"Buying The Pot" Profitably!

[primate]

My maths suck. Perhaps you can help.
6 Max NL $1/$2 Tables

I wont name the site but lately these tables have been extra tight, or so it seems. Standard ABC poker doesn't get my big hands paid off so I've been trying to mix it up.

Scenario:

I'm the BB. Standard raise is $7. First player in raises to $7, 2 callers pot to me is $24.

No matter what hand I have, I will attempt to buy the pot. Theory is that my only real opposition is the original raiser.

I bet double the pot (give or take) and take the pot down.

This appears to be working at the moment (early days).

How often do I need to take down the pot uncontested before running into a monster to make this play profitable?

[Siegmund]

My first reaction is that theory is pretty seriously at odds with the general principle that it takes more to call a raise than to make a raise.

But, to answer your question, if you make a double-pot-sized bet, you need to take it down more than two-thirds of the time to show an immediate profit. (Assuming you put no additional money in when you don't buy the pot.) That's for a pure bluff bet -- if you actually have a good hand, this doesn't address whether you will make more money playing it this way or letting others stay in.

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
My maths suck. Perhaps you can help.
6 Max NL $1/$2 Tables

I wont name the site but lately these tables have been extra tight, or so it seems. Standard ABC poker doesn't get my big hands paid off so I've been trying to mix it up.

Scenario:

I'm the BB. Standard raise is $7. First player in raises to $7, 2 callers pot to me is $24.

No matter what hand I have, I will attempt to buy the pot. Theory is that my only real opposition is the original raiser.

I bet double the pot (give or take) and take the pot down.

This appears to be working at the moment (early days).

How often do I need to take down the pot uncontested before running into a monster to make this play profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]It depends. When you say "I bet double the pot" do you mean you raise to $48? That makes it $41 to call in a $72 pot for your villians.

Let's say villian calls with AK, AQ, JJ, and QQ and pushes AA or KK. Let's assume villian raises AT-AK, KQ, and 88+. There are thus 122 card combinations villians will raise. Of those, villian folds 66, calls 44, and pushes 12. Assuming you always lose when called, the bet should work 50% of the time. But you only win $24 when you win, and lose $48 when you lose, so the EV just with fold equity is
$24*.5 - $48*.5 = -$12.

To make this EV neutral, it needs to work 2/3 of the time. You can adjust these ranges as you please.

Thus the question is, given that you get called or villian 4 bets, do you have enough post flop equity and skill to make up for the $12 EV gap?

For that reason, I would suggest doing this with hands that can make big semi-bluff draws and hit unlikely-looking trips/2pairs. That is, suited connectors and maybe low pocket pairs. If you start doing this with QJ, KT, etc and going nutso on the flop with TPMK, you'll probably take a trip to the isle of bustovia.

[primate]

I also factor in the times when I'm sitting with AA KK, make the same move and villain decides to take a stand. I've made the move approx 30 times and reckon I'm just in the black. It does appear to to be amazing how easily the intial raiser will lay down and the rest follow.

The difficulty lies in knowing when to CB or get away from the hand post flop when called.

[primate]

[ QUOTE ]
My first reaction is that theory is pretty seriously at odds with the general principle that it takes more to call a raise than to make a raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm playing 6 max nl

[T50_Omaha8]

[ QUOTE ]
The difficulty lies in knowing when to CB or get away from the hand post flop when called.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's that whole 'poker skill' thing I alluded to.