something's got me thinking...

[screech 0]

So we all know that you should do what we can to protect our hands in large pots.For example, say we hold AK, in a 5 way pot for 2 bets each pf. The flop comes down K75.If we are in early position, and for some reason we know the player on the button will bet, we should try to c/r to prevent the rest of the field from getting the proper odds to draw with gutshots, middle pair, etc.On the other hand, if they call, we will be happy because they are not getting the proper odds to do so. So we make money off there mistakes. If they fold, they are not making a mistake, yet if they call, they are. Obviously, we would rather they call.However, what if we knew the button would always raise if we bet?Now, should we bet in an attempt to trap the field for more money? Even though hands with 5 outs would be correct to call our bet, then the buttons raise (assuming we just call). But isn't this the exact same as if they call 2 cold when they aren't getting the proper odds? It's almost like we trick them into making a mistake.I guess it comes down to our equity edge vs the number of opponents. What do you guys think?

[akishore 0]

yeah, i've thought the same thing before, but didn't know what to make of it.i think the idea is that in larger pots, we would rather they fold. but, that stems only from the fact that it would be correct for them to call. as long as it's still incorrect for them to call a TOTAL of 2 bets, for example, why would we rather they fold?aseem

[Abbaddabba 0]

*first part deleted on account of being too confusing*'It depends on whether you think they're more inclined to make loose calls, or tight folds.If someone will fold when given correct odds, it now becomes preferable to face him with two bets. This way in situations where it is close, he will be more inclined to make the wrong decision.ie: he will correctly call the first bet, and correctly call the second bet, but won't correctly call them both at once.If someone will call when given incorrect odds, it now becomes preferable to string him along for two bets. This way in situations where it's close, like before, he'll be inclined to make the wrong decision.ie: he will incorrectly call the first bet, and incorrectly call the second bet, but won't incorrectly call them both at once.When you apply that to the original topic...If he is not getting odds to call two bets and will rightfully fold when faced with 2 bets cold, then we want to string him along. If he is not getting odds to call two bets and will wrongfully call 2 cold, then it makes no difference. that is the hypothetical situation in question If he is getting odds to call two bets and will wrongfully fold when faced with 2 bets cold, then we want to do so.If he is getting odds to call two bets and rightfully call when faced with 2 bets cold, then it makes no difference.If you think that the majority of the players are loose, in the sense that they will never fold when given proper odds, and probably make a lot of calls when they arent, then you should generally be sandbagging them, even in situations where the pot is large. One of the biggest benefits when facing opponents with two bets is that a raise often misrepresents your hand as stronger than it actually is. Thus, you're communicating information about your hand that may lead to them making folds despite the fact that they're being given correct considering what you actually have.

[timwakefield 69]

I wouldn't ever want to "trick" extra players into a hand. It is much more important to win the pot than to build the pot, since you are sure the big blind will play. For example, I would rather have a 60% chance to win a $20 pot, than a 40% chance to win a $30 pot. If you let everybody draw against you all day, you'll just get frustrated from losing so many pots.

[CobaltBlue 662]

tim, if your profit is the same in both cases, why have a preference?

[acesfullmike 0]

I wouldn't ever want to "trick" extra players into a hand. It is much more important to win the pot than to build the pot, since you are sure the big blind will play. For example, I would rather have a 60% chance to win a $20 pot, than a 40% chance to win a $30 pot. If you let everybody draw against you all day, you'll just get frustrated from losing so many pots.

you pot equity is the same at this point. $12 in each pot is still yours. as long as the rest of the hand you still play with correct odds and properly, it is exactly the same.

[screech 0]

Obviously an important factor is our opponents. As Abbadabba mentioned, we'd like to encourage loose opponents to make loose mistakes and tight opponents to make tight mistakes. I'm too busy studying for exams right now, but in about a week or so I'll post some imaginary hands and see how our expectation changes in different situations.

[Actuary 3]

while individual opponent equitioes might lead you to want to lead out and trap; perhaps the total field equity would be too much to justify.It's quite situational dependent.You can run a millino scenariosNot sure what results besides error on the side of pretectin your hand in big pots because you never know what your opponents have or may call incorrectly with anyway.Given equal equity, I too would rather have a better chance of winning a smaller pot. Winning feels good. However, that dismisses the fact that we make more profit in multiway pots for a given amount of equity. right?

[timwakefield 69]

tim, if your profit is the same in both cases, why have a preference?

I only play tournaments and SNG's, so you can see why one would have a preference in those. It is much more important to grow your stack as much as you can and as often as you can because the blinds are going up.Regarding cash games, I was hinting at the idea that inducing multiple opponents to draw against you all day can put you off your game, even if the pots you ARE winning are large®. Simply put, holding top pair I would rather isolate and play against only one player with, say, a flush draw...the alternative being inducing say 2nd pair, 3rd pair, and a gutshot to stay in for cheap.