![[Two Plus Two Publishing]](/images/2+2.gif)
What happened to raising?
vince
Very good question Vince; and I only post because 1) I've done this math myself 2) You've contributed so much to the board that you deserve an answer
Raising, assuming that the other players know what you would raise with (which I believe is what the game settles too anyway) is always a bad bet.
This math assumes that the game is like playing with numbers between 0 and 1, and that you can't improve once you've been dealt your hand.
Most games, where you can improve on your hand though, it may be correct to raise in some circumstances.
sincerely
btw, I haven't read the rest of this board yet, and am just about to follow it all down.
Well, I've just read the rest of this thread; and I must say that you all give me a lot of laughs (that's all of you).
Vince, this sort of math, when I did it, convinced me that raising in general is a bad tactic. I haven't read Sklansky's TOP, in fact I've read very few poker theory books, except to do it all myself; because I know when I do it I don't fool myself; whereas when I follow others, I invariably throw it out because I don't know if it is bullshit or not.
I've won round 1 in the warm-ups several times, and this sort of theory helped me a lot. Without having done it, I would not have known how much emphasis to place on betting and raising.
Sorry to disagree with you that it all isn't relevant, but it does help.
On the side, I just finished an argument on another site not so long ago where "some banana bender" brought in a rule at his game where he banned "checking to mates". Well this game theory gave me the strength to get out there and fight him, because I believe that the game theory of this sort (when followed up further) comes out and says that checking the river is what most players that know each other will end up doing anyway.
That post is now deleted because it got a "bit nasty" in places I guess, so don't worry about finding it.
Vince, this stuff is all very related to poker. But keep up your posts anyway :)
I'm sorry to find this thread late.
"Vince, this sort of math, when I did it, convinced me that raising in general is a bad tactic. "
What does "raising in general" mean? Raising is a tool that when applied correctly is effective in aiding you to reach your goal of winning money. How can it possibly be a "bad tactic in general" or any other way? The tactic is not "bad" it's the applier of the tactic that may be "bad" but not the "tactic". I will stop short of saying that if you eliminate raising you elimnate the ability to over come the average rake in Casino's but I will say that if you were to eliminate raising you would severly handicap expert play.
"Sorry to disagree with you that it all isn't relevant, but it does help"
No where will you find that I claim that "game theory" is not relevant to poker. Game theory is applicable to poker, I know that. But the majority of posts here deal with "game theory" with the use of unrealistic poker examples and are mainly an exercise in game theory not poker strategy. Your statement above is the same type of statement that M uses. "..it does help". But you both just leave it at that. Why not explain the benefits of "game theory" to all of us instead of making vague claims?
Vince
"Why not explain the benefits of "game theory" to all of us instead of making vague claims? "
My normal answer here would be "certainly", and I will answer, but be aware that this sort of interaction is slow, and I would say whole books can be written on this subject instead of just brief posts. My excuse for having been vague is that I try to keep my texts within some paragraph limits, but you do point out correctly that I've been vague.
By raising in general I meant raising within the context of the game that the analysis referred to. That is raising by thinking that perhaps you have a better hand than your opponent, and you want more money. The problem is that your opponent that you have played against for many hours or weeks knows the point at which you think that eg it could be when you have any 2 pair or better after a flop. Now your opponent will only call your bet if he beats that minimum hand (mathematically he calls at a little better, perhaps if he has 2 pair with the high card being one of the pairs ).
The algebra shows then that the bet is a bad bet if your opponent can do that, it has negative EV.
Raising with other concepts may be "expert play", but raising with this concept is losing play.
Sincerely
Spikey,
You talk like a mathematician, not a poker player.
"That is raising by thinking that perhaps you have a better hand than your opponent, and you want more money."
You just don't get it! There are a number of reasons for raising but there is no one reason "in general" for raising. Raising is a tactic. Used correctly it may help the user gain an edge in some manner over his opponent. I find it difficult to understand how you can apply game theory to poker playing if you do not understand the fundamental use of a basic tactic such as raising.
"The problem is that your opponent that you have played against for many hours or weeks knows the point at which you think that eg it could be when you have any 2 pair or better after a flop. Now your opponent will only call your bet if he beats that minimum hand (mathematically he calls at a little better, perhaps if he has 2 pair with the high card being one of the pairs )."
You are mixing apples and oranges. In the first instance you raise to get more money in the pot if there is a good possibility that your opponent will call with a lesser hand than you have. In the second instance when your opponent has adjusted to your play you just don't raise. That's poker with or without algebra. You must take your opponent into consideration when deciding what is your best play. If he adjusts to your play then you must adjust. Winning poker is about mistakes. Mistakes your opponent makes and mistakes you don't make. If you were to raise knowing your opponent would only call with a hand that is better than yours then you made a mistake (although not always).
Vince
"You talk like a mathematician, not a poker player."
You may as well say I am a professional mathematician and a social poker player; and am planning to change that (to a social mathematician and professional poker player); but probably won't make it.
I didn't pretend to get into reasons for raising, the only thing that we've got so far is that if you DO IT (never mind your reason) when you have a particular hand or better, then a smart opponent behind you will turn your raises into negative EV.
I think we agree on that from reading your final paragraph; and of course if you raise into fish with strong hands then you will end up with positive EV.
I may not be as clever as some, but I did not know or understand this before I did the game theory, thus my understanding of the game is so much better for this sort of analysis. I am not a natural to knowing when and how to raise without doing sums and sometimes calculus (in this case).
"I didn't pretend to get into reasons for raising, the only thing that we've got so far is that if you DO IT (never mind your reason) when you have a particular hand or better, then a smart opponent behind you will turn your raises into negative EV. "
Spikey, if you understand game theory then you should understand why your statement above is flawed.
One place where game theory actually does have a clearly beneficial application in poker is bluffing. If one uses the tool of bluffing properly, then one will not have a negative EV simply because they raise with a potentially good hand. I am surprised you did not take bluffing into consideration before making the above statement.
William
"One place where game theory actually does have a clearly beneficial application in poker is bluffing"
Clear and unambiguos. Gee Bill, aren't you and I the guys that are always getting beat up over our views on game theory?
Vince
Oops... sorry Vince, I forgot for a moment that I was a moron. Which reminds me, when is my charter membership card going to arrive?
William
"when is my charter membership card going to arrive? "
Bill, we morons do not need any stinkin membership card to prove were stupid! We already know it and, apparently, so does everybody else. And they call us idiots! Huh!
Hey, have you noticed that Mark Glover and Tom Weideman haven't posted here in a while? I think it's my fault. I told Mark (jokingly) to "blow it out his ass" when he said I was ignorant or silly and he must not have liked that. I guess Tom just gave up because I am an idiot. That makes sense, don't you think? Now I'm being childish in addition to moronish. I had to upstage you someway.
Vince
You truly are the king of morons Vince and I would never assume that I could usurp your throne. You are correct that people do not need to see a membership card in order to know that we are morons, but I thought a charter membership card might bring a few extra dollars on EBay.
One thing the game theory guys should know is that poker players knew the reasons for bluffing long before the invention of game theory.
Hey, what happened to Spikey? I wonder if he was just bluffing about understanding game theory.
William
P.S. If one calls a moron an idiot, is it a compliment?
I'm still here.
I haven't done bluffing, only "chopping the blinds" coz I wanted to know what your equity was when you didn't chop, and then I did raising after that.
It was a lot of work to do the algebra, I took 2 weeks off work to do it, but, being the nerd I am, I found it to be a lot of fun too.
I am an idiot too, not just because sometimes I make the most stupid mistakes, but because I use the dark side of the force too, which then makes me an idiot by choice. Am I then a REAL IDIOT??? Somehow I'm starting to feel at home with you guys.
Well Spikey, I admire you honesty, but fear for your reputation if you ever decide to hang around Vince an me.
You probably already know this but, I believe the math on bluffing is relatively simple compared to many other game theory studies. I think it goes something like this... If one bluffs so that the odds that they are bluffing are identical to the pot odds given one's opponent, then that opponent will be at an equal disadvantage no matter how they answer your bet.
I wonder if one of the game theory experts will jump out of the woodwork and point out just how shallow my understanding of game theory really is. Still, without going into excruciating detail I believe that my rather truncated bluffing thesis is correct.
Later, William
Nevertheless, our Hero can still compensate for the behavior of his opponents and neutralize the advantage your describe.
William
'Nevertheless, our Hero can still compensate for the behavior of his opponents and neutralize the advantage you describe.' --- William
No, actually that's not true, and in fact that's the whole point. If the other two players choose certain strategies, then Hero will have negEV no matter what he does. Given his opponents' strategies, he can come up with a best strategy, but it will have negEV, and all other strategies will be worse.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
I still cannot agree with you Dirk. In the example you gave, our Hero need only emulate their positional play as the button rotates and he will end up having exactly the same advantage they have.
William
One player cannot simultaneously emulate two other players.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk Wrote: “One player cannot simultaneously emulate two other players. “
You are now reduced to word games in order to avoid admitting I am correct. I am starting to believe that the thought of admitting that I am correct is so appalling to you that you will continue to dodge admitting the correctness of my position no matter how simple it should be for you to understand. In other words, I am starting to believe that I have been wasting my time. Sadly, I assumed that you honestly wanted to discuss this topic. Now I am faced with the proposition that you have a trivial understanding of real world poker or that you are just a disingenuous person. In either case, your position is incorrect on the point I am trying to get through to you and you appear to not be intellectually honest enough to simply admit it and move on.
If all three players use identical strategies and there is no leakage, then their overall respective EVs will be ZERO.
THE BUTTON ROTATES DIRK!
How can you not understand that three players with identical overall game strategies will all have zero EVs over the long haul?
William
I have been making a sincere and genuine effort to try to explain this stuff to you but you just don't get it. This takes time and effort and I thought you might appreciate it. Instead of you stopping and thinking about it, you just insult me. Why should I waste my time? Nevertheless, I'll give it another go.
Your statement `If all three players use identical strategies and there is no leakage, then their overall respective EVs will be ZERO' is trivially true, and is completely obvious to anyone who thinks for five seconds. But it is also totally irrelevant to the situation described.
In the situation described, players A and B are playing DIFFERENT strategies. (To be more specific, player A's strategy when UTG, is different to player B's strategy when UTG, etc. Note that for strategies to be different, they need only differ in at least one position.) So regardless of what player U(=hero) does, it will not be the case that all three players are playing the same strategies. The standard `symmetry' argument does not apply here.
Do you now see what I was getting at when I said `One player cannot simultaneously emulate two other players.' These were words with real meaning intended to convey real concepts, and they are words which can be comprehended by other people.
So? Do you get it yet?
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Dirk,
At least you finally acknowledged that my statement was correct. I understood from the beginning that the specific situation you described gave our hero a negative EV. What’s not to understand when someone gives a simple example?
The thing that makes your example disappointing to me is that it does not hold up over time, as the button rotates. You have yet to give an example in which our hero is at a game level disadvantage simply due to playing styles, despite of your claims to the contrary. Whatever happened to the wonderful proof to which you referred in the previous thread? You know the one that you mysteriously did not want to post without permission (wink wink nudge nudge). I personally doubt that it met general case requirements, but would love to see it, if it did.
William
In the example, which, by the way, I did post, (go look) player U(=hero), does indeed have a negative EV over the long haul, as the button rotates. If you calculated, the EV for each position --- let's say the EV for U in Blind, UTG, Button are x,y z, respectively --- then you would find that x is negative, while y and z are positive, but most importantly, the overall EV, namely (x+y+z)/3 is negative. In fact, I already made this clarification a couple of weeks ago.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
It is only negative if you restrict our hero from making the appropriate corrections. Your calculations were interesting, but your restrictions placed upon our hero makes your case frivolous.
I guess you didn't have that proof for the previous thread after all.
William
There are no restrictions on Hero. He knows the other two players strategies, and can choose the best possible counterstrategy. EV is averaged as button takes all three positions. Yet despite all this, Hero has a strictly negative EV. Go into the archives, find the post and read it.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Sorry Dirk, but I completely disagree. If our Hero has no restrictions then he can at least compensate. You even said that it was a trivial point that he can achieve at least a zero EV.
Even though it may be trivial, it is interesting how many messages it took to get you to admit it.
William
"it is interesting how many messages it took to get you to admit it."
Gee, I find it interesting also. I wonder how many messages it would take Tom Weideman or Mark Glover to admit they were wrong once in their lives? Tom, maybe about as long as Dirk. Mark.. hmmm... do we have enough days left in this lifetime? I don't think so.
Vince
I am so glad you were following this thread! I put a lot of work into finally getting Dirk to admit that I was correct. I am glad you were there because I am very happy someone besides me had the opportunity to enjoy the event. This was great fun. I especially enjoyed how Dirk continued to act as if I did not understand his original post.
I am sure you realize that this was the very example that Dirk claimed was a general case proof to his previous thread. I already knew he had no proof because his original thesis, along with Mark’s example, would never be applicable in the general case.
Anyone can give specific examples of situations in which one player or another has a disadvantage no matter what they do, but I have never seen a defendable example of a general case example based exclusively upon playing style.
William
"but I have never seen a defendable example of a general case example based exclusively upon playing style. "
Give them a chance, they'll think of something.
vince
If there's one thing worse than morons it is arrogant pious, self-righteous morons. I told you to look in the archives for this.
First note that: There are no restrictions on Hero. He knows the other two players strategies, and can choose the best possible counterstrategy. EV is averaged as button takes all three positions. Yet despite all this, Hero has a strictly negative EV.
Now it is not that simple to calculate EV's from the given strategies, and I strongly doubt that either of you guys are up to the task, but you should at least try to grasp the general idea of how this works.
If you can't grasp this example, try at least to comprehend the heads-tails game which I also reproduce below.
-----------------------------------------
Here is the simplest example X can come up with that shows how, without explicit collusion, your opponents can force you to lose money in a multiplayer poker game.
1. Randomly select "Blind", a player who posts a blind bet of one chip.
2. Deal each of the three players a statistically independent number from the uniform unit distribution (0,1).
3. Play begins with "UTG" (i.e., "under the gun" -- the player seated immediately to the left of the blind), who must either call (wager one chip) or fold.
4. Next, "Button" (i.e., the player immediately to the right of the blind) must either call or fold.
5. If either UTG or Button calls, there is a showdown (including Blind) with the highest ranking hand winning all chips wagered; otherwise, the blind is returned to the player who posted it.
Notice that Blind has no decision to make, so that the game can be reduced to a two player non-zero-sum game between UTG and Button.
Let X be the set of strategies available to UTG, and let Y be the set of strategies for Button. Given strategy x belonging to set X, and y belonging to Y, let V1(x,y) and V2(x,y) be, respectively, the expected payoff to UTG and Button when UTG uses x and Button uses y.
x*, the optimal strategy for UTG, is x such that V1(x,y'(x)) is maximized, where y'(x) is the Button strategy that, given x, minimizes V1(x,y). y*, Button's optimal strategy, is defined similarly.
x* is to call if the rank of UTG's hand is at least Sqrt(2.5) - 1 (~0.581), and to fold otherwise.
y* is:
(a) if UTG folds, call if the rank of Button's hand is at least 1/2. (b) if UTG calls, call if rank > (1 + Sqrt(2.5)) / 3 (~0.860).
(The derivation is left as an exercise.)
Now suppose you are in seat 1, Albert is in seat 2, and Boris is in seat 3.
If Albert plays ranks above
(2 - 2 Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(12 - Sqrt(27))) / 2 ~ 0.572
when UTG and optimally otherwise, and Boris plays ranks above
2 - Sqrt(3) + Sqrt(11/2 - Sqrt(27)) ~ 0.819
when Button and optimally otherwise, then no matter how you play, your expectation for this game cannot exceed -0.000198 chips. (Again, the derivation is left as an exercise.) #
---------------------------------------------
Another example: The HEADS-TAILS-ODD-ONE-OUT-WINS.
Three players U(=hero), H and T. Each player antes $1. The players simultaneously declare Heads or Tails. Odd-one-out (if there is one) wins the pot, otherwise it is split. Now as it turns out, H always calls Heads, because he's just a calling-Heads kind of guy, and T always calls Tails, because he's just a calling-Tails kind of guy. Moreover, U is fully aware of what H and T will do and tries to adjust and optimize as best as he can. Unfortunately, best is not good enough, and U is guaranteed to lose $1 every round.
-----------------------------------------
YOU GOT IT YET? HELLO? ANYONE THERE? I DOUBT YOU GUYS WILL PUBLICALLY ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG, BUT AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE GUTS AND THE HONESTY TO ADMIT IT TO YOURSELVES!
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"YOU GOT IT YET? HELLO? ANYONE THERE? I DOUBT YOU GUYS WILL PUBLICALLY ADMIT YOU'RE WRONG, BUT AT LEAST YOU SHOULD HAVE THE GUTS AND THE HONESTY TO ADMIT IT TO YOURSELVES! "
I don't know what it is you think I was wrong about but it certainly wasn't about playing poker.
"(i.e., "under the gun" -- the player seated immediately to the left of the blind)"
Look wise ass, as far as I know your little exercise in game theory is correct but it has nothing at all to do with playing live poker. I really believed you admitted to that from reading Bill's post. But I guess your pompass ass wouldn't let you do that. You call yourself a mildmaneredmathman but no where do you claim to know how to play poker. I can see why.
vince
This entire thread is about game theory. Didn't you realise that? But you should not for a second contemplate the idea that game theory does not apply to real poker.
This example is a simplified `model' of real poker. Somtimes we deal with a simplified model because the real thing is way too hard to analyse. Meteorologists used drastically simplified models of climate, but they still do a pretty decent job of predicting weather. And even if a model is too simple to make specific predictions, it still demonstrates the types of phenomena that can occur. Most reasonable people, on seeing and understanding the given example would realise that it exhibited a certain phenomenon, namely that one player could have negEV, when confronted with certain playing styles, and would take this as moderately convincing evidence that a similar situation could occur in any type of real poker.
If you don't want to make the jump from the simplified model, to the real game, that's a perfectly respectable position to take, but William was denying the model itself and he was completely wrong about that.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
"If you don't want to make the jump from the simplified model, to the real game, that's a perfectly respectable position to take, "
That's always been my position. I like your post very much. It is extermely informative by way of your explanation of the use of a simplflified model to explain phenomena. In this case the "phenomena" being that one player could have a negative EV. However, your post and others claim that because of the results of your game theory analysis it is conclusive that in "real" poker one player "would" have a negative EV. I disgree. I do not believe you can make the leap forom this example to real poker. I do not disagree with the conclusions on the game theory analysis of the situation you describe.
vince
Actually, you are the one who brought up real poker and the applicability of your simplistic examples to poker Dirk. Remember?
William
Hi Dirk,
The first example: In the case of your first example, our hero can compensate as the button rotates around the table. But of course you already know that because you mentioned to me that my point was trivial.
The second example: I agree with you that our Hero will be at a long-term disadvantage, if and only if H and T have no desire to win and/or no desire to minimize their loses. But, if either one of them wants to win our not lose then I could break up their behavior so that the game would be fair.
My position all along: I do not agree that either of your simplistic examples has an analog equivalent in real poker. Neither do I believe that you already have an example or can create an example of such a scenario in a real poker game.
I do, however, appreciate how mild mannered you are when you manage to box yourself into a corner.
William
In the example given, hero has negative EV, even as the button rotates. There is nothing hero can do to make all three players play the same strategy, because the other two players play different strategies. The symmetry argument (if all play the same then all have 0EV) does not apply here.
In real world poker, I believe you would have negEV if everyone at the table plays optimal poker, except that the player to your immediate left always raises on the river with the nuts.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
“There is nothing hero can do to make all three players play the same strategy, because the other two players play different strategies. “
Our hero does not have to control the other players in order to compensate for their play and thereby achieve at least a 0 EV.
Someday you will think this example through completely and realize that your two players can be at least neutralized.
If you would be so kind, please now have the last word then we can stop wasting our time on this issue.
Thanks, William
P.S. Thanks for at least admitting you were wrong earlier, that was all I wanted anyway. Bye Bye
"In real world poker, I believe you would have negEV if everyone at the table plays optimal poker, except that the player to your immediate left always raises on the river with the nuts."
......that's good. Player behind loses more EV than you, but the other player gets it.
No more calls please, I think we have a winner.
Rule #325 states "Don't make an enemy of the player to your left, for it is he that decides who's money he gets when he has the nuts."
MS Sunshine
p.s. Where can I get one of those vince hats?
Been putting my nose in again; thought I'd put in some comments, I have done some very similar stuff.
"x*, the optimal strategy for UTG, is x such that V1(x,y'(x)) is maximized, where y'(x) is the Button strategy that, given x, minimizes V1(x,y). y*, Button's optimal strategy, is defined similarly. "
Although in this game the blind doesn't make decisions, it is generally better to choose y that maximizes V2(x,y) rather than minimise V1(x,y); although the method you use is OK (haven't seen the working). When I did it, y is correctly a function of x (y(x)), which then has EV maximised (still a function of x), and then go back and maximise x's EV.
There are lots of issues here though. 1. I think you proved that if you can avoid it, don't post the blind. Most people can hunch that, and indeed it is very often that peoples hunches are correct, math or no math. Any one will expect to have negative EV on the game that they post a blind.
2. Without seeing your working I'm not sure how you modeled all the possible strategies. When I did it, I just assumed that they players could only play with a particular value or better; but this may be flawed, although I haven't seen any strategy that is proved to be better.
3. When you maximise y as a function of x, it assumes Button knows how x plays, and I am the first to agree that that is what a game settles to (from my experience), but there is a good argument about that UTG can change his game regularly misinforming Button who now can't maximise his strategy.
4. The heads and tails game is completely different to poker, because the possible hands don't have any individual order.
Now Vince, that is what you wanted to say without knowing how to say it isn't it???
According to Mike Caro, every full time professional will eventually encounter a 1000 hour losing streak in his poker playing career.
So 1 (that's one) losing streak of 1000 hrs in a career that could span 50 years or more is considered a common occurance? Besides how would Caro know? Sounds like an off the top of the head guess to me.
vince
The math is actually not too hard: assume you have a rate of 3/4 BB/h and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 BB/h and play 1600h/year:
Your yearly SD is 15 * sqrt(1600) BB = 600 BB, your EV is 3/4*1600 BB = 1200 BB or 2 SDs. The chance to lose over a year is about 2.3 % (IIRC - I don't have the tables here) which translates into one losing one-year streak every 43 years or once in your poker livetime.
Thank God, I've already had mine;-)
" PS : Vince Lepore is correct on another issue, also. "Non-obligated" means at least "not willing", if not "not capable", in a web forum context. "
A guy meets a girl in a bar: 'You are ugly and fat ! Walk home with me to prove me wrong ! ' How do you like his chances ?
" PPS : Game Theory is most certainly relevant to poker playing, last time I checked. Even things which do not readily seem to have any relevance, at first sight, turn out that they do. But I do not know what are the small and "insignificant" Game Theory things Vince Lepore is talking about. "
Good point !
"A guy meets a girl in a bar: 'You are ugly and fat ! Walk home with me to prove me wrong ! ' How do you like his chances ?"
I don't.
But your (droll) example is not relevant. You were invited to back up a claim you made which is neither trivial nor self-evident. You refused to do so. We are then suppose to take you at your word or look for the proof ourselves. Well, you have to excuse those who don't go either way.
First, I apologize Corky, because this took place in my poker room, and was a bad call made by one of my floor people. Second, I agree with Eric as far as "action being taken" and "counseling" the dealer as to their importance of "PAYING ATTENTION". The dealer should have been aware of the action being held up by player #2 and should have called "time" this would have prevented player #3 from acting out of turn. Third, player #3's initial bet should have stayed in the pot, he had been called by three players (action) so his action stands for the same reason that the #2 players' action (assumed check) stands. I thank you for bringing my attention to this issue. We will go over this in our staff meeting Friday. Stop in and see me, OK.
its good to see a poker room person here. we are rightly tough on floor rulings as we have seen so many bad ones over the years and little effort of management to correct conditions. you show interest and thats just what the players need. how about telling us what your room is and talking some times about things so players and management can understand each other better. thanks. ray zee
i am currently in one of my worst losing streaks ever at betting on sports. whether one thinks there's positive expectancy in it or not, the games at least should be close to 50/50...yet I have done real bad (5 and 25 in even money bets).
this is killing me...but to me, its not as bad when it is in sports as when it is in poker. because when it happens in sports, I can pinpoint it on just really bad luck (excpet for the juice of course), if you assume no one can beat the line anyway (I know, I play in part for the action). but in poker, it may be very well related to playing poorly and even more poorly with the more that you lose.
So, my quesion, is what do do during a huge losing streak in POKER? Take a break? Anaylize your game (how)?
As in golf when my game is off I analyze my alignment, grip, stance etc. Same in poker - starting hands, position play and the games you are playing.
You need a couple of wins - confidence is a mojor part of poker if you feel like a loser you will be a loser.
Just leave the next few games whan you are ahead it will give you a mental boost. Also look at who you are playing against and the personality of the tables maybe there is somehting there.
Hope things change for you.
I have copied and saved your post. It is so on the money it should be printed in the next major book "poker for experts" or the like.
Thanks for the motivation!
So happens I'm working on three poker books at once, but none of them are about expert poker-playing because I think the actual playing part of poker is low on the list of what seperates winners from losers.
And when I read a non-fiction book of any kind, I prefer it's emphasis be on entertainment rather than content. So that's what I'm trying to put together over here. A wide-eyed view of the world from a shmuck who lived comfortably for seven years without a job and almost never had more than $5,000.
Whatever. Coffee's done and I gotta go write. You got me stoked.
Tommy
The pot is what the pot is. 15:1 for the 2nd call.
Your odds are better for the 2nd call but it could be that the fact that he raised reduces your chances of winning; such as when you are not drawing to the nuts.
Back to Sklansky's point. Lets say in your example you figure the 3rd opponent will raise half the time, call one quarter of the time, and fold one quarter of the time. The 1st player will always call the raise. At the moment of your first call you appear to be getting 11:1...
Half the time you are actually getting 14:2; quarter of the time 12:1, and a quarter 11:1. or .5(14/2) +.25(12) + .25(11) = 3.5 + 3 + 2.75 = 9.25; so on average you are getting only 9.25:1. Compare this pot-odds with your chances of hitting ..err.. chances of winning the hand.
- Louie
with reference to post from Louie (above) if you spend a lot of time at the table, then that's what it's all about--when pot odds are greater than odds against win, then get your $$$ IN... in time you will do well! Jim
I have been running so well lately it's scary. Since March 1, I have averaged close to 7 big bets an hour. Cards have been falling all over me and I've had just a very few disasters when I got drawn out on.
Am I a great player? No. I'm OK. Above average but that's all.
So what do you do during a huge winning streak? Tell yourself how great you are and how well you've played? Or is it better to realize that there has been a luck factor involved? I believe the latter.
Example: I won a monster pot last week when, after flopping top set, and having 3 opponents all catch a straight on the turn, I caught quads on the river. If that card doesn't come, it's a $1200 difference in my day's take.
It's nice to count the money and vicariously relive the day's events, but it's more important to think about the hands you messed up and to realize your messups didn't cost you as much as they might have only because your luck has been so good. I posted a couple of hands on the medium stakes forum recently where I was taken to task, rightly I think, for incorrect play on the flop. On one of these hands things worked out better for me than they would have had I played it correctly. It's important to realize that taking the money home doesn't always mean you played great.
Now I'm not saying I'm a complete idiot (although there is room for disagreement). I've played a lot of hands very well. But it's all too easy to be self-congratulatory instead of striving to do better without being overly results oriented.
So to those of you who are running bad, this too will pass and hopefully you'll hit a stretch like I have. I know it's much easier to be reflective and thoughtful about the positives and negatives of your play when you're happy and relaxed, but it's important to do so even when your hot and stuck.
Andy,
One mistake many make when having run good (I won’t say “running good” since this implies luck continues into the future) is moving up to a higher limit. Right now you have a tremendous psychological advantage over your everyday opponents. They are less likely to make moves on you or make the tricky play since you seem invincible. Play more often at your current limit and take advantage of your situation.
Regards,
Rick
Very good point. I play mostly 30-60, some 20-40, but I won't move to 40-80. First, I know the players at the 20 and 30 levels. Second, as you say, they've watched me cash in several racks almost every time I've played and in fact, day before yesterday, one player said to me out loud, "It's time to start staying out of your way. Exactly how good are you running?" Third, I think one of my strengths, paradoxically, is I recongnize the existence of my weaknesses and have strived very hard to not feel invincible simply because things are going well.
In my younger days, I would have let the fact that, for example, I had won a big pot when I had 7-6s in the big blind effect my overall play to the point I would then play 7-6s UTG. Or I would not adjust my game depending on the opponent. I think one can win in a game where there are even several opponents who play better than you, provided there are several who play poorly. I still need to pick my battles, no matter how well I am running (or rather, I have ran).
Also, it's important that people understand what you mean when you say "take advantage of your situation." To me, this means the situation where I have a psychological advantage over my opponents because they are expecting me to win; it does not mean my advantage is I'm running well. This could change today. But meanwhile, they may play less than optimally against me because they know I'm hot.
That is a very insightful point you make. And I have been guilty of this in the past, in that if I have been running well in on particular limit, I will take a shot a the higher limit (which is usually 15-30 for me and occasionally 20-40). However, when would you propose moving to a higher limit? It would seem that when things are good you generally have more confidence and more importantly a bigger bankroll. I would really be interested in hearing a response, mainly because I have never been able to keep a sustained run in the 15-30.
Thanks.
Andy,
Keep playing until you hit a cold streak. If you take a break before that happens you will keep saying over and over I should be playing, I should be playing, and not enjoying your break.
paul
Take 2000 and take a shot at the 75-150 or 80-160 limits. You can always go back down to your level if and when you lose the 2000. Give yourself a chance to make a short-term killing. But be sure to limit your risk to 2000. If you are really confident in your ability to grind out a long-term win at 20-40 and 30-60, you wouldn't be afraid to do this.
Actually on the river you had 10 outs for a full house so your miracle quads was not the only way you win the big pot. Rick is right winning streaks are not a reason to move up I have seen many good mid limit players do just that and get gutted in the shark tank.
Hi Andy, It seems to me that you have a very good handle on the problem most players have after having run hot.
Slowly their game begins to deteriorate because they falsely start to believe they can play more hands than they should. It starts slowly by adding one extra hand they connect, so now they add a few more from early/middle position, etc. This adding of hands usually coincides with thinking about the game less, because you're running good and "don't want to change anything". Which ultimately leads to a losing run because your game has changed for the worse.
I have had this problem in regards to betting on dog racing. You get hot and become attuned to the styles of the dogs and cash some tickets based on excellent handicapping. You get this mental picture of how a race is going to be run and you are correct far more than your normal win Pct would dictate. I would start to become a little complacent and don't put as much effort into the handicapping because "my vision/instincts" have been so clear and profitable. This leads me to miss subtle changes in the dogs, the way the track is playing etc., and inevitably it leads to a losing streak.
If you continue to analyze your game and can notice the subtle differences in you opponents playing styles and adjust your own accordingly, you are far ahead of most "ok" poker players.
John
I play low stakes hold'em in Las Vegas and I am confronted over and over again with hands I am not quite sure of how to play. This message could be posted in the low limit hold'em topic, but I think it is more general to hold'em than it is strictly a low-limit hold'em question, so I've posted it here. The hand type and scenario which is perplexing me the most is as follows:
We assume a $4-$8 hold'em game with $1-$2 blinds. We're on the button with ATs (let's say we have the AT of clubs). The game is relatively loose and only a couple of the players are particularly skilled. So, we start with four callers ahead of us and we fully expect the blinds will call and not raise. Likewise, we suspect the blinds will most likely fold to a raise, though most or all of the other callers would call our raise. Conventional poker wisdom would suggest that we call as well, as our hand is one which could improve to the nut flush (or a few other decent hands) and it's great to have a lot of players putting money into the pot when such a thing happens.
So, if we call, there will be a total of 7 players (including us) in the pot and thus $14. If we raise, we can expect 4 or 5 players in the pot and $30.
Now suppose three clubs hit on the flop. Chances are we won't profit very much from such a hand as any bet will scare most of the players off (unless they happen to have a couple of clubs as well). We could attempt to slowplay this hand and perhaps pick up a big bet or two in the later rounds, but this is not likely to make us a lot of money.
Now suppose two clubs hit and the board does not pair. This is pretty much our ideal situation...or is it? If we just called in the first round, there is only $14 in the pot. Now suppose there are 3 checks and a bet in front of us. That brings the pot to $18...giving us poor pot-odds by my calculations, even if three other people call along. We'd most likely have to pay $12 to see the river card (we could attempt a semi-bluff raise which may or may not work which would save us $4). If the original bettor and at least two others (only one more caller is probably more likely though) called along for two rounds, that brings their share of the pot to $52 which does not quite justify the $12 we'd have to invest to see the river - even if we could pick up one more $8 bet on the river if our flush hit.
Now, if we had raised before the flop, we probably would have cut down the number of players in the game at the flop - most likely by eliminating the blinds and perhaps one or two of the initial callers (remember, to call a raise with this structure, it is $4 more while to just call initially on the first round it is only $2). If five players are in at the flop, that brings the pot to $30 and, furthermore, we know our ATs is probably an underdog unless we flop some clubs. If the two clubs hit and someone bets into us, we could raise and possibly get into a head-up situation and also possibly get a free card on the turn. Or we could call and hope for another caller or two. If we assume one other player will call if we bet, that still doesn't give us very good pot odds. We'd most likely have to invest $12 again to see the river, at which point the pot will be $54, which is questionable, at best - especially because, if the third club does hit, our opponents will likely be timid about betting or even calling (unless they too have some clubs).
So, I am stumped about how to play this and similar holdings. The correct play probably depends heavily on the game - a maniac in the mix can really change things as can an extremely loose calling station. But, I am assuming typical low-limit conditions in Las Vegas, meaning moderately loose but timid (especially after the flop) players. I think learning to avoid misplays on hands like this is a huge part of becoming a great player - unfortunately, I think I often do not maximize my profit potential when faced with hands like this.
So, does anyone have any advice on playing ATs and similar hands in a $4-$8 hold'em game with $1 and $2 blinds? The above examples were pretty simplistic and didn't even take into account the possibility of an agressive opponent who raises us before the flop or even after the flop. Any thoughts, advice and opinions are appreciated.
A few points:
1) With 3 callers in front of you, you should consider raising pre-flop with Ac-Tc. Should you make a flush, it will be the nuts and the larger pot will entice people into playing with you.
2) If you flop the nut flush, you should bet if it's checked around to you. Many low limit players will call with top pair, second pair, a flush draw or even a straight draw. Plus someone might have made a smaller flush already and will reraise.
3) If the flop comes with 2 clubs and no pair, you want to get as many players in the pot as possible so that if you hit on the turn or river you've make as much money as possible. You also might consider raising if there is a bet in front of you in an effort to buy two "free" cards on the turn and river.
Suited connectors and A-xs are nice hands to play in these games because with lots of players it's going to take a completed hand (a flush or a straight) pretty often to win the pot.
Hope this helps some. Good luck.
PureNut,
I am having some trouble with your math. I think that in these cases you should only be thinking about the odds of hitting your hand on the next card. As long as those odds are sufficient you should be in there. In your example, the pot is $18 to you and you must call $4 or odds of 4.5:1. That is sufficient given that there is 9 cards of the remaining 45 that help you. Your odds are 9/36 or 4:1. These are not "poor odds" as you stated.
Let's assume you call and maybe one other. Now the pot is $26 and here comes the turn, a blank. Check, bet of $8 and its up to you. There is now $34 and you must call $8. Now your odds are 4.25:1 and you still (slightly less than) 4:1 to hit a flush. Easy call again.
The free card play is a good possibility here, if the game is a "check to the raiser" type game. Regardless, you have odds to call a bet on the turn.
I also take issue, like andy, that this game is so weak tight that no one will pay you off when the flop is all one suit and you are on the button with the nuts. Many LL players will convince themselves you are on a position bet or bluff and call you with many holdings. In addition, people with a single club will most likely continue, as will baby flushes. Still, a slowplay might not be disastrous. For me though, I take my chances on the button here because players often don't give the button credit for a good hand when they bet after everyone checks.
Generally speaking, with Axs in late position with some callers see the flop, count the bets and keep going if you have the pot and/or implied odds to do so (which you almost always will with a four flush and little raising post-flop). Go for the free card play if you think it will work. Bet and raise the max when you hit your flush. Don't worry too much about getting paid off. You will when your opponents have a good 2nd best hand and won't when they don't. The only way to find out it is to bet. Either way you are stacking the chips.
KJS
Change your mind set. Instead of asking "What's the right play" ask "What should I consider?"
The primary value of your ATs isn't the flush; its still the pair. This trouble hand changes drastically in value depending on whether or not its dominated. Specifically, its a pre-flop raise if you know nobody has AA/KK/QQ/JJ/TT/AK/AQ/AJ/AT. Its a really GOOD pre-flop raise if nobody additionally has KQ/KJ/QJ. So in your situation, if the callers WILL raise with "quality" hands then you should give good consideration to raising yourself after these kinds of players have chosen to just call. The tighter or more timid the callers, the less inclined you should be to raise.
Another consideration is how the flop may go. Be more inclinded to call if the opponents are very likely to bet a pair if they flop it; thus you often get auto-reflex steal opportunities when they check the flop to you.
If a raise will cause them to automatically "check-to-the-raiser" then be more inclinded to raise figuring to often take a flop free-card if you want it.
With 2 cards to go you will make the flush 36% of the time or are just a 2:1 underdog. Risking $12 to win $54 is a bargain. Except that $12 of that $54 is yours so you are only "winning" $42; still a bargain.
Flopping the flush has just GOT to be better than flopping the flush draw, even if you expect less action.
- Louie
If you are playing a 1-4-4-8-8 spread limit game wich is a fairly popualar game with 1-2$ blinds , I like to raise it to 4$ instead of 6$ so i will then get some good drawing odds on the flop , and they will almost never fold for only a 1/2 bet more, but they might fold for double the bet.
Consider a situation where we have three players, one who is ahead right now, and two who have the pot odds to call a bet with a drawing hand. To illustrate, let's call it 5/10 HE, the board on the turn is
Kc 5c 6h Jh
The pot is currently $60, and assume that they're all in for $20 at this point (to eliminate dead money).
The guy who is ahead is holding AsAd. One drawing hand is the Tc9c. The other is KhQh.
We have a leader, who bets for value. Two other callers on the basis of +ev according to current pot odds.
My question is, how can it be the right play for each of them to put money in the pot? The right play being the one with the greatest ev. Is it because of the size of the pot? Is it because of the size of the bet? It just seemed weird to me that there is a +ev play for everyone at any given time, and if they do that forever, how can they all make money?
Of course, I could be entirely wrong, in which case I'd appreciate someone pointing out my error, but otherwise, could you explain this to me? Thanks.
Joe
Joe,
I haven’t checked the math but in general they can all have positive expectation because there is already money in the pot from previous rounds. It is very possible that the Tc9c made a mistake earlier by cold calling an early raise with a hand that should see the flop cheaply against many opponents but the flop made up for his mistake.
The aces must bet because he can’t afford not to charge his drawing opponents a price. This increases his overall expectation and decreases that of his drawing opponents.
Regards,
Rick
Joe, one of the many complaints that big bet poker players (that is pot limit and no limit players) have concerning limit poker is that the guy with the best hand cannot bet enough to protect it. In limit poker it is very common for every player to keep on playing once boardcards appear because of the money already in the pot and the fact that it only cost one bet to play. Once pots get big enough, no one is making much of a mistake by hanging around with any chance of winning and there are many cases where everyone is correct in playing as in your example.
Consider a very simple and silly example. You are playing in a $5-$10 hold'em game. An eccentric billionaire is watching your game and tosses in $10,000 into the pot at the start of every hand while saying "play for it boys". How should you play this game assuming everyone has to play for themselves? Answer: since the maximum bet is only $10, you will be getting the right price to play any two cards all the way to the river until it is known with 100% certainty that you are beat. In other words, your $5-$10 game would become a game of showdown where everyone takes all the cards to the river and the best hand wins. Everyone would do this and everyone would be playing correctly. The game would be one totally devoid of any skill just like actual showdown.
I understand what you're saying about dead money, but this was something I tried to account for in the part about The pot is currently $60, and assume that they're all in for $20 at this point (to eliminate dead money). in the original post. The glaring play problem is the 9Ts guy throwing in the extra bets in the early round, but that's not the same as not throwing good money after bad. That's bad money before good, which keeps him in the pot. Because it was bad money, however, should we consider it dead in the conventional sense? What I was really looking at was for everyone to have a +ev play without extra money involved (a la millionaries or folded opponents, people who put money in the pot who have no chance of taking it down). That situation makes no sense to me, which is why I brought it up. Thanks again.
Joe
I didn't see this before I posted ny other message. You are asking a much more difficult question. But I think it is still true that there must be some dead money in the pot in the form of forced bets (antes, blinds), before a voluntary bet could ever make sense. Of course the pot can be fattened further by bad (-EV) bets, but I believe, that if everyone played perfect poker and there were no forced bets, then there would be no voluntary bets. But I would certainly like to hear an experts comments.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
Once money is in the pot it is dead. it is no longer yours.
think about this situation. having the three agree to each put in $20, have the board cards be the same, their hole cards be the same, and have the river randomly dealt over and over, the winner taking the pot each time and then having them all put in $20 again. Would you agree to this situation with each of the three hands? This might make things clear.
Rob
"Because it was bad money, however, should we consider it dead in the conventional sense?"
Yes. Let's say we're playing $1-2 seven card stud with an ante of $1000 per player. The antes are dead, and big enough to make any hand a good draw.
Typically we think of dead money as chips put in the pot by someone who no longer has a hand, like when the BB folds to a preflop raise.
But in a sense we could say that all money in the pot before the start of any betting round is dead money, no matter who put it in.
Tommy
All players have +EV primarily because of the money already in the pot.
Example: suppose there are three players A, B, C. Suppose there is one card to come and A has 50% of winning, while B and C each have 25% chance of winning. Suppose there is currently $100 in the pot, and that there is to be a round of betting before the final card is dealt. (Suppose that after the final card, there is no betting but just a showdown --- to keep it simple.)
Before this betting, A `expects' $50 from the pot, while B and C each `expect' $25.
Now suppose that A can and does bet $20. Then B and C will certainly have pot/implied odds to call, so that will bring the pot to $160.
(Notice that if A had checked then so would B and C and the pot would remain at $100.)
Now, A `expects' $80 from the pot, while B and C each `expect' $40.
But, AND HERE'S THE CRUCIAL POINT, notice that A paid $20 to increase his expectation from the pot by $30=$80-$50, while B and C each paid $20 to increase their expectation from the pot by $15=$40-$25.
So, by betting $20 instead of checking, A effectively gains $5 from each of B and C.
But, while B and C certainly wish A had not bet, they can't do anything about it. Once A bets $20, they each will certainly pay $20 to maintain $40 interest in the pot, rather than fold and expect nothing. (If A had not bet, they would pay $0 to expect $25 and be $5 better off.)
So A's bet costs each of B and C money ($5) since $20 is more than $15=$40-$25, but it is a +EV(=$20) play for them to call (rather than fold) since $20 is less than $40.
I hope this clarifies things.
The situation is more complicated if there is other unknown info, and/or more rounds of betting.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
PS: I have a question. Could someone define `BETTING FOR VALUE'? Does it refer to what player A is doing in the situation above?
Hrm, I think it means +EV in terms of the strength of your hand. For example, continuing to bet on the river with an overpair because you expect to be called by weaker hands. Or you could be "raising for value" on the flop with your nut flush draw with many opponents. Raising a meek opponent heads up on the flop with position for the free card would not be raising for value.
Dirk, I will repeat what I stated under Louie's post. Yours is a good example of why the 2+2 argument about not betting the best hand because your opponents are getting or will be getting the right price to chase is a fallacious one.
Hi guys,
I have seen different posts here from time to time by people saying that a game may not be beatable (or as profitable as other games) depending on the rake or the time charges.
So how do I know in advance of joining a game whether its rake or time charge is detrimental to my winnings? Is there a simple formula? What constitutes a bad game in relation to time and/or rake charges? On the flipside what makes a good game?
Thanks guys I'm really trying to understand what games are good and which should be avoided in both live and online games (I play both)
Also how different is it to headsup play versus a regular full ring game? What if the ring game gets 5 handed - what should I be looking for then??
I really appreciate any advice you can give me.
Thanks and take care everybody.
Rose
There are 10 cards accounted for leaving 42 in the deck. I count KQh has 11 outs, T9c has 12 outs, and AA has 19 outs. The fair-share or "average" outs is 42/3 or 14. (Did I count that right?) No surprise, the "best" hand is the favorite.
There are 2 types of "putting money in the pot". [1] The player(s) who will win more than his fair share (AA in this case) should be willing to bet/raise for value. Notice the size of the pot has nothing to do with it. The player(s) who will win LESS than their fair share should not bet or raise. [2] But they should call if the size of the pot ... yaddy yaddy.
Notice that the drawing hands do BETTER if there is no bet at all; they draw for free. They don't WANT to put money in but they also don't want to relinguish their considerable equity in the pot. So they correctly put money in (call) only when the AA correctly increases the wager (bets).
They all make money since there is $60 in the pot that belongs to none of them ..err.. belong to each of them is proportion to the strengths of their hands. It doesn't matter if they each put in $20 or if each put in $15 and 3 other players each put in $5 and then folded (I suspect this notion is what is confusing you...). The pot is what the pot is; $60.
Good bet; good calls; no contradiction.
- Louie
Louie, this is why I have always struggled with the 2+2 idea about not betting the best hand because you make the pot bigger thereby giving your opponents the correct odds to chase. I believe it is a spurious argument.
Jim,
I believe that the phrase "the best of it" is not truly appreciated for its full meaning. I believe as you do that you should always bet when you have the best of it and always call when you have the right price to catch the best of it.
most of us would rather play AA against 1 or 2 rather that 8 or 9. seems to me bigger pots attract more callers than small pots. thus there may be times when it is best to not build a bigger pot??? Jim
But jim AA is a favorite regardless of how many players you have. If a lot of players are coming, you want to build as big a pot as possible preflop because when you win, you win a much larger pot as a result. You win a larger pot for two reasons. First, you are forcing all these players to put in twice as much money as otherwise to see a flop. Second, these players will continue to pay more money to take off cards with hardly any chance of winning in some cases because the pot is large. The fact that you are less likely to end up with the best hand is more than compensated for by the fact that when you win, the pot is much larger as a result.
One poster correctly stated that he would rather pay two bets upfront by raising with pocket aces and have only three opponents then to just limp in with pocket aces and have six opponents. So he concluded that the reason you raise with pocket aces is to drive out players. But this is confusing cause with effect. The reason you are raising with your pocket aces is because you know you have the best hand. It is a value raise pure and simple. The fact that in some cases it has the effect of making players fold whereas they would have called had you not raised is really irrelevant to why you are raising. Forcing people to decide whether or not they wish to continue with their hand in the face of an increased cost is the essence of poker. You are not responsible for their playing decision. The point is you are making a bad decision by not raising because your opponents are not paying the proper price to chase you.
Jim. please notice I had ended my post with question marks---and was thinking that might be reason certain advice said do not raise (per above). for myself, about 90% of the time I am playing P/L and I raise about 90% of the time, when I do not raise with AA it depends on who has the chips, their position,etc--hpe to trap! Sometimes the trap works very well, but there have been times I wished I had lead out! lol Jim
Not betting a "more than fair share" hand is a "mistake", as is betting a "less than fair share hand". Manipulating the size of the pot in this manner, then, makes sense only if it will cause the opponents to make a BIGGER mistake later; one they would NOT have made had you "correctly" bet or checked.
A reasonable example would be taking the short odds and raising with a small pair BTF figuring others will be willing to draw dead or very slim if you flop a set. This makes sense, then, only if they would NOT so draw had you not raised.
A bad example was when playing against loose players who willingly draw very slim after the flop no matter the size of the pot. The argument is that you should NOT raise pre-flop marginally since the increased size of the pot makes these slim calls less bad or even good. Nonsense. I argue that since your raise or lack-of-raise had no affect on the opponents, you simply cost yourself money. Your chances of winning are the same and by not raising you are winning a smaller pot.
I believe the authors are technically correct about this MSOTP stuff but it comes up so rarely and matters so little that it is a very trivial matter. I notice they don't talk much about it much lately. MUCH more important would be convincing players just how bad KT is in early position; or when 663 in stud is such a dog hand.
Bet'em when you Got'em, Bet'em when you threaten to Got'em, Check'em when THEY threaten to Got'Em; that's plenty "tricky" for me.
- Louie
Louie, Re: raising with the small pair:
In late position against weak players you have the added and not to be overlooked advantage of getting a free card on the flop. I've used this play successfully more than a few times, snagging the turn, and administering pain on those who check them when I've threatened to have them. I'm pretty sure this play has increased my EV, which is helpful, considering the many that apparently do not.
I think you should be clearer about the concepts of EV (and defining to who the EV applies) when considering your problem.
A common theme in science is "An action causes an equal and opposite reaction." This is also true for EV.
In considering EV for the Aces, we are comparing EV(of checking) to EV(of betting) for PLAYER(A). Betting is the correct play. This bet causes an immediate negative EV for players B and C.
Now it's player B's turn. It's a different EV problem all together. We are comparing the EV(of calling) to EV(of folding) for PLAYER(B). The correct play is calling. Also notice that this choice has caused player A (and player B) to lose money, thus the equal and opposite reaction. And so on for player C.
So when you say "It just seemed weird to me that there is a +ev play for everyone at any given time, and if they do that forever, how can they all make money?"
The answer is they cannot. The above posts are excellent explainations of why.
In other words, it is not possible for 3 people to play a hand from start to finish and for all to show +EV unless there is money coming in from an outside source (or dead money as you say it).
As a side note, notice that if somebody contributes dead money to a pot, this is a -EV play for him while it is an EV boost for everyone else still involved in the hand.
It's important to be very clear about concepts so we don't make the wrong conclusions :)
Good luck,
Jim Roy
Both of the players who are calling are making money from their calls as opposed to folding. AA is losing money from these players calling and not folding. The reason all this is possible, though, is that $60 was previously placed in the pot. That money was put there partially by players making incorrect preflop calls against AA. So although everyone is making money at the moment, the money they are making comes from money previously incorrectly invested by KQhh and T9cc. That's the reason people say that the key to limit poker is starting hand selection.
Chris
Joe,
Consider the pot as containing one nickel. Now how do the bets and calls pan out? Now how about a dime? Now $2? The money in the pot specifically determines the correct action for all players. Without that "pot" the bet and calls would be riduculous.
It's also interesting to consider that the Aces, albeit the favorite, are underdogs to win the pot. This is compensated by getting 2:1 on a bet.
I disagree with Jim regarding always getting the most money in the pot with Aces before the flop. The gain you yield before the flop can be defeated by the betting rounds on the flop and beyond if your opponents know exactly what you hold because you will frequently be providing implied odds for your opponents.
I have an important question which may seem quite simple. Say someone is willing to stake you in a 20-40 hold'em game. Whatever you lose is on them, and if you win they keep half. This would be the mathematical equivalent of you playing in a 10-20 game. Now, what about if you lose one night, the exact amount of your losses must be "made up" in winnings before you can collect any more winnings. Does this affect your income from the game? (example: you lose 600 one night. The next night you win 600. You keep nothing)
Thank you.
let's say you are using your own $$--you lose 600, the win 600, so you have nothing for your play...same thing. looks like a deal where you can't lose... but I have seen hard feelings develope between friends so you should consider that. in my years of observation, generally those playing on somebody's money, are doing so because they are not good enough to play their own. Sure may not be true here, but generally(again) those who can win WANT to play their own $$. Jim
In the first case its not the same as playing 10/20 since YOU don't lose anything when you lose; not to mention that the 20/40 plays differently in practice then does a 10/20.
This is a fabulous situation for the unethical since since you would play reclessly when stuck without it costing you anything, but will sometimes bring it back for a win. YOU will definately show a profit for this game even if you are a terrible player and your sponsor gets crucified.
The 2nd case (you must show a net over-all profit) is much fairer and much better for your sponsor. The problem, again, is that when you get seriously stuck you have nothing to lose by playing wildly.
As Browder points out, this is generally a bad situation. I've done it with a friend but just to get him exposed to the higher levels.
A much better deal would be where both you and the sponsor put up some stake and you both share the win or the loss in proportion to your stake (he puts up $1000, you put up $1500, you get 3/5 of the win or the loss). This lets YOU play against 20/40 players with a lesser varience and strain on your bankroll. The sponsor should "tip" on good wins.
- Louie
Let's say your results for six nights are:
+1000 -1000 +1000 -1000 +1000 -1000
If I understand you right, using plan A (No risk, keeping half of the wins) you would make $1500 (+3000/2) and using plan B you would be dead even. If that's right then obviously plan A is better for the guy being staked.
I've heard that plan A gets used a lot and for the life of me I can't figure out why. It's tough enough to beat the house cut, but to lay 50%? Wow.
A few months ago my best buddy offered to pay me $27/hour to play his money every time I played. That comes to $50,000 per year at 40 hours per week. That means I'd have to make, say, $60,000 over a year for him to make $10,000. But what would motivate me to play well enough to make that much money? I didn't like his chances, and I didn't like the idea of waking up one day into a future that involved exactly no thrill-of-gaming highs, so I said no, but not after giving it an official try one time. I played for one hour at $6-12 while waiting for $20-40 and lost $40, quit the game, and quit the contract. It sucked not having my own cash on the line. And yes, I did get paid the $40 PLUS the $27 for one hour of work. Oh yeah, he loved that! lol
Tommy
"It sucked not having my own cash on the line. "
If that's not a classic line then there aren't any!
BTW - Tommy I was only kidding about hating you. I really don't.
vince
I have a problem with drawing odds. I have been using the percentages which I have converted to odds from Hold'em for Advanced Players. I have been using these odds thinking they were the odds for drawing my particular out cards on the turn. I have know realized that the odds given,i think, are those for drawing your out cards by the river. For example: 9 outs is 35.0% which is about 1.9-1. Do I use this figure(1.9-1) or do I use(47/9=5.22-1=)4.22-1. Clearly there is a big descrepency here. Which number do I use? While I am trying to clear this up, I just want to make sure that for the river card I divide my number of outs by 46(46/# of outs). In addition, maybe someone can show me the calculating method are the formula for calculating your catching your out cards by the river-eventhough I know the numbers I would like to work it out for the hell of it. As an aside, I have been fairing well at low limit holdem but this is bugging me I would appreciate some feed back on this matter. THANK YOU...
Use the 4.22. To calculate the percentage chance of hitting your draw by the river, subtract your chance of NOT making it from 1, using:
% chance = 1 - (((cards in deck - no. outs)/ cards in deck)*(((cards in deck - no. outs)/ cards in deck))
The first of those terms is for the turn and the second for the river.
Chris
Chris, I must be missing something. I will use 8 outs as an example for calculating % chance by river.
% by river=1-[(47-8)/47)*(46-8)/46)]=.685476 and if I subtract one I get a negative number??- I must be doing something wrong. I did understand which number to use from your post for calculating my turn odds. the 4.22-1 as in my 9 out example but this % calculation by river I must of misses something. thanks chris
I didn't say subtract 1 from it, I said subtract it from one, one minus the stuff in the brackets. 1 - 0.685 = 0.315 = 31.5% chance of making the draw.
Chris
back to basics-- to determine the odds you compare the number of outs to the number of UNseen CARDS...after flop you see 3 on the board plus 2 in your hand, thus 47 unseen cards... your outs are part of those unseen cards...thus if you have 8 outs, subtract that from 47 to arrive at 39 to 8...thus you have to chances each at about 5-1. Many players taking the 2 cards to come into effect just double the # of outs to say 47 minus 16=31-16. or about 2-1. hope this makes sense to you, I may need to improve my explaining abilities. lol Jim
Thanks Chris
I just wanted to suggest a really good book on this matter. "Hold'em Odds book" by Mike Petriv is really in depth regarding odds and probabilities. The book doesn't teach you how to play poker but it teaches you to think about odds and probabilities properly at the hold'em table and how to calculate them. I've found the book very useful.
"Odds" against are the number of bad events compared to the number of good events. "Chances" are the number of good events devided by the total number of events. "Odds" are useful since you generally compare that directly to the size of the pot vis-a-vis the size of the bet, and "Chances" are useful when combining multiple ways to win; which is then converted to odds.
When considering calling generally presume to take only one card. If you flop a gut shot (4 outs) there are 47 unseen cards of which 43 are bad, so your "odds" are 43:4 or (just under) 11:1. Not counting future bets (including they pay you off when you make it and including you LOSE when you make it), you call if there is more than 11 bets in the pot.
The 2-cards to go outs are more useful when you are considering betting or raising. There are 47choose2 total turn/river cards = 1081. To make it you can catch 2 of your rank (6 ways) or one of your rank and one of the other 43 cards (4*43=172) or a total of 178 ways, leaving 1081-178 = 903 bad combinations. 903:178 = 5.1:1 against. In this case, you should bet or raise for value if you expect to get more than 5 callers; assuming you'll be going to the river even if you do NOT bet or raise.
Yes, your chances of turning a 4-flush into a flush by the river is 2:1. This means you should bet or raise on the flop if you expect more than 2 callers; again assuming your flush is good if you make it. Realistically, add a half meaning in practice bet or raise with a flush draw if you expect 3 or more callers.
- Louie
I didn't read all of the posts, so I don't know if anyone else has suggested this, but it's a really cool shortcut. You won't get full credit for it in a statistics class, but the estimate you get is certainly close enough to base your decisions on in live play.
In hold'em after the flop: count the number of outs you have and multiply times 2 (chances of hitting on the turn + chances on the river). 28 is even money.
example: flush draw.
2 in hand + 2 on board = 4 That gives you 9 outs twice = 18 odds, therefore, are 28:18 or 1.6 to 1
Open ended straight draw is 8 outs twice= 28:16
Making trips when you pair the board is 2 outs twice = 28:4 or 7 to 1.
TJ and Bob Ciaffone use it, so it must not be too inaccurate
This *2 shortcut's inaccuracy is that it counts double the times you hit a card you need on BOTH streets. Its accuracy, therefore, drops drastically as you have more outs. A 21-out straight-flush-2-overcard draw is NOT going to make it 42/47 or the time. Even your flush draw calculation is 1.6:1 rather than 1.9:1, which is NOT inconsequencial.
Mercifully, you only need this sort of calculation when you have few outs: a 15 out straight-flush draw is obviously not a folding hand.
- Louie
PS. I have reason to STRONGLY suspect, based on their writting, that these notable authors do NOT understand this sort of basic statistics; and take "short cuts" because the don't know nor care to do otherwise.
I am not sure anyone answered the question you wanted answered, so here goes my attempt. Let’s use the example of a four card flush draw and approximate the odds of it hitting as 2:1 with two cards to come and 4:1 with one card to come.
You need to understand a distinction between the odds for calling a bet and the odds for making a bet (value bet) with a draw. When calling a bet, you need to know the pot odds for your call. When figuring those pot odds on the flop, you only consider the odds with one card to come because you do not know what the action will be on the turn.
At this point (after the flop) you only know what you are putting in for a call right now for this one card. So, you need the pot to be at least four times the amount of the bet you are calling. In addition, if there is a possibility you will be raised, you need to consider that you might have to put in more than one bet. If that is a distinct possibility, you need the pot to be at least four times the amount of two bets. If the pot could be re-raised, then you need to consider that. You base the on the pre-flop action and the action preceding you on the flop. The turn works the same way.
A value bet on a draw is a bet you make, that if called by enough players, will give you positive odds for your bet. You need the pot to have at least four bets in to start. If so, with your draw, you can bet the flop if you are sure you will get called in at least two places. This is because your odds of completing the flush with two cards to come are 2:1 against you. If you get three callers, you are getting 3:2 odds for your bet. You will make your flush once in three times for a gain or three bets and not make it twice in three times for a loss of two bets. Your net in the case of three calls then is one bet (3-2=1). With two callers, you break even. This all assumes that your flush will win. You have to consider it may not if you do not have the nut draw or the board is paired.
Here is an example. Let’s say five players enter the pot pre-flop with no raises. You are in late position and there is a bet and three calls to you. Your pot odds are 8:1. Even if it is raised behind you, you will still get 4:1. But, look at this. You should raise if you think you will get called in at least two places. The raise is a value bet. If three or four others are staying in, you would like to see the betting capped. Again, this all assumes that your flush will win.
For the value bet, you are only considering the odds of the current betting round against the odds of completing your flush with two cards to come. You are not considering the dead first round money in the pot. If you are in early position, bet out if you think you will be called in at least two places.
This may not be crystal clear, but it is the best I can do at the moment. I hope this helps.
Alden Chase
Thanks Alden for the answer- you made it somewhat clearer. One last question concerning this topic. I will use 6 outs as an example. Making by river is just over 3-1,turn is just under 7-1, and river is also 7-1. If I know I will be in the hand until the river and/or for value betting purposes, I use the 3-1. For just the turn or just the river, I use 7-1. Now I know there are other things to consider when deciding to fold, raise or bet but for the moment I am strictly concerned with the odds of making the hand. I am sure this is correct just wanted to make sure that I am using the odds correctly after all what good are they if the aplication is incorrect? THANKS to ALL for there assistance...
Free Rooms, Meals and Flights for Casino Players! A free members club, dedicated to Casino players who would like to be treated like high rollers. As a member you are provided with information that can make your gaming vacation, weekend getaways and even your business trips cost you much less!!!
http://celebrate.at/casino
well, sort of. it was a raked game (6/12 he with kill), and i figured that if it *had* been a time charge game($12/hour), i would have broken the 200 big bet mark. in one session.
a few general thoughts.
1) i may be the greatest player in the world.
2) i may have permanently (or at least for a while) seriously damaged any chance i have of playing good poker.
a few poker thoughts.
1) the players were extremely weak, but no one was actively giving their money away. i think only 1 person lost 4 racks ($2 chips), and the rest probably not even 2 racks.
2) but they were weak. it allowed me to do things like limp in early with speculative hands, knowing that it would probably (90%) be a multiway limp pot.
3) i could raise in my big blind with hands as weak as AJ sometimes, knowing i had the best hand.
4) imagewise, people just didnt take shots at me, perhaps because i was on a roll, (and new players saw all my massive amount of chips), perhaps because they were just real weak.
5) there were a couple good players in there, and they got me a couple times. in heads up pots, they rope a doped me and let me bluff into them, for example. my main luck actually may have been that it didnt work out that i was in a lot of pots with them.
6) because i was playing loose/agressive fast style, all my big hands got paid off. (except for one, when i led the flop with the nuts and everbody folded. later on, i flopped the nuts and check called, check called, check raised and got paid off by both players, who, incidently, didnt have a whole lot.)
7) i really feel that i was responsible for loosening the table up and really getting things going. im not sure i made my own luck, but i did everything i could to seduce her (lady luck). towards the beginning, i live straddled a couple times ( won 3/4 pots, ok, thats got to be luck), but the aftermath was incredible. it was like the whole table was on tilt. i mean, if you knew a few live straddles could cause massive family pots (7 or 8 or 9 players) with no one raising except maybe you, then who wouldnt live straddle.
well, thats it. i think i played pretty good in a real loose way (against passive, predictable opponents) and got lucky. by the way i left almost at my peak chip count (game wasnt very good anymore and i was tired, finally).
sharing is caring :)
brad
It's called getting run over by the deck, Brad. Enjoy the financial spoils of it, because if it happens to you to that extent one more time in your life, you will be very lucky.
I think the best thing you can do after a session like that is forget about it. From an intellectual, poker strategy standpoint, I think it's best to pretend it never happened. It would be very dangerous to base any future decisions on events that occured during that session.
Assuming you are a recreational player and not a pro, use the money to buy something big and semi-permanent... like a stereo system, or a bunch of CDs, or a tool set or something. That way every time you use the stuff you bought you can pleasantly reminisce about "The Session" and show off to everyone that you are such a superior poker player that you can furnish your house with your winnings.
Craig H.
thanks.
by the way, a 20/40 player i play with came over (to flirt with a girl sitting next to me) , and i pointed to my stacks and asked him, you know, was i a great player or what? he looks at the girl and says, he's about average, and shrugs. pretty funny.
brad
Loose-aggressive is a GREAT strategy [1] When you can put on the brakes when you need to later in the hand [2] When you frighten the opponents into giving you pots [3] when for some reason your probability of winning is MUCH higher than your hand values suggest. Sure, I'd raise-it-up with A8o if I were going to win one time in 3 against 5 opponents. I personally use a 2-minute time-machine; when its working.
Your reasons 2) and 3) appear to be contradictory. If they are not raising as much as they should (2) then you don't know when your trouble hands (AJ) are "good" (3). 5) and 6) are contradictory, either you are getting paid off all the time OR your steals can work. 1), 4), and 7) look like valid reasons supporting your win.
Your general thought (2) should be a valid consern.
- Louie
i contradict myself. so i contradict myself! i am large enough to contain multitudes.
let me know if you know whose quote that is, i really like it.
but seriously, thats where judgement comes in. thats where experience comes in. you got to know when to zig and when to zag.
as to 'wrecking' my game for a while, well, i can always play stud (and tournaments).
brad
x
What's a "live straddle" and could you give an example? Thanks
raise in the dark when youre UTG. (before you get your cards). the cap is 5 bets, instead of 4, and you are last to act. the funny thing is, no one raised my straddles (good game, huh). first straddle i had AQ (made it 3 bets preflop) and flopped an Ace, and won. when i get on a roll, i really start acting silly, and i think (it did this time anyway) it really puts people on tilt.
brad
I read an interesting post by Jim Brier (reproduced below) in an earlier thread, and I would like to get comments on it. I don't have any comments on it. I just want to stimulate discussion because I am curious about the responses. Thanks.
Dirk(MildManneredMathMan)
-------------------------------------------------
Jim Brier wrote:
AA is a favorite regardless of how many players you have. If a lot of players are coming, you want to build as big a pot as possible preflop because when you win, you win a much larger pot as a result. You win a larger pot for two reasons. First, you are forcing all these players to put in twice as much money as otherwise to see a flop. Second, these players will continue to pay more money to take off cards with hardly any chance of winning in some cases because the pot is large. The fact that you are less likely to end up with the best hand is more than compensated for by the fact that when you win, the pot is much larger as a result.
One poster correctly stated that he would rather pay two bets upfront by raising with pocket aces and have only three opponents then to just limp in with pocket aces and have six opponents. So he concluded that the reason you raise with pocket aces is to drive out players. But this is confusing cause with effect. The reason you are raising with your pocket aces is because you know you have the best hand. It is a value raise pure and simple. The fact that in some cases it has the effect of making players fold whereas they would have called had you not raised is really irrelevant to why you are raising. Forcing people to decide whether or not they wish to continue with their hand in the face of an increased cost is the essence of poker. You are not responsible for their playing decision. The point is you are making a bad decision by not raising because your opponents are not paying the proper price to chase you.
Jim's post is 100% accurate and well-stated. It's a value raise which is always correct, no matter how many players are in the pot or what position you are in.
HOWEVER, there are two circumstances in which you may realize that you can get MORE value out of your Aces than you can with a simple raise. These are no-limit play and tournaments.
For example, let's say you are playing no-limit and a very aggressive player with a huge stack is on the button. You hold pocket aces to his immediate right and it is passed to you. It may be more valuable to just call here, hoping that he will (very likely) raise behind you and give you a chance to reraise him for a large amount and either take down a nice pot uncontested, or play heads up for a big pot with the overwhelming best of it.
CH
I think the counter-argument suggest that AA does NOT make more money against a whole field, even though its the "best" hand. They argue, therefore, that raising in the BB when everybody has called is a mistake.
Its a good argument but I disagree.
When you have the truly "best" hand and are last to act, the precedence order of desirable actions and consequences is usually:
[1] You bet/raise they raise [2] You bet/raise they fold [3] You bet/raise they call [4] You check/call and they draw cheap [5] you fold.
Betting/raising is desirable, therefore, because all the consequences of these actions have higher "value" than check/calling/folding. You are not betting "to get the draws to fold" you are betting "for value".
- Louie
One poster correctly stated that he would rather pay two bets upfront by raising with pocket aces and have only three opponents then to just limp in with pocket aces and have six opponents.
I think the point of contention is that sometimes you make it two bets up front and get six callers. I agree with Jim: the more the merrier. Having said that, I will admit to certain feelings of trepidation when I bet out in a pot limit game and then get six hitchhikers coming along for the ride. Then my stack is in danger and I may proceed more cautiously in later rounds.
Having recently been crucified by slow-played aces that shattered my nines full and later again a set of eights, I can understand some of the concept of not raising these puppies. Having said that, I still belong to the raise 'em up camp, based on the following: When you're in a typical, passive low-limit game and have represented strength preflop, as well as on the flop, and all of a sudden a previously- sleeping crustacean or otherwise fairly-sane bettor comes out firing chips on the turn, its greatly defined matters and you can proceed accordingly; but if you were in the slow-play camp, you wouldn't be as sure that your opponent wasn't betting a fair or decent hand.
Essentially, raising 'em up serves to define the hand for the later rounds where things get more expensive.
Thoughts?
Just a small point, raising set other up to fold. In a unraised pot, a lot of player will play lower pr's, connect ect's and even call a flop if they hit a small piece of it. but when they know it will be raised after the flop they will fold earlier. because they will think you have a large pr not just ak. have a nice day. ron
Essentially, raising 'em up serves to define the hand for the later rounds where things get more expensive.
Good point. I had AA last night UTG in a 1 2 4 pot limit game, brought it in for 25 and got called by a rock and a sneak. When I got a Q high flop, I bet the pot, was raised by the rock who was called by the sneak. I was able to toss it in the muck. Rock had a set.
Having related that tale, I've slow played AA to mix up my game, and made some big scores. When that happens, it's tempting to want to do it all the time. I think it was Doyle who said if you never raise with AA you'll never go broke with AA. I disagree. I think it's slowplaying that will get you broke the fastest.
"The reason you are raising with your pocket aces is because you know you have the best hand. It is a value raise pure and simple. "
Wrong! Why this doesn't even make sense. You make a value play because you believe your opponent will call. That is what a value play is. You don't raise with A,A for value. And you don't always raise with A,A preflop either. Almost always but not always. Certainly when you hold A,A you know you have the best hand and raising cannot be a mistake from that perpective. But Aces are a big pair. A unique big pair sure but still a big pair. If your strategy is to raise wiith big pairs to thin out the opposition then that is why you raise. If you find yourself in a situation with Aces where you know that your raise will not thin the field then you still may raise. Not to thin the field but to get more money in the pot with the best hand. David and Mason have done a good job in stating reasons for raising. Read them and heed them and raising when tied to the situation at hand will make sense regardless of the hand you hold. Including Aces.
Vince
At my local casino, it seems that I do extremely well against all the good players. I have a theory as to why.
I believe I create situations early in hands pre-flop and flop where a lot of money goes in and I have the best hand. By doing this, I force the good player to chase (correctly) later in the hand. Now, eventhough they are not losing money on all of there calls because of pot size, I am making money on all of there calls. And often times I also get paid on the river, because the pot get large enough.
Now, I don't seem to be in the reverse situations as much. And maybe its because these good players are making too many preflop mistakes. But, I really believe these players know where I am at - i.e overpair, yet they have five outs and often the pots require drawing and this while it loses them no money (because of the "dead" money in the pot, makes me quite a bit.
So their preflop mistakes may be adding up and "costing" them later, by forcing them to pay me off. This fact is compounded when other players call making the pot bigger, tying them into chasing.
For example a good player limps, so do four others and I raise aces. The flop comes Q-7-3 and now the tight player is "forced" to pay me off, with A-Q or Q-Js.
Any comments on this idea appreciated.
start raising with stuff like 78s on the button when theres a few limpers (like 4).
on the other hand, why change a winning game?
brad
How many hours have you played (against good players)? What stakes? How much have you won over this period?
Answers to these are needed before anyone can intelligently answer your question.
vince
If the players are chasing correctly, then they are in fact costing you money. You would prefer them to fold. The money you are making is the money you have forced them to put in incorrectly earlier in the hand.
Chris
"The money you are making is the money you have forced them to put in incorrectly earlier in the hand. "
Its the other way around!
EG, if w/one card to come you bet and your opponent is getting say 7-1 and he is an 6-1 underdog, you theoretically win 6/7 of the bet he puts in and ^/7 of the pot. You don't lose on this bet, you lose (so to speak) because of the size of the pot.
Huh? Here's an example. Your opponent is drawing at 20% to win. You bet $10 and he correctly puts in $10 to win a pot which will be $70 with his call. You win $70 80% of the time for a total expected win of $56. Or he could fold to your $10 bet, in which case you win the $60 that is in the pot already. In this case his call has cost you a theoretical $4.
So it isn't correct to say that the value of putting in early bets and raises is to force your opponent to draw later on. By drawing correctly they will never lose money. The money they lost was the money they put into the pot earlier, when they weren't drawing correctly (say, by cold calling QJs to your raise with AA). The value of early bets and raises is to get money into the pot while you are ahead.
Chris
you are still making money on their calls, even though they are correctly calling. Think about it.
With a large amount of money already in the pot, betting and being called is a losing process. Obviously it loses less than if you just checked it down, but it loses in comparison to betting and having your opponent fold, or imagining that there is no river card and the hands are shown down straightaway. An opponent calling correctly is costing you money, because he is making money. That's the Fundamental Theorem Of Poker. If you don't understand this you need to brush up on your basic poker theory.
If you forget about the size of the pot, then obviously you are making money on a bet and a call if you're a favourite to win.
It's totally wrong to say "by putting a large amount in the pot, I induce opponents to correctly draw at it and therefore increase my profits". The real answer is: by getting such a large amount in the pot early, you get to win that large amount, in the event that your hand is best, which it will be a majority of the time.
Chris
Obviously, getting someone pot stuck and having them make a crying call on the river is very profitable. This is a definite advantage to increasing the size of the pot early. Calls from drawing opponents on the flop and turn aren't, though.
Chris
Morton's Theorem also applies in the multiway situations sometimes. Morton's theorem shows that if opponents are not getting the odds they should from the pot they still can be costing the player in the lead money.
Link to a discussion of the Morton's Theorem and a reprint of Andy Morton's original RGP post.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Morton%27s+Theorem&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=362d8826.89557436%40nntp1.ba.best.com
I agree with you JV.
Their mistake of calling your AA preflop is sometimes compounded later in the hand.
On the river, the QJ will look at the phat pot and make his final mistake by calling you down (while crying "Donation!").
I guess they aren't very good players then? No, Sometimes A-Q loses to A-A. Rarely will good players continually make pre-flop mistakes. The more likely scenario here is that you haven't played enough to have your aces cracked the 65% of the time that they do get cracked. Can you lay aces down when it becomes apparent that you have lost?
No, I like to blindly give my money away in hopes the turn and river comes AA.
I'm not sure I understand your post. Were you even replying to me?
The point of the post is that when they call a raise from AA, their mistake is often amplified by the later (and more expensive) streets.
And because I'm in a foul mood, and because your post annoyed the hell out of me, I also want to mention that I have a problem with every single sentence in your post!
I guess they aren't very good players then?
We're assuming reasonable opponents as usual. Against poor players you make even more money.
No, Sometimes A-Q loses to A-A.
Not sometimes, almost always.
Rarely will good players continually make pre-flop mistakes.
First of all, I know many good players who make a lot of pre-flop mistakes.
Second, in the context that we mean, when you reraise somebody with KK and somebody else has AA, you have made a mistake. Even though, given the info available, you played it correctly. This mistake coincides with the negative EV you experience.
The more likely scenario here is that you haven't played enough to have your aces cracked the 65% of the time that they do get cracked.
Why is that a more likely scenario? I've played enough pocket aces. When I see them I don't cower in fear that I'm going to get run down again. I don't think to myself, "I'm probably going to get cracked." I don't come up with other meaningless statistics to create a web of despair around me. Then again, I am truly a lucky player and sometimes if you look just right and the light shines at the perfect angle you can actually see the postive winning force that surrounds me!
Can you lay aces down when it becomes apparent that you have lost?
Yes when it's obvious I will lay down.
Jim "Getting Cranky with Inane Posts" Roy
Your whole post was inane. That was the point. Isn't it brilliant to say that someone is making a pre flop error to call against A-A? Doh.. Ray "getting cranky with overinflated gurus" Springfield
Hey man, if you don't understand what we're talking about (or disagree) then why don't you ask nicely instead of being an ass? LOL
Jim "finished with this thread" Roy
I fully understand that you analyze simple little realities and then think you are brilliant. Tee, Hee, Hee Ray"finished reading any post of this fool ever again"Springfield
I think there is a distinction here (which the other responses hint at) between two different possible scenarios.
The first, is that by building the pot, you lead opponents to correctly chase you. Even though you say that you make money on these calls, you in fact do not (at least in heads-up situations). If it is not obvious why, realize that if there are only two of you left in the pot, and calling is the more profitable play for your opponent, it must be less profitable for you. Where else could the money come from?
However, there is a second possibility. This is that the pot size leads opponents to incorrectly call later on. Even good players can be guilty of this, since they can't know they're call is incorrect without knowing what y