letting your opponent know what you have

[samoleus]

I have been alluding to this concept for quite a while now, and I finally have the time to post about this concept in some detail. The premise that I had introduced some time back is that sometimes it can have maximum EV to let your opponent know what you have (and/or play a line that does not allow you to know were you stand).

The lines that seem to be generally favored on this forum are easier to play: they let you know where you stand in the hand and ulitmately make your decisions fairly easy. However, I contend that it can often be better to play your hand in a manner that is much more transparent to your opponent and consequently more difficult for you. It may not be pleasant, but in the end, it will make you the most money.

OK that was all abstract. Let me make up an example to illustrate this. Let us say that you have 100BB stacks and your opponent makes a standard raise. Assume that your opponent's opening standards are pairs, two broadway cards, and sometimes suited connectors. Probably not that important, but we can give more weight to hands like AK than hands like J-10. Anyway, you call on the button with pocket jacks.

Now let's say the flop comes down K-3-3 rainbow. Your opponent bets into you for close to the pot. What do you do here?

Well, let us introduce some stipulations. Let us say that if you raise here, your opponent will fold any hand that you beat and will call or reraise with any hand that is ahead of you. With that information, one could argue that you should raise "so that you know where you are" and shut down if your opponent calls or reraises. Sure enough, that would be the easiest play and the one that ensures that you don't make any major mistakes here.

However, getting back to the stipulations, assume that your opponent is an aggressive opponent who will more or less know if you just call his flop bet that you have some kind of pocket pair lower than the king. He knows that if you could beat a pair of kings, you would have raised his flop bet. Moreover, it is unlikely that you would have called a preflop raise with a hand that has a 3 in it, so he can rule out any slow play. So knowing that you have a pocket pair - queens at best, your opponent will USE the king to keep betting into you.

So basically, what I am saying is that if you just call that flop bet, your opponent will bet again on the turn. Now he will make that bet with AK, AA, KK, QQ, and all hands that beat you. But he will also make that bet with all manner of other hands since you "told" him that you can't beat a king.

This means that you have put yourself in the unpleasant position of having to call a big turn bet and perhaps a big river bet when you can't even beat top pair. You don't know whether or not you are beaten. Seems like a bum deal, doesn't it? ... But here's the thing: if your opponent's opening standard is wide, and he is aggro enough to pounce on the weakness that you showed by just calling the flop bet, he will bet into you on the turn (and maybe river) no matter what he has. And there are far more hands that he can have that don't beat you than hands that do. So by playing it this way, you extract a turn (and maybe river bet) from him as he tries to outplay you since you told him that you can't beat a king. Of course, you end up losing more if he does have you beat, but more often than not, you will much more money than you would have won if you had raised him "to find out where you are." Note also that by raising him, you forfeit the amount of your raise if he comes over the top of you - while you would be calling a comparable amount with his turn bet anyway.

So clearly, against the type of opponent that I described, it is far superior to just call with your jacks - despite the fact that you forfeit the opportunity to find out where you are and also put yourself in the difficult position of having to call multiple bets with a marginal hand. Of course I intentionally created a hand that was pretty straightforward and draw free. Potential draws and such change the dynamics of course, but the principle is what I am trying to post about.

The bottom line is that the highest EV lines are not necessarily the easiest to play. That is what I meant when I said some time back that it can indeed be positive EV to let my opponent know what I have - even a very strong opponent.

If you refer back to the QQ hand against Ledingue (it was actually Bld - I got my opponents confused) and fukken that I wrote about, I decided that this was a position where the highest EV play was actually allowing a fantastic player like Bld to know what I have and daring him to outplay me. In that case, I did fold for the stack size reasons that I explained in that thread, but if he had had more behind, I would have called his river bet as well.

I know that this thread was a bit disjointed. I hope it made some sense, and I'd enjoy a discussion about it.

Cheers,
Samo

[yvesaint]

there is a very good article ML4L wrote saying basically this - that "raising for information" is usually a terrible idea and is a great way to lose the maximum and win the minimum. i know the example you posted is very simple, but its an easy way to demonstrate it. all of this is still very opponent dependent, as against a lot of weaker villains calling the flop and folding to a turn bet is standard, while against others calling all 3 barrels might be

[neon]

Sam,

This is some inner-circle [censored], dude. I almost wish you hadn't posted this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Great post, though; I agree with just about everything you said, w/ the exception that against very good players, always playing your hand transparently and "daring them to outplay you," as you put it, can turn into quite a costly proposition. If, using your K33 flop w/ JJ example, your opponent a) knows you will play QQ-TT in this manner preflop and on the flop, b) will three barrel w/ both AK and air, and c) has optimal bluffing frequency, exclusively using your proscribed line can be dangerous, dangerous, dangerous.

I'm pretty sure you're mixing up your lines, though, and just saying that a lot of the "default" lines people are often recommending on 2p2 aren't the most profitable even if they do lead to fewer tough decisions, which I completely agree with. Not everyone is better off making tons of marginal decisions, though, Sam. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Hope all is well.

-neon.

[aejones]

You must rely upon knowing your opponent- as you said. I feel like a problem that would arise is that against some opponents, they will shut down on the turn. Now, let's say that an opponent will check to you on the turn in the hand with JJ. The turn is an 8. The board is K 8 3 3, you have JJ. If checked to, what is the correct play?

What if the opponent has A3, and he's picked a very tricky spot to lead the flop, then check the turn to show weakness, whereupon he will checkraise you with trips by an ace. What if this opponent can do this with nothing- "knowing" that you don't have a three here and trying to checkraise you off of your middle pair or "weak" king?

What if this opponent has AQ? If he checks to you and you check through, he's got 6 outs. Even by just calling the flop, you are giving him 6 outs twice (assuming the turn is not an 8 this time). If you check through, you are giving him a chance to improve- if you bet, he could be capable of checkraising you without a hand.

This example can be further exemplified by a draws, as you said. What if he picks up a draw on the turn? What if he mashes something runner runner- or if he's capable of leading with all sorts of draws, including a variety of inside straight draws so that if he does hit his hand it will look disguised.

I'm just trying to weigh the options of how often you will have to be correct by calling him down vs how often he will actually come up with a hand here. Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate. Good post.

[samoleus]

aejones, indeed your opponent's tendencies, mood, turn action, and what the turn card is (in terms of setting up draws and such) can really dynamically affect your best turn play. This situation is too fluid to provide a formulaic answer. I just wanted to demonstrate the point that it can be best to play a hand in a manner that allows your opponent - even (maybe even especially) a tricky one.

[aejones]

I agree with that, I think letting people pounce on the pot often is a great "defense" against some very aggressive players. However, I think that it's important that you don't define your hand too much against them. I mean, I don't think you should be "always" calling with QQ-66 here and "always" raising with a 3 or a K (obviously you aren't- just trying to illustrate a point).

What I'm saying is, your range should be wide enough so that you will make this play with more than just mid pockets, if you do this with only a hand that can pick off a bluff, you will allow your opponent to play perfectly. Now I understand that is the point of the post, to let him try to outplay you- but if he can adjust to it in a way that he will make the correct size bets to eventually get you to lay it down, or just check all the way down to save himself money that he would bluff with and try to catch up at the same time, maybe you are letting him off the hook too easy.

[samoleus]

precisely. if I am playing with an overly aggressive player, you can bet that I would play KK and 43s the same way too.

[econ]

This is really my first post of substance here, but I find this question interesting.

While I realize Sam was presenting a more general question for discussion, he has focused on an example and I'm going to focus my response/question around the example as well.

I don't generally see discussions of way ahead/way behind situations in no limit (I guess he could have AQ, but no other hands have more than 3 outs). I think this is due to the fact that you will more often be calling LARGE bets on subsequent streets when you have the worst hand and making little if you have the best hand because opponents usually slow down if they can't beat JJ, whereas they may continue to bet in limit poker as mistakes are smaller. I will, however, take a WA/WB line in situations like this, with the most important factors being the opponent's level of aggression and the level of "drawiness" present.

If I know that he will continue to bet if he has a worse hand as well as if he has a better hand, repping the K+, and his bet sizes are the same in either situation, the only consideration becomes whether or not you beat half of villain's post-flop-bet range (usually slightly less than half as there is generally some overlay). As was pointed out, you can generally get to the river for the same amount you'd raise anyway. In situations like this (K33), raising would be my last option. I don't think it is good at all. Calling a large river bet w/ a marginal hand is not fun, but it has worked out pretty well for me in situatins such as the one Sam presented.

My question is: What makes this situation different from WA/WB and why do NL players discuss it so infrequently? Am I doing something wrong taking this line occasionally? I never realized it before, but I see very little discussion of WA/WB relative to the amount I see in discussions of limit poker and I think it is due to the rapidly escalating bet sizes in no limit. When I see a player of Sam's obvious skill discuss a topic that seems so simple I start to get worried. (Remember, I'm only taking a WA/WB line against the most aggressive of opponents and when draws are less likely to be part of his range.)

The above is somewhat tangential to the thread title. I generally think it is not a good idea to let excellent opponents know what you have because they will adjust. For example, taking that line against BLD may work a couple times, but I can't imagine he wouldn't adjust. If you have plans to play only a few hands with a particular opponent, occasionally letting them know what you have is OK, IMO, if you have better knowledge of his behavior than he has of yours. Long-term, if your opponents are good players, I would be less likely to "tell them my hand" because they will become more and more familiar with what you do with certain hands and will adjust accordingly. I'm probably more willing to remain in the dark as to where I stand than I am to let my opponents know EXACTLY where they are at, especially if the opponent is a good player.

[PickyTooth]

[ QUOTE ]
Sam,

This is some inner-circle [censored], dude. I almost wish you hadn't posted this. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]


-neon.

[/ QUOTE ]

wasnt this whole topic covered in theory of poker (making your opponents make mistakes)

[PickyTooth]

what in the world is WA/WB