i love controversy (long, but probably worth it)

[akishore 0]

I was reading through the archive, and found something from Smash on this topic.  This is just an excerpt, but you can read the whole thread here:Smash 3:16

I think you're a little confused, frankly. If you raise premium hands and 6 people call you're going to win just as many times as if you limp and 6 people limp. You will, however, WIN MORE MONEY when you raise. The only way you loose money by raising PF with premium starting hands is if you'd loose limping with them. If you're playing in a game where people will cold call PF raises with hands worse than yours it's pretty much statistically impossible for it to be correct not to raise.  

tim, thanks for the link. i spent a good chunk of time and read/skimmed most of it.i agree with what smash is saying in general.for the part you quoted, however, i think it's a little incomplete and not completely applicable to the discussion.for the times you win the hand, winning does net you more money since you raised preflop. for the times you lose, you lose just one extra bet, and this is usually less than the money you gained by raising.but, i think that the number of times you win/lose changes dynamically, too. certain hands stay in that wouldn't, and the converse, on each street, etc.but i think that way of looking at it is too generalized and incorrect. we have to look at it in terms of expectation.we have a certain EV when we raise preflop. we also have a certain EV when we don't. we also have different postflop EVs. how those numbers work out is the ultimate instrument to helping us make the best move.what i'm just not sure about is whether the edge we sacrifice postflop is bigger than the edge we gain by raising.thanks for the link, though.aseem

[akishore 0]

let's add one thing to be clearpoint #1 is specifically about raising _offsuit_ hands, not just raising preflop in general.aseem

[akishore 0]

ice, you are correct in estimating most of what i'm trying to say.still, i'm not arguing that autobetting is what loses us money (there are plenty of flops where i don't autobet after raising preflop). if that was the case, raising preflop wouldn't be the issue; autobetting would.i think more of what i'm getting at is this:raising preflop changes the postflop dynamics. it sometimes changes the way we play, and it sometimes changes the way our opponents play. it also changes the dynamic EV of every move you make postflop (so, your postflop expectation changes).generally, raising preflop lowers your postflop expectations because your opponents now make less mistakes postflop (since the pot is bigger). well, whether they make less or more isn't the issue--the magnitude of their mistakes becomes smaller.so, i'm just wondering if raising preflop and sacrificing our postflop edge with _offsuit hands_ is worth it.how does it relate specifically to offsuit hands?well, to use the example from SSHE, suited hands usually have so much value postflop that raising preflop often doesn't lower their expectation by much (since the pot is bigger, they also have better odds to draw to overcards and backdoor flushes, etc.).with offsuit cards, you're more likely to be way behind when you're behind, and you're less likely to be way ahead when you're ahead. so, i believe your postflop expectation decreases significantly more when you raise preflop with offsuit hands than it does when you raise preflop with suited hands.taking a quote from SSHE, talking about raising A J from the big blind:"Since you have a pot equity edge, raising now hsa a positive expectation. By checking you are passing up a profitable opportunity. Keeping the pot small helps you increase your postflop expectation, but at the cost of a smaller preflop expectation.For some hands, making this tradeoff makes sense. For instance, if you held A 3 , K J , or maybe even ace-jack offsuit, instead of A J , checking might be better. These weaker hands usually have a modest preflop edge against five loose opponents, so a raise shows some profit. Your edge is relatively small, however, so when you check, you forefeit only a small amount. Your improved postflop expectation will usually compensate for this lost money..."aseem

[jayboogie 0]

That was really long, but I'll try and read through it when I'm not half asleep. All I can say is this, you need to find your own playing style which works for you whether it's being tight, aggressive, mixing it up or whatever. Find what works for you, make tweaks every now and then, always strive to improve. What works for one player doesn't neccessarily work for another. There's just so many "it depends" situations in poker that lots of things are not certain. With that said, in a limit game, there is usually a standard way to play most hands, so usually simple is also effective.

[akishore 0]

can we discuss this a little bit?this is the main crux of my argument for point #1 (in bold).

taking a quote from SSHE, talking about raising A J from the big blind:"Since you have a pot equity edge, raising now hsa a positive expectation. By checking you are passing up a profitable opportunity. Keeping the pot small helps you increase your postflop expectation, but at the cost of a smaller preflop expectation.For some hands, making this tradeoff makes sense. For instance, if you held A 3 , K J , or maybe even ace-jack offsuit, instead of A J , checking might be better. These weaker hands usually have a modest preflop edge against five loose opponents, so a raise shows some profit. Your edge is relatively small, however, so when you check, you forefeit only a small amount. Your improved postflop expectation will usually compensate for this lost money..."

aseem

[harvey 0]

Its interesting that your arguement is for loose games--Implying that if you had the ability to thin the field a bit, you might raise with these hands like AJo, KQo. That would mean as a function of tightness, there would be some inflection point point where raising preflop gives you most preflop + postflop expectation. As a table increases in looseness from this point your expectation of postflop goes down thus reducing your profits, and as the table increases tightness from this point your preflop expectation of raising goes down because of the increasingly better hands calling the raise.It would be interesting to conjecture, perhaps in terms of avg % seeing flop, an estimation for what that point is.....(Or maybe that would only be intersting to me, lol) But just to take a side in the discussion, I personally have seen better results raising AJo, KQ0 in all positions in the games I play.

[akishore 0]

harvey,the thing is, we're not raising AJo and KQo to "thin the field" as you think. so no, that doesn't mean that i'm more inclined to raise them in a tight game since it'll thin the field--whether i actually do raise them more often in a tight game or not is based on different reasoning that i'll get to.loose games feature players that play too many hands and go too far with them. the bulk of their mistakes come postflop (more betting rounds, the bet doubles on two of the three, hand values can usually run further apart, etc.), and that's where you make the bulk of your money. by raising preflop, you lower your postflop expectation because the magnitude of each of your opponents' postflop mistake goes down (since the pot is bigger).so, this has nothing to do with whether the field thins or not.as far as tight games go, i generally tighten up on my value raises also, since the action you get when you raise is generally from stronger hands. for example, A-10 suited is an easy raise into a field of three limpers, but it's not so hot after just one EP limper in a tight game with five players to act behind you.at the same time, steal raises go up since you have a better shot at the dead money in the pot or at the pot on the flop. that's why blind stealing becomes more profitable, for example.so in general, this argument has nothing to do with thinning the field. rather, it simply has to do with the edge you gain through preflop raising and the postflop edge it sacrifices.aseem

[princeof56k 0]

Doesnt all this really depend on the type of players at the table. Sometimes I'm at tables where people basically ignore any pre-flop raise and it usually will cause them to call down because of the size of the pot (eventhough they have no shot at winning). I almost always raise at these tables.Other times I've found tables where my raise will make people fold that I want in the hand. These are the types of players that will play T5 offsuit for one bet but not two, and they will call/bet to the end when their T hits. I feel like I should let these players in and extract more money from them post-flop.Both types of tables can be called loose, but their comosition seems to be very different (at least to me).

[harvey 0]

Well thinning the field is directly related to pot size. I felt like you were saying with your post: If there were some magic where I could exploit my preflop edge, yet not severely diminish my post-flop edge, I might raise with AJo. For instance, lets say there is on average 60 % of the players seeing the flop with a preflop raise in our game. We have AJo in early position and we are deciding whether to raise it up. We guess based on the average that 5 other players will likely call if we raise. That'll give approx. 12:1 odds on the flop thus making the pot large enough to severely diminish the magnitude of errors. Now lets say, that 3 people on average will see the flop if we raise. That'll leave approx 6:1 for a single bet on the flop. Now the pot size is at a more reasonable level, where gutshots and overcards are making big mistakes. But with only two other people seeing the flop with you when you raise, AJo may be so limited in preflop exectation that the raise is now unprofitable do to that aspect of the expectation turning negative.Now lets say 37% of the players are seeing a flop on average with a preflop raise. That'll give an average of 3.7 players seeing the flop for a total average pot size of approx. 7.4. This still leaves callers making errors with their weak draws, and your preflop edge is still significant.These are just examples so the numbers probably aren't correct, but that was the idea I was going for.There should be some point in the middle where expectation is at its highest by raising with AJo in early position.I haven't given this much thought, so I might be way off base, but it seems like a reasonable idea right now while I'm typing it....

[brian67 0]

Although i certainly feel that much of the play has to be adjusted to the type of players at the table, i strongly agree about the calling strategy though. I think calling can often be the best play at lower limit poker (probably 5-10 and down or so, but it still depends on the quality of players). It makes you not only harder to bluff, but also less profitable to trap.

[Stallion714 0]

Ultimately if your playing tight players. Loosen up.If your playing loose players tighten up.I have taken this to mean that if your playing ridiculously loose players (like you see in low limit, online or live). Than play ridiculously tight.I cannot decide wether or not this is correct, but it's the strategy that I employ.I do, and dont mean just starting hands. It seems far better to take a more passive approach to hands that are on the come. Because no bet is gonna get anyone to fold (limit), and if you hit your hand your gonna get paid off.Obviously this all depends.

[akishore 0]

princeof56k:i'm talking about loose games where it's normally 5+ players to the flop, whether it's raised or unraised. that's the typical game i play and definitely the type of game i seek.the kind of games where people tighten up against raises aren't as profitable. in fact, i would venture to say that those games aren't really "loose" then but rather, are tight. after all, if the flop is only heads-up or three-handed when you raise, how is that different from a tight table?i'm definitely talking about the variant where people are just as loose to raises as they are without raises. of course, it won't be the exact same, but it'll be close.harvey:i still disagree.with fewer players to the pot, your edge is also smaller. maybe your equity edge isn't, but your payoff edge, i.e. the amount of money you expect to earn (your EV, i guess).either way, your expectation goes down whether your raise thins the field or not, since people dropping out decreases your EV while people staying in increases the pot size.get what i'm saying?to get nitpicky, also add in the points that less people calling your raises might mean a better range of hands, which makes your edge decrease even further, etc.man, poker is freaking complex, isn't it?stallion714:you should get out of this mentality ASAP. the "tight on loose tables / loose on tight tables" is a big flawed myth.on looser tables, you can exploit more mistakes postflop, and you have much better odds, and the pots are bigger, so you can afford to play more hands that do well multiway. on tighter tables, you have better ranges of hands playing against you, and you always have less pot odds, and the pots are always smaller, so you have to tighten up as well.read SSHE if you haven't. if you have, read that afterthought on the preflop play. remember how the hand charts from the loose to tight tables actually have you loosening up the more players see the flop?aseem

[Stallion714 0]

The bigger pots should make more hands profitable. I get that, but for every extra hand that sees the flop your slice of the cake decreases, right? It would seem that some of the hands you would play because of the inflated pots would be the biggest victims. At what point does this become a wash, and start working in your favor?I'm just asking. It seems like checks and balances. Bigger stake of a smaller pot, or smaller stake of a larger pot.It seems like, since you cant play infinity hands in this loose game, Playing more conservatively in general would be ideal.

[Chiggleslap 0]

aseem-you're not alone in your line of thinking described in part 1. it's scary how much you said reflects my philosophy when it comes to the games you'll often see at party 3/6 tables and the like.i've only read part 1 so far, but hopefully the remainder agrees w/ me as much as this first post :wink: Chiggleslap

[Chiggleslap 0]

I just read part 2.Aseem, you and I appear to be of the same breed of poker player. I'm not sure how old you are, exactly, but I'm pretty sure you're about the same age as I am (21) and are in a unique position where we've cut our teeth playing these loose passive low-limit online games, and have been able to learn somewhat unconventional way of beating these games. I don't want to say that some of the older, more experienced players who post here who may have learned the game playing in a completely different environment to what we find online are not just as successful or knowledgable. Any good player can make a killing online if they play above-average poker. So I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with you, that in the case of small stakes online poker, there's more than one way to beat the game, and there are ways of doing so that may go against conventional wisdom, but are nevertheless valid and theoretically sound ways of doing so.So far, we're 2 for 2 in sharing philosophies...Chiggleslap

[Chiggleslap 0]

I'm with you all the way on both subjects!Although I have been playing a little extra tight lately and have been folding some hands to raises more than I used to.  (KJo, QJo, baby pairs depending on the table, and any A10.)  (K10 and Q10 I fold most of the time now unless I can try to steal with it.)But I definitely agree with what you're saying.  Sounds a bit like my style as well... I see wrto and kdawg make posts talking about raising in certain situations, and if I did some of those on a regular basis, I just can't imagine coming out ahead in the lower games.  Maybe 3/6 and 5/10 is a different situation, but not .50/1 and 1/2.   Once in awhile I will miss a bet or two, but plenty of times I am behind to some illogical 2 pair or crazy straight and I save a few bets.  It seems to even out.I just rambled a bit, but hopefully I wasn't too off base.

3/6 and 5/10 aren't much different, IMO. I've worked up from .5/1 to 3/6 and 5/10 in the last 8 months or so in my spare time, so I've had a taste of all of them. Aseem's first two posts very much reflect my philosphy to this date, and it's undoubtedly led to my beating the game at a very respectful rate. Just wanted to throw that out there for you, in case you were unsure at the relevance of these theories at the mid-small stakes games like 3/6