I am having a really hard time with my big pairs in Stud, I have been playing on Party Poker and there is often 5-6 people to the flop.

I am reading 7 card stud for advanced players and in the loose games sometimes it is better to call as opposed to raising because the raise does nothing other than bloat the pot, and make it correct for people to stay in with the weak draws.

Can someone out there have a hand history or maybe an example of when it is better to check/call rather than bet out and protect your hand.

I think it might make an interesting discussion.

This is an interesting question. First, I totally agree that in low limit online stud-hi, most people want to see 4th and a lot are also inclined to stick around to see 5th seeing as they only calling the small bet.

Perhaps it would be, in certain situation, better to check, keeping the pot small, then bet 5th. There is always talk among pros and you hear comments like "X-person does a great job or managing the size of the pot." Controlling the pot odds you give your opponents is a true skill. While easier in NL, doing so in a limit game is more difficult. That being said... keeping the pot small until the BB on 5th seems like solid strategy.

This could also be useful as you can evaluate your board and the boards of opponents and make an assessment of the situation. Big pairs are nice, but this is not hold'em.

This really is an interesting question. Also, Neck, how is Stud for Advanced Players??

James

I don't have a hand history, but let's say this hand is dealt out. (1/2 Stud, .50 bring-in, .10 ante.

Seat 1: (2h 4s) 2c
Seat 2: (Kh Js) Ts
Seat 3: (3c 3s) 4h
Seat 4: (Ac 4h) 9d
Seat 5: (Jc 3d) 6h
Seat 6: (Ah 7h) Qh
Seat 7: (9h 7s) 6c
Hero: (Kc 5s) Kd

Alright, so Seat 1 (2c) brings in, Seat 2 calls, Seat 3 calls, Seat 4 folds, Seat 5 folds, Seat 6 calls, and Seat 7 calls.

Now at this point, there is $3.80 in the pot. Now, obviously you want to play, as you have a pair of Kings and you don't see any Kings or 5s dead. You could raise to $1, but that would really be counter to what you want to actually do. If you raise to $1, you make the pot $4.80, and each person only has to call $.50 more...thus, Seat 1 has 9-1 odds to call with live dueces, making that the correct call, so Seat 1 calls. Now Seat 2 has over 10-1 to call with a three cards to a broadway straight and a two flush, so it is correct for him to call. Now, Seat 3 has over 11-1 to call with a concealed live pair..and so on and so on for every player. Also, on fourth street, if anyone hits their hand you are in trouble, AND even if every single player completely blanks, most of them will now have the odds to call one more bet from you on 4th street since you made the pot that much bigger, whereas if you had just called on 3rd Street and kept the pot smaller, more of them would be making a mistake by calling a bet on 4th street if they miss their hands. Thus, due to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, you want to keep the pot small on 3rd street in this particular spot so that if noone catches a scary card on 4th, you can bet and they would be making a mistake to call you...instead of raising on 3rd and making it correct for them to call you on both 3rd AND 4th no matter what they catch. When you make them make a mistake by calling on 4th by keeping the pot small, you gain in the long run, but by raising you actually cause them to make a more correct play on 4th street, which means you lose profit in the long run (it MAY still be a profitable play dependent on a ton of factors, but not AS profitable).

However, if say, Seat 6 had raised on 3rd street before you, then you would make the easy re-raise, thus making it a mistake to call 1 1/2 full bets cold with their marginal hands......in this case you are once again manipluating the pot size to cause them to make a mistake, which is what you want.

Basically, if you have a big pair in late position (even Aces) and you get 4 or 5 limpers ahead of you, you will usually want to just call and try to drive people out on 4th street. However, IF you have a straight flush kicker with your big pair (Example: you have (Ks Js) Kh) ) then you could probably still raise even if there are a lot of limpers with you in late position, as you have a LOT more ways to win the pot now, particularly if your outs are very live. In Stud, having suited or straight flush kickers with big pairs can change the way you play your hand DRASTICALLY in many situations.

Wow.....I wrote a lot.......hope some of it is useful..lol.

Edit: And I completely forgot to say that this principle applies to 4th street to...as if you are in late position on 4th street (assuming you didn't raise on 3rd) it would probably be best to just call a bet or check if noone bets....however, if you are first or early to act on 4th street and noone catches a scary card...I'd still bet instead of giving that many people a free card.

Hope that all makes sense.

Wow, great response, Koop.

James

I disagree with Koop here. I think that in a loose stud game like this, you just have to pump your equity with the big pair, and hope that you hit a second pair somewhere. Most of your opponents won't be paying attention to the pot odds anyway, and if they were, they wouldn't give you credit for split kings when you didn't raise on third street.

Yes, you can say you're getting them to call with marginally bad odds, and "forcing them to make a mistake", but their mistake is smaller than the mistake that you made by not raising on third street and gaining equity while you have the chance. Also, the thing about a big pair in stud, is that it often does improve to two pair, trips, or even a full house. You don't need every opponent to catch bad in order for your hand to be good. Finally, in the low-limit games on Party, people will call with hands like QT8 that they'd be making a mistake to play, even with massive pot odds, so you want to punish those people as well.

I was looking over SS1 the other day, and Chip Reese was talking about how with two small pair, sometimes you want to just call, since you'll never be a big favorite unless you make a boat, and when your board improves, you don't want people to be scared because you were already raising. However, with a big pair, you just want to pump the pot since you'll have a lot of outs against two small pair when you're behind, but if you make two pair, you can have them drawing to four outs.

I think both of you guys made great points. From my limited stud experience, I feel like:

Playing it fast on 3rd will lead to more variance, more frustration and a little more profit

Playing it slow on 3rd will lead to less variance, less frustration and a little less profit

So it depends on what is most important to you, I think.

Monty

EDIT

Also, I don't remember the exact quote, but I do recall Chip Reese saying something about how it isn't always correct to make the mathematically correct play when you are at a distinct advantage comapred to your opponents.

If you disagree with me, then you disagree with Sklansky, and I don't think you want to do that. With so many limpers in the pot, if you raise with a big pair and an uncordinated kicker, you are causing EVERY player to make the RIGHT play by calling you on 3rd street....and MOST hands will now be correct to call you on 4th street as well no matter what they catch. If you wait until 4th street to start raising, you are now forcing more hands that will call you to be making a mistake. Thus, you are gaining according to Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

Also, the section of Stud in SS1 by Chip Reese does not apply very much to low-limit Stud...that is more for higher limits where most hands are three-way at most.

Let's go back to my example. Here are the hands and the approximate odds they have to win.

Seat 1: (2h 4s) 2c -- 6-1
Seat 2: (Kh Js) Ts -- 5.5-1
Seat 3: (3s 3c) 4h -- 9-1
Seat 6: (Ah 7h) Qh -- 4-1
Seat 7: (9h 7s) 6c --4.5-1
Seat 8: (Kc 5s) Kd --3.5-1

When it comes to you, everyone has limped in our 1/2 game and there is $3.80 in the pot. Let's say you raise and now the pot is $4.80.

Now the decision is to Seat 1, and they are getting over 9-1 on their call, and with 6-1 odds they make the correct call.

Now the decision is to Seat 2, and they are getting over 10-1 on their call, and with 5.5-1 odds they make the correct call.

Now the decision is to Seat 3, and they are getting 11-1 on their call, and with 9-1 odds they make the correct call.

Now the decision is to Seat 6, and they are getting 12-1 on their call, and with 4-1 they make the correct call.

Now the decision is to Seat 7, and they are getting over 13-1 on their call, and with 4.5-1, they make the correct call.

Now, let's play out 4th street....with their approximate odds to win.

4th Street ($7.30)

Seat 1: (2h 4s) 2c 4d --- 3-1
Seat 2: (Kh Js) Ts 8h --- 7-1
Seat 3: (3s 3c) 4h Jd --- 12-1
Seat 6: (Ah 7h) Qh Td --- 7-1
Seat 7: (9h 7s) 6c 5d --- 4-1
Seat 8: (Kc 5s) Kd Qs --- 4-1

You, the raiser, bet .50.

Seat 1, with the pot at $7.80, he makes the corrct call as he is getting over 15-1 pot odds with a 3-1 shot at winning.

Seat 2, with the pot at $8.30, makes the correct call with his 7-1 shot to win with a pot offering him 16-1.

Seat 3, with the pot at $8.80, makes the correct call as he is getting over 17-1 with his 12-1 shot.

Seat 6, with the pot at $9.30, makes the correct call as he is getting over 18-1 on his 7-1 shot.

Seat 7, with the pot at $9.80, makes the correct call as he is getting over 19-1 on his 4-1 shot.

Thus, as we can clearly see, by raising on third street, we cause EVERY player to make the BY FAR correct play by calling us on BOTH 3rd and 4th street.


Now, let's look at how 4th street plays out assuming we DO NOT raise on 3rd street.


4th Street ($4.30)

Seat 1: (2h 4s) 2c 4d --- 3-1
Seat 2: (Kh Js) Ts 8h --- 7-1
Seat 3: (3s 3c) 4h Jd --- 12-1
Seat 6: (Ah 7h) Qh Td --- 7-1
Seat 7: (9h 7s) 6c 5d --- 4-1
Seat 8: (Kc 5s) Kd Qs --- 4-1

Seat 1, with the pot at $4.30, makes the correct call as he is getting over 8-1 pot odds on a 3-1 shot. However, this call is LESS CORRECT than had we raised on 3rd street, as he WAS making a call into a 15-1 pot with a 3-1 shot. Thus, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, Seat 1's call here is more profitable for us than had we raised on 3rd.

Seat 2, with the pot at $4.80, makes the correct call, as he is getting over 9-1 pot odds on a 7-1 shot. However, this call is MUCH LESS CORRECT than had we raised on 3rd street, as he WAS making the call getting over 16-1 with a 7-1 shot. Thus, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, Seat 2's call here is way more profitable for us than had we raised on 3rd.

Seat 3, with the pot at $5.30, makes the INCORRECT call, as he is getting over 10-1 pot odds, but with only a 12-1 shot. Had we raised on 3rd street, he would be getting over 17-1 and thus, would be making the correct call. Thus, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, Seat 3's call here is MUCH more profitable for us than had we raised on 3rd.

Seat 6, with the pot at $5.80, makes the correct call, as he is getting over 11-1 pot odds with a 7-1 shot to win. However, this call is MUCH LESS CORRECT than had we raised on 3rd street, as he WAS making the call getting over 18-1 on a 7-1 shot. Thus, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, Seat 6's call here is MUCH more profitable for us than had we raised on 3rd.

Seat 7, with the pot at $6.30, makes the correct call, as he is getting over 12-1 with a 4-1 shot to win. However, this call is LESS CORRECT than had we raised on 3rd street, as he WAS making the call getting over 19-1 on a 4-1 shot. Thus, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, Seat 7's call here is more profitable for us than had we raised on 3rd.

Thus, no matter what we do on 3rd street, with so many limpers, there are a lot of hands that will be "correct" to call us on 4th street when we bet. However, if we raise on 3rd street, we give all the players a chance to make ANOTHER correct call on us on 3rd street, and then the chance to make the CORRECT call once again on 4th street with pretty much ANY hand (as evidenced by Seat 3 being able to correctly call with a 12-1 underdog). However, by just calling on 3rd, we don't allow our opponents to make a correct play against us on 3rd (which would cost us money) and we cause all of them to be MUCH LESS CORRECT or even INCORRECT to call us with their marginal hands on 4th street. Thus, over the long run, we gain more by just calling on 3rd street and waiting until 4th to try and drive them out.

A good example of this in Limit Holdem would be if you were dealt JJ in the Big Blind..and there are 7 limpers in front of you. Now, you almost certainly have the "best" hand, but it would not make sense to raise, as EVERY player will call you, and you just make the pot bigger, thus making it correct for more marginal hands/draws to call you down all the way.

Summary: Since you can't protect your hand, just calling on 3rd and then being aggressive on 4th wins you more in the long run, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. Either way, you are going to be up against many hands and will get "outdrawn" the exact same amount of times, but by manipulating the pot size in your favor, you win more money in the long run.

You really can't protect your hand in low-limit Stud games. People will chase any longshot draws because a lot of people think Stud is just a luck-oriented game. Your only real possibility to force people out is to raise before fourth street. Once people get to fourth, most will stay until seventh and then fold if they miss their draw regardless of odds.

When you hit premium hands like high split or concealed pairs, bet. If you hit two pair (sometimes you don't even need to), you're going to take down the pot enough of the time to not lose money. If you are certain that your opponent did complete their draw and you're drawing dead (normally it's easy because they actually bet or raise) then you can most likely cut your losses and lay down your hand regardless of the incredible odds to check/call down.

The thing is that you *want* to give your opponents good odds to make calls. You want them to chase draws because most of the time they won't make them and you'll take down a huge pot. And the times they do: it happens but what matters is that in the long run, you'll come out ahead.

NO.

If your opponents are given "good" odds to chase draws/marginal hands, then they are playing their hand correctly in terms of the cards they are up against (your hand) and you lose money in the long run. This is why you want to manipulate the pot size so that you are giving your opponents as WORSE odds as possible to chase their odds (you can't always give them "incorrect odds," but if you they have a 6-1 shot at making their hand, you profit more by making them make a call with 8-1 pot odds then you do by making them make a call of 15-1...thus, you want to manipulate the pot size accordingly. In No Limit, you do this by betting 4/5 of the pot or overbetting the pot if you are "protecting" your hand against a flush draw. In Limit games, you have to be trickier than this and sometimes must wait until later streets to "protect" your hand.

You want your opponents to chase draws ONLY when they have incorrect odds to do so. If you can manipulate the pot to make their calls "incorrect," then that is the play to make. If you can't do that, you need to try and give them as bad of odds as possible. To do this, you can NOT always just bet/raise with big pairs on every street, you must consider other lines of betting in certain situations, such as the one I outlined above.

I'll give another example of "manipulating" the pot size to make people make "as incorrect as possible" calls.

Let's say you have this hand.....(1/2 Stud, .50 bring in, .10 ante)

Hero: (Ah Ac) Tc
Seat 7: (4h 5c) 7h
Seat 8: (Qh 5s) Qd

On third street, Seat 1 brought in, everyone folded to you (Seat 6), you correctly raised, Seat 7 called, and Seat 8 called. You are fairly confident that Seat 8 has Queens, and are unsure of what Seat 7 has, but you feel he likely has a marginal pair of a draw.

Now, here is 4th street ($4.30)

Hero: (Ah Ac) Tc 4d
Seat 7: (4h 5c) 7h 8s
Seat 8: (Qh 5s) Qd 9c

Now, if you were in the mode of "straightforwardly betting to protect your almost certain best hand" then you would bet out. If you did this, then Seat 7 would be be getting nearly 10-1 pot odds and would probably be making the correct play to call one bet with his gutshot straight draw, and Seat 8 would certainly call one bet getting 11-1, and he would be correct to do so. That doesn't mean this play is "wrong," but because your opponents are making a "correct" play in terms of the hand(s) they are against, you lose money on that bet. Now, let's look at the alternative way of manipulating the pot to force your opponent(s) to make incorrect calls/bets.

On fourth street, let's say you check with the thought that Seat 8 will bet his pair of Queens. While you do run the risk of giving a free card, it is a good play if Seat 8 does indeed bet. So you check, Seat 7 checks wanting a free card, and Seat 8 bets.

Now, with the pot as $4.80 you raise, putting the pot at $5.80 and forcing Seat 7 to call getting only about 6-1 (a little less actually) on a gutshot straight draw. While Seat 7 will oftentimes still call this, you have given him the worst possible odds you can give him to make that call with his gutshot, and thus have made the best possible play you can make in that exact situation and thus, will win more in the long run on that exact bet than if you had just led out on 4th.

I believe there is something similar to this example in Chip Reese's section in SS1, and while his passage applies mostly to higher limit games, that particular piece works in any three-way pots.

Okay. I feel dumb. Thanks for the help though.

Koop, you make some good points, but, if I have understood you correctly, there is a very basic mistake in your analysis. When you bet with the best hand and your opponent calls with correct odds, you DO NOT lose money, you win money by making the situation more profitable for you.

Look at this simplified example:

Pot $100 with one card to come and you have exactly a 66% chance of winning the pot. You have one opponent and each of you has exactly $100. If we assume that you will both play perfectly on the river, if you check and your opponent checks, your EV is $66 and your opponent's EV is $34.

If you bet and your opponent calls, the EV looks like this:

You
Win $200 * .66 = $132
Lose $100 * .34 = -$34
Total = $98

Opponent:
Win $200 * .34 = $68
Lose $100 * .66 = $66
Total = $2

So, betting not only does not cost you money, it wins you $32 as compared with checking. I don't know about you, but in your opponents shoes, i'd much rather have +$34 expectation than +$2.

When you call on 3rd street with a big pair you are losing value, but there may be mitigating factors, such as the greater chance of winning the pot by knocking people out on 4th or 5th because of the bad pot odds, or the value of deception on later streets. It should be seen as a trade off in these terms.

You don't make money by people putting chips in the pot, you make money when they inccorectly put money in the pot.

If someone has a raggy two pair, and you have bloated the pot, they are getting the correct odds to draw to a full house. If you don't bloat the pot they might be making a mistake in calling down. I have had a lot of success with this.

Another thing is it does disguise your hand, also if you hit a set you are much more likely to get paid off.

I am going by Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker. Anytime your opponent makes the correct play based on the cards he holds and the cards that you hold, you lose. Anytime your opponent makes the incorrect play based on the cards he holds and the cards that you hold, you gain. Thus, when your opponent makes a correct call of you, your opponent gains. Look at it this way..

Say you are playing holdem and flop the nut flush draw. There is 20 dollars in the pot, and your opponent bets 5 dollars. Now, with getting 5-1 pot odds, this is an easy call. Are you telling me that by making this play, your opponent gains AND you gain!?!!?!? That is impossible. Your opponent has made a bet that allows you to make a correct call, thus, you gain and your opponent loses on that ONE bet.

Like No Neck said, you don't lose when YOU are putting the money in, you lose when your opponent makes the correct play. That's the Fundamental Theorem of Poker...and I'm pretty sure it's a good way to look at poker. The entire purpose of poker is to force your opponents to make mistakes. Give them incorrect odds when they call with marginal hands/draws. Force them to fold the better hand. Force them to call you with the worse hand. ANY time your opponent correctly puts money in the pot or correctly folds to you, he gains from that situation and you lose. That's just the way it is.

Also....I'm not the biggest math guy in the world, but I think the way you are looking at EV is wrong...you aren't factoring in how much you are betting on the end or something like that. For example, if you are betting $10 into a $100 pot after 6th street with a 66% chance of winning and are called by your opponent with a 33% chance of winning..your opponent makes the correct call into the pot and thus is the one who profits in this situation.






No need to feel dumb. This is what the strat forums are for, to learn about the game better and share advice. Everyone learns new stuff at some point.

I just wanted to say Koop that I really appreciate all your strategy advice on this forum, and I've found it very useful in improving my understanding of 7stud. But in terms of poker theory, I think you've made a few mistakes in this thread, and I'll try to correct them here.


Say you are playing holdem and flop the nut flush draw. There is 20 dollars in the pot, and your opponent bets 5 dollars. Now, with getting 5-1 pot odds, this is an easy call. Are you telling me that by making this play, your opponent gains AND you gain!?!!?!? That is impossible. Your opponent has made a bet that allows you to make a correct call, thus, you gain and your opponent loses on that ONE bet.

Assuming that your opponent has the best hand on the flop, he loses and you gain only in the sense that he made a sub-optimal play that gives him less positive EV than the optimal play, which would be betting enough to make your call incorrect. This doesn't mean that betting $5 is negative EV, or that it is worse than checking [assuming you know that your opponent will correctly check behind], which it definitely isn't.

The entire purpose of poker is to force your opponents to make mistakes.

I don't agree with this. The entire purpose of poker is to make money, and the main way you do that is by putting money in the pot when you have the best hand. In limit poker there are tons of situations when you have the best hand and your opponents have correct odds to try to draw out on you. In such situations, you are correct to bet and they are correct to call. It's totally normal.

ANY time your opponent correctly puts money in the pot or correctly folds to you, he gains from that situation and you lose. That's just the way it is.

You've mixed things up. You gain when your opponent makes a mistake, but you do not lose when he makes a correct play. In fact, in a philosophical sense, once you've put your money in the pot, it is no longer 'yours,' so you can't lose or gain anything based on what your opponent does. You lose or gain only on your decisions with your money, whether or not you put it in the pot with a positive expectation.


Also....I'm not the biggest math guy in the world, but I think the way you are looking at EV is wrong...you aren't factoring in how much you are betting on the end or something like that. For example, if you are betting $10 into a $100 pot after 6th street with a 66% chance of winning and are called by your opponent with a 33% chance of winning..your opponent makes the correct call into the pot and thus is the one who profits in this situation.

Okay, let's say you are playing 5/10 stud and the pot is $100 on 6th street and you have only $10 in front of you. Let's say you know that you are exactly a 60/40 favourite. Let's just say for the sake of argument that if you bet, your opponent will always call (correctly) and if you check he will always check it back and check the river as well.

It is simple to calculate the EV in these two situations:

1. You check.

Here you win $100 60% of the time, so your EV is $60.
Your opponent wins $100 40% of the time so his EV is $40.

2. You bet.

You win $110 60% of the time and lose $10 40% of the time
EV = 110 * .6 - 10 * .4 = $62
Your opponent wins $110 40% of the time and loses $10 60% of the time
EV = 110 * .4 - 10 * .6 = $38

So in fact, you make $2 more profit from betting as opposed to checking, and your opponent loses that $2. Your opponent doesn't profit from you betting. He profits from the situation only because the situation is 'naturally' profitable for him (he has a 40% chance of winning and you can't bet enough to make him fold). But it is less profitable for your opponent and more profitable for you if you bet than if you check. And your goal is to maximize your profit.

Although in real life, the examples are always more complicated because of multiple opponents, implied odds, fold equity, and so on (not to mention that you often don't know for sure if you are ahead or behind), the basic concept is the same. Any time you put money in the pot as a favourite, you gain.

Everything I have taken is DIRECTLY from Sklansky's Theory of Poker. When your opponent plays his hand correctly based on your hand and his hand, your opponent gains. When your opponent makes a mistake, you gain. There are just some situations in poker where you can't make the "profitable" poker decision on one street of betting...all you can sometimes do is make the decision that causes you to lose the least amount on that ONE poker decision.

Okay, I think I understand everything now.

So in the NLHE situation with TPTK against the Nut Flush draw on the flop and $20 in the pot. The situation BEFORE you act is +$20 EV for you, because if you make the optimal play of moving in, he will fold and you will win. The situation after you bet $5 is less that +$20 EV, so in that sense you do lose by betting $5, although not as much as you would lose if you had checked.

In the same situation in limit poker, the optimal play is for you to bet and him to call. If either of you deviates from this (e.g. you by checking, him by raising or folding), the other one gains. In actual fact, though, there may be reasons to deviate from the optimal line for reasons of deception (you going for a check raise, him trying a free-card play, etc.)

To go back to the stud example that started this thread, if you have a big pair on 3rd and it is the best hand (meaning the hand with the highest % chance of winning the pot by 7th), the optimal play is to raise. If you don't raise, you are losing EV, but just as in the LHE example, there may be strategic justifications for this.

Koop, I think you're really applying Sklansky all wrong here. The point Sklansky's making is that when you allow your opponent to make a correct call, you lose equity compared to what you'd have if you could bet him out of the pot. This is an important concept in NL and PL games where you usually have that ability when you have the lead.

However, in limit games, you don't usually have the ability to bet your opponent out of the pot, it's just not an option. As such, you just have to gain equity wherever you can. And when you have a better chance of winning the pot than your opponents, you gain equity whenever money's added to the pot. This is the reason we bet on the NFD in LHE. If we're 1 in 3 to win the pot, we bet $10, and we get called by 6 people, we'll gain $10 in equity versus checking every time, regardless of whether they had pot odds to call or not.

When you're in the lead, betting enough to give your opponents the wrong odds > betting and giving your opponents odds to call > checking.

Let me go back to the stud example one more time, and try to get the point across as well as I can. Let's say the initial pot was $6, and we check on third street. Player B bets $1 on fourth and we raise to $2. The pot comes to player C who doesn't have odds to call with nothing but a three-flush and folds. Wouldn't we prefer if he had called instead? By the FToP, we would. OK, well what if we could force him to call the bet, say by making half of it mandatory? Wouldn't that improve our position? Well, guess what we can force him to call, by making half of that bet on third street. If we don't bet third street, we miss the opportunity to get our opponents to put money in an (overall) disadvantageous spot, and as such, we are the ones making a mistake by the FToP.

I don't think I've been saying anything different. I was not saying that if your opponent calls you correctly, THAT YOU LOSE MONEY OVERALL. I was not saying that. I was saying that you lose and your opponent gains JUST ON THAT ONE DECISION THAT HE MADE, not in the hand overall OR on your bet overall. I am in NO way saying that because you bet and your opponent correctly called, that you made an "incorrect" or "unprofitable" bet.

I think you guys are misunderstanding what my original point about the original stud example was. I did NOT say that if you lead out with big pairs and everyone "correctly calls you" that you lose money on this play. All I was saying is that ON THE ONE POKER DECISION WHERE THEY CORRECTLY CALL YOU that you lose and they gain JUST ON THEIR LONE ACTION OF CORRECTLY CALLING YOU. This does not mean you lose money in the hand or that you lose money on YOUR LONE POKER DECISION to bet. It just means that if you can possible manipulate the action/pot size to get your opponents to make a mistake, THEN is when you gain on BOTH YOUR LONE DECISION to bet AND YOUR OPPONENT'S LONE POKER DECISION to call your incorrectly.

I think that somehow someone thought that I was saying that betting was "wrong" or "unprofitable" when your opponent has good odds to call your bet..and that is NOT what I am saying. Of course betting in that spot is better than checking, all I was saying is that whenever possible, you want to get your opponents to make mistakes, and thus if your opponent ON ONE LONE POKER DECISION makes a correct call/fold against you, you lose JUST ON THAT ONE POKER DECISION HE MADE, not in the hand overall OR on your poker decision you made to bet.





In the example I first showed in Stud, the BEST play would be to check and pull off a check raise to thin the field OR make your opponents make incorrect calls. This is taken DIRECTLY from Sklansky. However, if you DID NOT feel confident that if you checked that someone would bet, then the next best play would be to lead out. This is not as good of a play, but it is still +EV. However, for every correct call that is made of your bet, you lose a little bit on that EV. The WORST possible play is to check and have every check behind you, thus giving everyone free cards. This isn't entirely horrible in all cases, but not usually something you want to do. Thus, in order to make the BEST play, you'd have to be confident that you can check and have someone in later position bet, so that you can raise and force the hand to get heads up or to force the other cold-callers to be doing so incorrectly.

Summary:

Check-raising to force mistakes or a heads up pot = best play and very profitable.

Leading out to "protect" = decent play, a little profitable, but you lose value everytime someone correctly calls you..as big pairs don't fare well in Stud in 4-5 way pots.

Checking and giving a free card to everyone on 5th street = usually a bad play and unless NOBODY catches improvement on 5th street (which is rare), this is not profitable.




Also...I'm a bit confused by this Stud example... check on 3rd street??? What does each person have? Making half of a bet mandatory?? Force people to call? Make half of that bet on third street..when I thought we checked?? Then you say, that if we don't bet on 3rd street..that we are making a mistake..but I thought we checked on 3rd street.......I confused.

Sklansky's Fundamental Theorem of Poker is neither fundamental nor a theorem. It is especially weak in analyzing multi-way pots. Look up "Morton's Theorem" for an example in hold em.

When people are willing to chase to fifth with any ace, any gappy straighty hand like 256 even with their cards out, and hands with a relatively dead two-flush, there is no way they can have the correct odds to chase and you are losing value by not charging these people. In this case, you are not protecting your hand, you are betting for value.

So you are saying Sklansky is wrong..................okay, if you say so.

I was just saying that you lose equity by just calling on third street to "keep the pot small" (which you suggested doing on fourth street) instead of raising on third and then betting fourth. However, if you're planning on getting in a check-raise on fourth for an extra full bet instead of getting in a half-bet on third, I can see how it would be profitable.

One more neat idea that Chip Reese suggested in SS1 is completing third and then check-raising fourth afterward. I don't know how well this would work at the uber-passive low-limit tables, but at a reasonable table, the idea is that checking fourth after betting third will look like an aborted steal attempt, and then you can end up getting two and a half bets in, as opposed to one and a half bets for a complete and a lead, and two bets, for a smooth-call and a check-raise.

I'm saying that people go too far in using the FTOP as a tool. Technically, you're making a mistake according to the FTOP if you get it all in with KK preflop in a no limit hold em tournament and your loose aggressive opponent happens to turn over AA. Practically, that is rarely the case.

I'm also suggesting that Sklansky is writing under the assumption that the table has loose players who often hold hands that could correctly call one bet but not two bets on fourth street if they knew what you had. I have experienced tables where players are so loose that they can't profitably call even one bet on fourth street, yet do so anyways. Generally, you can't expect a bet that allows you to check-raise to think the field unless your opponent actually improves or catches a scare card such as an ace.

Also, in a multi-way pot, if you have the favorite, more than one player can gain with each additional caller. If another player gains by calling correctly, that doesn't mean that you necessarily lose, since you could both be gaining at the expense of a third player. This occurs sometimes when the best made hand and the best draw profit from the second-best and third-best made hands and a worse draw or two are also calling in a pot.

In fact, I don't see any useful purpose to the concept of 'protecting your hand' in poker. You want to make the play that gives you the maximum +EV over the long run, not (neccessarily) the play that gives you the best chance of winning any individual hand. Sometimes the best play will be one that gives you a higher chance of losing the hand, but ensures that you win a bigger pot when you win.

The FTOP assumes that you and your opponent's cards can be seen, and thus if you had KK and KNEW your opponent had AA, then it would be a mistake and thus, your opponent would gain. Of course if you don't KNOW that your opponent has AA, then getting all in with KK is usually the right play. But the ONE time your opponent does have AA, it is thus a mistake, and thus, that ONE time you lose by getting all in with KK. The FTOP doesn't say that getting all in with KK is a mistake. It says getting all in with KK THE ONE TIME you are up against AA is a mistake? How can that be wrong?

Again, I think you are misunderstanding my original point. I was not saying that if your opponent makes a correct play on you that you are now losing money in the hand overall. But if you do bet and your opponent correctly calls..you lose ON HIS ONE POKER DECISION. You would rather him fold incorrectly than call incorrectly. Thus, every time your opponent makes that correct play, you lose in that ONE instance. This doesn't mean you lose money OVERALL IN THE HAND or BY YOU BETTING, it just means that had your opponent made the incorrect play (folding) you would gain more from his decison than you would have if he had correctly called. Thus, when he correctly calls you, ON HIS ONE POKER DECISION (not your bet..just hit action) you lose from what you could have made. Thus, you want to cause your opponents to make mistakes with their actions whenever possible, and if it not possible, you want to cause your opponents to make as close to a mistake, or as far from the most profitable play, as possible.

Again, these Stud examples are taken directly from "Theory of Poker" and "Seven Card Stud for Advanced Players." There are times when in Stud, with a lot of limpers on 3rd, where IT IS MORE PROFITABLE to just call with a big pair on 3rd and wait until 4th to make a bet which will force opponents to be making mistakes when they call you, because of the way you manipulate the pot size. This is a FACT. It is not debatable. This doesn't mean that raising to protect is a losing play, but it is not the most profitable, as IN THE LONG RUN you force your opponents to make more mistakes than if you had raised on 3rd street and thus, have given them correct or more correct odds to call you all the way down. This is a fact. Fact. Sklansky is one of the most widely respected poker authors for a reason. It is a fact. When playing poker, the point is to try and get opponents to make mistakes, not just to "bet with the best hand." The statement was made eariler by someone that ANY time you bet with the best hand, you are making the profitable and optimal play. That is incorrect. You are not making the most optimal play IF there is another way you can act in order to force your opponent to make a mistake or something much closer to a mistake.

Edit: Also...I don't know if you realize...but in big multi-way pots on 4th street where there is a bet.......players will oftentimes be getting 7-1 or a lot better and thus have odds to call that one bet with a LOTTTTTT of hands...including some VERY marginal hands..such as here three-straights...a small pair with a two flush...just high cards...a ton of stuff....Stud is a drawing game, unlike Limit Holdem, and thus you HAVE to learn to manipulate the pot size instead of justing betting out big pairs every time. I GUARANTEE that you won't do nearly as well by being so striaghtforward....Stud is a different game, a MUCH different game than Holdem, in that regard.

LOL it is funny you guys are still cat fighting but the answer is Sklansky is right. I can't tell you how many times I have dumped my big pair on 5th and saved my self countless bets.

and yes everyone once in a while I am wrong but it is less than 1/5th of the time.

Let's say you have a pair of aces in stud. The bring in brings it in, the next player completes, and four people call.

Now, if you raise, let's say for the sake of argument that everyone has correct odds to call, and they all do. On 4th no one makes 2 pair or trips, but they all have live gutshots/small pairs/three flushes. You bet, and everyone correctly calls again. So in this situation, you have the best hand with 18 small bets + antes in the pot.

Now let's say you only call on third and then bet fourth, and because you only called, it is now incorrect for your opponents to call your bet. But they call anyway, which makes you happy, because you've read Sklansky and you know that your opponents' mistakes are what makes you money. So now you have the best hand on fourth, but with only 12 small bets + antes in the pot.

Which situation do you think is better for you? .