[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by littlebu

I understand what your saying but if you check call that flop it should be setting off all sorts of bells to the button even if he knows almost nothing about poker. Your pratically telling your hand to him. I think by leading out with a little feeler type of bet would confuse him more. Maybe an AQ is out there. You can set him up to bluff at it later and if you can get even an extra $10 from him in on the flop, then his bluff will be that much bigger. Also I've played 1/2 live and it plays like .01/.02nl on P*'s. You would be suprised how much people will call with A high.

I think another thing that is important is our image. Have we been involved in a lot of pots? Have we been caught bluffing? All this has a bearing on how the hand plays out.

Obviously him calling that flop bet DIDN'T set off any bells to the button. He called a 1/2 pot bet on the river with a low pair thinking the hero had A high. If he plays the hand any differently (i.e. betting out on the flop), I don't think he gets that $25 call on the river. The check, check action made the button believe he called with a weak draw and missed.

[SpeakEasy]

Controlling the Pot Size -- Comparing Tournaments to Cash Games.


Since y’all get a regular dose of shortish stack on-line tournaments and SNGs, here’s a way of thinking about the “Pot Size” discussion from the S&M book. In this case, I’m comparing (1) typical on-line tournament (CT tournament) where you often hover around 20 BBs (say, 2200 stack at the 50/100 level) compared to (2) typical deep-stack NL cash game, where you might have 125 BBs (say, $250 at a $1/2 table).

Pre-Flop

In the tournament situation, your pre-flop action is a primary (maybe THE primary) decision point of the hand. If you call a standard raise (300 or 400), its around 15% of your PF stack. A re-raise commits maybe 40% of your stack (and therefore probably all of your stack). If your PF decision is to play a hand at all, the pot is necessarily big in relation to your starting stack.

In the cash game, it’s a very different situation. Calling a raise is 3 or 4 BBs from your 125 BB stack. Re-raising commits maybe 10 BBs. Unless I have one of a few select premium hands that I want to protect PF, I usually just call if its opened in front of me (unless there is some other reason to raise and thin the field, such as getting head-up with the original raiser because he’s clearly a LAG donator).

In the tournament, your pre-flop decision is often a significant part of your tournament strategy. In a cash game, your pre-flop decision is usually just the price you pay to see some cards. So, there is usually not a compelling reason to build a big pot PF (the exception still being a premium pocket pair or a reason to isolate). In the tournament, the luck that is bestowed upon you by the flop often can easily lead to a decision for your tournament life. In the cash game, the flop will start to determine how big you want to build the pot. In the tournament, you win chips primarily based on your PF decisions. In the cash game, you primarily win chips based on your decisions after you see more cards on the table. There are lots of exceptions to each of these statements, but this is a reasonable starting framework for thinking about the differences.

On the Flop

Most of the hands with which you will see a flop in a cash game (if your playing the standard “bread & butter” NL hands discussed in S&M -- see later chapters) need improvement. Therefore, no reason to build a big pot until a big hand develops. From this point forward, here is the general range of possibilities --

(1) no improvement and your starting hand is now worthless (suited connectors that whiffed)
(2) no improvement but you had a big hand PF (tens or jacks through aces)
(2) long-shot draw (gut-shot straight draw)
(3) decent to excellent draw (flush draw, opened-ended straight draw, OESFD)
(4) big sneaky hand (two pair, set)
(5) monster (flush, straight, boat)

With these categories, which hands do you want to build a big pot? Pretty easy to answer, really. Build a big pot with the made hands, build a bigger pot more quickly with the strong hands that can be out-drawn (your set on a two-flush board), and keep the pot smaller with the hands that need improvement until you hit on the turn or river.

All of this only takes into account what you are holding. A separate aspect to each hand is what you think your opponent is holding. A significant element of each flop decision is playing your opponent's hand, and there might be a reason to quickly build a big pot even when you miss. For example, you call a PF raise and you're heads-up; villain leads with 1/2 pot bet on the flop. If you have a strong read (i.e. based on history of your opponent's play, you think he has AK and its just a continuation bet with no pair) you might want to quickly create big pot in the hopes of taking it down immedialetly. Lots of variables and nuances here, but the point is to play your opponent's hand as well as your own.

[bolgenmod]

Great post Speak (of course what I expect from you). But I was wondering what you think of the topic yeltzen raised (in post 44) -- how do you keep from "justifying their optimistic calls" without playing too weak-tight?

Obviously, you can't just always fold to a big bet or raise made after a scare card falls. And despite your trying to deny them the proper odds (as S&M suggest), some people don't care about the odds: they have a "feeling" or whatever. Do you really decide before the scare card whether or not you will pay off with your hand as smoore and yeltzen imply? I respect their opinions, but I must admit I am still confused. If you (or anyone) could further enlighten me, I would be very happy!!

[jojobinks]

Originally Posted by yeltzen

"if there's a huge bet or raise on a later street, am I going to pay it off?" If not, bet more now. If so, bet less now. I think that's the way it went. I'll have to re-read it.

i completely disagree with your reading of the point.

the point is, if you plan to pay the guy off, you should make sure he's not getting the right implied odds. if you bet MORE, then you're offering worse IO's, and so you're able to pay him off later. if you bet less, you make it right more often for him to call, and you shouldn't pay off as often (in addition, you keep the pot small, making it easier to get away).

the thing is, if you're gonna get stacked, you should make sure that he makes a big mistake in the process. if that means he takes 2-1 odds as a 3.5-1 underdog, then at least you get your sklansky bucks.

[SpaceMonkey]

RIght. I haven't gone back and re-read the book (or this section) yet, but I thought one of the big points was keep pots small with moderate, vulnerable hands (i.e. TKTP/TKGK).

You want to try and big big pots with your big hands, and you do this by betting big on all streets (to a point). i.e. you hit a set on a board of A93. You need to stack your opponent. The best way to do that if you're both deep stacked is to make larger bets on the flop and turn.

[SpeakEasy]

ON the issue of implied odds and villain calling to hit his draw, here is some real-world practical advice based on hours and hours at the tables:

In the lower buy-in games, flop bets of less than the pot get little respect. Pot-sized flop bets are almost routine to get your message through ("I am ahead, you are behind, go away this is my pot").

The higher level you play, the smaller your flop bet can get (down to about half-pot or so) to communicate the same message. In both of these situations, I firmly believe that villain's decision to call or fold is based on certain standards that are created by the level of play at the table (based on the actual $$ size of the stacks and blinds) rather than straight pot-odds and implied-odds calculations.

To illustrate what I'm saying, situation: You raised 4xBB PF with one caller. Pot is about 9BBs. You have on board of .

Example #1: $1/2NL game

Pot is $18. If you lead for $12 here, you're very likely to get called with anything down to baby pairs, based on my experience. If you bet $18 here, you will drive out all but the best hands, and maybe even drive out the good draws.

Example #2: $5/10NL game

Pot is $90. If you open for $60 here, it usually has roughly the same affect as the pot-sized bet in the $1/2 game, except against the good draws and something like AJ. (ANd, of course, I'm only talking about the marginal one-pair and draw hands -- you will obviously get action from two-pair or better.)

Its very situational, including read of your opponent, etc., but the point of my advice is that when you're playing in the lower limit cash games, especially on-line, it usually takes a strong flop bet to make any of this discussion about implied odds even slightly relevant in the mind of your typical villain -- otherwise you will get lots of calls regardless of villain's odds to hit.

I'm not saying everyone at $1/2 is stupid and doesnt think of this stuff, I'm talking purely from experience and the real-world dollar value of the decision being made by the villains in these games. Hell, in Example #1, if I'm villain and I have 77, I'm calling because I know that when opponent (with AK) bets $12, he probably has AK! (Or, I can push him off his one-pair hand later with a big bet...hehe)

My on-line game improved several notches when I figured this out. Bring it stronger in the lower limits. Sklansky can't tell you about this stuff, 'cause he doesn't muck around where we play.

[smoore]

wow, cool.

jojo summed up what I "sort of" understood but couldn't articulate.
speakeasy just cleared up something I'd been struggling with.

glad I have this book!

[yeltzen]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

i completely disagree with your reading of the point.

the point is, if you plan to pay the guy off, you should make sure he's not getting the right implied odds. if you bet MORE, then you're offering worse IO's, and so you're able to pay him off later. if you bet less, you make it right more often for him to call, and you shouldn't pay off as often (in addition, you keep the pot small, making it easier to get away).

the thing is, if you're gonna get stacked, you should make sure that he makes a big mistake in the process. if that means he takes 2-1 odds as a 3.5-1 underdog, then at least you get your sklansky bucks.

Yep, you're right. I was just going off memory while I was at work yesterday. But I reread it and it's the reverse. If you will pay them off with your entire stack, then you bet more now to force them to make a big mistake. If you don't plan on paying them off with your stack, then you want to bet enough to force them to make a mistake, but not as much since you know they aren't getting the right implied odds/won't get your stack.