Fair point. And I guess I was just trying to point out that we also have to remember that we're going to play out the rest of the hand... So, while it's good to know for example that raising to x will build a certain pot size and raising to y will likely give us this other pot size, that's not the only figure that will dictate our overall ev in the hand...

Another key component people are failing to realize is overall strategy.

If you are a nit your raise sizes will be bigger.

If you are a tag, your raise sizes will be slightly less than the nit.

If you play Aggressive, your raise sizes will be smaller than all of the above strategies.

In 2/5 my opening raise is 3x and I have a wider utg range than most. At 1/3 I open $10 UTG. For 1/2 I probably would raise $10 as well.


It took 9 pages for someone to say this lol.

Wizard ITT.

You continue to think and post in absolute terms for spots that are heavily dependent on several variables.

You mean because the guys who are calling with random hands and 8% equity can all see through our cards and play perfectly?

I can't believe I go away for 1 weekend and end up agreeing with ILCD!

It is not that we'll play perfectly post, it is that we'll play better than our opponents. It is not like having 35% AIPF equity even equates to only winning the hand 32% of the time. You don't think others fold equity OTF or get it in HU with 15% equity when the flop top pair.

Explain please?

What I think your talking about is table dynamics and types of players.

What I do is just tighten up my ranges. I don't change my bet sizing like you. Say I'm opening all pairs, KJs, KQs, AJs+, AQ+. If I'm getting no respect ill adjust to 55+,KQs and AQ+. If that's not working I will go to the extreme and raise 88+,AQ+. If I'm still getting owned I will open 1010+,AQ+. I never had to change to JJ+,AK. But if I had to I would.

Unless someone is actually arguing that going 6 to the flop for a 4x raise is better than going 3 to the flop for a 7.5x raise then the argument is moot. There is no point in arguing about how many callers we should be rooting for since it's not a variable we control independent of raise size, the two will always correlate with one another

To me, this thread is degenerating into two distinct branches.

Branch #1: The more people in the pot, the more complex the situation. There is a point where the complexity supercedes profitability and the situation becomes untenable. Thus we want to limit the field to aid in handling the complexity and keeping it below a "non-profitability threshold". That threshold will vary, but in this branch a consensus would probably be at 4+ villains.

Branch #2: AA puts you ahead equity wise preflop and gives you an equity advantage post flop. This equity advantage combined with post flop skill will lead to more profit vs more villains. Thus, we should WANT as many villains in the pot as possible and should not be dissuaded by calls.


I do not think there can be a meeting of the minds here.

Both branches in my opinion are correct. The independent variable in both branches are your skill level. The higher your skill level, the more villains you can tolerate and eventually you would move from Branch #1 to Branch #2.

FWIW, I belong to Branch 1. Based on my experience, I do not have the sufficient skill level to overcome more than 5 villains post flop w AA. Or if I were to put it another way, if I were to generate a profitability curve of me with AA vs # of villains, I suspect that my curve would peak at 2-3 villains and hit 0EV at 5 villains and be negative EV for 6+ villains.

I didn't think this thread would be solved. Since digi is everyones favorite favorite poster I guess we have came to the conclusion.

/thread

There can't be a meeting of the minds because the people arguing branch 2 don't understand equity, and they can't use pokerstove because their right hands are too busy waving their dicks.

You're a great poster, but you are trying to hard to credit ILCD and Masaraksh with having, you know, any actual evidence or facts on their side.

But you're not taking into account postflop play. That's like saying you shouldn't call a pfr getting 2:1 against AA with 22 b/c you're only 4:1 in equity

I was going to let this thread float away but you opened up another can of worms.

Your problem mpethy is you are a pro databaser. Which I'm not doubting because that's how you make your money. You result to math and only math.

While great post flop players also use math. But we take poker a bit further than that. We rely on players tendencies and how they react with a range. It should be common knowledge on how players play in llsnl. How they react to aggressive players and how we can exploit that. Yeah I can say villain will fold x % of the time and raise me with y% of hands given the board texture and how the hand plays out. The reason I don't is because I will be pulling numbers out of my ass. Which is the reason I don't even try. You don't even try, someone wanted stats on how often people fold to potsize bets in limp pots. You couldn't provide the math. So ilcd won't try either. Its called using social adeptness and how they are affected by things. Something math can't do.

To be fair the last time I discussed this topic in a thread you made some pretty appalling estimates at multiway equities to back up your opinion so I don't think you should be shouting others down for for lack of proof when you have none yourself. Your claims are as subjective as theirs.

@ilcd That's fine for you to say, and it's fine that you even believe it. But your argument ITT, together with Masaraksh, really does just amount to either dick or magic wand waving, take your pick.

Your argument is that you're perfectly happy to have a ****ty math situation (32% equity) because post flop you will just magically outplay your opponents every time.

And it's just ridiculous; it can't be done for more profit than seeing a flop against 2 or 3 people.

And unlike you guys, I have actual evidence on my side.

Online, most players win, on average, 10bb or 11 bb with AA per hand. Most players databases, when filtered for 3+ callers, pit the hero into the neighborhood of break even. Some win a little, some lose a little (my WR in that situation is 1bb per hand, which I consideredto be ok; not good or bad, just ok.)

OK? that's online at against 3 or more callers. So IME both as a player and a database analyst, I know that having AA with less than 3 callers is TEN TIMES
AS PROFITABLE as having 3 or more callers.

Now, I am well aware that calling ranges live are wider and weaker than they are online, so the numbers would need adjusting. I know my WR live with AA is significantly higher than 10bb, for example, and I know calling ranges are wider and weaker.

But the fact is the math is the math, and if you get enough callers, it becomes more likely than not that somebody will flop gin on you. So do I expect that a situation that is 1/10 as profitable online as having 2 callers magically becomes equally profitable in a live setting because you claim to have magical powers of social adeptness that I lack, or because Masaraksh thinks I am inexperienced at post flop play? No, I don't.

What i do know with absolute certainty is that You and Masaraksh thinking you can make as much or more money with AA versus any number of callers are simply ignorant of the equities and the long term profitability of the situation.

This thread has boiled down to a religion versus science argument. On the science side is Pokerstove and a lot of somewhat relevant evidence from online play. On the religion side it is you and Masaraksh with your faith in the absence of evidence.

Lol, no.

I posted the stove calculations.