11 to 1, on Friday, February 16th, 2007, 1:40 PM, said:
Thanks, I appreciate any bits you have time for. Maybe it'll be easier if I tell you what I know. I raise big pairs to try and get the limpers out who are gonna suck me out on the river with a gutshot straight draw or smaller pairs who are looking to make trips. I did read that in books, but I also got sucked out on enough in these situations when I started that I always raise now, except, I sometimes don't raise with AA at micro limits in late position because they just won't fold. I can raise it from early position in micro, because they will then not come in at all. (This is like .10/25 ) I also understand that being last to act has advantages. On the tables I used to play, it was standard check-check-check, let's all see if anyone hits anything poker. So, anyone who bets at the pot could take it. That's how I learned to bluff a little. If they didn't fold, I'd check-raise the turn and that usually did it. If it didn't, then I knew they had an actual hand. That doesn't work at these higher limits, thoguh, which is why I developed the new PGP. I used to play lots of suited connectors and stuff, have more fun, make enough money to build a bankroll. But what I don't get is this: If you are button, and it folds to the CO who raises, your TT is almost always the best hand, so 3-betting is without a doubt the best play, for example.Why? I mean, I understand he might just be trying to steal the blinds, but are you talking statistically? Like, at this point it's like playing a four-handed game? I also know enough to know when that super-tight "pro" who has been playing three tables and is steadily working his way into the hundreds at all of them raises prefllop, I don't want to three bet his Aces. (And I understand you have a life, so, if you get around to an answer in a few days, it's OK. I'm not going anywhere. ) And I always want honesty, if it sucks, it does. It's why I asked.
Ok, let me give this a shot.A lot of this may go over your head at first, but trust me, if you figure out a way to understand it and get your head wrapped around it, it will improve your game exponentially.1) In limit, you aren't raising hands like AA, KK, QQ, AK, with the goal of folding people. As a matter of fact, you want these calls. If you are in the BB with AA, and every single person at the table limps to you, it's always correct to raise with AA there. You aren't going to get a single person to fold, but your hand is way better than any of their hands. That raise you put in gets 9 more SB in the pot from other players. With AA vs 9 random hands, you are going to win the pot roughly 30% of the time. Now, I know it sucks to get aces cracked, etc, but no matter what the results are for that particular hand, when you put money in with an equity edge (your 30% vs each of the random hand's 7.8%) you make money in the long run. Your 30% equity means that when you get 9 more SB in the pot preflop, you win an extra 30% of those, aka 2.7 SB that you wouldn't have won if you just limped along. Furthermore, even JJ has 17% equity in this scenario, which is almost twice as much as the random hands, so it's a must raise as well. This brings me to my next point.2) In limit (and all poker, really), your goal is not to win the most pots. Your goal is to win the most money
. You do this by maximizing your expected value. In the example above, your raise from the BB has an expected value of +2.7 SBs. A check would have an EV of 0 SBs. What you do, is evaluate the expected values of each option at a decision and pick the one with the higher value. Now, obviously we don't have time to calculate everything at the table, but after a while it becomes easy to just spot the right decision. Sometimes that results in losing bigger pots, or losing some pots, but overall, your EV was maximized. It's easier to explain this one with an NL example. Say you have AA and you know the other player is on a flush draw after the turn. He's going to hit 20% of the time (roughly). You have two options, go all in, in which case he folds, and you win nothing more, or bet the size of the pot, which he will call. When he folds, you win the whole pot, but when he calls, you win the whole pot, PLUS the bet he calls on the turn when he misses his flush the 80% of the time. 20% of the time, of course, you lose the whole pot. Either way, you win more money by having him call a bet that he isn't getting proper odds on, even if you lose the pot 20% of the time, than you do by forcing him to fold his hand every time, even though you win the pot 100% of the time.3) This is similar to the above two, but a bit of an extension. When you have the best hand, you WANT calls on the flop and turn with worse hands. Even if they are drawing live. That's the only way you make money. Sure, they can suckout now and again, but just like in point (2), you make more money by getting calls then everyone folding all of the time, even though you lose some pots.4) Specifically now, with respect to the TT hand. If the CO in my hypothetical hand is halfway decent, he's going to be opening with a wide range of hands when folded to in late position. Like you said, it's basically a 4 handed game at that point. Say he raises 25% of his hands when it's folded to him in the CO, TT has about 61% equity against his range, meaning we want to get some money in the pot. Also, in this case, with a hand like TT, it's pretty vulnerable, so it's actually a good thing for the blinds to fold hands like QJ, A9, etc. Also, it really helps to have the lead in the hand, and using position to our advantage is a great way to make money.Now, 1-3 are all hard concepts to get your head wrapped around when you are new to poker theory, but once you get it, you'll get it.If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask.- Zach