OK, so I don't post a lot on here, but I still read a lot of the threads, and there are a few bits of "conventional" wisdom that people repeat over and over, often as if they are pure truth, but I'm not sure they are. So I thought I'd start this thread and ask about one of the things I keep seeing repeated in various threads on the forum. (I'm keeping it to one so any discussion can stay on topic.)

What I'm talking about is the idea that one of the primary reasons to raise preflop is to "limit the field".

It seems as though a great deal of this forum (a majority?) believes that raising preflop is designed to "limit the field" with the idea being that we will make more money in the long term playing heads-up or 3-way pots than we will make playing larger multiway pots. Preflop raise sizing is frequently discussed in terms of "whatever gets you HU or 3-way" and if you get 3+ callers you've sized your raise too small.

Why do people believe that this is true?

For comparison, this is certainly not true in a game like limit hold 'em. In limit, if a bunch of people limp to you on the button and you have AK or some other premium hand, you raise because you have an equity edge on the field and you want everyone to put in more money to exploit this edge. There is absolutely no consideration of "limiting the field" because in limit everyone will call your raise after they've limped in, but raising is still correct.

So either this is different in no limit for some reason, or the idea that we need to limit the field is not always correct. I actually don't know for certain which it is, which is why I'm starting this thread, to see if anyone has any insight I'm missing.

You´re totally right, but that´s because you think mathematically.

Lots of players can´t help but think emotionally, rather than in genuine ev terms. They know that the more opponents in the hand, the harder they´ll have to think, and the more likely they are to lose the pot.

Also, players that think in terms of playing and exploiting the tendencies of specific opponents feel that they can do this more expressly one-on-one. For example, if you are in a hand with a nit, a calling station and a maniac, it´s much harder to exploit all of their tendencies with one action.

It's a question of giving yourself the best chance of winning the pot, no?

E.g. being 80% against one player to win a £200 pot or 55-60% against more to win £300 pot.

If you disagree with my line of thought that's fine but I prefer to raise bigger pre flop, take down a pot and then hear someone say "Oh if you'd just called I'd have called and rivered the nuts" rather than them flipping over said rivered nuts to the the pot.

I thought we raise for value (when opponents have lesser hands) or to take the initiative.

I suppose limiting the field has its place when you have big PP or a hand like AK.

Mutiway pots aren't necessarily tougher to play but they require different hands (ESP in deep stack play ) as we need to make bigger hands on the flop, turn and river to have good equity in the pot.

AA doesn´t make big hands?

This is a really good question and point you raise. Why exactly do we want to narrow the field in no-limit whereas in limit hold em its not as big a concern?

Perhaps part of the answer is in the non-linear nature of no-limit. The deeper you are, the more non linear the game is. With non-linear systems, the more variables you have the more complex the system.

Back to no-limit. There has got to be a cross over point where our equity advantage preflop and even on the flop is offset by the non-linear betting nature of no-limit.

For instance, lets say we are sitting 500bb deep and we know that we can stack hero for 500bb if we flop/turn gin then why in the hell wouldn't we call a 5bb preflop raise. Now, add more variables to this equation in the way of villains. Increase the # of opponent to 2 opponents, 3 opponents, 4 opponents... and eventually we reach a point where the odds work against us and AA, KK and all hands of strong value actually become Reverse Implied Odds hands.

Harrington talks about this in his book "On the Cash Game, Vol 1" and he states that this is EXACTLY what happens when we play deep stack poker...

So in closing, I think it is because of the non-linear nature of no-limit. The stronger our hand, the more likely we are to pay off a villain that luckboxes us. When we are ahead and have the better hand and villain misses, we extract the minimum against villain. But when villain gets lucky and hits he can stack us for an amount that far exceeds his price of admission.

And with every opponent, the above is more likely, probably by a factor of 2 so it wouldn't take many opponents for us to be in really bad shape. And this doesn't even take into account the ability of villains to bluff on scary boards...

If we're betting for value no-limit is just like limit. When we maximize our value against stronger hands, weaker hands tend to fold -- which limits the field.

If you haven't limited the field you probably haven't bet enough to maximize value.

If we're betting as a bluff it should be obvious why we're trying to limit the field.

Is a pair a big hand?

Or are you talking about making a set or a boat? In that case, your AA might as well be 22.

I like to open to 40 at 5/10 (same over 1 limper), 50 over 2/3 limpers, possibly more depending on the villains themselves & stack sizes. Generally don't mind opening larger over deep stacks and smaller vs. shorties.

As for how many people call - I really don't care if everyone at the table calls. Its just going to be more to take into consideration when playing the flop. Most of all the number of callers will change my bluffing frequency (lower it).


As for statements like "I want to take my AA head up or 3-way", I think they are stupid.

I disagree, DGI.

AA does not have reverse implied odds when you are deep, if you continue to play and range your opponent correctly. What you do have is wonderful pot equity to start the hand. An inability to assess the changing equities against ranges and board textures results in lots of mistakes being made with AA, but it is always that, mistakes.

Our AA allin preflop EV is highest with 8 players in the pot. So what happens when we don´t get it all in pre? That must mean we´re getting crushed post-flop by the geniuses at 1/2 joker poker? Surely, if anything, our EV has to grow EXPONENTIALLY the more people are in the hand, because that´s more mistakes for people to make against us.

We all know Harrington is looking to make poker safer and easier all the time at the expense of EV. He says things like "raise bigger with your 88 in the STT so that when you get shoved on you have the correct odds to call". (Although I wouldn´t be playing poker now if I hadn´t read his first books).

Yes, there are more variables, it´s more complex.

But it is the same for our opponents.

So for that reason, surely we as poker thinkers should be aiming to explore and learn the treacherous dark forest of deep multiway poker, and take our poor villains in their to fight our battles?

But isn't your bluffing/semi-bluffing frequency a viable part of your overall game? i.e. Raise a limper with AK, double barrel a whiffed flop and turn to take it down.

Raising with a hand like AK to a size that gets 4-5 callers forces you to play your hand only, right?? So, wouldn't it make sense to want to size your preflop bets to "limit the field".

Also with respect to AA, isn't your equity the greatest when HU and doesn't it diminish as more players see a flop with you? So why wouldn't it make sense to bet MORE preflop and get the pot 2 way/3way than betting less to get the field to call? (honest question, not rhetorical)

Really? Harrington was/is a tourney player and a cash game nit who just got paid on his hands since he played in the poker boom. You really need to be a moron to call AA a "RIO hand". How about not paying off when the aces get cracked.

Name one hand that flops better than AA. It seems nobody wants AA if we´re deep. That´s wrong. And that´s ASIDE from nut flushes, nut straights as well as wheels.

22 is dog poo. Not the same at all.

And Aces can catch up against any flopped set.

Wrong thinking. AA is god, but it´s hard to get, and it doesn´t guarantee you a pot, but if it doesn´t win you LOADS of money then you have a problem.

dgiharris nails one aspect of it. The other aspect is that, at least for me, I'm not just raising AA or KK pf. I'm raising other stuff, too.

Let's take TT as an example. Pf, against 4 villains TT is a decent favorite against a 40% calling range. Once we get to a flop, TT is actually an underdog against a 40% range (individually, let allow as a whole ) on an Ace flop. It is a very slight favorite against a 40% range on a King flop. However, someone will have a King about 42% of the time. When we add in the possibility of 2 pair+, we're actually beat over 1/2 of the time. We're about even to be ahead on a Q high flop. That means 1/2 of the time, we're beat on a flop and have to c/f.

This is less of a concern in limit. The first reason is that you can't call IO hands in limit HU. Let's suppose you set mine against AA and hit HU. The pot is 2 big bet. You're cagey and don't raise on the flop. So there is one more small bet on the flop. On the turn, you raise and the villain calls. Now you've won 2 big bets on the turn. On the river, you're only going to get 1 more big bet. You win in the end 4.5 big bets for your one to begin with at best. That's losing poker. It is even worse with SC because you won't hit as often.

Therefore, a villain is going to call with a strong hand. Often, it will be stronger than yours because of the gap concept. So it should be rarer in anything but a game consisting on NL players that lots of people are calling.

Now once you get to the flop, it is hard to chase off a draw because you can't bet enough to push off a draw by the turn. I agree with that aspect.

It is this understanding that impacts PLO as well. Old time PLO players came from limit. In their mind, there is little sense in raising pf because almost no hand is more than a 60/40 underdog pf. If you're going to call, you're going to call. Most modern PLO authors advocate raising, because contrary to the 60/40 situation, people coming from NL are used to folding and narrowing the field.

But on the flip side, getting some villains to pay off are AA is easier HU/3 way than it is multiway, because they start giving us credit more and don't call as lighter when 5 players see the action (particularly with 2nd pair hands OOP).

I raise my hands for value (typically) so I don't really care how many players call. I do find it easier to get stacks in good with the premium starting hands in hands where fewer players go to the flop - with the exception of when my 3bets get called by 4 people and the pot gives 2 villains a pot sized bet on the flop.

Really?

When you raise UTG with AA, do you sit there and root for all 8 other players to call you?

If so, why? If not, why not?

If you don't root for 8 callers, do you root for 7? 6?

I think Bobby Hoff said it best when he said that if he had kings and someone told him that there was no way he could make a set, he'd rather muck them and take two random cards from the muck pile instead. The power of AA diminishes quickly if you can't hit a set and people are calling or raising deep. It comes down to this: the average winning hand at showdown is 2 pair. If you go to show down with AA, you have a below average hand.

Half the time you have the nut two pair (when the board pairs 49,21%).

Re your point in Omaha, I believe that the raising pre-flop in deep cash is more a mechanism to be able to get stacks in by the river without the need for 4 or 5 betting on subsequent streets. And to really annoy the Omaha LPs who make Holdem LPs look like Isildur1.

The question wasn't "what hand flops better" it's "does AA make big hands"?

And the answer, generally, is no. It's a one-pair hand. The majority of the time you're not going to make a set, house, one-card flush, or the idiot end of a one-card straight. Those are all pretty rare events, BTW.

Whether you hold AA or 22, if you make a set, you are generally going to have the best hand.

Yes, I root for as many callers as possible. The way to think of it is this: If you shoved AI pf, do you want more callers or fewer callers? If I raise in a 2/5 100BB game to 20, I'm happy to see it 8 way. Easy game. The variance train is hard to ride, but you have to take the odds.

Try making the nuts, 2nd nuts, or 3rd nuts with 22. See how many boards you can make.

Then try it with AA.

Better hands are better hands, no matter how deep, how many in the pot.

I don't think the AI PF argument is a great one, given that this scenario seldom occurs and is not applicable if there is post-flop play to be had.

I will add that for some, AA being "easier" to play against fewer opponents may translate to fewer errors made post-flop which may result in more profitability, regardless of the EV difference the math dictates before the flop. We make money by making better decisions than our opponents mainly based on ranging opponents and knowing the probabilities. I don't care how good you are, this simply becomes more confounded and complicated with each additional player in the hand.

Forgive me, but I think a lot of respected posters here are deluding themselves that they root for a family pot when they open with AA. They may not hate it, but to prefer it?

What?

This must be either a typo, a level, or just a bad dream I am having.

Note to self: Unless a typo or level, ignore all Venice's comment from this point on.

From the pokerroad red pro forums:
In nlhe some hands play better HU than multiway like big pairs and big cards: AA, AK are the two prime examples

This is also a major reason why we 3bet (which is often correctly called an "isolation raise")

Implied odds hands thrive in multiway pots b/c their implied odds increase. To every upside there is a downside for that player's opponents (fundamental theorem of poker). As the situation becomes more and more favorable for implied odds hands in multiway pots it becomes less and less favorable for non-implied odds hands (big pairs and big cards like AA, AK)

Seems like this thread is towards my repeated comments. I had a friend who got me into holdem. He played an aggressive big bet style 5/10NL in LA, no limping, no drawing and only set mining in position. I used to always watch him play. But I didn't like his style. He is one of those LA poker players who has been playing cards since he was a kid. So I started to learn the game watching other players and him. Reading books, visiting forums. I finally had a grasp on the game. Started trying to give him tips. But of course he wouldn't listen. Midstakes player>llsnl player He told me books make your game worse and half the people on those forums don't play midstakes. So we always got in arguments. So I stop trying to give him tips and used my time wisely by watching the big game.

One day I asked him "why do you raise so big with AA?($75), I think its the wrong strategy?". He says "people who raise AA small are greedy, I don't want the whole table to call". At that moment I said I don't want to play nothing like him. He was a nut peddler who repeatedly took beats because his opponents knew he had the nuts. Yeah he won a lot. But at 5/10 in LA you will play rich people who have tons of money. He eventually went broke after smacking the variance train 2 years into his career. Those savvy asians who will float flop turn a open ender and shove 2k in the middle or chase draws all the way to the river. Or the NBA players who play and always call flop with bottom pair for any amount of money and turn 2 pair or hit 2pair otr, by that time the pot is to big to fold. My last example, players always call him down with monsters at 5/10. Like flopping a set and let him bet until the river. Where they will lead big/reraise him depending on position When you are pounding huge bets pre/otf your hand becomes face up. Or the hand is harder to get away from because you have invested so much preflop. You get the attitude like phil hellmuth. "How can you call me pre" or "I could never put you on that hand"

My point is you want to keep pots manageable. Aggressive but not shoveling chips in the middle. Until ranges are defined. Once players know that you don't bet reckless. They will let you know they have a hand on earlier streets and preflop.

Most of you will be like well that's 5/10 this is low stakes I won't get exploited. Well a lot of you have the same problem at llsnl. You are getting exploited by accident. Yeah I said it, they accidentally adjust to you. Why you may ask? They have mubs but still won't fold but won't raise you. How many times have you bet into a fishy player about half his stack he is moaning and groaning like he is going to fold? Plenty I bet, the fish didn't know he was pot committed. Its called accidental adjustments. Plenty of them, it all comes down to those huge raises.

Get used to playing multiway. IMO raising huge with big hands is so 2007. If you get AA and get 5-6 callers that's great TBH.