PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

[Matt Flynn]

Today's is a more interesting topic.

Consider your potential risk and think how the hand is likely to play out.

[QTip]

I had a few thoughts while rereading this chapter.

1. Win money, not pots. I often get conflicting thoughts with this when I think about open raising hands like pps and Axs and so forth from MP or LP. I remember reading something in the little green book where Phil talks about if he had raised PF, he wouldn't have won near the money he did as the other guy would have probably folded his suited trash (the flush hit for both of them). I know the pros of raising and so forth as well....I just think it's an interesting paradox.

2. You talk about big pots vs. small pots. However, we don't really define where the line is there. I'm assuming we want to stay away from making the pot over 1/4 times the remaining smallest stack and folding since that's the committment threshold. However, what size do you think you would call a small stack? You give an example of a $65 and $485 behind and call that small; however, I was thinking that was starting to become a decent size pot.

3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it would be the opposite... if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold (e.g. in the AA hand, they're obviously getting the odds to draw out on you there, but they fold), and if they're not getting the odds to draw, you want them to call. You make money in the latter case if they fold as well, but not as much since you just win the current pot, rather than what you might have won if they called and didn't hit.

[crushednuts]

You want them to fold when the money remaining is less than their equity in the pot when they call. For example if he raises to 90 and folds leaving himself 10 he is actually costing himself ~$10 (depending on his hand) because if he calls w/ say 44 will have more equity than the $10 he "saves" by folding the worst hand

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me rephrase here:

I was saying that your goal is to have your opponent make the biggest mistake they will. When they have odds, their biggest mistake would be folding. When they don't have odds, their biggest mistake would be calling. (This excludes any raising options).

[Disconnected]

[ QUOTE ]
Let me rephrase here:

I was saying that your goal is to have your opponent make the biggest mistake they will. When they have odds, their biggest mistake would be folding. When they don't have odds, their biggest mistake would be calling. (This excludes any raising options).

[/ QUOTE ]

One small (but important, IMO) amendment which is they could still not be getting odds to call, and you'd still rather have them fold than call due to their equity, and your potential reverse implied odds. At least, I think what that AA example in the book is driving at.

I'm just thinking this out, so I actually may have it wrong. Whenever you're ahead but not a lock, your opponent by definition has some equity. So, you are hoping they'll call when they make a bigger mistake by calling than the equity you give up, and you want them to fold when they give up more pot equity than it costs them to call your bet (in terms of their new pot equity, I guess).

I'm not sure exactly what that means from a theory standpoint, but it seems like it should factor into the upcoming REM discussion.

In Theory of Poker, Sklansky talked about optimal bluffing frequency being such that no matter what, your opponent had the same negative expectation. I wonder if there's something related in terms of bet sizing where the optimal (HU) theoretical bet size would be equal to an amount that caused your opponent to have the same cost whether they called or folded.

Of course in practice, you'd like to have them call and have it be worse for them than what they give up by folding, but maybe it's an interesting theory question, anyway.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think where we going separate ways here Grunch is that you're talking about before we bet, and I'm talking about after we bet.

[WarhammerIIC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if they're getting the odds to draw, you want them to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. If your opponent has a draw and you are made, you don't want them to fold, specifically. You want them to be making a mistake if they continue. The difference is a difference in thought process, and it has both subtle and gross implications on correct strategy.

For example, if your goal is to make them fold as frequently as possible, you should just overbet all-in. This is the ammount that will get the most folds. The problem is that the only hands that will call are the hands that have you crushed, so going all-in is a -EV proposition many times. On the other hand, if you just bet the most that they will call incorrectly a somewhat frequent portion of the time, then that is a very +EV play. Sure it's much higher variance. He's going to suck out far more frequently than if you just overbet push. But low variance != high winrate in no-limit. In fact in this case, they can be quite the opposite.

Note that I'm just talking in general terms, and not responding to any particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
As said before, we're talking about different parts of the betting. I'm talking about after the bet has already been made. Like in the AA example, if the guy bets $90 and you raise him all-in for $10 more, you want him to fold... he's getting the odds to call you with any two cards. If, on the other hand, he bet $10 and you raised him all-in for $90 more, you would want him to call because he wouldn't have the odds to call.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
I had a few thoughts while rereading this chapter.

1. Win money, not pots. I often get conflicting thoughts with this when I think about open raising hands like pps and Axs and so forth from MP or LP. I remember reading something in the little green book where Phil talks about if he had raised PF, he wouldn't have won near the money he did as the other guy would have probably folded his suited trash (the flush hit for both of them). I know the pros of raising and so forth as well....I just think it's an interesting paradox.

2. You talk about big pots vs. small pots. However, we don't really define where the line is there. I'm assuming we want to stay away from making the pot over 4 times the remaining smallest stack and folding since that's the committment threshold. However, what size do you think you would call a small stack? You give an example of a $65 and $485 behind and call that small; however, I was thinking that was starting to become a decent size pot.

3. I've been thinking about the AA hand and how the "best" result is not to get all in but rather to have him raise some crazy amount and then fold. So, the concept there is that when you're opponent is getting odds to draw, you want them to call either way; however, you make more money when he folds. When your opponent is drawing and does not have odds, you prefer him to call cuz you make more money that way, but when he folds you make money as well. I think I have that straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find that I have a tendency to play for pots too much as well. Now that I have admitted it to myself I can solve the problem.



Also, I was curious about where the blurry line is when it comes to big pot vs. small pot. Are we saying once 1/3 of the smallest stack goes in we are big pot world?