PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

Today's is a more interesting topic.

Consider your potential risk and think how the hand is likely to play out.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

I had a few thoughts while rereading this chapter.

1. Win money, not pots. I often get conflicting thoughts with this when I think about open raising hands like pps and Axs and so forth from MP or LP. I remember reading something in the little green book where Phil talks about if he had raised PF, he wouldn't have won near the money he did as the other guy would have probably folded his suited trash (the flush hit for both of them). I know the pros of raising and so forth as well....I just think it's an interesting paradox.

2. You talk about big pots vs. small pots. However, we don't really define where the line is there. I'm assuming we want to stay away from making the pot over 1/4 times the remaining smallest stack and folding since that's the committment threshold. However, what size do you think you would call a small stack? You give an example of a $65 and $485 behind and call that small; however, I was thinking that was starting to become a decent size pot.

3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it would be the opposite... if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold (e.g. in the AA hand, they're obviously getting the odds to draw out on you there, but they fold), and if they're not getting the odds to draw, you want them to call. You make money in the latter case if they fold as well, but not as much since you just win the current pot, rather than what you might have won if they called and didn't hit.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

You want them to fold when the money remaining is less than their equity in the pot when they call. For example if he raises to 90 and folds leaving himself 10 he is actually costing himself ~$10 (depending on his hand) because if he calls w/ say 44 will have more equity than the $10 he "saves" by folding the worst hand

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had a few thoughts while rereading this chapter.

1. Win money, not pots. I often get conflicting thoughts with this when I think about open raising hands like pps and Axs and so forth from MP or LP. I remember reading something in the little green book where Phil talks about if he had raised PF, he wouldn't have won near the money he did as the other guy would have probably folded his suited trash (the flush hit for both of them). I know the pros of raising and so forth as well....I just think it's an interesting paradox.

2. You talk about big pots vs. small pots. However, we don't really define where the line is there. I'm assuming we want to stay away from making the pot over 4 times the remaining smallest stack and folding since that's the committment threshold. However, what size do you think you would call a small stack? You give an example of a $65 and $485 behind and call that small; however, I was thinking that was starting to become a decent size pot.

3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that I have a tendency to play for pots too much as well. Now that I have admitted it to myself I can solve the problem.



Also, I was curious about where the blurry line is when it comes to big pot vs. small pot. Are we saying once 1/3 of the smallest stack goes in we are big pot world?

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming we want to stay away from making the pot over 4 times the remaining smallest stack and folding since that's the committment threshold.


[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

Qtip: to address point 1

I think a more open preflop raising range is more optimal for online 6max just because c-bets work so frequently and you have better position more often than in FR

I often limp ALOT in live FR 1/2 NL games where the stacks are pretty deep usually 300-1200 dollars. These players play so bad postflop I think you are losing alot of money by pricing out bad players preflop. which is pretty opposite the 2+2 general stlyle of play and I get some flack for but w/e. intersted what others think about this.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

The Q7 hand on page 52 seems to happen to me a lot. Unfortunately, the villain is not raising but merely calling the flop. For example:

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], one player limps, the SB calls and I check in the BB.

The flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] giving me TPWK. I lead out a bet of 2 BB (into a 3 BB pot). The player in MP calls, and the SB folds.

While the pot now only contains 7 BB, I'm not interested in playing even a remotely large pot at this point. That usually infers a check on the turn, however, I feel at that point, most typical opponents will bet the turn after my check and I'll either a) be giving up and folding with no questsions asked, or b) calling down far too often and feeling like a donkey. On top of that, if my only goal was to fold all of the players on the flop and scoop the 3 BB pot, then I don't need any hand at all (much less a TP hand) to make that play.

Any advice on this situation? It's tough for me not to bet the flop with TP (even with a weak kicker) in a limped pot. On the other hand, I'm not interested in playing any type of medium-large pot with an extremely vulnerable hand (and one that is easily beaten by a caller).

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

id prob bet fold a non heart turn here if the board was more dry i might just c/f in your example.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

QTip, the best gauge for how big or small a pot is, is SPR. It basically tells you in one number.

EDIT: see clarification below

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
QTip, the best gauge for how big or small a pot is, is SPR. It basically tells you in one number.

[/ QUOTE ]
With regards to SPR, at what SPR would a pot begin to be considered "big"?

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QTip, the best gauge for how big or small a pot is, is SPR. It basically tells you in one number.

[/ QUOTE ]
With regards to SPR, at what SPR would a pot begin to be considered "big"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although you will probably get a fairly specific response, it's my opinion that thinking in even fairly rigid terms can be extremely dangerous. For example, you could have 2 hands with the exact same SPR and one hand is a big pot while the other is a small pot simply because of a difference in how the opponents play postflop.

Edit: to clarify, if you are playing a hand and it is likely that no matter what happens you or your opponent will commit, you're playing a big pot.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QTip, the best gauge for how big or small a pot is, is SPR. It basically tells you in one number.

[/ QUOTE ]
With regards to SPR, at what SPR would a pot begin to be considered "big"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify:

Actually, The Commitment Threshold is the big tool you can use to gauge if you're getting into a big pot. (I.e. - Pot is one-fourth of the remaining money.) SPR is a great gauge at the start of the flop. (And If you have an SPR of 4 you are at the threshold.) But you'll still need to be aware of the commitment threshold (and general stack/pot considerations) on later streets.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

Im going to take a shot at this.

Low SPR's would mean a big pot. It goes back to their example of describing the size of the pot. A $50 pot is a big pot when you have $20 left in your stack and a $50 pot is a small pot when you have $1,000 behind.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

Grunch,

Yeah, I'd say in general I think of "big pot" as meaning "need to start thinking about commitment decision" or "need to start making a commitment plan".

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
The Q7 hand on page 52 seems to happen to me a lot. Unfortunately, the villain is not raising but merely calling the flop. For example:

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], one player limps, the SB calls and I check in the BB.

The flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] giving me TPWK. I lead out a bet of 2 BB (into a 3 BB pot). The player in MP calls, and the SB folds.

While the pot now only contains 7 BB, I'm not interested in playing even a remotely large pot at this point. That usually infers a check on the turn, however, I feel at that point, most typical opponents will bet the turn after my check and I'll either a) be giving up and folding with no questsions asked, or b) calling down far too often and feeling like a donkey. On top of that, if my only goal was to fold all of the players on the flop and scoop the 3 BB pot, then I don't need any hand at all (much less a TP hand) to make that play.

Any advice on this situation? It's tough for me not to bet the flop with TP (even with a weak kicker) in a limped pot. On the other hand, I'm not interested in playing any type of medium-large pot with an extremely vulnerable hand (and one that is easily beaten by a caller).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of situation where I think its best not to put any more money in after the flop. I know what you're thinking - you have top pair and it can be difficult to let go of a hand that has a good chance of being best in an unraised pot. However, your kicker is weak and you are out of position, with a hand that has very little chance of improving. I would advise that you let this go and wait for better spots.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

also, the technicalities aren't of main importance....we can discuss technical aspects of CT and SPR on those study days for sure, but wrt Pot Size, I think the real take home point is that you gauge the pot size in no-limit NOT as an exact dollar amount, but as its ratio to, or percentage of, the remaining stacks. I think that's hard to do for a lot of beginning players because they're so used to seeing a dollar as a dollar.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QTip, the best gauge for how big or small a pot is, is SPR. It basically tells you in one number.

[/ QUOTE ]
With regards to SPR, at what SPR would a pot begin to be considered "big"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify:

Actually, The Commitment Threshold is the big tool you can use to gauge if you're getting into a big pot. (I.e. - Pot is one-fourth of the remaining money.) SPR is a great gauge at the start of the flop. (And If you have an SPR of 4 you are at the threshold.) But you'll still need to be aware of the commitment threshold (and general stack/pot considerations) on later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, so a effective stack to pot ratio of 4 would indicate the threshold and be entering, generally, into big pot territory (I did not use SPR specifically because you have reserved its use at the final preflop pot only).

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QTip, the best gauge for how big or small a pot is, is SPR. It basically tells you in one number.

[/ QUOTE ]
With regards to SPR, at what SPR would a pot begin to be considered "big"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me clarify:

Actually, The Commitment Threshold is the big tool you can use to gauge if you're getting into a big pot. (I.e. - Pot is one-fourth of the remaining money.) SPR is a great gauge at the start of the flop. (And If you have an SPR of 4 you are at the threshold.) But you'll still need to be aware of the commitment threshold (and general stack/pot considerations) on later streets.

[/ QUOTE ]
Alright, so a effective stack to pot ratio of 4 would indicate the threshold and be entering, generally, into big pot territory (I did not use SPR specifically because you have reserved its use at the final preflop pot only).

[/ QUOTE ]

bingo. you got it.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
bingo. you got it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I read the book from front to back quickly and have been going through and rereading each chapter in preparation for these threads. Unfortunately, I forgot that on page 146 (since I haven't reread that part yet) you clearly defined the commitment threshold as 'one-fourth of the remaining money." Oops, guess I could've found my own answer [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

Couple interesting tidbits... This is a key chapter IMO because it sets up a lot of the rest of the book. The idea of "risk versus reward" drives a lot of the future concepts. Thinking about NL in that specific way is not discussed a whole lot, particularly not in books. Yet general poker theory teaches us that fundamentally we should play differently in big pots compared to small pots. In Limit this is discussed quite a bit - perhaps because it's so much easier to gauge how big or small the pot is (just add the number of bets). So we really wanted to come up with the NL equivalent.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase here:

I was saying that your goal is to have your opponent make the biggest mistake they will. When they have odds, their biggest mistake would be folding. When they don't have odds, their biggest mistake would be calling. (This excludes any raising options).

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

IMHO . . . If we uNL players were more wiling to take an extra second and look at the size of the stacks in the hand, the decisions to be made become much less difficult. Doing this one thing helped me up my winrate more that anything else at these levels. It also helps slow things down enough for you to actually think, and not react.

"I have a OESFD- MUST PUSH!!!" used to be a typical thought process for me. When I take the extra sec to look at his stack it helps me internalize what really needs to happen. You may say, but what does this have to do with the pot size discussion? For me it is the pot size discussion.

I suck at poker (meaning I have a modest winrate), but I believe understanding big pot vs small pot will make just about anybody a +EV uNL player.

I guess my point is that this chapter should not and cannot be over-looked. Everything else I have learned since this has built on this.

Just my .5 cents. . .

Ret

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

Agreed. Unfortunately, I believe the authors did such a fine job in this chapter explaining things that there isn't much to discuss [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think a more open preflop raising range is more optimal for online 6max just because c-bets work so frequently and you have better position more often than in FR

[/ QUOTE ]

works well in position. in the bigger games often the button will call behind.

so when selecting a seat you want a tight player on the button so you get to act last postflop more often.


[ QUOTE ]
I often limp ALOT in live FR 1/2 NL games where the stacks are pretty deep usually 300-1200 dollars. These players play so bad postflop I think you are losing alot of money by pricing out bad players preflop. which is pretty opposite the 2+2 general stlyle of play and I get some flack for but w/e. intersted what others think about this.

[/ QUOTE ]

if it makes you more money then it's good. my only concern would be make sure you're counting all the little losses to know whether those limps are truly profitable, and adequately comparing your limps to raises to see that EV[limping] > EV[raising].

one thing is that when a limper fires big he tends to get more credit than someone cbetting.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I was curious about where the blurry line is when it comes to big pot vs. small pot. Are we saying once 1/3 of the smallest stack goes in we are big pot world?

[/ QUOTE ]


it is blurry. might use SPR of 4 because i like to plan ahead, but it's your call where you want to set that line.


Grunch's comment that it depends on how likely your opponent will go all-in is spot on imo.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Q7 hand on page 52 seems to happen to me a lot. Unfortunately, the villain is not raising but merely calling the flop. For example:

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], one player limps, the SB calls and I check in the BB.

The flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] giving me TPWK. I lead out a bet of 2 BB (into a 3 BB pot). The player in MP calls, and the SB folds.

While the pot now only contains 7 BB, I'm not interested in playing even a remotely large pot at this point. That usually infers a check on the turn, however, I feel at that point, most typical opponents will bet the turn after my check and I'll either a) be giving up and folding with no questsions asked, or b) calling down far too often and feeling like a donkey. On top of that, if my only goal was to fold all of the players on the flop and scoop the 3 BB pot, then I don't need any hand at all (much less a TP hand) to make that play.

Any advice on this situation? It's tough for me not to bet the flop with TP (even with a weak kicker) in a limped pot. On the other hand, I'm not interested in playing any type of medium-large pot with an extremely vulnerable hand (and one that is easily beaten by a caller).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of situation where I think its best not to put any more money in after the flop. I know what you're thinking - you have top pair and it can be difficult to let go of a hand that has a good chance of being best in an unraised pot. However, your kicker is weak and you are out of position, with a hand that has very little chance of improving. I would advise that you let this go and wait for better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]


in a three-handed pot you likely have the best hand. i usually check this and call flop if bet, play on from there. but you certainly can let it go. no one sees what you fold, so there's no virtual moped involved.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Q7 hand on page 52 seems to happen to me a lot. Unfortunately, the villain is not raising but merely calling the flop. For example:

I have Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], one player limps, the SB calls and I check in the BB.

The flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] giving me TPWK. I lead out a bet of 2 BB (into a 3 BB pot). The player in MP calls, and the SB folds.

While the pot now only contains 7 BB, I'm not interested in playing even a remotely large pot at this point. That usually infers a check on the turn, however, I feel at that point, most typical opponents will bet the turn after my check and I'll either a) be giving up and folding with no questsions asked, or b) calling down far too often and feeling like a donkey. On top of that, if my only goal was to fold all of the players on the flop and scoop the 3 BB pot, then I don't need any hand at all (much less a TP hand) to make that play.

Any advice on this situation? It's tough for me not to bet the flop with TP (even with a weak kicker) in a limped pot. On the other hand, I'm not interested in playing any type of medium-large pot with an extremely vulnerable hand (and one that is easily beaten by a caller).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the type of situation where I think its best not to put any more money in after the flop. I know what you're thinking - you have top pair and it can be difficult to let go of a hand that has a good chance of being best in an unraised pot. However, your kicker is weak and you are out of position, with a hand that has very little chance of improving. I would advise that you let this go and wait for better spots.

[/ QUOTE ]


in a three-handed pot you likely have the best hand. i usually check this and call flop if bet, play on from there. but you certainly can let it go. no one sees what you fold, so there's no virtual moped involved.

[/ QUOTE ]
Assuming I check/call the flop, am I right in assuming we'll play this hand out as long as the pot stays small? For instance, if I check the turn and he checks as well, I might value bet the river. If, however, I check the turn and face a large bet, then I can safely fold and assume I was beat. Is this correct thinking?

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase here:

I was saying that your goal is to have your opponent make the biggest mistake they will. When they have odds, their biggest mistake would be folding. When they don't have odds, their biggest mistake would be calling. (This excludes any raising options).

[/ QUOTE ]

One small (but important, IMO) amendment which is they could still not be getting odds to call, and you'd still rather have them fold than call due to their equity, and your potential reverse implied odds. At least, I think what that AA example in the book is driving at.

I'm just thinking this out, so I actually may have it wrong. Whenever you're ahead but not a lock, your opponent by definition has some equity. So, you are hoping they'll call when they make a bigger mistake by calling than the equity you give up, and you want them to fold when they give up more pot equity than it costs them to call your bet (in terms of their new pot equity, I guess).

I'm not sure exactly what that means from a theory standpoint, but it seems like it should factor into the upcoming REM discussion.

In Theory of Poker, Sklansky talked about optimal bluffing frequency being such that no matter what, your opponent had the same negative expectation. I wonder if there's something related in terms of bet sizing where the optimal (HU) theoretical bet size would be equal to an amount that caused your opponent to have the same cost whether they called or folded.

Of course in practice, you'd like to have them call and have it be worse for them than what they give up by folding, but maybe it's an interesting theory question, anyway.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
One small (but important, IMO) amendment which is they could still not be getting odds to call, and you'd still rather have them fold than call due to their equity, and your potential reverse implied odds. At least, I think what that AA example in the book is driving at.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the point of the AA example. I think it's rather to show how devestation of a mistake it is to build a large pot and then fold.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think where we going separate ways here Grunch is that you're talking about before we bet, and I'm talking about after we bet.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One small (but important, IMO) amendment which is they could still not be getting odds to call, and you'd still rather have them fold than call due to their equity, and your potential reverse implied odds. At least, I think what that AA example in the book is driving at.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the point of the AA example. I think it's rather to show how devestation of a mistake it is to build a large pot and then fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected....was at work. I looked this up again, and agree with you. I was remembering the part about where they said while it was good to get it all in preflop with aces, it was even better to get most of it in, then have your opponent fold. Doesn't really change the rest of my rambling in the other post, but you are correct that our opponent in this example made a devastating mistake building the pot then folding for just a little more.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
As said before, we're talking about different parts of the betting. I'm talking about after the bet has already been made. Like in the AA example, if the guy bets $90 and you raise him all-in for $10 more, you want him to fold... he's getting the odds to call you with any two cards. If, on the other hand, he bet $10 and you raised him all-in for $90 more, you would want him to call because he wouldn't have the odds to call.

Re: PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming I check/call the flop, am I right in assuming we'll play this hand out as long as the pot stays small? For instance, if I check the turn and he checks as well, I might value bet the river. If, however, I check the turn and face a large bet, then I can safely fold and assume I was beat. Is this correct thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

your hand gets tough to play if he bets the turn. you can make a big mistake folding or calling.

value betting the river can be good or bad. against a nonaggro opponent a small value bet that looks like a blocking bet or donk bluff can work well. for example, say the pot's $45 on the river. you bet $10. amazing how many calls you get there.

you might lead the turn on any coordinated card too. or on any card if the ol' stop-and-go will work. be careful against better opponents. if you only stop-and-go with top pair or when you hit a draw, your opponent will often know you're betting weak top pair there.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

[ QUOTE ]

One small (but important, IMO) amendment which is they could still not be getting odds to call, and you'd still rather have them fold than call due to their equity, and your potential reverse implied odds. At least, I think what that AA example in the book is driving at.

I'm just thinking this out, so I actually may have it wrong. Whenever you're ahead but not a lock, your opponent by definition has some equity. So, you are hoping they'll call when they make a bigger mistake by calling than the equity you give up, and you want them to fold when they give up more pot equity than it costs them to call your bet (in terms of their new pot equity, I guess).



[/ QUOTE ]


do whatever yields you the most "implied equity." that is, look at all streets and figure out what move now will, on average, maximize your expectation for the hand.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure exactly what that means from a theory standpoint, but it seems like it should factor into the upcoming REM discussion.

In Theory of Poker, Sklansky talked about optimal bluffing frequency being such that no matter what, your opponent had the same negative expectation. I wonder if there's something related in terms of bet sizing where the optimal (HU) theoretical bet size would be equal to an amount that caused your opponent to have the same cost whether they called or folded.

[/ QUOTE ]


a caution here: Sklansky is talking about nonexploitable play. some loosely call it "game theoretic" play. the general idea is that even if your opponent KNOWS what your strategy is, he cannot exploit it much. you minimize the maximum he can extract from you (called "minimax"). Bill Chen probably wrote a ton about this in Math of Poker. Some day I'm going to retire and read all these poker books, his first.

nonexploitable play is often NOT optimum. that's because your opponents have game flaws that you can exploit to make more money. for example, if your opponent is suspicious of big bets, you should make huge bets when you have the goods. or suppose optimum "game theory" bluffing amount is a third of the pot. if your opponent will call that half the time but call a 2/3 pot bet only 10% of the time, betting 1/3 the pot costs you money even though it is "game theoretically" accurate.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

hi

at first i want to compliment the authors , with their book
but i have some questions ;-)
for instance SPR
SPR is a great gauge for certain hands
how did you calculate/estimate by experience? these value's?
lets go for a moment for average value's (no adjustments for the moment for tight/loose oponents) just rational unexploitible game theoretic opponents

for example
SPR did already exists before your book , in preflop all in situations for example
the jam/fold tables below 10 blind stak sizes
is transformable in non exploitible SPR values preflop
just divide them by 3 and multiply by 2

these gametheoretic values should also be obtainible for deeper stacks on the flop
hence this is where your book is all about but "just" in a vague general manner
there exist a mathematical "öptimum" on the flop
lets asume u have a stack size thats to deep to jam/fold preflop
but will be "shallow" enough to jam/fold on the flop
than u can be putting jam/fold SPR values to certain hand types on the flop
for instance openended flush/straight draws
made hands trips/top pair top kicker
etc etc
you can argue that these values arent optimal for loose or tight oponents
but in a weird way they are
because even the distribution of hands on the flop of a tight oponent will be stronger on the flop
then this fact will be result in giving up ev preflop for that same tight player

furthermore
SPR vulue's shouldnt be exact for specific handtypes pre flop (hence different for certain handtypes)
but averaged on a certain position where you play a certain distribution of hands
for example UTG full ring all the individual SPR value's dont differ very much
but on the button they do (more suited connectors)
so if you take your hand distribution for a certain position you should average your SPR for all those handtypes
first you hide information
second you play unexploitible

regards pieter

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

In that Q7 hand I'm vbetting flop + turn and c/c the river if I have a note that he bluffs draws / is aggro. Sometimes you'll be shown a better queen, but often I'm shown JT, T9, T8 kind of hand. I bluff a lot at these small pots though, so I get called down more with less.

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

I have a basic question on pot size - who's stack are we measuring it against to establish "big" or "small" pot? Reading through this thread it sounds like we measure it relative to villain's (which is what I imagined from reading the book anyway) but:

1. What if there's more than one villain? Just measure it against the shorter of the two? Or for 2 villains (for instance) where 1 is the shortest stack it's 2x the shortest stack?

2. On pg 57 I'm getting a little confused by not knowing for sure the answer to #1. We're the short stack at 500 vs 2 villains, pot is 195, we have 440 left and the book says "the pot is large relative to the remaining money." Who's money? I'm the short stack so if both villains individually have more than me doesn't that make this a 'small' pot if anything? Or does "large" not mean "big/small pot" here?

Re: PNL Sutdy Group Day 3: Pot Size
 

The stack size in #2 is yours, since it's the smallest. If you were heads up against a smaller stack it would be his, since that is what limits the size of the pot. If you're looking for impiled odds, that's the limiting factor.