Poker Addict, on Thursday, May 22nd, 2008, 2:34 PM, said:
Two questions:1) can someone put together a legitimate, reasonable hand that takes the villains line in this hand that we end up beating after the check/raise (leaving out the fact that this is a 4.40)?2) EVERYONE is talking pot control lately. PXF and CR videos are full of it. But I have never read or heard a thorough explanation of pot control theory. So I am not the best one to comment on most of the threads above. Does anyone know where I can read or hear a very detailed explanation? A link would be great!!!!!
With pokervt out my guess is you'll be hearing/seeing more of it, too. Pot control is most concisely described as sizing bets so that they are appropriate to the strength of your hand and the depth of stacks. Unfortunately being concise doesnt provide much guidance!Professional NLHE talks about pot sizing in terms of the ratio of the effective stack to the starting pot on the flop (Stack to Pot Ratio) and as such is really expressing the limitation on implied/reverse implied odds resulting from different size stacks and pots. When there is a low SPR there is little room for any kind of control, and when you have TP your focus is on how to get all of the money in since any betting will have you pot committed. A pot of as little as 10% of the effective stacks is a warning that pot commitment is likely, so you better love your hand. Conversely when you are deep stacked compared to the pot the potential for large swings in implied odds/reverse implied odds is much greater, but you are also much further from being pot committed. Pre-flop bet sizing is geared toward achieving different SPRs..low SPRs when youre strong and have a lot of reverse implied odds, high SPRs when your hand is more speculative but has big score potential.Specifically in the tournament context pot control also refers to chipping up slowly, taking a lot of small (relative to your stack) risks, rather than a few big ones. Ive been thinking about that mathematically in terms of the Coefficient of Variation...standard deviation/mean...how much risk are you taking relative to your EV, the lower the better. Looking at a series of hands, if you want to reduce CV you can increase your mean (only get involved with the nuts or near nuts, tough to do with rising blinds and antes) or you can reduce the standard deviation. For n plays the total EV is the sum of the individual EVs (or if they are reasonably close, EV x n), while the standard deviation doesnt increase as quickly, dampened by a factor of SQRT(n). Ie a lot of small risks has lower CV than a few large ones. That in turn of course circles back to the "accumulator" vs "survivor" debate. Accumulators are trying to play more hands, maintaining pot control, and chip up slowly, especially trying to pick up orphan pots carrying very little risk. Survivors play fewer hands, but by necessity have to build pots more quickly to compensate for how often they are sitting out. It also is reflected in the debate over limping/min-raises/standard raises.When DN introduces small ball in PokerVT he talks about how it is rooted in mathematics and logic. My guess is that if he delves deeper into the math, it is going to be some sort of equivalent of CV.