[5NL] 3bet pot, 3 way to flop. To cbet or not to cbet?

[daviddem]

I don't understand. If you don't have the edge, don't you want as large a stack as possible? With fewer BB, then aren't you forced to only play the nuts, since those with the edge could play your short stack and bully you when you don't have it? Then, by only playing the nuts, you're only going to get action from other nut hands and either lose it all or double up with a cooler.

No that's the opposite. Would you call an all in for your entire bankroll without the nuts? The larger the stacks, the less you want to get it in without a nutty hand.

There is also much more opportunity for bluffing/bullying with large amounts of money left in the stacks. Say you and unknown villain have 50bb. You have AK OTB. Villain in MP raises 3x, you 3b 10x, he calls. Flop comes A72r. Pot is 21.5bb. Villain checks, you bet 12bb, villain shoves 40bb. The pot is 73.5bb and you have 28bb behind. No brainer call as you have excellent 27.5% pot odds to call and he could easily be doing that with a worse A.

Now take the same scenario with 150bb stacks. When villain check/shoves, he shoves 140bb this time. Now your pot odds are a much worse 42.5% and you have to start wondering:
a) does he have a set or two pairs?
b) could he be a donk who does that with a worse A?
c) are you being bluffed/bullied?
d) is it b) and c) more than 40ish% of the time?

Finally, I have nothing against learning a new game, but then I will start at the lowest stakes to get used to it. I am not going to sit at a 10nl PLO table with $25 just because I am rolled for it and the probability calculations are similar to NLHE. If I want to learn PLO, I will start at 2nl with 100bb (and yes, maybe less in the very beginning).

If you're in a game where you don't have an edge, you shouldn't be playing at all.

What kind of bullshit is this? You think you had an edge the first time you sat at a poker table? refer to Harley's signature above.

[MadMojoMonkey]

After reading this I think somebody is convinced they've learned all they can about poker. Just an observation.

Not sure who this is directed at, but I think it could be me, so I'll own it.

I'm not saying I know all there is to know about poker, I'm saying these arguments like, "If you have more chips it will be harder." are irrelevant to me... as though the notion of something being hard matters at all.

Hard or easy is a mindset.

I have explained my point and I find the counter-arguments to be not compelling. I'm not zealously clinging to a point of view. I'm just not swayed by the arguments made thus far.

What kind of bullshit is this? You think you had an edge the first time you sat at a poker table? refer to Harley's signature above.

How many kinds are there? (Sorry, channeling my dad there... speaking of whom,)
The first time I sat at a poker table, I was 6 years old. My edge was immense, as I was being taught by my dad, who was throwing the match to keep it fun for me.

I concede that if you're still learning the fundamentals like using starting ranges, and correctly reading your hand, then you might want to start with a min buy-in at the smallest stakes you can find (preferably play money)... but this is because you should be sitting on scared money, as you obviously are a huge fish who doesn't understand the basics. (Clearly Cobra is not in this category.)

As to the arguments where there's 2 deep-stacked regs on Hero's left and the rest of the table is 100bb stacked uber-fish:
Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster? Yes, the pots with them will make you think more. I think it's called playing poker.

...

I have nothing but respect for all the posters in this thread, so please don't think I'm trolling here.

[daviddem]

As to the arguments where there's 2 deep-stacked regs on Hero's left and the rest of the table is 100bb stacked uber-fish:
Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster?

If it was not clear, let me break it down for you:
1) They are just as likely as you are to pop a monster (you have no card advantage)
2) Supposedly since they are regs, there is no or little skill difference (you have no skill advantage)
3) They have position (you have position disadvantage, and that is a huge one, more so in deep stack games)

It is a well documented fact (Sklansky or Harrington?) that money at a poker table of similarly skilled players tends to flow clockwise, precisely because of the position advantage. So now you have 250bb tending to flow away from you, and only 100bb tending to flow towards you... Anyone with basic table selection skills knows that. Nobody in their right mind wants to sit with a deep stack to the left of uber-tight short stackers and to the right of deep stacked LAG regs, or even aggro-donks.

If you have 100bb fishes on your right, fine. Buy-in for 100bb: you maximize your upside vs the 100bb fishes on which you have position and you minimize your downside vs the 250bb regs who have position on you. It's just common sense unless you are so good that your skill advantage more than makes up for the lack of position (good luck with that).

If you think your skill advantage over the regs compensates being OOP with deep stacks, good for you. It may not be everyone's case though, so as has been explained by everyone in this thread in 10 different ways, it is not good advice to tell people that they should always sit with the max buy-in no matter what.

[rpm]

Not sure who this is directed at, but I think it could be me, so I'll own it.

I'm not saying I know all there is to know about poker, I'm saying these arguments like, "If you have more chips it will be harder." are irrelevant to me... as though the notion of something being hard matters at all.

Hard or easy is a mindset.

I have explained my point and I find the counter-arguments to be not compelling. I'm not zealously clinging to a point of view. I'm just not swayed by the arguments made thus far.


How many kinds are there? (Sorry, channeling my dad there... speaking of whom,)
The first time I sat at a poker table, I was 6 years old. My edge was immense, as I was being taught by my dad, who was throwing the match to keep it fun for me.

I concede that if you're still learning the fundamentals like using starting ranges, and correctly reading your hand, then you might want to start with a min buy-in at the smallest stakes you can find (preferably play money)... but this is because you should be sitting on scared money, as you obviously are a huge fish who doesn't understand the basics. (Clearly Cobra is not in this category.)

As to the arguments where there's 2 deep-stacked regs on Hero's left and the rest of the table is 100bb stacked uber-fish:
Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster? Yes, the pots with them will make you think more. I think it's called playing poker.

...

I have nothing but respect for all the posters in this thread, so please don't think I'm trolling here.

Re your question on sitting to the right of deep competent regs, we want to limit the size of our stack (not our equity) because the deeper we are vs these players, the more EV we are losing. Sure we won't get paid as much on average with our monsters, but that's only a tiny part of playing poker. You've ignored how we are going to lose far less money in most if not all "tough" spots when we are short vs unnecessarily deep vs them. If you can't see how limiting your stack size when playing an opponent who we know we are losing money to long-term has a greater EV than putting every cent you can on the table then this conversation is kind of pointless. Either take our word for it or don't. Or if you understand what's being said but like challenging yourself and don't mind giving up EV to do so then that's fine too. Problem is you seem to be trying to refute what is known as fact, namely the EV of stack size choices

[Pascal]

Hard or easy is a mindset.

Why would you want to limit your own equity against the regs should you have a monster? Yes, the pots with them will make you think more. I think it's called playing poker.

Just pulled these bits out and two short replies.

1. An edge isn't a "mindset" - it's a (theoretically) quantifiable win rate based on how good/bad you are. Thinking "I'm good at deepstack poker" doesn't make you good. Edge is increased by learning, theory and experience. At first, you'll lack experience at the very least, and probably the understanding of the theory.

2. It'll also let them exploit you if they are better than you. "Thinking more" won't help as they'll have more experience and a better understanding of the theory.