Jump to content

The Reason For Raising...


Recommended Posts

O.k. The question seems obvious, but I am curious what some may say.There is the text book reason and the situational reasons, including re-raises etc.Initially it seemed a raise was intended to weed out the limpers and marginal hands. But do you really want all these donkeys out of the hand when you are holding a monster?Last night I argued with a guy about raising. His contention was raises in todays world of poker can often be -EV because it costs you more to see a flop that you may miss, and in this day and age of "Gus Hanson" syndrome, where 7 people are gonna call with ANY 2 cards anyway and then pronounce "I had the odds to call", means that raising your Jacks 4x will only result in 7 callers and the good likelihood that 3-5 off is going to potentially beat you. In other words, your raises now have become reason to CALL, not fold!I know where I am on this issue and am playing devils advocate a bit here, but the guy actually got me thinking about some things.I thought that, as basic as this poker topic seems, it might make for an interesting Friday debate.discuss.............EDIT: oops...almost forgot. If you think this topic sucks go eat a DONUT!HomerDonut.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I completely agree with what that guy says, when the context is right. I play a regular 1/2 game where a raise of anything less than $12 will probably mean most of the table is coming into the pot. You have to raise to about $15 pre-flop just to get it down to 3 players. So it gets to the point where you're almost better to limp with a pair of Jacks and hope to catch top set.However, if you get a table of players who aren't big gamblers, then raising 3 to 4x the BB still has it's intended purpose.It's all relative to the players you're up against.

Link to post
Share on other sites
O.k. The question seems obvious, but I am curious what some may say.There is the text book reason and the situational reasons, including re-raises etc.Initially it seemed a raise was intended to weed out the limpers and marginal hands. But do you really want all these donkeys out of the hand when you are holding a monster?Last night I argued with a guy about raising. His contention was raises in todays world of poker can often be -EV because it costs you more to see a flop that you may miss, and in this day and age of "Gus Hanson" syndrome, where 7 people are gonna call with ANY 2 cards anyway and then pronounce "I had the odds to call", means that raising your Jacks 4x will only result in 7 callers and the good likelihood that 3-5 off is going to potentially beat you. In other words, your raises now have become reason to CALL, not fold!I know where I am on this issue and am playing devils advocate a bit here, but the guy actually got me thinking about some things.I thought that, as basic as this poker topic seems, it might make for an interesting Friday debate.discuss.............
This is very interesting and I think in today's setting where people are educating themselves a little bit about poker... it might be true in their minds. A lot of people today are studying poker but I believe alot of them are lazy about it. They learn a little about odds and all of a sudden start spouting "Well I had odds to call!"I raise to get more money when my big hand wins the way it's supposed to. And I love people calling with "odds". If I raise consistently and they call me with garbage, consistently... in the long run I win. Sure, JJ will fall to 35sooooted sometimes, but in the end, it's a good thing. Joe Blow sees that happen one time and all of a sudden he calls every time with that hand. Imagine, your very own ATM that will call you with junk whenever you want it. Bad beats are life, but the math is there. You want these calls.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aswell as looking to reduce the amount of people in the hand you are looking to build the size of the pot for profit reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But do you really want all these donkeys out of the hand when you are holding a monster?
Bad beats are life, but the math is there. You want these calls.
The fact remains the more opponents that remain in the hand the less likely you are to win. If raising fails to remove opponents in some situations then I guess it's not a useful move in those situations. ButI don't buy the argument that you want more opponents with weak hands in the pot. One is enough.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact remains the more opponents that remain in the hand the less likely you are to win. If raising fails to remove opponents in some situations then I guess it's not a useful move in those situations. ButI don't buy the argument that you want more opponents with weak hands in the pot. One is enough.
You are correct. I didn't specify how many callers we wanted. I got off on a tangent there and didn't discuss the negative side of having 3-4 callers against a pocket pair. We all know we don't want that many callers, but you still have to raise with your big hands. If you get 4 people to go with you then it turns into figuring out how to proceed from there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's all relative to the players you're up against.
this is simply what its all about............short and sweet.............you can say what you want to say but this is what it all comes down to......
Link to post
Share on other sites
I completely agree with what that guy says, when the context is right. I play a regular 1/2 game where a raise of anything less than $12 will probably mean most of the table is coming into the pot. You have to raise to about $15 pre-flop just to get it down to 3 players. So it gets to the point where you're almost better to limp with a pair of Jacks and hope to catch top set.However, if you get a table of players who aren't big gamblers, then raising 3 to 4x the BB still has it's intended purpose.It's all relative to the players you're up against.
Exactly loose talbe, and early position with JJ. maybe I limp playing them similar to 55 or 66 hoping to flop a set, and get away if I do not. Tight table, raise, get away if big re-raise or too many over cards hit flop. But it all relative, and people are going to make moves on you to in multi-way pots.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What you guys don't undestand is that you are gaining value from every loose call when you have a good hand.Simple example, using LHE, but the same can be applied to NL.You have AA in the BB. Every player at the table limps to you. Do you raise? You aren't going to get anyone to fold, and you surely are going to lose the hand more often than you win it. As a matter of fact, you only win the hand ~30% of the time vs 9 random hands. So clearly a raise would be bad, right? Wrong. Your equity in this pot is 30%. Which means for every $1 that goes in the pot, your expectation is $0.30. Clearly checking gains us no more money because it puts nothing more in the pot. Say we're playing a 3/6 game, raising to $6 puts $3 more for each person into the pot. So that means $3 * 9 goes into the pot. Of that, our expectation is $27 * 0.3 = $8.1. So the expected value of the raise is $8.10, while the EV of a check is $0. It's fairly clear that raising is infinitely better.Take an NL scenario, for example. In a 1/2 NL game, we raise UTG to $10, and say 3 players call us with a moderately wide range. I'm going to use all suited connectors from 45s and up, all suited one-gappers from 57s and up, any suited ace from A8s and up, any pair from 22-JJ (they'd reraise with QQ+, right), KTs, and ATo+.Range: {TT-22,A8s+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T8s,97s+,86s+,75s+,65s,54s,ATo+}That's a pretty loose range, you could widen it to include unsuited connectors, or perhaps some suited 2 gappers, but it won't change much.

4,397,535  games	 8.954 secs   491,125  games/secBoard: Dead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	58.141%	  57.87% 	00.29% 		   2544635 		12536.67   { AA }Hand 1: 	13.952%	  13.58% 	00.37% 			597337 		16340.83   { TT-22, A8s+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T8s, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 54s, ATo+ }Hand 2: 	13.946%	  13.58% 	00.37% 			597187 		16242.08   { TT-22, A8s+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T8s, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 54s, ATo+ }Hand 3: 	13.961%	  13.60% 	00.37% 			597881 		16196.92   { TT-22, A8s+, KTs+, QTs+, J9s+, T8s, 97s+, 86s+, 75s+, 65s, 54s, ATo+ }

If you look at our equity here, it's 58%. We're putting in 25% of the money. Anytime our pot equity is greater than the percentage of the money we're putting in the pot, then we should be looking to get as much money in as possible.The same concept can be seen when you have a straight flush draw + overcards, and you know you're against top pair.

14,861,458  games	 7.781 secs	 1,909,967  games/secBoard: Js Ts 2cDead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	66.662%	  66.68% 	00.00% 		   9909741 			0.00   { KsQs }Hand 1: 	33.338%	  33.35% 	00.00% 		   4956096 			0.00   { AcJd }

We clearly don't have the best hand, but we will have the best hand by the river 2/3rds of the time, in this example. Since we're HU, putting in 50% of the money, we have an equity advantage, and thus should be very happy getting as much money in the pot as possible.Again, this can be seen in limit games, where you're supposed to pump the flop in multiway pots with draws as small as open ended straight draws or flush draws. Our equity with the flush draw alone (9 outs) is ~35%. If the pot is 3 handed or more, then we should be betting/raising/capping with just our flush draw on the flop because we're putting in 33% of the money (or less if it's more than 3 handed).************************A lot of people seem to be connected to the magic number of 50%. If they aren't winning a certain hand 50% of the time, they get scared and don't want to put money in. The fact of the matter is that 50% really means nothing. In the original AA hand where we're 10 handed to the flop, we're only winning 30% of the time, but for every bet we put in preflop, we're getting 9 calls, meaning we only need to win the pot 1/10 times to make money, and clearly 30% is more than that.Another famous example is the AA on the first hand of the WSOP example, where they make up a situation where you are in the BB with AA, and all 9 players at the table push all in before it gets to you. Sure, you're going to lose that hand 70% of the time, but when you do win, you win 9x your investment. It's clearly worth it. But people get put off because they won't win 50% of the time for some reason.************************Well, that's my rambling.- Zach

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows you make money in poker by getting your money in good.. however, raising preflop with the best hand can be -EV with certain hands depending on the table dynamics (tendencies and stack sizes) and your ability to play post flop. For instance, if I can NEVER get away from AA, I will have to raise enough preflop to make sure no one has the odds to out draw me on the flop for the hand to be profitable. On the contrary, if I see a preflop rock who gets attached to hands raise for the first time in 2 hours, I am going to call with a very wide range of hands because I think if I outflop him I can get his stack, making the reverse implied odds in my favor.This comes up in Omaha a lot. If I see a tight player bet the pot preflop, I can put him on AAxx or another very strong hand. I will often call out of position to try and outflop him (not difficult in Omaha) because he is probably going to put another big bet in on the flop and possibly get himself attached to the hand.An argument in favor of raising is that if you can outplay your opponents after the flop, it becomes increasingly difficult for them to let go of hands if you put in a raise preflop

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact remains the more opponents that remain in the hand the less likely you are to win. If raising fails to remove opponents in some situations then I guess it's not a useful move in those situations. ButI don't buy the argument that you want more opponents with weak hands in the pot. One is enough.
This doesn't matter.You still win more money from each call, you just win less often. The goal in poker is not to win pots, it is to win money. It sounds counterintuitive, but once that concept clicks in your head, it becomes a lot easier to understand the long term aspects of this game.
You are correct. I didn't specify how many callers we wanted. I got off on a tangent there and didn't discuss the negative side of having 3-4 callers against a pocket pair. We all know we don't want that many callers, but you still have to raise with your big hands. If you get 4 people to go with you then it turns into figuring out how to proceed from there.
It's not a matter of not wanting callers. It's a bit tougher to do this when postflop play becomes a consideration, but say you, and 9 others at the table have $100 stacks, and you get it in PF with AA vs all 9 players. Your EV in the pot will be +$300. (30% of the $1000 pot). If you get it in vs 2 players, who have good hands, say QQ and KK, your EV is 67% of $300, or $201. Clearly it's better to get it all in 10 ways. You'll win the pot less often, but you'll win more money in the long run. And that is your best case scenario, being against two hands you dominate. Your equity drops to 60% against 67s and JTs.With respect to the postflop play, I'm just assuming you're a better postflop player than the rest of the table, as most people who post on poker forums are, so you'll be able to make the correct decisions postflop. Obviously, the hot and cold equities I've been posting don't take postflop play into account, but the fact that you make money with every dollar that goes into the pot when you have a strong hand PF does not change.
Exactly loose talbe, and early position with JJ. maybe I limp playing them similar to 55 or 66 hoping to flop a set, and get away if I do not. Tight table, raise, get away if big re-raise or too many over cards hit flop. But it all relative, and people are going to make moves on you to in multi-way pots.
JJ is too strong for this. Even if you routinely get 5 callers of your PF raise, I'll even use the same range as I used in the above post (TT-22,A8s+,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T8s,97s+,86s+,75s+,65s,54s,ATo+), then your equity is still 28% vs 5 players. You're putting in 16.67% of the money preflop. You have a distinct edge and need to be raising to take advantage of that. You want to get as much money in when you have an equity edge as possible. Even if you check/fold the KQ3 flop, you've still made money in the long run.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What you guys don't undestand is that you are gaining value from every loose call when you have a good hand.(lots of good math and stuff)Well, that's my rambling.- Zach
I love you. I just wanted to say it.Zach further illustrates my point about people educating themselves on poker. I mentioned the people who learn the word "odds" and all of sudden think they are geniuses and then don't go any further. I'd like think I am beyond that and I strive to be like Zach. I know raising is good, but he proves it with hard facts.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, strive to be like me... can post about the game like no other, but can't build a proper roll to save my life, lol.
What's that saying? Those who can't do, teach.You said you were playing 3/6 live, right? That's gotta be a decent stack to be in that game.
Link to post
Share on other sites
What's that saying? Those who can't do, teach.You said you were playing 3/6 live, right? That's gotta be a decent stack to be in that game.
3/6 LIMIT live, but only because it's the only game they have here. I play 3/6 SH LHE online though. I do have a decent roll, meh, but I should be playing a lot higher than I do, I think, lol. I just always withdraw, etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ya......this is a pretty basic fundamental of poker. Some of you might want to brush up.......
Grinder, does your avatar not show up for anyone else? All I see is the little X in a box deal... it's been like that for a few days.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Grinder, does your avatar not show up for anyone else? All I see is the little X in a box deal... it's been like that for a few days.
I wanted it to be a .gif (I think, like a movie clip) but when I tried to do it, it said the file was too large, and I pm'ed governator a couple of tiems about how to fix it but I think he's on vacation or something. So ya, I have no avatar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Another famous example is the AA on the first hand of the WSOP example, where they make up a situation where you are in the BB with AA, and all 9 players at the table push all in before it gets to you. Sure, you're going to lose that hand 70% of the time, but when you do win, you win 9x your investment. It's clearly worth it. But people get put off because they won't win 50% of the time for some reason.
Thanks for the insights Zach. Don't want to take this too far offtopic, but correct me if I'm wrong with the following objection to your solution on this scenario. The strategy you advocate assumes a long term -- that hands like this will be played over and over again and you expect to win a small percentage that will more than cover the frequent losses. However, what is unique about this scenario, is that it is a special circumstance - the WSOP. I think the reason this is thrown in to the scenario is to stress the importance of the particular case in front of you over and above the generic long-run. In other words, if you only have one shot at the WSOP in your lifetime, does not the short-term probability (I will lose 70% of the time) become more important than the long-run (my wins will pay for my losses)?
Link to post
Share on other sites
...the magic number of 50%......you are in the BB with AA, and all 9 players at the table push all in before it gets to you...
I think I hate these two things more than anything else in poker.Actually, the thing I hate most is trying to explain that poker is a skill game to those who have a strong opinion on a game they know nothing about.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the insights Zach. Don't want to take this too far offtopic, but correct me if I'm wrong with the following objection to your solution on this scenario. The strategy you advocate assumes a long term -- that hands like this will be played over and over again and you expect to win a small percentage that will more than cover the frequent losses. However, what is unique about this scenario, is that it is a special circumstance - the WSOP. I think the reason this is thrown in to the scenario is to stress the importance of the particular case in front of you over and above the generic long-run. In other words, if you only have one shot at the WSOP in your lifetime, does not the short-term probability (I will lose 70% of the time) become more important than the long-run (my wins will pay for my losses)?
No. If you can't handle busting from the WSOP, don't play it. You're dead money.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the insights Zach. Don't want to take this too far offtopic, but correct me if I'm wrong with the following objection to your solution on this scenario. The strategy you advocate assumes a long term -- that hands like this will be played over and over again and you expect to win a small percentage that will more than cover the frequent losses. However, what is unique about this scenario, is that it is a special circumstance - the WSOP. I think the reason this is thrown in to the scenario is to stress the importance of the particular case in front of you over and above the generic long-run. In other words, if you only have one shot at the WSOP in your lifetime, does not the short-term probability (I will lose 70% of the time) become more important than the long-run (my wins will pay for my losses)?
What Simo said. It's still a long run game. That particular situation has been discussed ad nauseum on here and 2p2, with people like Paul Phillips and Greg Raymer commenting that they wouldn't fold there ever. If they don't fold there, you shouldn't.Fwiw, if you want to not bust out of the WSOP because it's your first and only attempt at it, then fine, play however you want, but that doesn't make it correct.Tournaments have a lot of other things to consider as well as just tEV, so they're a bit of a different monster. On the first hand of a tourney though, tEV = $EV because it's too early to be worried about folding to move up the payscale, etc. Nonetheless, this thread was based upon cash game implications, which mean the ONLY thing you're worried about is making the most +EV decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Talking about the WSOP, AA hand.Let's see... 70% I get knocked out, 30% I decuple up and have a REAL nice starting stack. I'll take the 30% shot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...