week middling

[peterbirks]

A smallish recovery last night, and I seemed to accumulate bonus points quite quickly. Only an hour's play at a single table needed to clear the $200, although that will still leave me down on the whole deal.

It struck me last night that, although a lot is written about reverse implied odds (well, actually, not that much is written, because a lot of people don't understand it), no-one seems to have spotted that in current limit games at middle level and above, winning players spend most of their time suffering reverse implied odds, and they are happy so to do.

Take AK when you are in early position. You raise. You get one caller on the button. The situation now is that you will either win small or lose big - i.e., you have reverse implied odds and your opponent is in because he has implied odds.

Say flop comes T8x two diamonds. You have no diamonds. You bet again. Your opponent calls. Turn brings the nine of spades. You bet again, your opponent raises, and you can either at this point decide that if you hit an A or a K on the river you are good, or maybe even that your opponent is "at it" (in which case you might call or even reraise), or you decide that your opponent probably has at least two-pair, or something like AT, and you fold. River (if you stay in) brings a blank and you check-fold.

Either way, you have "lost big".

Alternative scenario. Same board, same bets. You bet turn, opponent folds. You have "won small".

The reason that this is fine in limit as that the difference between the "lose big" and the "win small" is just one big bet. Provided you win small just a little bit more often than you lose big, you will be in profit on the whole arrangement.

Now, in pot limit and no limit, this doesn't apply. One of the reasons that pot limit players can't adjust to limit is that they often don't grasp this concept. Implied odds are so ingrained in the brain of the pot limit player that it doesn't occur to him that if the gap between win small and lose big is minor, then you can live with reverse implied odds.

For players accustomed to limit, the opposite is true. Roswell (www.livejournal.com/users/roswell_42) has posted the hand where he went out of the short-handed WCOOP (and much credit to him for having the courage to do so). Roswell is quite capable of playing no limit, but pot limit seems to cause a short-wiring in the brain. Once again the disaster was caused by having AQ (in this case suited) in the small blind. A Gutshot post has a similar hand only a few weeks ago, with a similar result.

Even though Roswell realizes that First off all, in pot limit, I shouldn't make a big pot out of position with AQ, suited or not his hardwired thinking immediately follows with My pot bet on the flop was fine, but on the turn, I should have slowed down. .

By then, it was too late. The pot had been made too big already, not on the flop, when Roswell bet slightly less than the size of the pot, but preflop, when One guy limps and I have AsQs in the small blind. I raise the max which is 200..

Why did Roswell not check the turn? I hated the thought of checking, because that invites my opponent to steal this big pot.

But the big pot was created by that raise pre-flop. In limit, the raise here is automatic. And in No Limit, people seem to think ahead a bit more. But in Pot Limt, that "max raise" button is pressed automatically, without consideration of what might end up happening on the turn. AQ (suited or not), in the small blind is a great "keep it small as long as possible" hand. Once you start building the pot early with AQ (which in limit is the right thing to do, because you can live with the reverse implied odds) then you are in trouble, because in pot limit, you can't live with reverse implied odds.

Comments

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

Try the 6-handed! You may find there that AK plays against one opponent like you want it to.

re 6-handed

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I think you miss my point, Simon. AK plays against one opponent in ring games like I want it to! But 6-handed limit is a better example of where you can live even more happily with reverse implied odds. You raise out of position with AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, 99, 88, or whatever else takes your fancy, and you will often get called by hands that you are dominating. You bet on the flop, three-betting if necessary, and carry on hammering. Sometimes the player who is in position has caught you out, and you have to give up. More often, your opponent gives up. When you give up, you lose 2.5 big bets or thereabouts. When your opponent gives up, you win 2.25 big bets (including the blinds that you have won). So, your "big loss" is in fact only 0.25 of a big bet larger than your "small win".

Now, make it PL. You raise with AQs utg and get flat-called by the button. Flop is 963 rainbow. What do you do? In limit, there's no problem. You bet. In pot limit, you are now looking at a pot that is already rather large. Do you give up the hand to your opponent by checking? Do you punt? Do you put in a blocking bet? You have no idea. Lets say you bet. Your opponent folds, and you win the blinds plus his call preflop. But suppose you bet the pot (or near it) and he raises you? If you now fold, you have lost your initial raise, plus more than twice that amount. So your big loss to small win is of a ratio of 3:1, rather than 10:9.

The difference between 6-handed and a ring game limit is close to zero when it comes to AK in early. It's hands like KQ and AT where you might decide to give up in early in a ring game, but would play it as if it were AK in a 6-handed game.

I have been thinking about some 2-4 6-handed, just to test the water. There's no doubt that my style these days is probably more closely suited to 6-handed limit than it is to a ring game.

Re: re 6-handed

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure if I did miss your point (I may well have done) but I should have pointed out that I was talking entirely about limit.

A couple of key differences.

1. At the right table you can play many many hands as if it was AK and playing $5/$10 you will win many many pots of $25-$35 by representing your AK (and several more pots besides by hitting the flop hard with your actual holding) So much so that your reverse implied odds aren't so much of a problem - you just let the hand go before you lose much money with it on the odd occasion you are in trouble and win another $30 uncontested on the next hand to compensate.

2. At a full ring you are probably up against a reasonable hand that calls your raise or even 2 players calling with plenty of the deck covered. 6 handed you are far more likely to be h/u and win with a bet on the flop against no hand.

I think so many players bring a 10-handed theoretical style to a 6-handed table that your potential advantage is so much greater.

Plus if you are an action junkie you can make a +EV case for raising just about every hand. :)

Re: re 6-handed

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

We are basically in agreement. You write:

So much so that your reverse implied odds aren't so much of a problem - you just let the hand go before you lose much money with it on the odd occasion you are in trouble and win another $30 uncontested on the next hand to compensate.

This is almost precisely what I was saying in the first place.

We aren't talking about representing an AK. We are talking about representing a good hand, no matter what the flop. If you raise, get called, and the board comes down 952, your inevitable bet (because you always bet in this situation) is not representing AK. It is representing 99 or above. So, in either 6-handed or ring, your raise is "I have a good hand" and your bet on the flop is "I like that flop. I still have a good hand". You can only do this a certain percentage of the time (say, between 15% and 30%), because if you do it more than 30% of the time, the cry-wolf complex bites. Since you are going to be called down or reraised a percentage of the time, you need to have the goods at least some of the time. Representing hands that like flops no matter what the flop is requires that there is a reasonable chance that is true. Hell, if you can find a 6-handed game where you can raise 60% of the time and get your opponents to fold on the flop more than half the time you see a flop, then deal me in. But I suspect that you can't (or, at least, I'd like to see some PT stats if you claim you can!).

Most of my ring games end up either heads up or two opponents at most. In either case I am still going to represent that I like my chances given the flop and, if I am flat-called, that I like the turn as well. I can't remember when I last played an Ed Miller-like 6 people in on the flop game.

I'm now at about seeing 17%-19% of flops and winning 45% of the hands where I see a flop, and about 55% of showdowns. The downside of this is that these stats do not seem to be winning me much cash!

[roswell-42.livejournal.com]

Nice analysis. If I had not raised preflop out of the sb, I definitely would not have gone broke with the hand. I would have lost some chips, but would still be in the tournament. And in a tournament there is a big difference between having 0 chips and >0 chips.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Thanks roswell. Actually I had been thinking about the reverse implied odds thing in limit for a couple of hours before I saw your post, but your misfortune (and kindness to write about it) struck me as an interesting corollary. Surprisingly, my main target was the UK players who scream how much they hate limit, rather than Americans who dislike pot limit.

But I suspect that this fundamental difference between the two games, a difference so deeply ingrained that the style of play it dictates is almost instinctive for experienced players, might be the most significant reason that most players have such difficulty switching between the two schools.

PJ