[Matt Flynn]

joethepro,

[ QUOTE ]

SPR and Multiway pots

first, although you do address this issue in the making adjustment section, what mathematical shortcut can you make to SPRs in multiway pots?

do you have a suggestion for a short-cut?

[/ QUOTE ]


problem here is you can have such a wide range of opponents. if forced to answer i'd say use SPR for two opponents (three seeing the flop) and cut a fourth for each one after. so if 3-handed target SPR is 4 would go to 3 for 4-handed, then lop another fourth to 2.25 for 5-handed, etc. that may err on the conservative side a bit. but no way would i rec that in a book b/c it's so opponent and situation dependent. take it with a grain of salt.


[ QUOTE ]

3-Bet Equity

you mentioned making bet sizes preflop to reach target SPRs and although this is great the closer you are to the button, i would think the closer you are to being UTG it gets increasingly difficult to predict how the SPR will turn out with so many people behind you.

in early position, do you not so much try to reach a target as just bet and see what the SPR is on the flop and then make the adjustments?

i find that sometimes in early position, with AA or KK it's better not to make preflop adjustments to target SPRs and instead bet EXACTLY the standard preflop raise of the table. This lowers the respect you get from your raise because they've seen that size so many times now (i play on short handed tables) and sometimes induces what i term 3-BET EQUITY. someone behind you may reraise you to which you can then 3-bet, when if you had made a large preflop raise to gun for your target SPR you would get ppl fold the hands they were going to make a move on you with.

[/ QUOTE ]

hah nice. seriously, i agree, and it took me a long time to figure that out. this gets to when to use "nonexplotative" or "game theoretic" strategies, of which making a fixed preflop raise size has become online gospel. exposing your range hurts you more when you're out of position, especially if you play fewer hands anyway OOP as everyone should. imo, the farther you get from the button, the more nonexplotaitive you should get. the ramifications are significant for high-stakes games: many have moved to fixed preflop raises without sufficiently analyzing the difference in value and cost of using those strategies on button vs. utg, again in my opinion. here's a simple test: if you monkey around with your preflop raise sizes on the button, can your opponent figure you out? if not, next question is what can you gain by varying your play?

so utg is the first place i would use nonexplotaitive fixed raise size. next question is can your hand ranges stand a dichotomous strategy utg of limping or raising to Xbb. (you're allowed to randomize.)

a lot of people say no. imo some are overestimating the skills of their opponents, but there you go.

this stuff is really the fun part of analyzing poker for me. i wish we had volumes 2 (and maybe 3 and 4) done so we could explore this more in print.


[ QUOTE ]

Stack Size Position

you mentioned buying in short to make reaching target SPRs more easily achievable, but then you lose out on the benefits of a deep stack. one of the main points of SPRs, would you agree?, is to make simplier, those all in decisions and commitment thresholds. but i only usually find myself in those tough decisions when i'm out of position. so would it be more beneficial to find a table with short stacks to your immediate left.

so would it be best to buy in max, have shorts on your left and deeps on your right. this way you can minimize awkwardness for those on your left and manipulate awkward SPRs for the deep stacks on your right.

[/ QUOTE ]

hadn't thought of that. very cool idea. have you thought much about how that interacts with loose vs. tight vs. wild vs. raises preflop a lot - all the other seat selection issues? interesting.

matt

p.s. Sean thanks for the comments on joe's post.