Stack-To-Pot Ratios: Introduction

chaz64 · #1 07-01-2007, 11:07 AM

Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but are the authors saying your PF raise should tend to be a cetain percent of your stack? That's what I got from this anyway. They seem to be setting things up so it will be OK to become pot-commited (assuming no ace on the flop in the KK hand I would think). While betting less on the flop may lose some value, you may also lose action from some players if you raise more PF I would think. What am I misunderstanding here?

AFCBeer · #2 07-01-2007, 11:55 AM

It was certainly a thought provoking article but I think I'm going to have to read the book to put this into context. At first glance this seems to contradict some of the section on sizing preflop raises in NLHTAP where it says something along the lines of QQ being a small pot hand but 44 and JTs being a big pot hand.

What I have taken from the article is that with average stack sizes (100BB) then we should be raising enough preflop to get ourselves pot committed on a safe flop. However, I think what NLHTAP is talking about is raising less with big pairs when stacks are very deep to avoid getting committed, while raising more with 44 and JTs to get opponents committed when we hit.

JPFisher55 · #3 07-01-2007, 04:22 PM

I was not impressed with the article. I think that pot sized bet on the flop is too big. I prefer about 2/3 to 3/4 in that situation. On the turn, I would bet 40-50% of the pot and probably fold to any raise larger than min. raise. If I checked the turn then I would fold to a pot sized bet.
The article seemed to suggest getting alot of money in soon so you will be pot committed. I don't get this advice.
You are going to fold some winnning hands in poker, especially one pair holdings.
I think I will save my $30 for another book.

Matt Flynn · #4 07-01-2007, 04:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was not impressed with the article. I think that pot sized bet on the flop is too big. I prefer about 2/3 to 3/4 in that situation. On the turn, I would bet 40-50% of the pot and probably fold to any raise larger than min. raise. If I checked the turn then I would fold to a pot sized bet.
The article seemed to suggest getting alot of money in soon so you will be pot committed. I don't get this advice.
You are going to fold some winnning hands in poker, especially one pair holdings.
I think I will save my $30 for another book.

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually make a 2/3 to 3/4 pot bet there too and usually wouldn't commit against my typical opponents, especially in the first hand....

Jacob_Gilliam · #5 07-01-2007, 06:54 PM

I think the point of the exerpt was to show how inappropriatly sizing your bets relative to the stack sizes can put you in ackward situations and not necessarily whether this was the absolute optimum play for the hand. As a player who is switching from limit (and limit stud for that matter) to someone who has taken up NL only a couple of months ago, I have found myself in a lot of situations like the example wher I am stuck in a situation wher my stack relative to the pot puts me in a difficult place. So the artcle has only wetted my appetite further for this book. Cant wait!!! Although I will have to wait longer as I live in Mexico and it takes longer to ship stuff down here. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

JPFisher55 · #6 07-01-2007, 07:38 PM

Ok maybe the example hand is a bad example. Truthfully, I think it is hard to avoid the middle ground with premuim pocket pairs. I prefer to get all in with KK or AA preflop and not 100Xbig blind with KK. After the flop, if I only have one pair, even overpair, I like to keep the pot reasonable and will fold to pressure, especially after the turn or an unfavorable board.
I just don't see how raising 6xbig blind preflop will manage the pot size and raising all in on the flop with a manageable board will accomplish these objectives.
I play $.25/.50 and $.50/1 NLHE. I have found (actually kept date) on whether KK or AA overpair is likely to be good after the flop. I have found that if the board has only 1 card over a T, then it is good 2/3 of the time. However, I have also learned that a value raise (over min. raise but less than all in) to my initial bet is worse news than an all in raise.
Raises to an overpair after the turn is bad news for the overpair unless the opponent is a known LAG.

jeffnc · #7 07-02-2007, 09:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I was not impressed with the article. I think that pot sized bet on the flop is too big. I prefer about 2/3 to 3/4 in that situation. On the turn, I would bet 40-50% of the pot and probably fold to any raise larger than min. raise. If I checked the turn then I would fold to a pot sized bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

As Matt pointed out in the article, that's highly exploitable. A set is precisely the sort of hand that many opponents would min-raise. And if you checked the turn and folded to a turn bet, then I'd float the flop and bet the turn every time on you, regardless of my cards.

jeffnc · #8 07-02-2007, 09:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The article seemed to suggest getting alot of money in soon so you will be pot committed. I don't get this advice.
You are going to fold some winnning hands in poker, especially one pair holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept is pretty simple. The execution is usually not, but that's why poker's a tough game.

Let's take it to the extreme. You have AA and everyone has $100. You raise to $30 preflop and get 2 callers. This is a fantastic result. Going all in on the flop is a no-brainer, and exactly what you want. In this example it's obvious, right?

The point in this simple case is the preflop raise size determines the odds your opponents are getting to outdraw you when you have the best hand. They're not getting enough. And, obviously, you're getting too good pot odds to fold after the flop. You *want* to pot commit yourself early with (early) monsters, because that means you'll either pot commit your opponents when they're behind, or you'll just scoop the dead money when they fold.

If you are playing in a game where you will get 2 callers with a $30 raise and only $100 stacks, then this is a fantastic play (it's the best play assuming those opponents will fold too often if you move all-in, but obviously it would be even better if they called all-in preflop). The problem with this scenario is it's usually too good to be true, so you have to go with what you can get away with.

PLOlover · #9 07-05-2007, 08:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You *want* to pot commit yourself early with (early) monsters, because that means you'll either pot commit your opponents when they're behind, or you'll just scoop the dead money when they fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this applies a lot better to 3bet situations preflop and how much to 3bet and when to 3bet a little more or more than pot. This was one of the main adjustments I made when I played at absolute and their 200bb buyin tables, if i decided to put a lot of money in preflop with AA/KK i really put in a lot of money because frankly I wansn't good enough to be able to get away from my hand so I just mooted that point to make things easy on myself.

also bad lobster's post about # of players preflop is much easier to estimate or guess when you're in a 3bet situation.

jeffnc · #10 07-05-2007, 11:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You *want* to pot commit yourself early with (early) monsters, because that means you'll either pot commit your opponents when they're behind, or you'll just scoop the dead money when they fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this applies a lot better to 3bet situations preflop and how much to 3bet and when to 3bet a little more or more than pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's one specific example, but I was talking generally. You want to get as much in as you can and commit if you can get away with it. There's no need to 3 bet if you can get half of your stack or an opponent's stack in before the flop. Or get all in. etc.