HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

I've played some HORSE (0.5/1) on Pokerstars lately. It seems like they rake a certain amount for every dollar that goes into the pot unless the pot gets big.

Let's say that you're playing stud8. You have a low hand on sixth street. You don't think your opponent is afraid of your board (no pair, mostly rainbow, but looking like a made low). He has an open pair of aces (let's assume that you think his most likely down cards are two small ones, so he can't have better than aces right now) and can't make a low hand. You have no outs to scoop. Would you be inclined to always check in this situation?

If we assume that our opponent will never fold, betting will just generate more rake. If we play against a very good opponent, he might realize that we wouldn't bet unless we had aces beat for high or were freerolling. He might not fold on sixth in that situation, but he might decide that aces are no good on seventh street if we fire again (or check sixth/bet seventh).

So what would you do? Would you never bet to keep the rake small, or are there certain opponents you would bet against to cover for the times you do have his high hand beat?

Remember that this is the smallest games on Pokerstars. Does this make you more inclined to check against typical opponents, or doesn't it matter much?

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

You should usually check, not because of the rake (which is comparatively miniscule, anyhow), but because if your read is wrong, there is a chance you are being freerolled.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

I probably messed up my initial post. I should have said that you know that your opponent can't make a better low hand than yourself, and you're certain that he has a high hand that you can't beat.

I just said that he had aces as an example. Is it likely that there will be any fold equity against a player with aces here, or should I just check it down to avoid more rake? I wasn't really that interested about sixth street. I was thinking mostly about betting on seventh street to try to bluff your opponent out of half the pot. When is it worth a try, and when should you check it down? Position might be a factor, but I wouldn't think it matters that much if it's obvious to your opponent that you have made a low hand.

If it's easier to discuss an example you can take these two hands:

HERO: [A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [random card]

Villian: [x x] A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] [x]

Let's assume that pot size before river betting is 8 big bets. The rake isn't capped before there are 10 big bets in the pot

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

It's going to have to depend on the size of the pot... obviously if you're past the rake cap it doesn't matter.

If it's not, then do the math and see how it comes out. If P is the size of the pot, and F is the percentage chance he'll fold when you bet, and R is the additional amount you'll lose to rake then you should bet if

F*P*0.5 > R

That is, if you'll win the other half of the pot often enough to pay the extra rake. If the extra rake is 5% of a BB and the pot currently has, say, 5bb in it, then you have

F*5*0.5 > .05

which reduces to
F > .02

So if he'll fold more than 2% of the time (in this case) it's worth a bet.

Personally I think your opponent will fold here approximately never, so ymmv. But heck, misclick rates might be more than 2% for some people.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

Oh, and I re-read and you say 8bb in the pot.

so now you hav

F*8*.5 > .05 (well, ok, I don't actually know the rake rate without looking)

Which comes out to, you should bet if

F > .0125 (1.25%)

So bet out. Or check-raise! That would be sweet. Note that you have to redo the math for a check-raise since you'll be paying double the rake. There's maybe a slightly higher chance he'll fold to a check-raise, thinking you have him beat with 2 pair to scoop instead of you going low and him going high. But still pretty slim.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

Basically what it comes down to is, the potential payoff is sooooo huge that risking a bet is usually right.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

Thanks for the reply. I'm trying to improve my game. I'll admit that my first post was probably too easy to misunderstand. I'll try to think more about how I post things in the future.

I'm also interested in knowing if it's possible to get some more or less free software that I can use to analyze my game. I'd like to know if I play hands like
[4 7]8, [7 3]2, [Q K]Q and so on profitably. Can someone recommend something? I'll see if I can find something in another thread, but you can reply or PM me if you have any suggestion.

I'm playing a bit of HORSE for the moment, so I guess that I'd like to analyze razz, stud, stud8 and maybe omaha8. I've got more experience in hold'em, but if there's a piece of software that can be used for all the HORSE-games that would be great.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

I'd probably start with reading as much as you can on these games... Sklansky on Razz for razz, there's also a tiny section is SS/1 on razz. There's a good section on omaha/8 in SS/2. "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" is good for stud and I think it covers stud/8 also? I haven't read it. There are a few books on omaha and omaha/8 out there, I think Tom McEvoy has an omaha book. I haven't read that either. Anyway, these books should offer good launching points, particularly for hand selection and play on early streets. I think every player should understand starting hand selection well before they even really venture into the game. You need more than that to win, but I don't think you can win without it.

Not to sound harsh, but if you can't arrive at the conclusions that I did above, you might want to spend some time learning basic gambling mathematics. Theory of Poker has some in the beginning. Ideally every gambler should not only know basic probabilty but how to calculate EV in basic situations like this.

Software wise
http://twodimes.net/poker/
has simulators for all those games.
http://www.propokertools.com/
has simulators for some of them.

I'm working on a simulator that will work with most poker games. Haven't put much time into it recently, though.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

Oh, and to be completely pedantic it's actually

F*(P-T)*0.5 > R

Where T is the total rake so far, because you're not going to actually win the whole pot. This can change F by about 5% obviously. But we're talking about 2% vs 2.1% so not really a big deal.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" is good for stud and I think it covers stud/8 also?

[/ QUOTE ]

just stud hi covered in this book. ray zee's book covers stud8 (and omaha8)

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

There's a game theory equilibrium point here, I think it's something like always betting your potential scoop hands, and betting your low-only hands around 30% of the time -- but the exact fraction depends on pot size and how often you actually have a scooping hand.

The idea is to bet just enough of your one way hands that your opponent can't profitably fold when he has unimproved Aces -- but betting more of your one way hands than called for by the game theory is just going to entice your opponent to call you down every time, which just ends up increasing the rake on those split pots.


I think that many players will just jam the pot here essentially 100% of the time with their low lock, not realizing that by doing so, they are making their opponent's decisions easy. (And due to the rake considerations, they're actually giving up EV.)

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

I think everyone is trying a little to hard to answer this question; the main point is to bet when your opponent has even a small chance of folding, mainly when you have a made low but your opponents unpaired board beats you for high. Occasionally you can pull this off when they have an open pair; some people are stupid. This works a lot better if you make a low when you have a high door card.

Don't feel obligated to bet when your opponent showed lots of strength earlier, although if they may have been stealing or bluffing at a third player betting becomes useful again. A few stupid bets don't really hurt anyways, particularly if you need to vent or something.

The same logic applies when you have something like a made flush and your opponent has a made low.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's a game theory equilibrium point here, I think it's something like always betting your potential scoop hands, and betting your low-only hands around 30% of the time -- but the exact fraction depends on pot size and how often you actually have a scooping hand.

The idea is to bet just enough of your one way hands that your opponent can't profitably fold when he has unimproved Aces

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless your board is superscary, your opponent with unimproved aces has to call essentially all of the time anyway.

So, unless your one-way hand is showing three connected cards or a three-flush, you are guaranteed a call if you bet a scoop draw.

How often should you bet a low-lock with no high draw in order that your opponent is indifferent to calling or folding? More than 100% of the time.

Jam your low locks.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There's a game theory equilibrium point here, I think it's something like always betting your potential scoop hands, and betting your low-only hands around 30% of the time -- but the exact fraction depends on pot size and how often you actually have a scooping hand.

The idea is to bet just enough of your one way hands that your opponent can't profitably fold when he has unimproved Aces

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless your board is superscary, your opponent with unimproved aces has to call essentially all of the time anyway.

So, unless your one-way hand is showing three connected cards or a three-flush, you are guaranteed a call if you bet a scoop draw.

How often should you bet a low-lock with no high draw in order that your opponent is indifferent to calling or folding? More than 100% of the time.

Jam your low locks.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the absence of rake considerations, I'd agree. And I certainly agree that you can (and probably should) jam if you have a scoop draw.

But let's assume that you have no draw to win (but a lock for half the pot), and rake is an issue.

If you jam 100% of the time, you are essentially making it correct for your opponent to look you up with only Aces, while maximizing the rake paid.

If you bet 80% of the time, and don't jam, it's still correct for your opponent to look you up with only Aces, but you'll lose less to the rake.

So 80% is better than 100%...


The equilibrium point, which maximizes your profit, is to bet just enough of your non-scoop-capable hands to induce your opponent to look you up with Aces. Bet more than that, and your opponent still looks you up, and you just pay more rake. Bet less than that, and your opponent would figure out that you're primarily betting your scoops on the end, and he'd be able to profitably fold Aces. My guess is that the equilibrium is around 30% of your non-scoop-capable hands -- but obviously it will vary greatly depending on how scary your board is and how likely your opponent is to have a hand better than just Aces.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

I think your estimate is off.

Every time you bet on the end with a lock on one side, where your opponent has a marginal hand on the other side, you lose .05bb more than if you check.

Every time he calls you when you get both sides, you gain 1 extra bb

You'd have to only get one side 20x time as as often as you get both in order for it to be bad to bet. I think you scoop more than 1/20 times on the end when you have a lock on one side, no? If he never folds when you have a lock on (at least) half the pot, I think that's a very good thing.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

Actually I think I see your point. Him calling every time is good, because sometimes you scoop, but him calling every time you scoop, and ALSO you not losing an extra .05 some of the time, is a little better.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I think I see your point. Him calling every time is good, because sometimes you scoop, but him calling every time you scoop, and ALSO you not losing an extra .05 some of the time, is a little better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. He'll come along and pay you off on your scoop hands if there's even as little as about a 25% chance that you're betting your low-only hand. Betting your low-only hands more often than that shouldn't bring him along any more often, but it will cost both of you in extra rake.

But this is really only true in this particular situation where you have no draw to win high, a non-scary board, and rake is an issue. If any of those three conditions is not true, bet/raising is usually better than check/calling.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

No one is folding a pair of Aces in the scenario you describe, especially in a game this small. If the rake is not maxed out, check behind. If the rake is maxed out and the other guy can't have a low, go ahead and bet.

There are times where you might want to bet a made low with a small chance at a scoop, say with a gut-shot. There, you might be laying $.50 to win $6 or something, and that might be worth it. Your opponent might not see it that way.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd probably start with reading as much as you can on these games... Sklansky on Razz for razz, there's also a tiny section is SS/1 on razz. There's a good section on omaha/8 in SS/2. "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players" is good for stud and I think it covers stud/8 also? I haven't read it. There are a few books on omaha and omaha/8 out there, I think Tom McEvoy has an omaha book. I haven't read that either. Anyway, these books should offer good launching points, particularly for hand selection and play on early streets. I think every player should understand starting hand selection well before they even really venture into the game. You need more than that to win, but I don't think you can win without it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've read most of Sklansky's books and the Super System books too. I guess it wouldn't hurt to reread some of course.

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound harsh, but if you can't arrive at the conclusions that I did above, you might want to spend some time learning basic gambling mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like good advice, but I still think it sounds unnecessarily harsh [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I'm not taking it personally, though. I totally agree that it should be easy to reach those conclusions if you know a little basic mathematics.

Re: HU rake considerations in split pot games
 

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to sound harsh, but if you can't arrive at the conclusions that I did above, you might want to spend some time learning basic gambling mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That seems like good advice, but I still think it sounds unnecessarily harsh [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

I'm not taking it personally, though. I totally agree that it should be easy to reach those conclusions if you know a little basic mathematics.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't intend for it to be personal, it just sort of... is... I think it's important to be able to frame problems this way, and if you can't already do it, you should find some way to learn it. There's nothing wrong with not knowing something already.

The game-theoretical discussion in this thread is great and that's more math than most people know, including me, but an awful lot of the time you can make correct conclusions knowing nothing else but super-basic sub-algebra and a little combinatorics and probability.

Anyway, regarding books, I've read every (respected) book I can get my hands on, even some that are not really for games that I play. 7csfap is on my list and so is ray zee's book but for the moment there are some other books I *have* which I haven't finished yet, so those first. Although I don't play NLHE much any more I am part way through NLHE: Theory and Practice and Harrington's 3rd tournament book (the 2nd one improved my game so very much. I don't think it's an accident that I made 2nd in the first MTT I played after reading it when I'd mostly been muddling around going out in the middle of the field most of the previous times)

Why You Should *Always* Bet Your Low Locks
 

7 Card Stud High-Low ($2/$4), Ante $0.25, Bring-In $1 (converter)

3rd Street - (0.88 SB)

Seat 1: xx xx K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 2: xx xx Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 4: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___calls
Seat 5: xx xx 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___calls
Hero: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___brings-in
Seat 7: xx xx K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 8: xx xx A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___folds

4th Street - (2.38 SB)

Seat 4: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___checks___calls
Seat 5: xx xx 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___checks___folds
Hero: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___bets

5th Street - (2.19 BB)

Seat 4: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___checks___calls
Hero: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___bets

6th Street - (4.19 BB)

Seat 4: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___checks
Hero: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___checks

River - (4.19 BB)

Seat 4: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] xx___checks___folds
Hero: A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___bets

Total pot: (4.19 BB)

WTF could the villain have here that doesn't beat me for high? A busted diamond draw with no pair? His fold surprised me, but I'm happy to take the money.

(Yes, I know that if his three downcards are 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the villain scoops me; but any other card combination gives me at least half the pot.)

Re: Why You Should *Always* Bet Your Low Locks
 

Yeah but in the OPs example villain has an open pair of aces. If your opponent might have NOTHING or a smaller pair than aces it's easier to make him fold.

Re: Why You Should *Always* Bet Your Low Locks
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Yes, I know that if his three downcards are 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] the villain scoops me; but any other card combination gives me at least half the pot.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't he scoop you if he made any low straight on the end (any A-3-4 or 3-4-6)? Admittedly, with any such hand, he should never have called 5th street unless his hole cards were both diamonds. (And even then, calling 5th street with a four flush against a possible made low is probably a mistake with the pot this small.)

Re: Why You Should *Always* Bet Your Low Locks
 

An even better example:

7 Card Stud High-Low ($10/$20), Ante $1, Bring-In $3 (converter)

3rd Street - (0.80 SB)

Seat 1: xx xx 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___calls
Seat 3: xx xx 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___brings-in___folds
Seat 4: xx xx 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___folds
Hero: Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___raises
Seat 6: xx xx T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 7: xx xx 3[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___folds
Seat 8: xx xx K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___folds

4th Street - (4.10 SB)

Seat 1: xx xx 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___calls
Hero: Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]___bets

5th Street - (3.55 BB)

Seat 1: xx xx 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]___calls
Seat 2: xx xx 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___folds
Hero: Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___bets

6th Street - (5.55 BB)

Seat 1: xx xx 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___raises
Hero: Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]___bets___calls

River - (9.55 BB)

Seat 1: xx xx 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] xx___raises
Hero: Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]___bets___folds

Total pot: (11.55 BB)

You can pay a lot of fractional rake with that kind of misclick equity.

Re: Why You Should *Always* Bet Your Low Locks
 

Your opponent obviously caught the 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] on the river to make a straight flush. Good fold [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]