PNL Study Group Day 3: Pot Size

[QTip]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the point of the AA example. I think it's rather to show how devestation of a mistake it is to build a large pot and then fold.

[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.

[Disconnected]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's the point of the AA example. I think it's rather to show how devestation of a mistake it is to build a large pot and then fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stand corrected....was at work. I looked this up again, and agree with you. I was remembering the part about where they said while it was good to get it all in preflop with aces, it was even better to get most of it in, then have your opponent fold. Doesn't really change the rest of my rambling in the other post, but you are correct that our opponent in this example made a devastating mistake building the pot then folding for just a little more.

[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.

[Matt Flynn]

[ QUOTE ]

Assuming I check/call the flop, am I right in assuming we'll play this hand out as long as the pot stays small? For instance, if I check the turn and he checks as well, I might value bet the river. If, however, I check the turn and face a large bet, then I can safely fold and assume I was beat. Is this correct thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

your hand gets tough to play if he bets the turn. you can make a big mistake folding or calling.

value betting the river can be good or bad. against a nonaggro opponent a small value bet that looks like a blocking bet or donk bluff can work well. for example, say the pot's $45 on the river. you bet $10. amazing how many calls you get there.

you might lead the turn on any coordinated card too. or on any card if the ol' stop-and-go will work. be careful against better opponents. if you only stop-and-go with top pair or when you hit a draw, your opponent will often know you're betting weak top pair there.

[Matt Flynn]

[ 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).



[/ QUOTE ]


do whatever yields you the most "implied equity." that is, look at all streets and figure out what move now will, on average, maximize your expectation for the hand.


[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]


a caution here: Sklansky is talking about nonexploitable play. some loosely call it "game theoretic" play. the general idea is that even if your opponent KNOWS what your strategy is, he cannot exploit it much. you minimize the maximum he can extract from you (called "minimax"). Bill Chen probably wrote a ton about this in Math of Poker. Some day I'm going to retire and read all these poker books, his first.

nonexploitable play is often NOT optimum. that's because your opponents have game flaws that you can exploit to make more money. for example, if your opponent is suspicious of big bets, you should make huge bets when you have the goods. or suppose optimum "game theory" bluffing amount is a third of the pot. if your opponent will call that half the time but call a 2/3 pot bet only 10% of the time, betting 1/3 the pot costs you money even though it is "game theoretically" accurate.

[straight6]

hi

at first i want to compliment the authors , with their book
but i have some questions ;-)
for instance SPR
SPR is a great gauge for certain hands
how did you calculate/estimate by experience? these value's?
lets go for a moment for average value's (no adjustments for the moment for tight/loose oponents) just rational unexploitible game theoretic opponents

for example
SPR did already exists before your book , in preflop all in situations for example
the jam/fold tables below 10 blind stak sizes
is transformable in non exploitible SPR values preflop
just divide them by 3 and multiply by 2

these gametheoretic values should also be obtainible for deeper stacks on the flop
hence this is where your book is all about but "just" in a vague general manner
there exist a mathematical "öptimum" on the flop
lets asume u have a stack size thats to deep to jam/fold preflop
but will be "shallow" enough to jam/fold on the flop
than u can be putting jam/fold SPR values to certain hand types on the flop
for instance openended flush/straight draws
made hands trips/top pair top kicker
etc etc
you can argue that these values arent optimal for loose or tight oponents
but in a weird way they are
because even the distribution of hands on the flop of a tight oponent will be stronger on the flop
then this fact will be result in giving up ev preflop for that same tight player

furthermore
SPR vulue's shouldnt be exact for specific handtypes pre flop (hence different for certain handtypes)
but averaged on a certain position where you play a certain distribution of hands
for example UTG full ring all the individual SPR value's dont differ very much
but on the button they do (more suited connectors)
so if you take your hand distribution for a certain position you should average your SPR for all those handtypes
first you hide information
second you play unexploitible

regards pieter

[Ranma4703]

In that Q7 hand I'm vbetting flop + turn and c/c the river if I have a note that he bluffs draws / is aggro. Sometimes you'll be shown a better queen, but often I'm shown JT, T9, T8 kind of hand. I bluff a lot at these small pots though, so I get called down more with less.

[downrange]

I have a basic question on pot size - who's stack are we measuring it against to establish "big" or "small" pot? Reading through this thread it sounds like we measure it relative to villain's (which is what I imagined from reading the book anyway) but:

1. What if there's more than one villain? Just measure it against the shorter of the two? Or for 2 villains (for instance) where 1 is the shortest stack it's 2x the shortest stack?

2. On pg 57 I'm getting a little confused by not knowing for sure the answer to #1. We're the short stack at 500 vs 2 villains, pot is 195, we have 440 left and the book says "the pot is large relative to the remaining money." Who's money? I'm the short stack so if both villains individually have more than me doesn't that make this a 'small' pot if anything? Or does "large" not mean "big/small pot" here?

[Dashir]

The stack size in #2 is yours, since it's the smallest. If you were heads up against a smaller stack it would be his, since that is what limits the size of the pot. If you're looking for impiled odds, that's the limiting factor.