preflop betting exceptions

[Smasharoo 0]

This is my last post on this subject, smash. I have said there are benefits to both plays. Neither is wrong. Your stubborn insistence to even think about what anyone says is just how you are. Congratulations on your Phd, but it is rendered useless to those who read your posts by this stubborn attitude.I think you're confusing me not understanding your argument with me understanding it completely, finding the reasoning horribly flawed and asking for a game theory explination when you've used that as your rationale for a flawed argument without ever citing any theory.You've contradicted yourself more than once here, stating that it will be easier to win a small pot because many people won't continue on an uncoordinated flop when you have an overpair, but then argue it will be easy to win a big pot when you flop a set because it will be disguised.You state that it will be easier to get away from an overpair on a coordinated board when you don't raise, but give no particular reason, as if your postflop actions are dependen't on the fact that you raised.You present no game theory based raionale, and no plausable example where checking is better. When I point out that your argument is clearly flawed, you refuse to continue posting in an attempt to explain it while maintaing that it's too complex for me to understand.You can understand my skepticisim of your understanding of game theory, I hope?

[shinzilla 0]

How could checking KK with 5 or 6 limpers be a +EV play? Checking in this situation is definitely a -EV play. Without betting and running out the weaker hands, you definitely have a higher chance of losing the pot due to the number of hands out there. Also, you want to make them pay to play, which will coincidentally increase the pot size as well. It's not guaranteed that you will win a big pot in the situation. At all. Checking KK in that situation will lose you money in the long run. I think there's something to be said about the psychology of having KK as well. For your average player, KK is very difficult to get away from after the flop or turn, especially if the board doesn't pair or an ace doesn't appear. If your average player gets raised, reraised, and sees yet another limper reraise, your average player will call out of frustration and pay to see that their KK got cracked by something like 92o. Tilting, they'll continue to hemorrhage money on the proceeding hands. I think a case could be made about checking KK three handed in a NL game, but with 5 or 6 limpers in a limit game? Just doesn't make sense.

[JTPHS 0]

bsabre's point.. i think that's the name i'm too lazy to go back and look.. is meant for higher limit play... where the actual "playing" is a lot more important. This thread is intended on weak, low-limit games. Missing a raise in the low limit game is costly. Outplaying your opponents at the higher level is much more important.

[Smasharoo 0]

Outplaying your opponents at the higher level is much more important.Missing bets is much more of a sin at higher limits because you have less opportunity to get money in when you're clearly best.Missing these kinds of bets consistently at high limits will turn a winning player into a losing player regardless of how well they play postflop.

[Munky 0]

Slow playing kings with 6 people in the hand is like sticking your penis in an electrical outlet...

[Smasharoo 0]

Slow playing kings with 6 people in the hand is like sticking your penis in an electrical outlet...So you only play them on Friday nights when no one is around, then?

[JTPHS 0]

Outplaying your opponents at the higher level is much more important.Missing bets is much more of a sin at higher limits because you have less opportunity to get money in when you're clearly best.Missing these kinds of bets consistently at high limits will turn a winning player into a losing player regardless of how well they play postflop.

would this be true as well if there's only two limpers in the pot? because this is the difference i'm talking about. Would it be ok to slowplay in this situation?

[Smasharoo 0]

would this be true as well if there's only two limpers in the pot? because this is the difference i'm talking about. Would it be ok to slowplay in this situation?You could certainly make a much better argument for it.Giving up 1 BB pre-flop because you think you can extract more than that postflop is somewhat reasonable. Giving up 2.5BB is another ball of wax entirely.

[JTPHS 0]

I think this is the arguement bsabres81 is making. Thanks smash.. your opinion is definitely always valued

[Smasharoo 0]

I think this is the arguement bsabres81 is makingI really, honestly, do understand the argument. I just think it's quite tough to get those 2.55BB back postflop from a hand that folds if you raise.

[JTPHS 0]

now three handed it would only be 1.5 bb would it not? and that could be accomplished on the turn fairly easily. smooth call a flop, check-raise a turn. I dont' think i would neccessarily play it that way... but just curious, what do you think of that?

[Smasharoo 0]

now three handed it would only be 1.5 bb would it not? and that could be accomplished on the turn fairly easily. smooth call a flop, check-raise a turn. I dont' think i would neccessarily play it that way... but just curious, what do you think of that?You'd only get 1BB back with the turn C/R and it has to be a move you couldn't make if you and raised it.That's where I think it get's hard.Also not raising in a game where players are capable of an early position limp/rearaise with JJ or QQ looses a lot of value I think.Allthough you might get that back postflop from them, you're unlikely to get it back from weaker hands who might be forced to call a preflop cap with a marginal hand because of pot odds.

[JTPHS 0]

Awesome.. always bet the best hand.. that's what i say anyway. That's the way i would play it.. thanks for your clarification though

[TheIceman05 0]

Lets assume I have KK in the BB.  There are 4 possible kinds of flops.  1.  Great flops (set or better) 2.  Good flops (kings are overpair to somewhat ragged flop.  3.  Questionable flops (something like 9 10 J)  4. Bad flops (any ace flopping except AAA, QQJ, three to a flush, etc.If I raised preflop:1.  I probably win a nice sized pot, though because I raised preflop, it is unlikely unless someone else makes some kind of quality hand.2.  This is probably the best scenario as far as big pots go (Easy to win a big pot against AJ with a J72 flop)3.  Probably win or lose a pretty big pot4.  FoldIf I checked preflop:1.  It is almost guaranteed that I win a big pot, unless everyone else completely misses (flop is KJ3, they are likely to bet or call with AJ because I was BB and probably don't hold a very strong hand)2.  Again, big pot is likely.3.  Easy to get away from after flop or turn4.  Fold, and no different than if I held rags in BB.This is my last post on this subject, smash.  I have said there are benefits to both plays.  Neither is wrong.  Your stubborn insistence to even think about what anyone says is just how you are.  Congratulations on your Phd, but it is rendered useless to those who read your posts by this stubborn attitude.

You know, I can't help but think a lot of this would be a justification for NEVER raising from ANY position with ANY hand, right? And doesn't that miss the point just a little?Much like Smash, if I'm wrong here about raising from the BB with KK having a lesser EV than checking (which, you know, I'm pretty sure I'm not), I'd really like to see the game theory behind it. I don't have a pHD, but I did get a perfect score on the PSAT math section... so, you know... I was in highschool a few years ago and stuff. Anyway, I'm sure I could wrap my brain around it, and I'm getting a degree in Philosophy with an emphasis in logic, so if there are any arguments based on complex reasoning, I'll follow. Hoping for a replyIceman

[Eclypse 0]

KK in the big blind against 5 opponents is a clear RAISE.Let’s look at it this way: With 5 opponents playing ANY two cards, KK has about 43% equity before the flop. That means you will get .43 out of every dollar called when you raise. With 5 opponents, you are getting a $2.15 return on every dollar you raise.In case you want to argue that the opponents you play with will play better cards, I offer this interesting phenomenon: KK will do BETTER against a field of players playing better cards because it will dominate the types of hands that they will call with!For instance, let’s say that all 5 opponents will play only Sklansky/Malmuth Group 4 or better. In that case KK will have about a 46% equity edge. If they all play Group 2 or better (why aren’t these guys raising themselves!) the edge is 55%!If you want to check with KK for deceptive purposes, do it against one player, not against five that will catch something with their A6o! Make them pay to draw to that junk!

[benhoug 0]

With that many people in the pot I CANNOT think of any reason NOT to raise with KK. It's just bad poker to limp w/ that kind of hand against that many opponents.

[Ebonwoulfe 0]

Hmm... I want to chime in on this topic, as I have done a little bit of thinking about it myself.For clarity's sake, let's say there's 6 people total in the pot and it gets to you, the BB with two red kings. As well, we will consider there to be no rake so that pot odds calculations are simple. Finally, since 6 people play, we'll assume it's a fairly weak game.If you raise:1. Assume all others call (as they most likely will if you're playing a weak game), and the flop comes down something like 2 6 Q . You bet out into this flop, which puts 13 small bets into the pot. Anyone after you with a flush draw has 13-1 pot odds, so they're going to call. Assume one player has the flush draw with A:spade: J:spade:. He calls, because he figures his flush draw will get there plenty often to make this call worthwhile (46% win rate, according to the calculator on cardplayer.com). Assume another player has something like QT, and decides that 14-1 odds is plenty good to chase another Q or T, but he probably isn't good since the BB raised and bet the flop but he has a 12.0% chance of winning so he's getting fair odds. Finally, the button was chasing with 4 : 5 , which makes him call the now 15-1 pot odds at his 3-outer (which he has a 12.8% chance of winning, needing roughly 8-1 odds), putting 16 small bets into the pot. Everyone else is done. For odds sake, the chance of KK holding up on this flop against these hands is 29.3% (roughly 2.5-1) and you're getting 3-1 on your bet, so it is clearly the correct play. If the QT had dropped out, the odds for KK holding up jumps to ~44%.On to the turn, which puts an innocuous 7 on the board. There's 8 big bets in the pot, and you have the best of it with your KK.Now you bet, the flush draw knows that 9-1 is terriffic odds for a flush draw, the QT thinks that he really only has 5 outs since any spade probably makes someone else a flush (and maybe that EP guy has QQ already) so he mucks, and the straight draw figures everyone else is playing big cards so even if he gets the sucker end of the straight he's good, so he gives himself 6 clean outs, thinks about the 10-1 odds he's getting from the pot, and dives in.Let's just say for berivety's sake that nobody bets the river. Your KK wins a 10BB pot 57.1% of the time, the AJ:spade: wins 28.6% of the time, and the straight wins a meager 14.3% of the time.Mysteriously enough, every player makes money on this play, because according to pot odds calculations, every decision they made was correct, or if in error, it was only in a slight error. I'll say that again in a different way. Their calls were not errors because the huge pot size made their decision right (except maybe the straight draw, but like I said it's a weak game).The corollary to this argument is that if you dont' raise preflop, you don't build a pot. If the pot is small, you leave plenty of room for others to make errors. You profit when others make mistakes. You want them making big mistakes.Now let's say you check preflop. 6 small bets in the pot.2. Flop of 2 6 Q . You decide to go for the check-raise, since the board *has* to have hit someone enough to bet. AJ suited thinks he might be good if he hits an A or a spade (in fact, he has the best odds to win against 5 opponents, even better than your KK), but doesn't really want to put in the bet. QT now has top pair, and after all the BB checked preflop, so he bets. Everyone (including the straight draw) fold back to you, who now reraises (2 bets to go). The AJ might discount the value of his A, as someone might have AQ or even something like A2 (again, weak game, many limpers), but decides that his decision would be better made on the turn, and he's getting 10-2 odds on his call (since the reraiser was probably going to call) so he calls. The QT now is concerned, but he's got 10-1 odds, so he calls. Turn is again the 7 . This time, however, there is only 5.5 big bets in the pot. You would probably bet out here, and everyone else would get 6.5-1 and 7.5-1 odds to call, and they probably would call, but their correct play is less correct than before. When they profit less, you profit more.3. Finally, you go for the checkraise and everyone else checks (the flush draw thinks it's good for a call and is really out of position to bet, and the QT is a little concerned about two pair or a better Q... or who knows, but he checks). That 7 doesn't seem like it hurts you, and you bet. now the flush draw is getting 4-1 to catch his flush, which he might just muck anyway because it's a close call, and the QT calls 4-1 or 5-1 hoping to hit that second pair or maybe just be good anyway, and everyone else mucks. Maybe the QT is so convinced that he's good that he reraises, and when it gets to you you make it 3 to go. If the flush draw is still in, he's getting something in the neighborhood of 10-2 odds, which is good enough to chase the nut flush so in he goes, and the QT is so upset he calls.This all boils down to trying to reduce your opponent's pot odds. Usually the pot is so large with so many callers that no matter what post-flop betting goes down, they are right to call with any hope in such a big pot. You have to control this, because any hand that has a chance to beat you will play on after the flop when the pot is large. Accept this. Your goal is to do whatever you can to keep them from beating you ON THE RIVER. This means controlling the betting on the flop so that the other players aren't getting such good odds to draw at the river. It's tricky and it probably doesn't work well enough to try frequently, but it is the other theory. You're getting 5-1 odds on the flop whether it's two bets or just one. But if it's just one, that pot is smaller. Smaller pots mean opponents are free to make larger mistakes. If you just kept putting bets out there because you have the best hand, then you're doing fine, but this is just another line of thinking that you should realize exists.This is far more long-winded than I expect you to read, but it's all about squeaking out as much profit as you can. It would have been nice for someone to raise preflop before you, but you're in the BB which puts you out of position for all subsequent betting rounds. The BB isn't a place to show a good profit.It really depends on the game. Generally, if it's aggressive post-flop (not likely, due to the way preflop play came down), you would probably want to play more pairs that you can hit big on and make a profit. If it's passive post-flop, straight and flush possibilities are better for you because you'll be getting a good chance to make them cheaply.

[Ebonwoulfe 0]

Ok one more thing.In the late stages of a tourney you're shortstacked and pick up 8-8 or so in the SB and everyone has folded to you (not likely, but bear with me). Assume you don't have enough to get the BB to fold anything but the crappiest of hands. You can either push it all in and get called and possibly get run down, or you can flat call and push it in on the flop. The benefits of the second play is that if you push it in on the flop and he doesn't have anything, he is much more likely to let it go with only two cards to come, and if he has you beaten, well he would have beaten you anyway whether you pushed it in preflop or not. You at least have the chance of taking those last two cards away from him, either of which might have beaten you. He would have seen them both if you had pushed it all in preflop, but you reduce the chances of seeing them both.That's why I argue that playing a big PP into many callers has other lines of play than just raise-raise-raise. If they are going to beat you on the turn, they are going to beat you whether you raise the flop or not, because they're going to see it. However, if you slow down a bit on the flop and wait for the bets to double, then the odds they need to chase it to the river might not be there (since the pot wasn't built up on the flop) you might get them to fold on the turn when the river card could have beaten you.

[TheIceman05 0]

One thing bothers me a lot. And it's this one, in no particular order:1) The statement: "Your goal is to do whatever you can to keep them from beating you ON THE RIVER" That's not true. Your goal is to win as much money as possible. And, sometimes, this involves putting extra bets in, giving someone else odds to draw, because it's still a play with +EV. Manipulating the size of the pot in order to force your poor-playing opponent into making a mistake (instead of accidentally playing correctly) is fundamental poker strategy. But it just doesn't apply when you're such a big favorite. If you're 40% to win before the flop, and there's a total of 6 other players, you're picking up something like 2.5 big bets. And THAT is the most important thing. 2.5 big bets. Whatever the flop comes, you're likely not going to get more than two or three players. It won't be all that easy to extract 2.5 EXTRA big bets from these players after the flop... and that's what you need to make up if you to earn as much as you would have had you raised from the BB. Even if every player plays correctly from herein, that's all that concerns us, this figure of total profit/time. Also, I'd like to point out that your flop-turn selection misses the point to some degree. By creating a big pot, you encourage hands like "AJ" to continue to the turn and river because the pot is so large. Even a hand like "KQ" might pay you off a bet or two they otherwise wouldn't have had you not raised before the flop. And if you make a huge hand, like a set, this big pot will encourage action from all sorts of silly draws that you will be able to beat up on. If you're exploiting such a large edge, the goal is not to manipulate your opponent into making small (chasing a flush draw and paying a little extra to do so) mistakes, but rather to pump the pot as much as you can in order to win as much as possible. I'd be interested to hear what you thinkIceman

[TheIceman05 0]

Ok one more thing.In the late stages of a tourney you're shortstacked and pick up 8-8 or so in the SB and everyone has folded to you (not likely, but bear with me). Assume you don't have enough to get the BB to fold anything but the crappiest of hands. You can either push it all in and get called and possibly get run down, or you can flat call and push it in on the flop. The benefits of the second play is that if you push it in on the flop and he doesn't have anything, he is much more likely to let it go with only two cards to come, and if he has you beaten, well he would have beaten you anyway whether you pushed it in preflop or not. You at least have the chance of taking those last two cards away from him, either of which might have beaten you. He would have seen them both if you had pushed it all in preflop, but you reduce the chances of seeing them both.That's why I argue that playing a big PP into many callers has other lines of play than just raise-raise-raise. If they are going to beat you on the turn, they are going to beat you whether you raise the flop or not, because they're going to see it. However, if you slow down a bit on the flop and wait for the bets to double, then the odds they need to chase it to the river might not be there (since the pot wasn't built up on the flop) you might get them to fold on the turn when the river card could have beaten you.

Totally different scenario. If we're talking about a cash game, the only thing that matters is a play's respective + or - Expected Value, as it relates to profit over the long term. In a tournament, that's never the case. It's hurts immesurably more to be knocked out of a tournament than it helps to double up. Example:We have 88. Opponent has AK. Flop comes 257. In a cash game, if we push in, we want our opponent to call, as his odds of making a hand that can beat us are such that, by calling, he's paying us some price.In a tournament, however, we'd probably rather have him lay it down if there's anything significant in the pot, because SURVIVAL is most important. See the significant distinction? Apples and Oranges.Iceman

[Awful 0]

Very good explanation of it, and close in tune with general principles but in Sklansky's discussion of keeping the pot small to maximize opponent's mistakes, he's talking about much smaller edges than the one being discussed. When Caro discusses the importance of the flop in defining a hand and warns about raising due to that, he is similarly discussing marginal situations. There is correct logic here, but not when you've got Cowboys. Their point is that making a tiny +EV play that forces you to make bigger -EV plays is bad. Raising KK preflop is a sizable +EV play; don't ignore that in this discussion.While your example proves your point that draws receive better odds in big pots, it is still incorrect due to a lack of scope. It is this myopic scope that causes your paradoxical "everyone makes money on this play" comment, because you are dealing with specific flops that hit draws well. More often than not, you get an extra bet before the hands must fold on the flop with weak holdings. You have to hit a flop 2 times to pick up a draw. Someone may pick one up, but you get a LOT out of each person that doesn't, and most DO NOT.Your preflop raise kills those hands when they don't get lucky and flop a draw (or the AJ doesn't hit an A). They lose so much EV on the initial call chasing the chance to draw that their subsequent gains on the rounds when they do draw with odds doesn't overcome every preflop call they make when you push that KK. By restricting yourself to specific circumstances where the flop comes down well enough for all chosen opponents, you provide a skewed viewpoint.Furthermore, the alternative is giving an essentially free card with a strong (and almost defintiely best) but still somewhat vulnerable holding that can be beaten if an ace flops. A free card here is a mathematical catastrophe if someone limps with suited connectors or any A.Again, your reasoning is sound and well explained, but you're using limited scope to reach an improper outcome, and you are grossly underestimating the strength of KK preflop vs. the field of callers.

[JistTheFist 0]

he says to not raise KK cuz people probably won't fold???that's the point of raising it! you don't really need to chase anyone out... you want them to put their money in the pot... "but they might outdraw you!" oh goodness.... they might outdraw me? might as well just stop playing poker then buddy. it's gonna happen... the point is... if you raise preflop and people call and your hand holds up... you when a big enough pot to be outdrawn against a few times and still be winning for the day.if you check and GIVE THEM A FREE LOOK at outdrawing you then they're gonna outdraw against you all day you'll be losing... even if you take down one big pot cuz of your "deception" it still won't be worth the missed bets preflop.of course... you guys probably just don't understand any of this cuz I play at such huge limits and am so much better than any of you... and I read poker strategy books and you know... you aren't used to the level of play that I'M used to...(sarcasm...don't hate... sabres... what a joke)

[EJ333 0]

Raise. Always. I'm suprised this thread is this long and that it is even being discussed. Your raise is by far the best play. Even if it doesn't thin the field you are getting the best of it.

[Ebonwoulfe 0]

I gave myself plenty of "outs" by saying "If you bet all the way, you're probably playing it just fine" (or something to that effect). I don't think betting it preflop is a problem, or even a mistake. You just have to realize as you play the hand that it serves to build a pot. Built pots serve who? The chasers. Look at it like this, whenever you place a bet that you're sure will be called by all other players, you're getting (# of callers) to 1 odds on that bet. When you place such a bet, you have to be sure that you're favored to win. Granted, there are other factors, such as protecting, bluffing, finding out where you are, etc. that go along with your bet, but if you're sure you'll be called then your odds aren't the pot odds or whatever, they're (# of callers) to 1. Granted, in that last situation, KK was almost 50% to hold up, therefore any callers created a positive expectation play, but when the pot gets large your concern is not to win more bets but to win the pot. You can't protect if everyone after your bet is getting 8-1 odds on their call.I can't argue with the fact that getting 5-1 odds with KK preflop when you figure to be at worst 2-3 against to win the hand is a correct play. Again, I simply wanted to present an argument that had some measure of thought behind it. I don't even champion it being played this way. Maybe you want to avoid large fluctuation (which, no matter what you hold, will happen when 6 players see a flop) or you think that these players will give plenty of action no matter what the odds are. Maybe people aren't afraid of your raises so if that K falls off the deck then they won't respect you for it. Maybe they chase even when the odds aren't there. There are opponents who this line of play has it's merits against, and to say that to always raise preflop with KK out of the bb might be more marginal than it seems.The 8-8 in a tourney analogy wasn't quite as clear as I meant it to be. Obviousely in a tourney the goal is winning, and you can't win if you don't survive. I simply used it to illustrate a concept. The concept is that if you can't prevent an opponent from seeing the next card, then that card is going to beat you whether or not you put any more money in. However, if there is a chance that he won't see the next card for a bet on the turn, you should wait for the turn to bet. This is especially true for those cases in which if you bet the flop and he called, he was more likely to call a bet on the turn.