I'm trying to understand the concept of having the lead, or not, and why it is so important.

I've read about the importance of taking the lead pre-flop. That is put forward as one of the reasons to raise vs limp or call.

But why does it really matter who "has the lead?"

If I limp, then call a raise, how am I in worse shape than if I raise and then get called for the same amount? Is it just because of the way my line is perceived, or is there more to it than that?

I've read that part of the power of having the lead is that the opponent will almost always check to the raiser (then of course raiser cbets and opponent folds, ezgame.) But honestly in my current somewhat fishy poker mindset, I'm not even considering who has the lead. If I am acting first, my decision to check or bet is not influenced at all by who has the lead (other than hand-reading implications.)

Please help me understand this concept.

Long story short:

You raise from LP with T9
SB calls with AJ

Flop K83
He checks, you bet, he folds.

Other way around:
MP raises with AJ
You call on the button with T9

Flop K83
He bets, you fold

What about:
Other way around:
MP raises with AJ
You 3bet on the button with T9
MP calls

Flop K83
He checks, you bet, he folds

These 3 examples make up 85%+ of poker hands.
Same hands, same boards, and these are the most likely outcomes.
Whoever has the betting leads wins these hands a large portion of the time.

This theoretical question would probably be best answered in the "beginners questions" forum.

In multiway pots (i.e. 4+ ways), having the initiative due to raising preflop is basically worthless (other than perhaps managing to buy a free card if the field checks to us in late position where we'll be able to let the flop check thru).

And letting an aggro player have the initiative when we have a showdownable hand (especially in position) is also fine.

Overall, the only real benefit is in typically a HU pot in position against a fit/fold player, where we can just put out a 1/2 PSB when he checks the flop to us and we'll take it down often enough with air to be profitable.

But getting it HU in position against a fit/fold player is sometimes hard to do at a typical loose LLSNL table, so don't force things preflop if it ain't gonna happen, but just keep your eyes open for the opportunity when it arises every so often.

GcluelessNLnoobG

If raise preflop / HU / cbet / take it down makes up 85% of poker hands, then your table sucks.

Gtablechange!G

Both of your examples illustrate the power of position, but not of having the lead, unless I am missing something. It wouldn't seem to matter if you raised and got called, or if you limp/called a raise.

Wha...?
Maybe 85% was a bit of an overestimate.
Maybe 50-60% of hands that's more likely.

But at the same time, the idea of this table: that if you could raise 20% of hands to 7.5bb, get 1.5 callers, cbet and take it down 85% of the time, would mean that you're going to make a great profit.

30 hand an hour, raise 6 hands per hour, pot size of 18bb on average, (15 - rake or 22.5 - rake ) cbet, take them down 85% of the time that's 10.5bb profit, * 6 = 63bb, * .85 = 53.55 bb, - 5bb tipping = 48.55bb, - the 1 cbet / 6 that fails of 13bb, you're making 35bb hour.

Clearly this doesn't happen as people don't just lie down quite that much, but if they did, it would be an amazing table.

If first to act misses the flop, he can barrel it and usually win, regardless of whether he "had the lead."

For the "lead" to really mean something, there has to be some assumption that the player with the lead is more likely to have a better hand than the player without the lead. This is the assumption that doesn't make sense to me.

I'm basically just saying that (a) having position helps when having the initiative (but this is kinda ldo, because having position always helps), and also (b) having the initiative is overrated at most loose LLSNL games unless things end HU (or 3way at absolute worse).

Most people who limp/call HU don't bluff barrel; they just quietly check/fold when they miss the flop.

Ok, ha, that's not quite what I was getting at, but I get your point. Ya, obviously we'd crush if all we did was raise, get it HU, cbet, and take it down a large percentage of the time.

That's actually the whole point.

Most poker players suck and they only play their own two cards. The ones that don't play their own two cards still tend to just assume that we hit. Or that our hand is better in the first place.

A lot of bad players don't raise without like 88+, AJs+, AQo. Because they suck. But they also think that we must have the same range when we raise. * So they assume that our hand it stronger than theirs. So there is a perception that our hand is stronger because we raised. They don't know that we are raising with 65s, A5s, KTs, 44. Whatever.

But if we just call, they think, oh man, this guy can have anything. I call with anything, he must call with anything!

* They are not thinking 'range' but they are just thinking this dude has a good hand because he raised.

Yes, I'm good with the position thing. Really trying to isolate the "having the lead" aspect of this game and why it matters.

You say it is overrated unless HU. Even then, though...why does it matter?

Are you saying that "having the lead" only has value against bad players because they give too much credit to it?

I would think most bad players aren't even aware, on the flop, of who has the lead. They just know "here we are, we both paid 3.5BB's to see the flop, now what..."

initiative is generally a misunderstood/misapplied concept

it is more a byproduct of the type of range that the person with the initiative is likely to have. think about why people bet in general, and then what types of hands they are likely to have when they bet

Do you ever call raises pre flop with KQs type hands?

What do you do if the flop is T73r and the PFRer cBets. Do you call, raise or fold? Assuming it's an unknown.

You are referring to the "hand-reading implications" I mentioned in op.

So unless I am missing something, no one itt has really made the claim or the argument that having the lead, in and of itself, really matters...unless opponents are bad players who misinterpret what your betting means.

FWIW, Annie Duke's book "Decide to Play Great Poker" makes a really big deal of having the lead. She says if you limp then call a raise you have made a significant mistake because you paid raising money without getting the benefit of taking the lead. The bulk of her book is broken down into how to play hands [in position/out of position][with the lead/without the lead][etc/etc] so she is definitely of the mindset that with good players, the lead matters a great deal.

Bullseye after bullseye from "iraisetoomuch" ITT.

I can only say i agree on pretty much every words he puts out on this topic.

1) When we have the lead, we can win without showdown with a C-bet because we have fold equity when we play agressive and betting.We give ourself two chances of winning the pot this way. Getting our opponent to fold OR showing up with the best hand at showdown. Compared to if we play a passive limp/station kind of game where we pretty much limits ourself to win only when we showdown the best hand.

2) Its easier to manipulate villains into making bigger and more costly mistakes against us when we raise /3 bet preflop and they get used to see us barrell flop/turn/river. We can take down pots without exposing our cards to the table, wich can be huge later on in the game. They can be manipulated into thinking we are crazy LAGs who bets all the time whether we have it or not- suddenly they cant take it and station us down when we pot 3 streets with a monster.

My most profitable sessions have been when i get my villains to "explode" and lose their patience, and the frustration takes over- wich causes them to station down my 2 and 3 barrels time after time. They see me bluff with a C-bet on the flop, and conclude that i also bluff when i barrell off big for 3 streets

no, im not really talking about how your bet will be perceived. having 'initiative' is simply a term used to describe who has bet last. it is not valuable in and of itself to have bet last, but by being in a position in which you have initiative you will frequently have an advantage over your opponent because of how you arrived in that position and the types of hands that you and your opponent are likely to hold.

If I am in position I might call a raise with KQs. But what I would do on the flop is not affected by whether I called a raise vs. he limped, I raised, he called. (Only exception, again, being that in the latter case I am more likely to put him on a speculative hand like suited connectors vs a big pair. But this is a hand-reading consideration, not a "who has the lead" consideration.)

Semi-grunch:

In my opinion, it mostly has to do with hand reading, but I think by asking this question, you're severely underestimating the importance of hand reading.

This question reminds me of a hand I played the very first time I tried 2/5. I was in the blinds with AQ and someone made it $30 to go from LP. I called and we were heads-up to the flop.

The flop came Q22.

Now here is the problem I had. Suppose that I had raised from MP and the guy in LP had just called (so the position situation is roughly the same). On this flop, because he did not 3bet me, I can be almost assured that my hand is good here. He wouldn't have called with very many 2x hands, AND he would have 3bet me with AA/KK/QQ. So at 100 big blinds, I can actually commit my stack.

But in the situation I had, of calling his raise, I have to be concerned that if he gets stacks in, part of his range for doing that is AA/KK/QQ, and I am going to be beat more often if stacks go in. It may still not be often enough that I'm not committed (in fact in this hand I thought he'd be bluffing often enough to make it worthwhile to call down), but it's easy to imagine other situations where someone else having the lead means their range as a whole is stronger and you have to change your play to adjust for that.

I think you are correct in the sense that a lot of this discussion is moving towards hand reading and away from 'who has the lead'.
But I think that's because having the lead as you say leads into hand reading.

It leads into perceived ranges. It leads into fold equity and a number of other higher level concepts. (Higher level than, I can haz two cards, they iz pretty?!)

The idea is that even if people don't think about hand ranges, and don't think about equity, and don't think about pot size they understand concepts like 'strength' and 'weakness' and 'bluffing' and 'not bluffing'. The understand these general ideas and when you raise you are 'strong' and when you limp or call, you are 'weak'. When you bet again, you are 'strong' and when you check you are 'weak'. So, when we raise we take the initiative, and we are now strong and when we bet again, we are really strong. So, we can win pots that we would not have otherwise.

I'm not really sure if the effect of 'having the lead' in an of it self can be quantified, but it becomes just another aspect of the the game that merges all together with other ideas like hand reading to give us (as good players) an overall idea what what we think we should do in a hand. And for a bad player, it gives them a reason to fold when they 'don't feel it' or whatever the current fishy logic that prevails it.

An additional thought:
There are countless players in my room (some good and some bad) that will call with A9s if someone raises in front of them, and they will call the flop on A83r, but they will fold the turn on A836r when you bet twice. Because you raised, you are strong.

But if you limped in with AK, and they raised and you flatted, and then you donk into them 3 times they will call the whole time and you can get 1- 2 more streets of value. Because you must be weak, because you did not raise. In this case, having initiative will actually hurt us from getting value. And it's a bit simplified, but that's how they play.

They don't think 'man, this guy should never be limp/calling with AK, and the board reads A8363r, so there's a good chance that my kicker plays and he's just trying to take it away from me. His range is mostly weighted towards second pair trying to push me off, blah blah blah.

The just think, he raised, he's strong. That's what taking the lead is about in a lot of ways.

Let me give an example of what i am talking about. Before this hands occured, i had shown a C-bet bluff earlier in the session, and i had raised preflop plus C-bet the flop multiple times the last couple of ours: taking down the pot uncontested. I can now feel that my opponents its slowly reaching their breaking point. Is hero bluffing here all the time? Does he have it every time? Is he mopping the floor with us here and running us over?

I raise from early pos with AK, and two villains call-including the one that i suspect is ready to station me down light.

Flop comes beautiful A K 6

I C-bet 75 percent pot as i usually do, and villain instacalls.

Turn 5

I bet big now, i pot the turn- like i am trying to blow him off his hand. he calls.

River 2

Here i think a little bit, before i cut out close to pot bet once again. I put villain on an A, and i truly believe he aint able to lay it down.

He tanks for almost two minutes, looks at all the chips at out there several times- and finally declare that he calls. He tables A4 for top pair.

Now, the point is that i think he would be able to lay this down on the turn or the river- if he woudnt be in the state of mind due to my aggressive style of play for several hours. He lost almost 100 BB in that hand, with a crappy top pair for no reason.

I understand all of this. Thank you. Still, maybe I am just being super dense but this sounds like a post about the value of aggression, not about having the lead specifically. Of course when you raise a lot, you have the lead a lot, but the inherent value in what you are doing, as described ^^here, comes from the aggression, not from the lead.

Consider: You have been raising a lot, and you have the table image you descibe above... Now comes a hand where you limp/call preflop, or maybe you raise and call a re-raise. You don't have "the lead." But you can still c-bet just the same and with the same results as if you technically had the lead in this hand.

Poker is act and re-act. Your table image goes along with your ability to 'take the lead' or 'control the betting'. You will see this referenced on live poker commentary by real professionals quite often as well, so it is a topic that you will want to try and understand.

When someone opens the betting PF they are trying to (implying to) project a strong holding and thus you are reacting to that bet. And as long as they are leading the betting you are giving them information 'after the fact' that they will use in the next round of betting.

They really aren't giving you as much information by betting as you are by calling. You can only assume that they have a strong hand that goes with the board. But by calling (and not raising) you are narrowing your hands to those that do hit the board. (Unless both of you are bluffing, and thats where poker becomes poker).

Once you stop leading it is seen as 'giving up' on the hand and opens up the door for the next guy to 'take control' of the pot. Certainly this can be used against aggressive opponets who have position on you to open up the door to a c/r, but normally it just means that OR is not as interested in the pot as before.

When you lead the betting, you decide if its a teaser bet or an over-bet ... or anything inbetween. You are the story teller and the others have to either keep along or try to 'interrupt' and tell their story (by raising, donk betting).

There is also the consideration of hands you can raise with, but not CALL a raise with. And when someone leads out, then they 'assume' that your range of hands narrows. A perfect example of this is K9/KT/KJs. Some would say that you could raise with this in late position since no one has show an interest in 'leading' this pot. (yes, that is a position reference, but play along). But you very rarely should call a raise with this hand for fear of being dominated by AK which is a more typical opening hand from ANY position.

I have not read her book (that I remember) so I am not sure of your complete reference, but poker is a game of aggression and if you can 'sell your story' you can pick up valuable chips that wouldn't be available without 'taking the lead'. GL