Thank you Shadowdodger!

Seriously CaliDonks, you are apparently some tenth level soul reading poker wizard, but why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that post flop play is much harder with 6 opponents than 2? Are you willing to concede that (a) when 6 people see the flop it is more likely that someone will flop a big hand than if two people see the flop?, that (b) it's much more difficult to know what turn cards are good for us if 4 people see the turn than if we're playing heads up, that (c) it might be more difficult to range opponents in multiway pots because they aren't just reacting to us and what we do, but could be reacting to one of the 5 other people in the hand?

Look, I'm not saying that we should be terrified of playing big pairs mulitway, I'm just saying, in response to the original question, that thinning the field is probably more important in no limit than in limit is because limit is a more mathematical game that is almost exclusively based on pushing small equity edges... No limit on the other hand creates situations where we may have to make big post flop decisions for our entire stack, and, imo, those decisions become exponentially more difficult as the number of opponents increases.

@BigOldNit thinning the field with bigger raises<smaller raises I agree, for the masses probably the better option. I'm more concerned with taking the lead preflop.

Of course its easier to range postflop. But ranging is only one part of the equation. What they will do with their range is a bigger factor, which is my whole point.

There is a lot of bad advice in this thread.

- 6-way pots are not necessarily harder to play than heads up (apples and oranges)
- no problem taking AA 6-way... I dunno where you idiots come up with this crap
- in deep stack cash preflop is just the beginning - the main game starts after the flop
- seems like a lot of people are giving bad advice because they want to 1) make their hand easy to play (which is not necessarily the most profitable) and 2) some of you guys may just be incapable of making good C/Fs or B/Fs and probably are inexperienced at playing turn/river.

They don't understand man. Only 3 people in this thread understand. So obviously for the masses is just best to keep our mouths shut.

DW

The original question of this thread was (paraphrased), "Are there any cases where limiting the field isn't the right play?" The thread moved on to posters taking both sides of the issue, with the "no" group conceding that everyone going all in is one example against AA, but anything else was stupid.

Where it fits in the "real world" is that one of the necessary ingredients of moving beyond the 2+2 forums in poker is to know things that others don't. The only way to do that is to do your own homework and prove to yourself what is true. It means questioning anything you haven't worked out on your own and probe the limits of that truth. Knowing that something isn't always true and where that limit is gets you to that point. My "brain teasers" were in the same vein. They aren't likely ever to come up, but the lesson that you're +EV calling a shove 75s in some situations was unimaginable to a number of posters.

To us, durrrr makes sick bluffs. He doesn't think about it that way at all. He is taking a range for his opponent, knows what the villain's folding range is, knows what his equity is against the calling range and making a +EV decision.

if you are remotely close to being capable of realizing your 32% equity 6 ways in a 4bb raised pot with 100bb behind or whatever it is your winrate should be like $500/hr at 2/5

Perhaps we should also add an attribute for psychological effect.

I don't know about rest of you, but losing with AA does put a dent in my spirit.

Hmm. I couldn't care less

What's with the attitude? I know you're crushing the game you're playing for 10k a week, but this is LLSNL where players are happy to win 1k a week.

Drop the attitude and it isn't like you're saying anything that isn't already known.

Maybe people are talking about 2 different things (assuming 1/2nl for raise amounts):

1. Raising to $15 with AA and rooting for as many callers as possible
2. Choosing to raise $15 with AA in the first place b/c it "limits the field"

Some people are arguing for #1 and some people are arguing for #2, both thinking they are arguing against each other when they're arguing 2 different issues.

To address #1, we root for as many callers as possible after our raise b/c the more callers we get the more profitably our hand plays (though literally rooting for callers at the table is wasted thinking since we should be thinking about how we're going to be playing different situations that may develop as our man Galfond tells us in something I remember)

To address #2 we raise an amount that figures to get 1-3 callers b/c
1. We want action (so we don't raise too big)
2. Our likely 1 pair plays better against fewer opponents (the more people are in the pot the less value 1 pair has on the flop)
3. In terms of building a pot our larger pf raise size helps offset the fact that we're getting fewer callers

+1, I see no point in even addressing that statement by amazon prime. A real poker player doesn't even care. It should have no affect on your psyche.

So in reality our choice is to raise to $8 utg, get 5-6 callers, and build a $48-$56 pot or

raise to $15 utg, get 1-3 callers, and build a $30-$60 pot

This. Those of us who are point out the benefits of thinning the field aren't just doing so because "we don't like hard decisions" or because we're "scared of playing turns and rivers.". It's because the more hard decisions you have to make, the more likely you are to make the wrong one, and that costs a lot of ev.

And regardless of what some people itt have asserted, having two people in a hand makes our decisions harder. We are going to be in more spots where we think we're ahead of the range of the player who just bet into us, but we have a couple players left to act behind us. Should we call? Or lets say we have a nice straight draw and we're getting the right odds to call based on the bet we're currently facing, but there is also a flush draw... Against one opponent I can probably call (or semi-bluff raise if I think he's weak), but in a multiway pot I might fold because of the likelihood that my some of my straight outs might be dirty... So, I have a harder time realizing my equity in the pot.

Right, and then also play those pots from early position against the villains for the remainder of the hand.

I'm not trying to inject position into the argument, we could say the same if there are a bunch of limpers and we're choosing to raise in lp. My point is strictly about the reality of how raise size affects # of callers and pot size