Raising "for isolation" in cash games

Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
Chips
0
In tournaments where you can't rebuy, you'd attach more importance to winning a high % of pots rather than getting the maximum equity.

In a NL cash game, can anyone explain why you would want to isolate with Aces? At first glance to me it seems like this is always a bad idea and you should do whatever it takes to get as much money in pre-flop as you can - driving people out seems like a very bad idea.
 
N

nicoiko

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Total posts
633
Chips
0
I think it is always the same good old sentence : "Before wanting to win the most of money, make sure to win the pot".

As I see Aces, I just don't want to be called by marginal hands (like suited connectors or whatever) to see a flop where anyone can hit what he was looking for. What if you get 3 diamonds on the flop for exemple, or any connected flop ?
That is why most part of the time I will try to isolate the first raiser whatever I'am playing. (cash, sng or tourney)

Now you'll have to give it a try sometimes if you see a very tight table like players just raising or calling a raise with a premium hand.
But once again if you got 3 of them in a hand and a flop like Q K J comes, you will face big trouble... :rolleyes:

Really I'm maybe too conservative but with hands like KK or AA, I like to (re)raise in order to see where my opponents are.

Hope it helps you in some way... ;)
 
dresturn2

dresturn2

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Total posts
765
Chips
0
Aces against 8 hands is a very bad idea, one reason if because if the flop come 10 3 6 rainbow and someone has two pair how do u get away from your hand
 
Egon Towst

Egon Towst

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 26, 2006
Total posts
6,794
Chips
0
Interesting thought.

With AA against one random hand, you are ~85% to win, against two ~73%, three ~64%, four ~56% and so on.

At first glance, it appears better to play only one opponent. However, when one considers pot size, it may actually be better in the long run to win less often with more players in the pot.

Not the conventional wisdom, but bears thinking about.
 
calibanboy

calibanboy

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Total posts
363
Chips
0
if you are a winning player then you will take every edge you can, You win money when other players make mistakes. This means that you choose tables that have a higher % of players who make mistakes. This may mean that you do not play if you cannot find such a table.

Ok - You done the first bit.....Now Raise heavily with the best hand preflop and let the muppets call.

Thats one well known way of winning long term. Table selection coupled with Tight agressive play. In short, you do not want to purely isolate, you want people to play in bigger pots when you have the edge. Smaller pots when you do not. If you choose teh right table and players this wil happen more than not.

Why do you want a small pot when you have the edge? The only way you will extract maximum value in this way is when you flop a set and so does your opponent. This will happen when you raise higher preflop too.

The only reason I would limp preflop with aces is when in "KNOW" that I will get reraised preflop. Eg all I am doing is helping people make mistakes.

My 5 cents worth.......
 
Dorkus Malorkus

Dorkus Malorkus

HELLO INTERNET
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Total posts
12,422
Chips
0
Nice post, blackjack (rofl, "B.J" without the dot somehow morphs into "Blackjack" - gg forum :eek:).

I agree with you to an extent, although it's worth noting that it's easier to play Aces optimally postflop against one opponent than several, for the simple reason that it's easier to put one person a range of hands than it is to do the same with (for example) three people. This is especially true in limped pots, as ranges will be more broad.

Whether this outweighs our preflop gain in equity (it's obvious that having an 80% chance to win a $50 pot yields a lower expectancy than having a 60% chance to win a $100 pot, for example), is probably dependent on your playing style, the playing style of your opponents, your position, the exact action in front of you, etc etc.
 
S

SarasotaJohn

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Total posts
22
Chips
0
I saw some statistics that bear out what Egon is stating. The actual net winnings are greater with more players in the pot. Yes, you win less pots but win more overall. Still, you may not want to use this stategy in a tournament where a significant loss cannot be replaced from your wallet. In other words, a high probability of winning something may easily be more important than adding 10% to your overall winnings at the cost of a lower probabilty of winning at all.
 
V

viking999

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Total posts
512
Chips
0
Yeah, I think caliban had it right.

I wouldn't raise just to isolate, but if you raise the best amount to increase your EV, some isolation should naturally happen. Optimally, you need to raise an amount that would make it wrong for your opponents to call. Therefore, it's only natural that they will sometimes get it right and fold.

Of course the other very reasonable justification for isolation is if you can't play AA optimally post-flop unless you isolate. I don't think there's a player in the world who can play AA nearly as well 5-handed as they can heads up.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
I think the most common reason for why people - quite possibly incorrectly - suggest to isolate with hands like AA is because theory on how to play multiway pots just isn't that developed. I can mathematically solve any flop vs. any opponent, but when you put a second opponent into the mix, things get a lot more complicated.

But "less profitable" does not necessarily follow "more complicated." In fact, it's often the contrary in poker.

I often like to play multiway pots - even in limit - because I find that they get really, really big. And since I play in games where I have an edge, the bigger the pots, the more money I make. And here's the sweetest part about large, multiway pots: You have put in much less money than you would have if the pot had been HU and the same size. Losing a large multiway pot doesn't hurt at all as much as losing a large HU pot. But WINNING a large multiway pot is many times more awesome!

I encourage multiway action. I find that I play better than most of my opponents in such situations, which gives me a great advantage. The more complicated the situation, the more profitable for the one who can best navigate it.

I think the next few years will bring new books and theory on how to play multiway pots. Right now, many people - and authors - are still stuck in the "win pots" corner, when they should be looking to win money.

/FP
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Chips
0
The actual net winnings are greater with more players in the pot.

Unfortunately, this isn't the case necessarily, especially in NL. If you raise and get one caller (3x bb, +3bb call, +1bb and .5sb = 7.5bb in pot), the pot will be just as large as you had limped and gotten five callers. Now you are facing multiple opponents instead of one, for the same amount of money.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
Unfortunately, this isn't the case necessarily, especially in NL. If you raise and get one caller (3x bb, +3bb call, +1bb and .5sb = 7.5bb in pot), the pot will be just as large as you had limped and gotten five callers. Now you are facing multiple opponents instead of one, for the same amount of money.
Uh. But you've put in half of the money in one case, and only 20% in the other. Pot size is the same, net winnings is greater.

Edit: Less than 20%, of course - I misread. But you get my point.
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Chips
0
Uh. But you've put in half of the money in one case, and only 20% in the other. Pot size is the same, net winnings is greater.

Oh yeah. Duh me.
Anyway, we still have to compare our % of equity to that net amount to determine which situation is more profitable.

Also, it seems to me that a reduction in variance, even in a cash game, is worth at least some kind of sacrifice in equity. No?
 
P

phatjose

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Total posts
222
Chips
0
I wouldn't raise to isolate, I would raise to get more money in the pot preflop. If you are in a multiway pot, figure at least 1, maybe 2 people (depends on how many preflop callers) will fold after the flop anyway. Raising for value at least gets their money in the pot before they folded.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
Oh yeah. Duh me.
Anyway, we still have to compare our % of equity to that net amount to determine which situation is more profitable.

Also, it seems to me that a reduction in variance, even in a cash game, is worth at least some kind of sacrifice in equity. No?
On the first point, that's one of the things that I think will be researched more extensively in the future. What you're saying is true, of course, but it's also tricky to calculate - especially vs. different hand ranges of different opponents, etc. Also, how do you weight position when it's a multiway pot? Being in absolute position isn't necessarily good - and may even be outright detrimental. Things sure are easier to figure out when it's heads-up. :)

I'm not sure on your second point. Reducing variance sounds good in theory, but from every simulation I've done, I've gotten the result that not even the slightest reduction of variance is beneficial to profits even in the relative short term. As in, even if maximizing EV means a MUCH bigger risk of reducing your bankroll to a point where you have to step down in limits, you'll still be miles ahead of the sim who only bets on 55% chances to win.

That said, reducing EV for the sake of clinical sanity could be a good thing. And inadvertently, I do this when I run bad - I think most people do. I.e. becoming passive with marginal hands because we're so SICK of being raises ALL THE FRIGGING TIME. ;)

No, I'm actually not running bad right now, but I can so very clearly remember the feeling, heh.

/FP, running at 2.8BB/100 for the month and loving every second of it.
 
V

viking999

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Total posts
512
Chips
0
I often like to play multiway pots - even in limit - because I find that they get really, really big. And since I play in games where I have an edge, the bigger the pots, the more money I make. And here's the sweetest part about large, multiway pots: You have put in much less money than you would have if the pot had been HU and the same size. Losing a large multiway pot doesn't hurt at all as much as losing a large HU pot. But WINNING a large multiway pot is many times more awesome!

By the same token wouldn't 6-max or heads up games be a total waste of time? Full tables have bigger pots, so why ever bother playing short? Why not play 20 players to a table?

It all depends on what situations you're better at maximizing ($ in pot) x (chance to win). Some people are better heads up, others are better multiway. It also depends in what situations your opponents will make more mistakes. I'd rather play at a full table against brand new players, because they can't adjust and will play too loose. However, the same players may be about right for heads up.

But there's nothing intrinsic about more players that makes you win more money. You get more money in the pot, but your chance to win is lower. If you're better at making your opponents make mistakes that way, more power to ya. That's not going to be the case for everyone.
 
L

lottomode777

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Total posts
101
Chips
0
I did some research using the Pokerlistings.com calculator against multiple Top 10% hands with AA to get the below equity numbers.

This is my first attempt at something like this, so I might not be completely accurate with all the numbers, but I wanted to see the profitability vs risk (equity) of shoving aces all in against 1, 2, 3, and 4 callers in the stretch of 100 hands. I don’t think you will ever face more than 4 callers unless you’re in a play money table.

1 caller/81% equity = Gain 1$ (81x), -1$ (19x) = profit:$62
2 callers/68% equity = Gain 2$ (68x), -1$ (32x) = profit: $104
3 callers/56% equity = Gain 3$ (56x), -1$ (44x) = profit of $124
4 callers/44% equity = Gain 4$ (44x), -1$ (56x) = profit of $120

In the long term, it seems 3 callers is the most profit for the lowest risk. But I prefer 2 at most because I don’t like marginal edge’s, even for large pots. Plus I rather have the biggest edge and the lowest swings.
 
V

viking999

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Total posts
512
Chips
0
I'm not sure on your second point. Reducing variance sounds good in theory, but from every simulation I've done, I've gotten the result that not even the slightest reduction of variance is beneficial to profits even in the relative short term. As in, even if maximizing EV means a MUCH bigger risk of reducing your bankroll to a point where you have to step down in limits, you'll still be miles ahead of the sim who only bets on 55% chances to win.

I think alien was speaking from an investment theory standpoint. If you're faced with two investments with the same long run rate of return, but one has lower risk, you should always pick the lower risk one because humans are risk averse (this is not universally true, but it appears to be the general tendency). So there must be some point at which, by gradually reducing the rate of return of the lower risk investment, you eventually consider the two investments equal. One with higher return and higher risk, the other with lower return and lower risk. It's why people invest in bonds when they could invest in stocks.

I suppose a really easy way of saying this is that most people assign a cost to risk. It's not a dollar cost, it's a mental cost, but it could still be offset by the mental benefit of having a couple extra bucks thrown your way.
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Chips
0
I did some research using the Pokerlistings.com calculator against multiple Top 10% hands with AA to get the below equity numbers.

This is my first attempt at something like this, so I might not be completely accurate with all the numbers, but I wanted to see the profitability vs risk (equity) of shoving aces all in against 1, 2, 3, and 4 callers in the stretch of 100 hands. I don’t think you will ever face more than 4 callers unless you’re in a play money table.

1 caller/81% equity = Gain 1$ (81x), -1$ (19x) = profit:$62
2 callers/68% equity = Gain 2$ (68x), -1$ (32x) = profit: $104
3 callers/56% equity = Gain 3$ (56x), -1$ (44x) = profit of $124
4 callers/44% equity = Gain 4$ (44x), -1$ (56x) = profit of $120

In the long term, it seems 3 callers is the most profit for the lowest risk. But I prefer 2 at most because I don’t like marginal edge’s, even for large pots. Plus I rather have the biggest edge and the lowest swings.

See here for a similar, but not exactly the same analysis (an interesting refutation of the concept of "schooling"), where AA loses equity vs. 9 opponents over 8 opponents.

I think alien was speaking from an investment theory standpoint. If you're faced with two investments with the same long run rate of return, but one has lower risk, you should always pick the lower risk one because humans are risk averse (this is not universally true, but it appears to be the general tendency). So there must be some point at which, by gradually reducing the rate of return of the lower risk investment, you eventually consider the two investments equal. One with higher return and higher risk, the other with lower return and lower risk. It's why people invest in bonds when they could invest in stocks.

I suppose a really easy way of saying this is that most people assign a cost to risk. It's not a dollar cost, it's a mental cost, but it could still be offset by the mental benefit of having a couple extra bucks thrown your way.

The mental cost will vary too! Right now it's really high for me, I'm running pretty bad :).
 
Last edited:
Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
Chips
0
No-one's yet mentioned how dead money might come into it.

Say most people on the table are 100 BB deep. You limp AA in early position, someone raises to 4xBB, someone calls, then a short stack goes all-in from the small blind for 20xBB.

Some people might shove to isolate here and get the raiser and caller to fold (or call all-in if they're lucky) and be satisfied knowing they're 80%+ to win 30 BB, by risking 19 BB.

On the other hand if you just call, it's costing you the same to have a lower chance of winning 62 BB (assuming the raiser and caller also call), plus maybe a side pot as well (which you could also lose).

Sticking this into ProPokerTools:
In the first case, assuming you successfully isolate, your equity vs a "top 10%" hand is 84.4%, so your expected win is
(30*0.844 - 19*0.156) = 22.4 BB

In the second case, your equity versus 3 top 10% hands, assuming you all go to showdown, is 62.9% (it's very similar or slightly better if you make the original raiser and caller top 20% hands instead), your expected win, if no more money goes in is
(62*0.629)-(19*0.371) = 31.9 BB.

So the dead money you get by isolating doesn't make up for the loss of the the money the other players would have put in pre-flop. Plus your hand will be disguised and with only a pot-sized bet left behind, there a good chance you'll stack one of the other players who's left in (one of them may even shove pre-flop). So it seems like calling and hoping for some more action in this example is clearly better than re-raising.

The side of the question that I'm interested in now, is what to do with hands worse than AA? When does it become profitable to shove because you want other people to fold their hand, with hands such as AK, QQ or JJ?
 
L

lottomode777

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Total posts
101
Chips
0
See here for a similar, but not exactly the same analysis (an interesting refutation of the concept of "schooling"), where AA loses equity vs. 9 opponents over 8 opponents.


The mental cost will vary too! Right now it's really high for me, I'm running pretty bad :).

From my interpretation, the author is trying to say in a complicated way: Don't get mad at chasers for sucking out on you (ie: schooling you) in low limit games and blame them for your losses. When you get more chasers against your best hand, the pot size and profits go up, but your risk of losing goes up too. Your wins and losses will be very swingy in limit hold em because you are losing more with chasers, but win larger pots when your hand holds up, so in the very long run, the wins should outweigh those losses. So you shouldn't be playing limit hold em if your bankroll isn't large enough to handle the swings, bad runs, and risk factor of limit hold em, or if your mentality can't handle it either :)
I'm not even sure how "long" the long term is, but I imagine it's many hundreds of thousands of pots.
 
aliengenius

aliengenius

Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Total posts
4,596
Chips
0
From my interpretation, the author is trying to say in a complicated way: Don't get mad at chasers for sucking out on you (ie: schooling you) in low limit games and blame them for your losses. When you get more chasers against your best hand, the pot size and profits go up, but your risk of losing goes up too. Your wins and losses will be very swingy in limit hold em because you are losing more with chasers, but win larger pots when your hand holds up, so in the very long run, the wins should outweigh those losses. So you shouldn't be playing limit hold em if your bankroll isn't large enough to handle the swings, bad runs, and risk factor of limit hold em, or if your mentality can't handle it either :)
I'm not even sure how "long" the long term is, but I imagine it's many hundreds of thousands of pots.

Yeah, it's an article on schooling, not exactly on topic, but I wanted to provide the AA vs. x analysis that it had.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
By the same token wouldn't 6-max or heads up games be a total waste of time? Full tables have bigger pots, so why ever bother playing short? Why not play 20 players to a table?

"Playing short" doesn't necessarily mean that there are fewer people in the pots, though. How often do full tables see more than 7 people to a flop?

It all depends on what situations you're better at maximizing ($ in pot) x (chance to win). Some people are better heads up, others are better multiway. It also depends in what situations your opponents will make more mistakes. I'd rather play at a full table against brand new players, because they can't adjust and will play too loose. However, the same players may be about right for heads up.
If there are players who have an edge over everyone individually at a table, but start spewing chips as soon as two or more of them enter a pot, then yes, I suppose.
But there's nothing intrinsic about more players that makes you win more money. You get more money in the pot, but your chance to win is lower. If you're better at making your opponents make mistakes that way, more power to ya. That's not going to be the case for everyone.
This is only true if your hand range is the same as the other players. If you're a tighter player, your hand will have an edge. Sure, your chance of winning will go down when you add more players but not as much as the cost of playing!

If you're a "better player," and I'll for this purpose define it as someone who plays when they have an edge, and folds when they don't, your hand is going to have some equity edge. Some examples, using opponents who play 40% of their hands:

These hands are represented as such:
Starting hand - win% vs. 1 opponent - win% vs 4 opponents - difference in profit*
AA - 85% - 57% - $1.15
KK - 79% - 46% - $0.72
AKs - 67% - 30% - $0.16
AKo - 65% - 26% - $0
QQ - 74% - 39% - $0.47
JJ - 70% - 33% - $0.25
TT - 66% - 29% - $0.13
JTs - 46% - 21% - $0.13
KQs - 56% - 25% - $0.13

*"profit" here is difference in dollars if the bet is $1, i.e. heads-up the pot is $2 to the flop, and 5-way it's $5.

This isn't the whole truth, though, because clearly there will be times where we have to choose between "allowing" more people in, or raise the people already committed to seeing a flop. So for stringency's sake, let's see what happens to our "profit" if the heads-up pot is raised, whereas the 5-way pot is unraised (not an unrealistic scenario):

AA - 85% - 57% - $0.45
KK - 79% - 46% - $0.14
AKs - 67% - 30% - -$0.18
AKo - 65% - 26% - -$0,30
QQ - 74% - 39% - -$0.01
JJ - 70% - 33% - -$0.15
TT - 66% - 29% - -$0.19
JTs - 46% - 21% - $0.21

... showing that if our choice is between playing a raised pot with one opponent or an unraised pot with four opponents, we should try to get it heads-up with the "big hands" that aren't AA or KK. JTs, the hand I put in there since it's the archetypal "does well in multiway pots"-hand, of course always prefers more people.

But the choice, of course, isn't always between raised HU pot or unraised multiwaypot. Also, it bears mentioning that these win-percentages are only valid for preflop scenarios. If you suck at playing TT out of position and will only offer implied odds, then clearly attempting to isolate is better.

It's an interesting topic, for sure.
 
F Paulsson

F Paulsson

euro love
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Total posts
5,799
Awards
1
Chips
1
No-one's yet mentioned how dead money might come into it.
I wanted to, but I got stuck on preflop win-percentages. It's a very important perspective that really needs to be taken into account though!

Now brunch!

/FP
 
L

lottomode777

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 13, 2007
Total posts
101
Chips
0
Dead money is just an ideal situation, where you hope everything goes according to plan. You are hoping that you get Aces in early position, that there will be callers AND there will be an all in shove somewhere in the blinds or in very late position. Usually, what will end up happening is several people limp, and the blinds will check to see a cheap flop. Now you've got a 4 or 5 way pot, which Aces don't do good against. I've seen too many people go broke with limped Aces because someone caught trips, two pair, or a set with a weak hand. This is asking for a lot of risk, with not enough extra profit to show for it, which is why I made the above chart to see what's the ideal amount of callers for lowest risk/with most profit. Unless you are sensible enough to lay Aces down post flop, I would suggest never limping with them hoping for a dead money situation. If you do manage to get lucky, you might find a fish that will pay you off with a small overpair or just top pair on the board, or you may get a rare Set over Set situation.
 
Bombjack

Bombjack

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Total posts
2,389
Chips
0
I suppose the classic reason to isolate is if you're deep stacked, and want to get into a pot heads-up against a weak player. You may or may not have a better hand than him, but if you only have a medium strength hand, you're not losing anything in terms of expected winnings if the pot doesn't go multi-way (this is different to the situation with Aces or Kings). However you do gain a lot in implied odds from being able to get better value from a weak player or bluff him off his hand.
 
Real Money Poker - Real Money Casinos Top 10 Games
Top