600NL stupid hand versus regular

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
You have no [censored] idea what you are talking about. Go back to playing .1/.2 NL.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. Thank you for yor in depth mathematical refutation of my calculation that EV(larger raise) is greater than EV(smaller raise).

I admit that I may be wrong, but math would be better than "you don't know what you're talking about because I said so."

[jack frost]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Raise to $50 or $60 to make it more expensive for CO to outflop you

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf? are you serious. Raising to 10x the BB is terrible and thats an understatement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Tell me why raising double the 5xbb raise in the OP is bad. Because he won't get action? I would expect many players who open limp in the CO to call a raise from BB to $60 optimistically hoping to flop a set. Every session I play I see guys call 10xbb preflop raises (and sometimes more) optimistically hoping to flop a set.

So, yes, I would think raising to $50 or $60 is better than raising to $30 if your plan is to play your big pair oop on most flops for stacks. And that appears to have been OP's plan from the start.

And I would think stacking off for 19x your preflop raise is terrible, too, but that's the line he took in the OP.

If you don't raise more, and then if you play the hand in a way that pretty much guarantee's that you're getting your stack in by the river on most flops, then you give away too much in the way of reverse implied odds to your opponents.

As for telegraphing your hand with a big raise, I think raising an overly large amount from the BB in limped pots is something to do with very good hands as well as occasionally with not-so good hands as a kind of semi-bluff to steal the limpers' money. If you mix this up on occaision with just a few non-premium hands, then it will be tough for open limpers to play well against your raise. They will either fold too much preflop, or risk too much to see a flop.

So, a little more analysis of why a big raise is bad might be nice, other than "obviously." It is obvioulsy not standard thinking, but it may be better than winning too little OOP when you're ahead, and losing too much OOP when you get outflopped without making him pay a premium preflop to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL

[/ QUOTE ]

Inciteful.

Math, please? EV(smaller raise) > EV(larger raise) because, "LOL"?

[Spinners]

lol

[Mike Kelley]

I didn't see anywhere in your math where OP sucks out after villain does hit his set Albert.

I've heard others say we still have around 18% equity, That matters.

[Phresh]

Albert,

Sometimes people just say something so ridiculous that people can't even be bothered to respond to it.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't see anywhere in your math where OP sucks out after villain does hit his set Albert.

I've heard others say we still have around 18% equity, That matters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. That would also need to include the suck out suck out of quads for the lower set.

I'm not sure I know how to factor that in, but I'm also not sure it would significantly change the calculation because I would expect the chance of getting a set on the turn or river to be about 8% using the 2/4 rule. And 4% of the time the other guy gets quads on the turn leaving you drawing dead on the river.

I strongly suspect that it would be a wash unless there was a backdoor nut flush draw or a flush draw for the overpair, in which case the situation changes quite a bit. But since we are trying to gauge a preflop amount, we should probably assume a random flop that usually doesn't contain those draws.

[Mike Kelley]

Jhill has done some nice work on how to do the calculations. It's not a wash.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
Edit 2: The EV on the pot size for losing to a set and set overset, above, forgot to include the pot and only included the remaining stacks. The result is unchanged (EV large raise > EV small raise), but the actual calculation, above, is a little off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the calculations.

EV($30 raise) = 1.00*[($63*0.88)+(0.11*-$594)+(0.01*$594)] = -$3.96

EV($60 raise) = ( 0.1*[($123*0.88)+(0.11*-$594)+(0.01*$594)] ) + ( 0.9*(3+6+6) ) = $18.38

Ok. I think I figured out where I'd missed on the pot sizes and implied odds, so this is a better calculation.

But the conclusion still seems to be that EV(bigger raise) > EV(smaller raise).

Mike's question about the possibility of the higher pair getting a set on the turn and river is valid, but I don't know how to calculate it. And I suspect it is only an 8% or so occurance, and even smaller when figuring in that the smaller set gets quads on the turn about 4% of the time.

[Albert Moulton]

[ QUOTE ]
Jhill has done some nice work on how to do the calculations. It's not a wash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I'll work on it and see what I can find. If somebody else knows how to chance my EV calc to account for the chance for the overpair to get a higher set without the lower set getting quads please let me know if it changes EV(smaller raise) to being greater than EV (larger raise).