Stack-To-Pot Ratios: Introduction

[JPFisher55]

I actually kept stats on allins after the flop, but before the turn, when I had overpair KK or AA or TPTK with pair of K's or A's. I get stats on whether I was ahead or behind and the results.
I did have criteria on whether I would call or raise all in in that situation. The board had to be ragged, no straight or flush possibles and unpaired. Also, there had to be no more than one card over a T. I play in games where players call preflop raises with anything.
In 2006 I kept stats on over 200 such hands. I was ahead about 70% of the time. Didn't when that often and strangely never game back to win when behind. Did suffer a couple of two out losses last year in that situation.

[Toms]

I thought the article was interesting. The actual cards and scenario used in the article were in my mind secondary to the idea of tying in pre and post flop decisions. I always try to anticipate where I am going with my hand before I get involved and it looks like this book will give me some food for thought. I look forward to reading it. Good Luck with the sales although I think you will be pleasantly suprised with them.

[jeffnc]

I think this article is good stuff. The book is going to help me understand something that I've been struggling to come up with an answer for, but hadn't worked out 100% yet.

But Matt, I have one burning question, and it has to do with preflop bet sizing on different types of tables. If your opponents are anything but clueless dolts, you can't just go around raising AA/KK to 6x or 10x the BB, and nothing else. I have a concern about raising weaker hands that much as well, which I might need to to blend my play. Ultimately, my concern is your comment - "That's not realistic for some games, but bear with the example."

[jeffnc]

[ 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]

[ 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.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this article is good stuff. The book is going to help me understand something that I've been struggling to come up with an answer for, but hadn't worked out 100% yet.

But Matt, I have one burning question, and it has to do with preflop bet sizing on different types of tables. If your opponents are anything but clueless dolts, you can't just go around raising AA/KK to 6x or 10x the BB, and nothing else. I have a concern about raising weaker hands that much as well, which I might need to to blend my play. Ultimately, my concern is your comment - "That's not realistic for some games, but bear with the example."

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep SPR analysis won't cure your no-limit woes, and you point out the biggest limitation. We address it in detail in the book, including the drawbacks.

If your opponents won't call 6bb raises (like, say, MOST online games once you get above $0.50-$1) you wouldn't raise to 6bb. For example, I never open-raise to 6bb online. But if your opponents would still call with a wide range, you should. The kings example just shows that in an ideal world you would want to raise more, not because you have the best hand, but because you vastly prefer to be committed when an ace doesn't flop. You can still use SPR to get a great idea of where you'll be postflop when you hit, and the analysis makes for some interesting results about what raise sizes to use, what stack sizes are easier to play, what lines to take, etc. Plus it forces you to do some planning and shows what the turn can bring before you enter the pot preflop. That can save a lot of pain.

Hope you like it Jeff!

[Bad Lobster]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but are the authors saying your PF raise should tend to be a cetain percent of your stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be logical if there weren't so many other variables; unfortunately there are. Maybe closer to correct to say that the resulting pot size should be a certain percent of your stack.


I saw a big logical flaw in the article as presented--that is that the given "correct" bet size for pot management depends on knowing in advance how many callers you will get. Yes, a $15 bet with two callers leads to an uncomfortable pot size situation. But unfortunately the player didn't know when he made the bet that exactly two people would call. He might well have ended up with a very different pot size going into the flop. And ditto for knowing in advance that there would be such a ragged flop.

This sort of obviates the "mental barrier" statement. The reason people tend to think of the preflop action as largely separate from the postflop action is that it largely is.

[HighSteaks]

I really like this article and am looking forward to the book [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I think this problem is the most prominent at the moment in the type of games I play 25NL FTP 6 max where there is a mix of SOME opponents who are starting to "get it" and MOST who are not paying attention. I have raised 4x across the board but am at the point where I think the information advantage I give out by spliting my hands into two groups of 3x and 6x is far secondary to running into this problem all the time. I concede this is much more complicated at higher levels however.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
I really like this article and am looking forward to the book [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]. I think this problem is the most prominent at the moment in the type of games I play 25NL FTP 6 max where there is a mix of SOME opponents who are starting to "get it" and MOST who are not paying attention. I have raised 4x across the board but am at the point where I think the information advantage I give out by spliting my hands into two groups of 3x and 6x is far secondary to running into this problem all the time. I concede this is much more complicated at higher levels however.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh man you can nuke these guys by splitting into 3bb and 6bb raise groups if they'll let you get away with it. you can even randomize 10% to throw them off. keep in mind you still want opponents loose enough to stack off with hands slightly worse then yours given the raise preflop and the stack sizes. much more on that will follow in the book. see you in the dungeon!

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm oversimplifying things, but are the authors saying your PF raise should tend to be a cetain percent of your stack?

[/ QUOTE ]

That would be logical if there weren't so many other variables; unfortunately there are. Maybe closer to correct to say that the resulting pot size should be a certain percent of your stack.


I saw a big logical flaw in the article as presented--that is that the given "correct" bet size for pot management depends on knowing in advance how many callers you will get.

[/ QUOTE ]


what you point out is not a logical flaw but a consequence of playing in an uncertain game. no one can determine for sure how many callers a raise will get. at the same time, there is a probability distribution of likelihood of # of callers. you CAN exploit that probability distribution: information helps even if it's imperfect.

also, you may face different stack sizes, which further complicates the problem.

nevertheless, understanding in advance how a hand is likely to play out and then nudging it towards good outcomes for yourself IS viable. the more leeway your opponents give you by being indifferent to raise sizes or playing short stacks or otherwise helping your cause, the more you can push it towards good outcomes for you.


[ QUOTE ]
This sort of obviates the "mental barrier" statement. The reason people tend to think of the preflop action as largely separate from the postflop action is that it largely is.

[/ QUOTE ]

preflop actions vastly influence postflop play under most game conditions. preflop uncertainty due to not knowing who will call, how many will call, and so forth does not change that fact. however, it does make it harder to exploit. we contend the process is still quite valuable. it's bionic if you play a short stack against players who are considerably looser than you are preflop, such as commonly occurs in medium and high stakes online 6-max games now. (i hate short stack poker, but an edge is an edge.)