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