Stack-To-Pot Ratios: Introduction

[egj]

One of the assumptions of this article appears to be that you should play in such a way as to avoid tough decisions. I question this assumption. It seems to me that there are many circumstances where it is better to take the line that leads to a tough decision rather than the one that avoids such a decision.

As an example, let's say you're on the river, first to act, with a medium pair (below top pair). You believe your opponent is likely to hold top pair or a busted draw. You could bet and your decision making then becomes easy (we'll assume you have a clear laydown to any raise). The problem is that your opponent will fold almost any hands you beat (i.e., mainly the busted draws) and almost always be ahead (mostly with top pair) when he calls.

A better course is to check and seriously consider calling. You will likely induce some bluffs which you can pick off. However, depending on the opponent, your hand and the board, that decision to call may be a tough one. Nevertheless, checking seems clearly superior to betting in that situation.

If you're losing money by making bad decisions in tough spots, rather than avoiding the tough spots, your better option might be just to improve your decision making so you make better choices in such cases.

I would also add that often tough spots are tough because your alternatives are roughly equivalent EV-wise and it may not matter a great deal what you do (in the long run). That is another case in which there is no reason to avoid a tough decision.

[jeffnc]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the assumptions of this article appears to be that you should play in such a way as to avoid tough decisions. I question this assumption. ...If you're losing money by making bad decisions in tough spots, rather than avoiding the tough spots, your better option might be just to improve your decision making so you make better choices in such cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Improve your decision making to the point where the decisions aren't difficult to make any more?

[egj]

No, improve your decision making to the point that you make good decisions...

I'm saying sometimes you can't avoid facing tough decisions (except by making bad -EV choices), so you might as well make the best of it and play as well as you can in those spots.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the assumptions of this article appears to be that you should play in such a way as to avoid tough decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't accurate and is often brought up in discussions about taking lines that lead to easier decisions later in the hand. Due to the geometric growth of the pot in big-bet poker, adjusting bet and raise sizes slightly (within a few BB) on early streets can result in pot sizes that are much more appropriate for stack sizes later in the hand (as the article illustrates). You give up very little, if anything, by sizing bets a little differently on early streets compared to what you give up when you face a tough decision due to poor pot size management later in the hand.

The article didn't spell this out but it's a common concept in big bet poker.

[egj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One of the assumptions of this article appears to be that you should play in such a way as to avoid tough decisions.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't accurate

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
compared to what you give up when you face a tough decision due to poor pot size management later in the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this. You disagree, and then you more or less restate the claim that I attribute to the authors.

[Ghazban]

I wasn't very clear. Let me try again.

Your post sounds like you believe the authors are making the avoidance of tough decisions a priority at the expense of more profitable lines. I don't think this is the case. I believe that managing the pot size effectively early in the hand will rarely if ever cost you anything that you would've made up by taking a line that puts you to difficult decisions due to the pot and stack sizes later.

[mrjetguy]

just read the article and I did not like it. If one needs to read the book to get it then I think it was a poor choice of topics. But there was no mention in the article about how there is a reason people have the standard 3bb raise. Also, all the talk about how the hand becomes easier to play seemed aimed at the lowest end of poker players.

[FishNChips]

I had the same question as an earlier poster about number of preflop callers. I appreciate Matt's response on the question.

Other question that I have is this - in the first hand, you stated : Let's start with REM. (Editor's Note: REM stands for Range, Equity, Maximize, and it is a three-step process that we use to make every no-limit decision.) The button plays loosely when he has position, so his range is wide. However, if he gets all-in, you expect him to have a better hand than kings. So going all-in has a negative expectation, and you don't want to commit."
In the 2nd example, there is no such statement. Did we change villains? Are we still losing our stack (minus a miracle 2 outer on the river) once the money goes in? If we lose our stack to this loose villain anytime we get the chips in, then why do we want to build a pot that commits us?

Thanks,
FishNChips

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
I had the same question as an earlier poster about number of preflop callers. I appreciate Matt's response on the question.

Other question that I have is this - in the first hand, you stated : Let's start with REM. (Editor's Note: REM stands for Range, Equity, Maximize, and it is a three-step process that we use to make every no-limit decision.) The button plays loosely when he has position, so his range is wide. However, if he gets all-in, you expect him to have a better hand than kings. So going all-in has a negative expectation, and you don't want to commit."
In the 2nd example, there is no such statement. Did we change villains? Are we still losing our stack (minus a miracle 2 outer on the river) once the money goes in? If we lose our stack to this loose villain anytime we get the chips in, then why do we want to build a pot that commits us?

Thanks,
FishNChips

[/ QUOTE ]


in the second example Hero raised more preflop vs. an opponent who was indifferent to the raise and so did not fold his weaker hands. because there was so much more money in preflop, opponent's all-in range broadened a lot, making it profitable to get all-in. that was not stated explicitly.

[The Real HP333]

i enjoyed reading some of the responses. thanks.