Big Slick Sooooted

[shpaget 0]

$1/$2 NLHE live game - I have just under $200....most stacks are 150-250.MP limpsI'm in cutoff with AcKc - raise it to $15.This is pretty much a standard raise at this table - $10-$15....and even then it's not uncommon to see 4-5 players in the pot...9 times out of 10 if a guy limps for $2 he will call a pf raise up to $20.There are a couple of attitudes of most players:1. get in for cheap but if you're prepared to limp, be prepared to pay $20.2. if I like my two cards I'm playing...I don't know what an utg raise meansButton calls, BB calls, MP calls....pot $61.Flop - As Kh 3sBB checks, MP checks, I bet $25, button folds, BB calls, MP folds....pot $121.Too small a bet? My thoughts are, I'm not getting rid of a flush draw...these guys will chase...I'm certain I against at least one ace, and I'd like them to come along for the ride.Turn - Ks...bingo!BB checks...I Hollywood it a bit, and after a minute, bet $45...he calls....he has me covered by about $30.Too small? Bet more? I'm pretty sure he's got AQ/AJ and really hope he has a spade....maybe I'm lucky and he has KQ. My ultimate goal here is to give him a good price to call the turn AND be able to put the rest of my chips in the pot on the river where he HAS to call....after this bet I have ~$115 behind....I'm wondering if I should have bet more like $60-$70....if he's willing to call $45, will he call $65, or will he go away?River comes a 9d.....pot is now $211.He checks...I wait a bit...count out $80, look at the rest of my chips, grab them and without a word stick the stack of $115 in the middle.Thoughts?Let me know how I can improve every street....I'm wondering if, against most players, that leaving a half-pot sized bet at the river is a bit much. If I bet $20 more on the turn, that leaves a $90 river bet into a $250 pot, but will the higher bet on the turn be folded more often than the higher bet on the river?

[fckthis 0]

First I bet at least close to pot. 45min. We dontcare if people chase, but you have to make them chase incorrectly. The turn I check, maybe 20-30% of the time. The reason is, it looks like a scare card, a spade and it pairs the board. You might induce a bluff. Betting it is fine here though. l dont mind your bet size either. You got a strong hand, that you want paid off. The river bet depends on how strong you think your opponent may be. If fairly strong, all in. If a weak ace, or something along those lines, you make a smaller value bet.

[shpaget 0]

First I bet at least close to pot. 45min. We dontcare if people chase, but you have to make them chase incorrectly.

And I guess that's the question - against multiple players, where's the balance between making a bet that is high enough to make flush draws incorrect to call, but also risks scaring away weaker aces?

The turn I check, maybe 20-30% of the time. The reason is, it looks like a scare card, a spade and it pairs the board. You might induce a bluff. Betting it is fine here though. l dont mind your bet size either. You got a strong hand, that you want paid off.

In this hand I'm in position and he has already checked. Not sure of the best play if I'm acting first, but I probably bet out, make it look like I'm protecting and hope he's got the flush or a flush draw - if he folds here he'd probably fold the river anyway. Against an aggressive player I could check and make it look like I've given up on my cb...his play in this hand is typical of him, so he's not very aggressive.

[DonkSlayer 1]

And I guess that's the question - against multiple players, where's the balance between making a bet that is high enough to make flush draws incorrect to call, but also risks scaring away weaker aces?

The fishier the table, the higher priority to make the draws pay. This table seems fishy enough that a bet of $25 might induce even a QJ to call, and certainly 2 spades will. The weaker Aces are going to be as scared of possessing a mediocre hand when there's a draw on the board as they are of any bet you make.

In this hand I'm in position and he has already checked. Not sure of the best play if I'm acting first, but I probably bet out, make it look like I'm protecting and hope he's got the flush or a flush draw - if he folds here he'd probably fold the river anyway. Against an aggressive player I could check and make it look like I've given up on my cb...his play in this hand is typical of him, so he's not very aggressive.

I'd probably be underbetting/value betting after the turn came down against a weak/tight. You want him to hit something, obviously. Against an aggressive player, I would've bet more, hoping he came over the top on a bluff or had called the flop bet with a KQ/KJ.

[screech 0]

i think you have the right idea on he flop about not betting too large. i would stick in a bit more though, because you want to build a pot so it is easier for you to get all in later. maybe 1/2 - 2/3 pot bet on flop. if your opponents suck and will call any bet with any ace and some kings, bet more.i dont think the hollywood is necessary on the turn, and really gives away your hand more than anthing else. i would bet more again, but nt too much. i would bet 1/2 of whatever you have left, and the other 1/2 on the river.

[David_Nicoson 1]

It's not always to your advantage for the weak draw (e.g., JQ in this case) to call you when there's a stronger draw out. Morton's Theorem considers only limit play, but I think it applies to this sort of situation. This article hurts my head, by the way.

Implicit Collusion and Going too FarI usually enjoy reading Mike Caro's Card Player column. One from last Junemade a big impression on me. In it he says: _The real low-limit secret for today_. The most important thing i can teach you about playing the lower limits is that you usually should *not* raise from early positions, no matter what you have... because all of those theories of thinning the field and driving out opponents who might draw out on you don't hold true in these smaller games [where] you're usually surrounded by players who often call with nearly hopeless hands.... Which is better, playing against a few strong and semistrong players with possibly a small advantage for double stakes, or playing against a whole herd of players, mostly weak, for single stakes? Clearly, when you're not likely to win the pot outright by chasing everyone out, you want to play against weak opponents, and the more the merrier. So, why raise? There, I've just described one of the costliest mistakes in low-limit poker. The mistake is raising when many potential callers remain behind you, thus chasing away your profit. Don't do that.Until recently, this made a lot of sense to me. After all, the FundamentalTheorem of Poker states (roughly) that when your opponents make mistakes, yougain, and when they play correctly, you lose. In holdem, if all of thosecalling stations in the low-limit games want to chase me with their 5 outdraws to make trips or 2 pair when I flop top pair best kicker, and theydon't have the pot odds to correctly do so, that sounds like a good situationfor me.Yet, it seems like these players are drawing out so often that something mustbe wrong. Hang around the mid-limits, holdem or stud, for any length of timeand you're sure to hear players complain that the lower limit games can't bebeat. You can't fight the huge number of callers, they say. You can'tprotect your hand once the pot has grown so big, they say.At first, I thought these players were wrong. They just don't understand theincreased variance of playing in such situations, I told myself. In onesense, these players are right, of course. The large number of callingstations combined with a raise or two early in a hand make the pots in thesegames very large relative to the bet size. This has the effect of reducingthe magnitude of the errors made by each individual caller at each individualdecision. Heck, the pot might get so big from all that calling that thecallers _ought_ to chase. For lack of a better term, I call this behavior onthe fishes' part _schooling_. Still, tight-aggressive players are on averagewading into these pots with better than average hands, and in holdem whenthey flop top pair best kicker, for example, they should be taking the bestof it against each of these long-shot draws (like second pair random kicker).In holdem, the schooling phenomenon increases the variance of the player whoflops top pair holding AK, but probably also _increases_ his expectation inthe long run, I thought, relative to a game where these players are correctlyfolding their weak draws.Thinking this way, I was delighted to follow Caro's advice, and not try torun players with weak draws out of the pots where I thought I held the besthand on the flop or turn. This is contrary to a lot of advice from otherpoker strategists, as Caro points out, and I found myself (successfully, Ithink) trying to convince some of my poker playing buddies of Caro's point ofview in a discussion last week.Well, some more thinking, rereading some old r.g.p. posts (thank you,dejanews), a long discussion with Abdul Jalib, and a little algebra havechanged my mind: I think Caro's advice is dead wrong (at least in manysituations) and I think I can convince you of this, if you'll follow me fora bit longer.What I'm going to tell you is that if you bet the best hand with more cardsto come against two or more opponents, you will often make more money if someof them fold, *even if they are folding correctly, and would be making amistake to call your bet.* Put another way, *you want your opponents to foldcorrectly, because their mistaken chasing you will cost you money in the longrun.* I found this result very surprising to say the least. I've never seenit described correctly in any book or article, although at least a few poststo this newsgroup have concerned closely related topics.I'm no poker authority but I think this concept has got to lead to changes instrategy in situations where players are chasing too much (and yes, Virginia,this happens not only in the 3-6 games, but also in the higher limits fromtime to time. Curiously, I have several friends who play very well who oftencomplain that they can't beat 20-40 games when they get loose like this, orat least don't do as well in these games as they do in tighter games.hmmm....). Let's look at a specific example.Suppose in holdem you hold AdKc and the flop is Ks9h3h, giving you top pairbest kicker. When the betting on the flop is complete you have two opponentsremaining, one of whom you know has the nut flush draw (say AhTh, giving him9 outs) and one of whom you believe holds second pair random kicker (sayQc9c, 4 outs), leaving you with all the remaining cards in the deck as yourouts. The turn card is an apparent blank (say the 6d) and we1ll say the potsize at that point is P, expressed in big bets.When you bet the turn player A, holding the flush draw, is sure to call andis almost certainly getting the correct pot odds to call your bet. Onceplayer A calls, player B must decide whether to call or fold. To figure outwhich action player B should choose, calculate his expectation in each case.This depends on the number of cards among the remaining 46 that will give himthe best hand, and the size of the pot when he is deciding:E(player B|folding) = 0E(player B|calling) = 4/46 * (P+2) - 42/46 * (1)Player B doesn't win or lose anything by folding. When calling, he wins thepot 4/46 of the time, and loses one big bet the remainder of the time.Setting these two expectations equal to each other and solving for P lets usdetermine the potsize at which he is indifferent to calling or folding:E(player B|folding) = E(player B|calling) => P'_B = 8.5 Big betsWhen the pot is larger than this, player B should chase you; otherwise, it'sin B's best interest to fold. This calculation is familiar to manyrec.gamblers, of course.To figure out which action on player B's part _you_ would prefer, calculateyour expectation the same way:E(you|B folds) = 37/46 * (P+2)E(you|B calls) = 33/46 * (P+3)Your expectation depends in each case on the size of the pot (ie, the potodds B is getting when considering his call). Setting these two equal letsus calculate the potsize P where you are indifferent whether B calls orfolds:E(you|B calls) = E(you|B folds) => P'_you = 6.25 Big bets.When the pot is smaller than this, you profit when player B is chasing, butwhen the pot is larger than this, your expectation is higher when B foldsinstead of chasing.This is very surprising. There's a range of pot sizes (in this case between8.5 and 6.25 big bets when the turn card falls) where it's correct for B tofold, and you make more money when he does so than when he incorrectlychases. You can see this graphically below

								  |					B SHOULD FOLD | B SHOULD CALL								  |								  v						 |	   YOU WANT B TO CALL| YOU WANT B TO FOLD						 |						 v+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---> POT SIZE, P, in big bets0   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9						 XXXXXXXXXX						   ^				   PARADOXICAL REGION

The range of pot sizes marked with the X's is where you want your opponent tofold correctly, because you lose expectation when he calls incorrectly.This is an apparent violation of the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, whichresults from the fact that the pot is not heads up but multiway. (WhileSklansky states in Theory of Poker that the FToP does not apply in certainmultiway situations, it would probably be better to say that it in generaldoes not apply to multiway situations.) In essence what is happening is thatby calling when P is in this middle region, player B is paying too high aprice for his weak draw (he will win the pot too infrequently to pay for allhis calls trying to suck out), but you are no longer the sole benefactor ofthat high price -- player A is now taking B's money those times that A makeshis flush draw. Compared to the case where you are heads up with player B,you still stand the risk of losing the whole pot, but are no longer getting100% of the compensation from B's loose calls.These sorts of situations come up all the time in Hold'em, both on the flopand on the turn. It1s the existence of this middle region of pot sizes,where you want at least some of your opponents to fold correctly, thatexplains the standard poker strategy of thinning the field as much aspossible when you think you hold the best hand. Even players with incorrectdraws cost you money when they call your bets, because part of their callsend up in the stacks of other players drawing against you. This is whyCaro's advice now seems wrong to me, in general. Those weak calling stationsare costing you money when they make the mistake of calling too much. Inpractice, when you flop a best but vulnerable hand, the pot size is rarelysmaller than this middle region, where you actually want your opponentsto call. Normally, the pot size is such that you want them to fold even ifthey would be wise to do so. In loose games, the pot size will often be atthe high side of the scale, where you would love for them to fold, but theyhave odds to call and their fishy calls become correct.This brings up another interesting point. In our three-handed example, bothyou and player B are losing money when B chases you incorrectly (both yourand his expectations would be higher if he folded). This implies that playerA is benefitting from his call, since poker is a zero-sum game (neglectingrake, etc). In fact, player A is benefitting _more_ from B's call than themagnitude of B's mistake in calling (since you are also losing expectationdue to B's call).Because you are losing expectation from B's call, it follows that the_aggregate_ of all other players (ie, A and B) must be gaining from B'scall. In other words, if A and B were to meet in the parking lot after thegame and split their profits, they would have been colluding against you.I don't really know Roy Hashimoto or Lee Jones, but I suspect that thissituation might be what Roy had in mind when he first described what he calls"implicit collusion" in games where there are many calling stations: onefish makes a play which reduces his overall expectation and all fish benefitby more than the magnitude of the first fish's mistake. That's collusion,just as if a player reraises with the worst hand to trap a third player formore bets when the first player's buddy has the nuts. Of course no onerealizes there's collusion going on in these situations, so the collusion isimplicit. (I'd sure like to hear from Roy or Lee on this point, because Ithink there's a significant difference between what I've called 'schooling'and what I've called 'implicit collusion', and that the two concepts areoften confused with each other, but I'd hate to further confuse the issue bymisappropriating someone else's label for this phenomenon.)There was an interesting thread on this group last year started by MasonMalmuth called 'Going Too Far,' about the appropriate strategy changes in agame where many players are calling too loosely not only before the flop butalso on the later streets. I suspect that the phenomenon described here(where both the leader and the chasers are giving up expectation to theplayer who is drawing to a very strong hand) lies behind the correct responseto his discussion in that thread. One strategy change he mentions is thatyou'd like your starting hand to be suited in games like these. In light ofwhat I've presented here I can not only understand this strategy change, butcan see others as well. If this has made sense to anyone who can think ofother strategy changes resulting from these ideas, let's hear them.Finally, having criticized something by one of the famous poker authors,Abdul is encouraging me to go for broke <g>: It seems pretty clear thatSklansky also missed this idea, at least when he was writing Winning Poker,the precursor to Theory of Poker. First, he mentions that the FundamentalTheorem applies to all two-way and nearly all multiway pots. While I haven'tproven it, it seems likely that nearly all multiway pots will contain somesort of region of implied collusion where the leader would prefer thatplayers fold correctly, ie where the Fundamental Theorem breaks down. Later,in the chapter "Win the Big Pots Right Away," Sklansky makes his ignorance ofthis concept explicit. Discussing a multiway seven stud hand in which yourhand is almost certainly best on fourth street he writes: You must ask yourself whether an opponent would be correct to take [the odds you are giving him] knowing what you had. If so, you would rather have that opponent fold. If not -- that is if the odds against your opponent1s making a winning hand are greater than the pot odds he1s getting -- then you would rather have him call. In this case, instead of winning the pot right away, you're willing to take the tiny risk that your opponent will outdraw you and try to win at least one more bet. ...you would not want to put in a raise to drive people out. (p. 62)Slowplaying is certainly correct in some cases, but your 'druthers' in amultiway pot can never be decided so simply as by asking whethereach of your individual opponents has the right pot odds.

[nomad_monad 0]

Wow, great article.Thanks for sharing David.

[David_Nicoson 1]

2+2er's article on No-Limit Applications

[NoBBiR 0]

$1/$2 NLHE live game - I have just under $200....most stacks are 150-250.This is pretty much a standard raise at this table - $10-$15....and even then it's not uncommon to see 4-5 players in the pot...9 times out of 10 if a guy limps for $2 he will call a pf raise up to $20.There are a couple of attitudes of most players:1. get in for cheap but if you're prepared to limp, be prepared to pay $20.2. if I like my two cards I'm playing...I don't know what an utg raise means

You could basically just write "your normal 1/2 cash game" and save some time This is essentially what every 1/2 game is like in the US.For the hand, I bet more on the flop, probably $50.After he calls the turn, you have to shove the river.Betting more on all streets makes it 10x easier to get all the money in.

[mln_falcon 0]

Nice Bump, thanks David.

[Acid_Knight 2]

I thought it was odd that shpaget was posting in here again.

[No_Neck 0]

I thought it was odd that shpaget was posting in here again.

i miss screech

[Danny Dingleberry 0]

You could basically just write "your normal 1/2 cash game" and save some time This is essentially what every 1/2 game is like in the WORLDFor the hand, I bet more on the flop, probably $50.After he calls the turn, you have to shove the river.Betting more on all streets makes it 10x easier to get all the money in.

FYP

[kingdbag 0]

I don't like the bet on the flop being that small its not a terrible bet but....Even though you got a pretty good flop you don't want the draws coming in cheap....35-45$ would be a nice flop bet and if someone came over the top you might not be good here (3-3) continue with caution... If they just call it could big flush draw (KsQs or Js10s)....4th I would definitely check having a monster like this... I would hope the check would let someone think I'm scared of the flush maybe I have ace with a bad kicker and just got unlucky that they called my bet on the flop etc.... hell if he has the flush i want him to maybe even feel i have a set of kings anything but what you are holding..... If you miss a bet you can make some of it up on the river..The river bet well i'd really want him putting me all in...in this spot i think.... I would put in maybe 50-60% of what is in the pot and hope for a call or maybe even a raise YAY! Pushing all in at the end isn't going to get you anything on this flop unless the guy has the nuts and if he does he will let you know with a reraise (then you pounce!).just my 2 cents =)

[NoBBiR 0]

FYP

I've never played outside of the US, but it's nice to know that no matter where I go, I won't escape the donks