. A good player tends to raise
>with AQ, but he tends not to raise with unsuited big cards with
>many players already limped into the pot, particularly in late or
>early position.
>
>The problem with raising in late position is that then when you flop
>an ace or queen, the betting tends to go: check, check, check, check,
>check, check, you bet, call, call, call, call, call, call. Your
>opponents are mostly making correct calls to suck out on you for this
>monster pot you built before the flop, whereas if you could have raised
>just after the player in front of you bet on a smaller (unraised preflop)
>pot, then you would have knocked some players out (which you want,
>since the "small" pot is already large enough to be happy with,
>loosely speaking, and your pair is stronger versus fewer players).
>And the ones that call two cold are probably calling incorrectly (which
>you want if the calls are sufficiently bad, but with marginally bad
>calls they are hurting both themselves and you while helping the
>strong draws.) Got it? Somehow I had overlooked all this until
>Ed Hill pointed it out to me years ago. Thanks Ed.
>
>And the problem with raising in early position is similar, unless
>you can pull off a check raise on the flop when an ace or queen
>appears.
>
>When you have unsuited big cards in a loose game, the goal is
>to set things up so that if you flop top pair you can make a bet
>on the flop that many of your opponents will be very incorrect to
>call. And that means you should tend not to raise before the flop
>both to disguise your hand and to keep the pot small. You are more
>likely to be able to raise the flop if you didn't raise preflop,
>and the raise on the flop will be a much more imposing bet relative
>to the pot size, causing your opponents to fold or make bad calls.
>In the case that you can't raise on the flop, all the fishes are
>going to call a single bet on the flop, so you'd rather they call
>with insufficient odds (small pot) than usually proper odds (pot
>raised preflop.)
>
>--
>Abdul
--
'Dragon' Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
Trapper
In low-limit hold 'em games found in "local" casinos throughout Las
Vegas, raising to thin the field is an ABSOLUTE CROCK. The only reasons
to raise are these:
1) Put more money in the pot.
2) Mis-direct your opponents if your raising with something other than
big
pairs (i.e. A10s, J10s, etc.).
In these local casinos, raising pre-flop is a REASON to call. Players
who would throw-away Q4s, WILL and DO call raises because they think
they're going to steal something good.
I've been playing more tournaments, and raising does cause people to
throw-out hands in games where the chips in front of you are all you're
going to get. However, in games at Sunset Station, Boulder Station,
Sam's Town, et al, 75% of flops are 7-handed and people will chase a
gut-shot draw for only a slightly-raised pot.
tha...@nmia.com
In article <e-reuter-120...@moose-7.slip.uiuc.edu>, e-re...@uiuc.edu
says...
> snipped previous dialog .. <
>
>> Since you have to hit the flop, isn't it better to not get a lot
>> of chips involved until you see what you have?
>
>Ah, I see. Since you have to have the best hand at the river, why should
>one ever get a lot of chips involved until you see what you have? Never
>bet until the river, that's your philosophy carried to a logical
>conclusion!
>
>--
This was not my logical conclusion. I must be wrong and I am sure you will
correct me. I think that in a multi-way pot your hand changes in value a lot
pre-flop to flop with a hand like A,Q. I would much rather have this hand in a
short handed situation or head up pre-flop. But I am sure that you will tell me
that your EV is higher with it in a multi-way pot. I don't think so but I have
no proof to back it up either.
>Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Winner777
<<<Recall that I said, "It's my strong intuition that despite this and
other counterarguments, essentially it is better to make your opponent pay you
on the flop if it hits you, than to make your opponents pay you preflop when
you only a tiny advantage and your hand very much depends on the flop." With a
hand like QQ, you have a large advantage preflop and many flops are likely to
"hit" you (if you count having an overpair),
and so you are not motivated to wait to see the flop and should normally go
ahead and raise preflop, though in a loose game it may be close enough to the
JJ border to consider just calling in some cases.
--
Abdul
>>>
I agree, I was refering to a situation with many opponents already in the pot,
simular to the AQ situation. With many opponents already in I still think that
raising is the correct play. You have position in this situation. When you
raise in early position that is a different story. When you are in a game where
you know that all your opponents are going to call if you come in raising and
you are first-in in early position, you can sure make a case for limping in
with JJ's and less.
Ed Hill
Dave Horwitz
Abdul Jalib wrote:
> It's my strong intuition that despite this and other counterarguments,
> essentially it is better to make your opponents pay you on the flop
> if it hits you, than to make your opponents pay you preflop when you
> only a tiny advantage and your hand very much depends on the flop.
> Essentially it is better to thin the field once you know you have a
> hand, than to thin the field before you have even seen the flop. If
> you could both thin the field before the flop and then thin the field
> on the flop if it hits you, this might be best of all, but we've
> shown logically, if not mathematically, the problems in doing this.
> But I cannot really offer more than my intuition weakly supported by
> logical hand-waving.
Outside of whether you make your opponents pay pre or post flop, I
think more often than not, when you decide to play past the flop you
are going to want to try and thin the field. In my previous post
my point was that (possibly) your *only* hope to thin the field in
these situations is by calling pre-flop, hoping for little or no
action on the flop, and applying as much pressure with the large
betting round as possible.
-Quick
Stephen H. Landrum
Erik Reuter wrote:
>
> In article <3506C5...@NOSPAMtouchwave.com>, da...@touchwave.com wrote:
>
> >Almost invariably all the callers call the raise.
> > The blinds definitely call the raise since its a given that everyone
> > already in will call the raise also.
>
> Good. If the blinds have hands that should have folded, but they call, +EV
> for you!
Not necessarily. It's +EV for the table, but the EV is not
distributed evenly, and often little or none of it goes to the
"best" hand preflop.
> > Very large pot and we haven't
> > seen the flop yet.
>
> Good again. A large pot and we have a hand likely to be the best.
While this is a good situation, it may not be the best situation.
20% share of a $100 pot is worth less than 50% share of a $60 pot.
> > Again, almost without fail, the pre-flop raiser
> > will bet on the flop (we're pretty sure its a CA law that you have
> > to bet the flop after raising pre-flop). Certainly everyone calls
> > the small bet into a very large pot thats rapidly approaching huge
> > status.
>
> Good once again. If everyone calls, since there must be some people in
> with random unsuited cards, several of the calls have only runner-runner
> outs to beat top pair.
When the pot is large, their calls are often either correct or close,
and you would gain more EV if they folded. At times, their call is
-EV, but they are also subtracting EV from your hand too, and lending
it to other drawing hands. The real answer is determined by how
much the opposing draws tend to interfere with each other.
> > I guess the question is if a correct call by a *number* of these
> > lesser hands crosses over to negative EV when taken cumulatively (sp?).
>
> That's one question. If you deal out a bunch of likely hands and flops I
> bet you'll find that top pair with AQ will usually be positive EV even
> with a family pot.
I don't think this is in dispute.
> A better question is whether there is a sharp peak in
> EV vs. number of callers for top pair with AQ, and if so, at what N is the
> peak? (I don't know) If it could be demonstrated that there is a sharp EV
> peak, at say N=3 opponents, then you might argue that giving up the
> pre-flop +EV raise is more than compensated by the post-flop +EV situation
> of being able to eliminate enough opponents to get close to N=3.
This peak is definitely demonstrated in the unrealistic case of
no-foldem opponents. AQ is one of those very strong hands whose
profitability is maximized with 7 or 8 opponents. In the case
where you've flopped top pair (which is not what's going to happen
most of the time), AQ probably fairs even better with more opponents.
However, it's much harder to determine profitability when you can
make raises that will cause opponents to fold.
If you are in a loose game where the opponents don't respect your
raises even after the flop, it would be much better to get in the
raise when you've actually flopped top pair than to get it in
preflop.
> > I've decided that one's best chance with a large hand in late position
> > with a lot of callers in front is to play it to give you the best
> > chance of dropping as many of the callers as possible.
>
> This is a remarkable decision given the evidence you have presented. Do
> you have any other evidence you did not present?
I would state it differently. A preflop raise in late position with
lots of callers when holding AQ adds EV, but in my experience does
not add as much EV as waiting until my hand is more clearly defined.
--
"Stephen H. Landrum" <slan...@pacbell.net>
Winner777
Also consider the AQ is the type of hand that does much better in simulations
than it does in real life. In real life you find yourself in many situations
where you lay down the best hand or a hand that is clearly no good at the
moment and becomes the best hand. Also consider that simulations are skewed,
hands like 27 continue to the river when the flop comes AKQ. All in all this is
a postive EV hand no matter how many participants, but I believe that it's peak
is with a minimum # of players. With a small field AQ can be the best hand even
unimproved after the flop. This is not going to be the case in a multi-way pot.
Ed Hill
Erik Reuter
In article <35098F90...@pacbell.net>, slan...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Erik Reuter wrote:
> > Good. If the blinds have hands that should have folded, but they call, +EV
> > for you!
>
> Not necessarily. It's +EV for the table, but the EV is not
> distributed evenly, and often little or none of it goes to the
> "best" hand preflop.
Would you elaborate? Morton showed that in some multi-way pots, on the
turn, it is possible that the best hand may gain more EV by another hand
making a "correct" fold than an "incorrect" call (essentially, when the
player makes the correct fold, it is possible for most or all of that
player's outs to go to the best hand instead of being evenly distributed
among the remaining players). Morton showed it could occur for SOME hands,
for SOME pot sizes ("medium") on the TURN. I've seen no demonstrations
that this occurs frequently pre-flop.
If you try some typical hands (I tried 6 or 7 handed) in a pre-flop
show-down simulation, you will find that the distribution of EV for AQ
usually favors hands like 72 calling and definitely does NOT "often" favor
the hands like 72 folding (occasionally, but not often). Of course, the
usual caveat with showdown simulations applies.
> > Good again. A large pot and we have a hand likely to be the best.
>
> While this is a good situation, it may not be the best situation.
> 20% share of a $100 pot is worth less than 50% share of a $60 pot.
A 20% share of a $100 pot is worth more than a 35% share of a $50 pot.
Quoting numbers like this isn't productive--essentially we are just
re-stating the basic question being debated.
> > Good once again. If everyone calls, since there must be some people in
> > with random unsuited cards, several of the calls have only runner-runner
> > outs to beat top pair.
>
> When the pot is large, their calls are often either correct or close,
I dispute this. Unsuited/unpaired cards miss the flop most of the time.
And then have to hit runner-runner pairs to beat top pair (65:1 against).
Sometimes the runner-runner draws can accumulate (eg., rr-str-draw +
rr-pair-draw) to make the calls close. But not "often".
> At times, their call is
> -EV, but they are also subtracting EV from your hand too, and lending
> it to other drawing hands.
This sort of language can be tricky, and I think you've said something
that is prone to trick us. That's why I often prefer more quantitative
statements.
If we define the "EV_0" as the EV of a hand if the current betting round
checked through, and we define the "best hand" as that hand with the
highest probability of winning if the rest of the deal were to be showdown
poker, then EV > EV_0 for the best hand when another hand calls a bet. In
other words, their call ADDs EV to the best hand, compared to a check.
If we define EV_1 as the EV for the best hand when there is a bet and
another hand folds, then I believe what you are saying is that sometimes
EV < EV_1 for the best hand when another hand incorrectly calls a bet.
This is sometimes true (Morton again) but a critical question is how
frequently is it true, and how large an effect does it have on EV?
> > A better question is whether there is a sharp peak in
> > EV vs. number of callers for top pair with AQ, and if so, at what N is the
> > peak? (I don't know) If it could be demonstrated that there is a sharp EV
> > peak, at say N=3 opponents, then you might argue that giving up the
> > pre-flop +EV raise is more than compensated by the post-flop +EV situation
> > of being able to eliminate enough opponents to get close to N=3.
>
> This peak is definitely demonstrated in the unrealistic case of
> no-foldem opponents. AQ is one of those very strong hands whose
> profitability is maximized with 7 or 8 opponents. In the case
> where you've flopped top pair (which is not what's going to happen
> most of the time), AQ probably fairs even better with more opponents.
I don't think this supports thinning the field to increase EV. 7 is quite
a few opponents!
> However, it's much harder to determine profitability when you can
> make raises that will cause opponents to fold.
Yes. Perhaps with folding allowed the peak occurs well below 7. But I
wouldn't bet on it!
> If you are in a loose game where the opponents don't respect your
> raises even after the flop, it would be much better to get in the
> raise when you've actually flopped top pair than to get it in
> preflop.
I'd rather raise pre-flop AND on the flop! Or do you mean they respect
your pre-flop raise (by checking to you on the flop) but not your flop
raise? If it is a choice between raising only pre-flop or only on the flop
(for good flops) then you may be right. If that were the only factor then
it would definitely be right. However, note that if your pre-flop raise
buys you a free card on the flop, this may wholly or partially offset the
advantage you mention (I don't know).
> I would state it differently. A preflop raise in late position with
> lots of callers when holding AQ adds EV, but in my experience does
> not add as much EV as waiting until my hand is more clearly defined.
Elegantly stated. But unintentionally mendacious? I'm not sure, but the
discussion is interesting!
--
Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Erik Reuter
In article <19980313221...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
winn...@aol.com (Winner777) wrote:
> All in all this is a postive EV hand no matter how many participants,
> but I believe that it's peak is with a minimum # of players. With a
> small field AQ can be the best hand even unimproved after the flop. This
> is not going to be the case in a multi-way pot.
The situation under discussion WAS a multi-way pot. To summarize so far:
AQ in late position after 5 or 6 limpers. To raise or call?
____
CALL
----
1) A call makes it easier to THIN THE FIELD on the flops that hit AQ. This
is a good thing because it is claimed that the EV for AQ when it gets a
good flop is HIGHER WITH FEWER OPPONENTS.
2) Just calling makes it more likely for AQ to be able to raise on the
good flops. A raise on the good flops adds more EV than a raise pre-flop.
3) In a multi-way pot, Morton's theorem states that the EV of the best
hand can be higher when other hands fold correctly and surrender their pot
equity to the best hand as compared to those hands calling incorrectly.
Just calling pre-flop makes it more likely for this effect to occur.
-----
RAISE
-----
1) AQ has usually has an edge ( = win probability - 1 / N ) pre-flop
against many opponents and it is therefore +EV to raise pre-flop
2) Top pair on the flop with AQ is a strong hand and its EV can not be
much lower (and may perhaps be higher) with many poor hands calling bets
as compared to a few poor hands calling. "Strong hand" means likely to
dominate other hands (like Q9 or AT), or for other hands to tend to have
overlapping draws.
3) Raising pre-flop may cause the players to check to AQ on the flop,
allowing the AQ to add about 6% chance of winning the pot by missing the
flop but turning top pair for free.
--
Erik Reuter, e-re...@uiuc.edu
Paul Westley
Dave Horwitz wrote:
> ...Outside of whether you make your opponents pay pre or post flop, I
> think more often than not, when you decide to play past the flop you
> are going to want to try and thin the field. In my previous post
> my point was that (possibly) your *only* hope to thin the field in
> these situations is by calling pre-flop, hoping for little or no
> action on the flop, and applying as much pressure with the large
> betting round as possible.
I think raising AQ in early position makes sense to try to narrow the
field. Either the first person will call and they all will, or he'll fold
and so will most of the others. In late position the raise won't get many
people out, but it might convince them you have a big hand so they'll be
more likely to lay it down if you bet when you get a legitimate flop. I
think that delaying your action until the turn is too late as there is now
enough money in the pot to justify almost anything.
Quick
Paul Westley wrote in message <350BA769...@jps.net>...
>I think raising AQ in early position makes sense to try to narrow the
>field. Either the first person will call and they all will, or he'll fold
oops, guess I didn't include enough context. The string was about how to
play hands like AQs in late position after a lot of callers in front of you.
-Quick
Ramsey
In article Shirley Woo <yao...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>What about with QQ or JJ? Would you raise with those hands with multiple
>callers in front of you? It seems to me that the reason not to raise with
>AQ is that if you don't flop A or Q, its almost worthless to bet on the
>flop, since you know you'll get callers that have flopped a pair, but with
>QQ or JJ, you would want to bet, assuming no A or K on the flop.
>
raise with AQ and AJ but flat call with QQ and (especially) JJ. Others
will do the exact opposite.
My reasons are:
The value of QQ and JJ comes from hitting trips or having an overpair on
the flop. If an overcard hits the flop my hand is essentially dead as I
have very few redraws. If I hit my pair on the flop then I wish I had
raised preflop; if an overcard comes I'm glad I didn't. The key
situation is when I have an overpair.
With a QQ or JJ overpair I need to win the pot quickly because my hand
is frail. So it is to my advantage to have the pot small if it is
checked to me so my opponents have less reason to chase. It is also to
my advantage not to have shown a strong hand because now top pair may
bet out and I can raise making it 2 bets to go.
AQ (or AJ) is a lot more robust when an A or Q (J) is the top card on
the flop so I fear calls less (I would still prefer them to fold
though). By raising preflop I have got more money in the pot and as the
pot is now relatively big there are going to be far more flops I can
legitimately play.
To see why top pair is more robust than the equivalent over-pair
consider
a - (JJ) flop xyz
b - (AJ) flop Jyz
With (a) an A, K or Q on the turn may well put you behind; with (b) only
a K or Q is dangerous.
With (a) if an opponent makes 2-pair on the turn you have only 2 outs
whereas with (b) you have 5 outs.
With (a) your opponents are going to have straight draws and pairs more
often than with (b).
With (a) an x on the turn probably puts you behind with few outs whereas
with (b) a J on the turn keeps you ahead and may get you a lot of action
when the other J is out.
--
'Dragon' Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
WenMax
When the house is rakeing the pots, you want to win the big pots with less
emphasis on stealing the small pots in order to reduce their percentage take.
AQs in late position is one of the quentiscential hands to raise to make the
pot bigger. Then you must also tend to stay in the pot a little longer than
"freeze-out tournament strategy". As long as their is reasonable hope because
the pot is so big.