Professional No-Limit Hold 'em Volume 1 Review Thread

[SenecaJim]

[ QUOTE ]
Now it costs our opponent $65 to call while there is $395 in the pot. The pot is laying him 6-1 on a call, while he is 1-5.1 to make his flush.



[/ QUOTE ]

How do you get 1-5.1 to make his flush? I get a better figure. There is no flush card that can hit and lose to a full house. How do 9 outs out of 44 cards come out 1-5.1?

[1p0kerboy]

I don't know where I got that number. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Did you get 1-3.88?

Matt,
looking forward to your response of course.

[1p0kerboy]

Also note that in my example we make money on any amount bet. Even if it is small enough that it allows our opponent to make money as well. But we should still make it a mistake for our opponent to call. That maximizes our expectation while decreasing our opponents to the point where his falls below 0.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]
Also note that in my example we make money on any amount bet. Even if it is small enough that it allows our opponent to make money as well. But we should still make it a mistake for our opponent to call. That maximizes our expectation while decreasing our opponents to the point where his falls below 0.

[/ QUOTE ]


hi pokerboy,

i'm exhausted, flight was way delayed coming home last night from LA, and this question deserves a well-rested response.

who is "right" depends on the underlying assumptions and gets seriously complex. the discussion topic is fantastic. if you've done this on the forums please link.

in pokerboy's example we have the best hand and opponent has a flush draw. there is a bunch of dead money in the pot. we benefit from every dollar that goes into the pot b/c opponent is roughly 4:1 to hit. however, opponent also has equity in the dead money. in this situation, if we assume opponent will not bluff if checked to (on the turn or river), then any bet > 0 benefits us. however, we want to price opponent out of the pot. if we bet exactly the price-in point, opponent is indifferent between calling and folding and so cannot make a mistake. if we bet less than the price-in point, we yield equity to opponent when he calls. if we bet more than the price-in point, opponent can make a mistake.

as an aside, in these situations, we DEFINE the equity of folding as zero. that's the correct frame of reference for decision-making. however, the equity of folding is not zero from a play-of-hand perspective. once you fold, the money you put into the pot is really gone as opposed to in play. for example, the decision-making starting point may be "i have 10% equity in this $100 pot, which is $10. if i spontaneously stick my hand into the muck, i lose $10." the cost of folding is $10, not zero. however, to decide whether you should make a play (like call a $50 bet), you "tare" to zero before weighing the option.

ok back to the example. we had a nuance we had to stick in, which is considering the value of future bluff-catching. say opponent loves to push on the river when he misses if he is not priced out on the turn. then it can be better to offer him a good price to draw because we make up for it by picking up equity when he misses the river and we call his bluff. once that nuance is defined out, the answer becomes clear.

in a similar way, there are major nuances in the AA vs. 66 hand. for example, opponent may have a wider calling range for a small limp-reraise than just pocket pairs, and we get a lot more equity when a non-pair hand calls. if we ignore these nuances or define them out, then pokerboy is right. opponent can have enough equity in the dead money and implied odds that calling is correct, and we lose because he calls. in other words, we would do better if we bet more, regardless of whether he folds or calls the bigger bet.

if we include the nuances, then pokerboy's perspective is often not the optimal one. however, the devil is in the nuance assumptions. these are tough to quantify and malleable depending on your mood and debating position. tomorrow i will argue that typical nuance issues make "my" perspective better.

matt

[fraac]

If it's that close a decision, does it come down to table image for future hands?

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also note that in my example we make money on any amount bet. Even if it is small enough that it allows our opponent to make money as well. But we should still make it a mistake for our opponent to call. That maximizes our expectation while decreasing our opponents to the point where his falls below 0.

[/ QUOTE ]


hi pokerboy,

i'm exhausted, flight was way delayed coming home last night from LA, and this question deserves a well-rested response.

who is "right" depends on the underlying assumptions and gets seriously complex. the discussion topic is fantastic. if you've done this on the forums please link.

in pokerboy's example we have the best hand and opponent has a flush draw. there is a bunch of dead money in the pot. we benefit from every dollar that goes into the pot b/c opponent is roughly 4:1 to hit. however, opponent also has equity in the dead money. in this situation, if we assume opponent will not bluff if checked to (on the turn or river), then any bet > 0 benefits us. however, we want to price opponent out of the pot. if we bet exactly the price-in point, opponent is indifferent between calling and folding and so cannot make a mistake. if we bet less than the price-in point, we yield equity to opponent when he calls. if we bet more than the price-in point, opponent can make a mistake.

as an aside, in these situations, we DEFINE the equity of folding as zero. that's the correct frame of reference for decision-making. however, the equity of folding is not zero from a play-of-hand perspective. once you fold, the money you put into the pot is really gone as opposed to in play. for example, the decision-making starting point may be "i have 10% equity in this $100 pot, which is $10. if i spontaneously stick my hand into the muck, i lose $10." the cost of folding is $10, not zero. however, to decide whether you should make a play (like call a $50 bet), you "tare" to zero before weighing the option.

ok back to the example. we had a nuance we had to stick in, which is considering the value of future bluff-catching. say opponent loves to push on the river when he misses if he is not priced out on the turn. then it can be better to offer him a good price to draw because we make up for it by picking up equity when he misses the river and we call his bluff. once that nuance is defined out, the answer becomes clear.

in a similar way, there are major nuances in the AA vs. 66 hand. for example, opponent may have a wider calling range for a small limp-reraise than just pocket pairs, and we get a lot more equity when a non-pair hand calls. if we ignore these nuances or define them out, then pokerboy is right. opponent can have enough equity in the dead money and implied odds that calling is correct, and we lose because he calls. in other words, we would do better if we bet more, regardless of whether he folds or calls the bigger bet.

if we include the nuances, then pokerboy's perspective is often not the optimal one. however, the devil is in the nuance assumptions. these are tough to quantify and malleable depending on your mood and debating position. tomorrow i will argue that typical nuance issues make "my" perspective better.

matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Very interesting. Nice post, sir.

[1p0kerboy]

Matt-

that was an extremely thought-provoking post.

To make sure I'm looking at what you are saying correctly, here's my summary (using the KK/66 hand):

We're not too worried if the button can show a small profit from set-mining us because there are going to be a ton of ways that he can make mistakes after the flop that we expect to profit from that more than makes up for it. Some of these mistakes are:

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Trying to bluff us off our hand. (Actually we are likely to have an opportunity to induce a bluff).
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Making a weaker top-pair type hand than ours.
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Putting more money into the pot because he's not sure he's beat. (He might float with a pair and then fold when we make our committment bet).
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Make a weaker overpair and stack off with it.

In fact, the fact that we are in a live game with pretty lose players makes the above even more likely.

I guess I wasn't thinking about it from that perspective.

Would you want to raise more preflop if you were in a tougher game or if you had specific information about your opponent? (Such as him being nitty and not putting a penny more into the pot unless he outflops you).

[1p0kerboy]

^^^ Also I would love to see more info like this in the future installments of PNL!

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

We're not too worried if the button can show a small profit from set-mining us because there are going to be a ton of ways that he can make mistakes after the flop that we expect to profit from that more than makes up for it. Some of these mistakes are:

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Trying to bluff us off our hand. (Actually we are likely to have an opportunity to induce a bluff).
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Making a weaker top-pair type hand than ours.
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Putting more money into the pot because he's not sure he's beat. (He might float with a pair and then fold when we make our committment bet).
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Make a weaker overpair and stack off with it.

In fact, the fact that we are in a live game with pretty lose players makes the above even more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]


well so much for tomorrow's post. :-)

yes, this is what i was thinking before but not saying explicitly. he automatically loses "globally" from putting in 10% preflop with 66 against AA/KK/half of AK. he still can lose by calling the small limp-reraise in isolation, but that requires a few assumptions like potential to make the mistakes you list above. another important mistake is calling with nonpairs, even 76s. we crush his nonpair hands and with modest assumptions are pricing his nonpair hands out with that small limp-reraise.



[ QUOTE ]
Would you want to raise more preflop if you were in a tougher game or if you had specific information about your opponent? (Such as him being nitty and not putting a penny more into the pot unless he outflops you).

[/ QUOTE ]

that constraint reduces the equity we can extract preflop from nonpair calls and postflop from the mistakes you list, so we would want to raise more.

another consideration: if he only calls with pairs we should be limp-reraising him frequently with a broad range of hands. so we do get equity from the nonpair hands under common game circumstances.


btw thanks for pursuing your line pokerboy. it's given me some food for thought. if it gets into PNL2, you'll have been the reason.

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

We're not too worried if the button can show a small profit from set-mining us because there are going to be a ton of ways that he can make mistakes after the flop that we expect to profit from that more than makes up for it. Some of these mistakes are:

[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Trying to bluff us off our hand. (Actually we are likely to have an opportunity to induce a bluff).
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Making a weaker top-pair type hand than ours.
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Putting more money into the pot because he's not sure he's beat. (He might float with a pair and then fold when we make our committment bet).
[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Make a weaker overpair and stack off with it.

In fact, the fact that we are in a live game with pretty lose players makes the above even more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]


well so much for tomorrow's post. :-)

yes, this is what i was thinking before but not saying explicitly. he automatically loses "globally" from putting in 10% preflop with 66 against AA/KK/half of AK. he still can lose by calling the small limp-reraise in isolation, but that requires a few assumptions like potential to make the mistakes you list above. another important mistake is calling with nonpairs, even 76s. we crush his nonpair hands and with modest assumptions are pricing his nonpair hands out with that small limp-reraise.



[ QUOTE ]
Would you want to raise more preflop if you were in a tougher game or if you had specific information about your opponent? (Such as him being nitty and not putting a penny more into the pot unless he outflops you).

[/ QUOTE ]

that constraint reduces the equity we can extract preflop from nonpair calls and postflop from the mistakes you list, so we would want to raise more.

another consideration: if he only calls with pairs we should be limp-reraising him frequently with a broad range of hands. so we do get equity from the nonpair hands under common game circumstances.


btw thanks for pursuing your line pokerboy. it's given me some food for thought. if it gets into PNL2, you'll have been the reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make sure we are on the same page, when you say he loses "globally" by putting in money with 66 vs a range off AA/KK/AK, globally means the entire combinations of his preflop play.

Specifically, you agree that he loses money on the play of the hand because he put 10% of his money in with 66 against his range. Essentially even though he may be making money in making the call with 66 he lost enough money with his initial raise that his is still "in the hole" for the whole hand.

This is the point I was trying to make in the FR thread.