|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 2:49:35 PM PACIFIC |
 Raising for leverage, Blade, 12. Oct 2003 02:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you know that a certain starting hand wins x% of the time does it then become profitable to raise based on a certain number of players seeing the flop. For example it appears though a number of simulations that I am running that QJo from position 7 wins 19% of the time. Does this then mean that if there are 4 callers in front of you and you theorectically knew that you would get 2 more callers giving you a 6-1 return on your money doesn't then become profitable to always raise in this situation. This assumes that the players who have already called will call even if reraised ahead of them. Obviously this is all theory but if you are getting a higher return than % you are winning shouldn't you then maximize the amount invested? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, INSINK, 12. Oct 2003 21:35 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Why do people raise? To buy a card...... Send out a message..... Strike fear in our opponents..... Throw a curve...... I see that with QJo you damn well better bluff peole into thinking you have the goods.....I would feel more comfortable wiith AQo but ...dude you need help with this starting hand.....also depends on what image you have at the table, are you up for the session, ....I think we all need to know more before a quanitative answer is given..... | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, Blade, 12. Oct 2003 21:41 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Perhaps QJo was a poor example. My question was more of is there a calculatable point at which raising even though you do not have the best hand becomes profitable because of the return you are getting on the raise. The intuitive answer is yes which why raising with AK is correct even though you may be behind to a pp at the moment. Can this be calculated for various starting hands (qjo just being my example) mathematically based on the winning percentage of the hand and the return on the raise. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, INSINK, 13. Oct 2003 07:45 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I understand your question now.....don't know where to tell you to look....best wishes | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, Schuster, 13. Oct 2003 08:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Ok, this is a bit speculative, but I think I am on the right track. The problem with thinking along these lines is that your 17% figure is based on an average win percentage, with a varying number of opponents. It will win less against more opponents and more against less opponents. It would be folly to think that QJo is only 17% against one other opponent, so similarly, you can't think that it is 17% against a large number of opponents. On top of that, if you raise and do catch a great flop (and you do need a great flop with QJo against a lot of opponents) then they will have better odds to try to chase you down. If you were interested in making a play like this, you'd have to calculate the range of hands for each prior limper and each position, and then see if your hand wins more than it's "fair share", and while it may be theoretically possible, it's very difficult to do at the tables since everyone's starting hand requirements are different. Just one "play any two" player will throw everything off. However, there are some hands where it is a near guarantee that you will win "more than your fair share" but still won't win very often. Two hands that pop into my mind are QQ and JJ (moreso QQ). If I am in the big blind or on the button with QQ, and a lot of people have limped in, I do tend to raise (not always), because I am getting big money odds return, even though overcards will flop a decent amount of the time. I will win much less than 50%, but I believe that winning more than my fair share is worth the extra bet. I tend to reserve the raise with JJ when I'm not in the blind and have better position, but occasionally, if things are right, I will put in the extra bet out of the blind. I hope this clears things up for you Blade, it's good to see that you are thinking about basic poker concepts in great depth like this, as it can only help your game. Keep up the good work! Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, Blade, 13. Oct 2003 09:51 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Lee, Thanks for the reply. Your examples are right on track with my line of thought in that it is fairly accepted that certain hands (AA, KK,QQ) while in pots with multiple players may not win a majority of the time, will win enough of the time that even in a no fold-em game there is value in raising, AK being another example. What I am trying to do quantify this so that it can be applied to other not so obvious hands based on the return on a raise. This is the same principle used when value investing. What return on investment are you recieving for a particular stock vs the risk assumed with the stock. Obviously the more risk the higher return you would demand. In poker we know that better starting hands have lower risk than worse starting hands. Notice this is very similar to the principle of pot odds for deciding to call with a flush draw. The only difference in what I am trying to do is a change it to a raising action and use it for different hands. I will see what my simulations come up with but I think the answer lies in the win% vs. amount of people seeing the flop and the % what hands you are making (ie 2 pair, straight). Over 5,000,000 hands we should be able to get a clear understanding of these two variables. Or, I could be completely wrong and wasting my time, but hey I can't think of any other subject my worth throwing time away than poker. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, Schuster, 13. Oct 2003 10:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I understand what you're trying to get at, but so much of it is dependent on your opponents. For example, if you're a game where people will limp in EP and MP with hands like QT, KT, KJ, or QJ, but will raise with AQ or AK, raising in LP with a KQ would be very good for you, since you've got a commanding position over them, and you can feel pretty good about your hand if you flop top pair. Also, you might buy yourself a free card on the flop if you miss. On the other hand, if it's a tough game and players will throw these hands away up front, or sometimes limp with AQ or AK, then this raise loses much of it's value. Similarly, a raise with a hand like AJ or ATs could be very +EV in the right game. If you do decide to run these simulations, definately post your results. I'd be interested to see them. My suspicion would be that a "value raise" like this is best reserved for later position (of couse). Also, I suspect that the value of suited cards would go a long way towards making a value raise like this against a large field. A hand like QTs may be worth a raise on the puck in the right situations, but QTo would go into the muck. I'm not sure of this, but intuitively, it feels correct. Keep us posted Blade. Lee | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage, RamDannyboy, 13. Oct 2003 16:28 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Blade, this is an excellant question and I think you and Lee are going down the right track. I once posted a question here exploring the same concept. What I asked was....when would it be correct to raise with suited connectors (say 98s). Generally, the response I got was....its a drawing hand, why would you? Fair enough. But I still feel there are table conditions where a raise with 98s adds to your EV. An example is where the flop is being seen CONSISTENTLY by 7 or more players. In this case, the type of hole cards being played are very close to random. Against 6 opponents the pot is laying you 6:1. 98s will win 17.8% of the time (4.62:1) so there is a clear overlay which COULD justify a raise. I would be the first to say that there are other considerations that need to be taking into account, nevertheless, I think a raise under these conditions should at least be contemplated. There is some good stuff on the internet exploring this idea. If you haven't already come across Abdul Jalib, his writings (also based on simulations) is a good place to start. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Raising for leverage-preliminary results, Blade, 14. Oct 2003 22:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have run many simulations and so far the results seem to support my hypothesis. Here are some results. Both players on the botton dealt QJo. 1,000,000 hands with identical table lineups. $5-10 game. Player 1 raised preflop 0% of the time, saw 48% of the flops in a game in which 5 players were seeing the flop on average. This players raised in total 22% of the time which was 1st at the table. Player1 with QJo average $2.12 per hand Player2 QJo raised preflop 100% of the time, saw 71% of the flops in a game in which 4.9 players were seeing the flop on average. This player raised a total of 20% of the time which was 1st at the table. Player2 averaged $3.64 per hand. Comparison Both players played in a similar game with same hand QJo from the botton. Both players showed simialr aggression after the flop and were the most agrressive player at the table. Player 2 saw considerably more flops than player 1. The difference in the amount of flops seen is the most troubling aspect of my test. I am unable to explain this as yet and it something that must be explained before solid conclusions can be reached. However this may have worked against player 2. Player 2 had the advantage of being able to steal blinds with a preflop raise. However based on the type of table (50% seeing flop) and the amount of difference per hand ($2.12 vs. $3.64) it is unlikely that this is a significant factor. The player who raised with QJo saw a 71% increase in profitabilty. Conclusion There does seem to potential value in raising with QJo based on table conditions alone. One can infer that if these results are valid that there is value with raising with non-standard hands. Raising for leverage appears to be valid. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|