Gap Concept and winning SNGs

[texasrattlers]

As a relative newbie, the meaning of the term "gap concept" still escapes me. Could someone concisely define gap concept, and explain how this concept is applied in practice as part of a winning SNG strategy?

[eastbay]

Concisely? Raise more hands than you call with.

eastbay

[morgan180]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise more hands than you call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is perfect!

Once you get to level 4 and up this becomes essential as the first one to raise a pot has an excellent chance of taking down the blinds uncontested.

There are a ton of posts on blind stealing at these levels, just search for blind stealing and you'll see plenty of examples (good and bad) of this concept in play.

Here is a really good conversation on the topic link (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=1153326 &fpart=&PHPSESSID=)

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
As a relative newbie, the meaning of the term "gap concept" still escapes me. Could someone concisely define gap concept, and explain how this concept is applied in practice as part of a winning SNG strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eastbay's definition was perfect...but if I were just starting out I think I'd want added "you need a better hand to call a raise than you need to raise 1st with"...which essentially is exactly the same thing, just less concise.

Also, as an SNG goes on and blinds increase, the "gap" widens...you may raise with less (more often) and need more to call a raise with. Hope this helps.

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, as an SNG goes on and blinds increase, the "gap" widens...you may raise with less (more often) and need more to call a raise with. Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I disagree with the second part of this statement unless it's just a vocabulary thing since I don't believe that your calling standards tighten as an SNG goes along (eg. mostly calling with only AA and KK in the early levels to AQ/JJ later, etc.). I think what you mean is that as an SNG goes along, your raising standard loosens at a faster rate than your calling standard, hence the "Gap" increases over time.

Fermat

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as an SNG goes on and blinds increase, the "gap" widens...you may raise with less (more often) and need more to call a raise with. Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I disagree with the second part of this statement unless it's just a vocabulary thing since I don't believe that your calling standards tighten as an SNG goes along (eg. mostly calling with only AA and KK in the early levels to AQ/JJ later, etc.). I think what you mean is that as an SNG goes along, your raising standard loosens at a faster rate than your calling standard, hence the "Gap" increases over time.

Fermat

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my calling standards DO tighten up. I'm less likely to call with AJ or KQ on the bubble.

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as an SNG goes on and blinds increase, the "gap" widens...you may raise with less (more often) and need more to call a raise with. Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I disagree with the second part of this statement unless it's just a vocabulary thing since I don't believe that your calling standards tighten as an SNG goes along (eg. mostly calling with only AA and KK in the early levels to AQ/JJ later, etc.). I think what you mean is that as an SNG goes along, your raising standard loosens at a faster rate than your calling standard, hence the "Gap" increases over time.

Fermat

[/ QUOTE ]

I think my calling standards DO tighten up. I'm less likely to call with AJ or KQ on the bubble.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll agree that the bubble is the exception /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[texasrattlers]

But if your opponents' raising standards lower, why should you calling standards raise or lower only slightly? Maybe on the bubble you can make an argument for this, but w/ 5 or 6 players left it seems you can win a lot of chips catching people trying to steal. Or is the idea that a losing player does not use this strategy and hence does not lower his raising standards w/ 4-6 players left?

[morgan180]

For me, I'd rather fold then try to pick off a steal attempt with a mediocre holding. I can easily steal myself soon after that.

If I have a big stack and I see a little stack stealing on nearly every hand then I'll defend my BB with a less than premium holding.

[Guy F]

[ QUOTE ]
... but w/ 5 or 6 players left it seems you can win a lot of chips catching people trying to steal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So how do you plan on catching him? Your read better be spot on or you'll wind up short stacked or broke. You can't count on the other guy meekly giving up the pot. It may turn very quickly into a pissing contest if he's real aggressive. The trouble with steep blinds is that you can't afford to be wrong very often. You don't have to win all the pots, but you have to win a large majority of the pots you're in.

[Desdia72]

i think TGC, when it comes to SNGs, is really overrated. as i stated in another thread, IMHO, it has more value against good players who CAN play than against players who THINK they can play. weaker players could care less about TGC and probably never heard of it, so in essence, it's not a viable strategy against them. i was playing in a SNG tonight where a guy raised 4XBB (10/20 level) and got about 4 callers. one player ending up winning a huge pot with a weak, marginal hand over a more powerful one. i asked him why did he cold call a raise and call healthily into a flop with such a hand? he said, "no particular reason, i just wanted to see what would happen". had he subscribed to TGC, what do you think he would be looking to accomplish by calling out of position with A 2o in a multi-way pot?

[SuitedSixes]

The Gap Concept is something that I have really began to understand in the last week, and the improvement has been drastic. The best way to describe it is this. You are in the later rounds (5 players remaining) blinds are 50 and 100, you have the 2nd largest stack and are on the button and you hold K /images/graemlins/club.gifT /images/graemlins/club.gif, you are ready to raise the blinds 250, but the cutoff raises it to 200 in front of you. You fold. That is the gap concept.

A hand that looks good to you and you value at 250 with no limpers is suddenly not as valuable and not worth even 200 if there is a raise in front of you.

[Bremen]

Why am I even bothering to answer?

[ QUOTE ]
weaker players could care less about TGC and probably never heard of it, so in essence, it's not a viable strategy against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You admit weaker players do not follow TGC. Ok, so you want us to all play like weaker players and ignore TGC!?? Um... you do realize there's a reason some of us are long term winners and those weaker players are not, right?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, as an SNG goes on and blinds increase, the "gap" widens...you may raise with less (more often) and need more to call a raise with. Hope this helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I disagree with the second part of this statement unless it's just a vocabulary thing since I don't believe that your calling standards tighten as an SNG goes along (eg. mostly calling with only AA and KK in the early levels to AQ/JJ later, etc.). I think what you mean is that as an SNG goes along, your raising standard loosens at a faster rate than your calling standard, hence the "Gap" increases over time.

Fermat

[/ QUOTE ]

The bubble is an exception. But also it is worth noting that stacks are not as deep later on. So, calling a raise (say 3-4bb) at level 4 or 5 will normally be a good chunk of stack, and may be you last hand if you hold a marginal hand. whereas calling a raise early at 10-20 is much SMALLER % of your stack and therefore has more calling equity in what percentage you are capable of winning. (ratio of amount of the call vs. opponents stack size).

just how I see it...

[jedi]

[ QUOTE ]
But if your opponents' raising standards lower, why should you calling standards raise or lower only slightly? Maybe on the bubble you can make an argument for this, but w/ 5 or 6 players left it seems you can win a lot of chips catching people trying to steal. Or is the idea that a losing player does not use this strategy and hence does not lower his raising standards w/ 4-6 players left?

[/ QUOTE ]

But what are you catching someone with? Even if you have AJ vs. someone's 78s, you're only a 58/42 favorite to win the hand. You CAN win a lot of chips if you catch someone trying to steal, but you can lose your chips too often as well. Remember, chips change value in a tournament. And that's not even counting the times that someone raises with a legit raising hand. If you decide to call with AJ, what happens when the raiser has AQ? You're screwed.

If you really think he's stealing, re-raise him and let him be the one that's folding. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

[tigerite]

Jedi is right, the only time I'd flat call is to play for a set or something like that, if I had the odds to do so.

[citanul]

or, instead of making random statements about all sngs based on your experience at the $5 sngs, you could try to take into account that at say, the $200 level, the bulk of people are aware of the gap concept, even if they do not know it by name.

citanul

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I even bothering to answer?

[ QUOTE ]
weaker players could care less about TGC and probably never heard of it, so in essence, it's not a viable strategy against them

[/ QUOTE ]

You admit weaker players do not follow TGC. Ok, so you want us to all play like weaker players and ignore TGC!?? Um... you do realize there's a reason some of us are long term winners and those weaker players are not, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not a question of whether some of us are long term winners or whether we should ignore TGC and play like weaker players. the point is, weakers players are less inclined to either know or care about TGC. trying to employ this method against those types of players is a waste of time.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
or, instead of making random statements about all sngs based on your experience at the $5 sngs, you could try to take into account that at say, the $200 level, the bulk of people are aware of the gap concept, even if they do not know it by name.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

the statement is'nt random nor does it matter that the majority of my experience is in $5 SNGs. a weaker player is less likely to know that TGC exist. with that being said, a weaker player is less likely to know what TGC means, therefore IMHO, they are less likely to notice or care whether it's being employed.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

this is not a question of whether some of us are long term winners or whether we should ignore TGC and play like weaker players. the point is, weakers players are less inclined to either know or care about TGC. trying to employ this method against those types of players is a waste of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, as usual.

eastbay

[texasrattlers]

[ QUOTE ]
a weaker player is less likely to know what TGC means, therefore IMHO, they are less likely to notice or care whether it's being employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does it matter if a weaker player knows what it is or whether it's being employed? As long as it's effective this statement has no relevance to the discussion.

[lastchance]

Against very loose players, the gap narrows due to you not being able to steal as much, and you expecting to win more money than you call.

The gap concept is a game of chicken. You don't want callers.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Against very loose players, the gap narrows due to you not being able to steal as much, and you expecting to win more money than you call.

The gap concept is a game of chicken. You don't want callers.

[/ QUOTE ]

None of which contradicts my reply to Desdia.

But the gap concept is not a game. It's a concept, and it applies no matter what kind of opponent you face, whether or not they happen to understand it as well.

eastbay

[lastchance]

The game of chicken reflects the situation that happens in no-limit hold'em SNGs on the bubble. Neither of you want to call or get called, but both of you want to take the blinds. If you ever study the game of chicken, this is the very basic thing that happens in lategame SNGs, which changes based on the quality of each hand, of course.

However, you are right, the gap concept should still be taken into account, though it's effect is much less when people don't fold, and they start pushing with tons of hands.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither of you want to call or get called, but both of you want to take the blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. And?

eastbay

[ThorGoT]

Is there any theoretical literature on the game of "chicken"? Or is it all merely couched in terms of poker? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Gar Pike]

I think your opponents' understanding of their hand strength will have a large effect on their willingness to call a bet. Somebody who doesn't "get it" that A2o isn't a very good holding will be a lot more likely to call a raise than someone who does.

Their willingness to gamble will affect the holdings they are willing to call a raise with, as well. Your 'grinder' types, who are out to make 1.5BB/hr, will be a lot less willing to gamble than your 'action junkie' types.

Good reasons why you want to understand your opponents, and not just dismiss them as weak', or 'donkeys'

As long as you understand that there is a phenomenon that can be described loosely as "The Gap Concept", and that people have a different "Coefficient of Gap", you can adjust your play to take advantage of it.

Regards,

Gar

[e_fermat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or, instead of making random statements about all sngs based on your experience at the $5 sngs, you could try to take into account that at say, the $200 level, the bulk of people are aware of the gap concept, even if they do not know it by name.

citanul

[/ QUOTE ]

the statement is'nt random nor does it matter that the majority of my experience is in $5 SNGs. a weaker player is less likely to know that TGC exist. with that being said, a weaker player is less likely to know what TGC means, therefore IMHO, they are less likely to notice or care whether it's being employed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether they are aware of it or not doesn't affect it's application or effectiveness. An analogy would be a gambit play in chess where a player intentionally sets himself up to lose a piece because it gives them positional advantage on their opponent. A weak opponent may not even know or recognize what gambit is being played against them but the move will work just the same or better than against a stronger opponent.

[binions]

There is a "gap" in the range of hands you can open raise with compared to the hands you can call a raise with.

For example, you might open raise with KT suited in late position, but you can't cold call an early raiser with it.

What's interesting is the closer you get to the money in a tourney, the wider the gap grows.

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
explain how this concept is applied in practice as part of a winning SNG strategy?

[/ QUOTE ]

My general “SNG-Modified Gap Rules” which has proven to be a solid winning strategy for me:

1. Full table through 7 players -- normal “Gap” concept applies. You’re trying to ride through the initial wave of silly all-in bets. Hopefully, you can gain some chips on a key hand or two.

2. At 6 players -- my "gap" widens drastically. If I am an average to large stack, my gap rule:
--open raise with much weaker hands than normal and
--call a raise with only the strongest hands.
This results in a much wider “gap” between my open-raise hands and my call-a-raise hands.

Why? From my experience, the first raiser generally has a significant advantage from six players down to bubble play because, given an average SNG table, the first raiser typically is given respect from most SNG players for having the best hand.

My call-a-raise hand quality tightens because I don't yet need to press with what could be a significantly inferior hand. If play lingers for a significant amount of time and 5-6 players are still left while blinds get very high, my call-a-raise standards will drop to keep up with the effect of rising blinds.

There are always exceptions, but I’ve found this to be the general rule that works well most of the time. If you get a call to your open-raise, proceed cautiously post-flop.

Warning for this play: if there is at least one calling station that acts after you (the guy that is just calling every 3xBB bet), tighten up your open-raising hands (thus closing your “gap”) and wait until he gets eliminated (which usually happens before its down to 3 players). If I’m the one to bust him with a solid hand, great. If someone else busts this guy, fine -- that wild card is out.

3. Bubble play and 3 players -- AGGRESSION. Constant raises in position. Even fewer flops are seen. Gap concept is virtually gone at this point of the game. I will play position over cards and keep raising and stealing until someone pops me back. On the button -- raise. Button folds and I’m the SB -- raise. Button folds and SB limps -- raise in the BB. Fewer flops are seen at these levels, and I want to be the one collecting the chips. Ultra-aggressive play at this point can generate a big stack in just a few orbits. Again, exceptions apply, and if someone else is using this strategy, position (rather than your hole cards) becomes even more critical.

4. Heads-up play -- gap concept is thrown out of whack and generally does not apply. Other rules govern. See other threads for lengthy discussions.

[AlwaysWrong]

Your overall point is obviously correct, but consider a player who will call 100% of the time if there is a raise ahead of them and will raise all-in 100% of the time when it is not. Does the gap concept apply against this player?

Now your raises have no chance of winning without being the best hand at showdown, same as your calls.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
The game of chicken reflects the situation that happens in no-limit hold'em SNGs on the bubble. Neither of you want to call or get called, but both of you want to take the blinds. If you ever study the game of chicken, this is the very basic thing that happens in lategame SNGs, which changes based on the quality of each hand, of course.

However, you are right, the gap concept should still be taken into account, though it's effect is much less when people don't fold, and they start pushing with tons of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you. once again, this has nothing to do with the level you play. it has to do with THE KIND OF OPPONENT you're playing at that level and how you ADJUST to that player(s) playing style. to simply ignore that fact in favor of employing TGC, simply just because (regardless of the opponent or level), is bad poker. you can't just sit hear and follow David Sklansky's TGC to the letter of the law because he or the LAW says so. in theory, TGC makes alot of sense but in reality, "COMMONSENSE" (and experience) should tell you it does'nt.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your opponents' understanding of their hand strength will have a large effect on their willingness to call a bet. Somebody who doesn't "get it" that A2o isn't a very good holding will be a lot more likely to call a raise than someone who does.

Their willingness to gamble will affect the holdings they are willing to call a raise with, as well. Your 'grinder' types, who are out to make 1.5BB/hr, will be a lot less willing to gamble than your 'action junkie' types.

Good reasons why you want to understand your opponents, and not just dismiss them as weak', or 'donkeys'

As long as you understand that there is a phenomenon that can be described loosely as "The Gap Concept", and that people have a different "Coefficient of Gap", you can adjust your play to take advantage of it.

Regards,

Gar

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you again. to simply ignore THE KIND of opponent you're playing in favor of employing a concept that said opponent does'nt know anything about or care about is bad poker. that's like saying, "i'm a superior player and the methods i use to win, whether more advanced and unknown to the general poker playing public or not, i'm gonna employ them without fail and still triumph". i only need to look toward players like Daniel Negreanu and Sammy Farha in this year's WSOP ME to see how similar thinking backfired royally.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think your opponents' understanding of their hand strength will have a large effect on their willingness to call a bet. Somebody who doesn't "get it" that A2o isn't a very good holding will be a lot more likely to call a raise than someone who does.

Their willingness to gamble will affect the holdings they are willing to call a raise with, as well. Your 'grinder' types, who are out to make 1.5BB/hr, will be a lot less willing to gamble than your 'action junkie' types.

Good reasons why you want to understand your opponents, and not just dismiss them as weak', or 'donkeys'

As long as you understand that there is a phenomenon that can be described loosely as "The Gap Concept", and that people have a different "Coefficient of Gap", you can adjust your play to take advantage of it.

Regards,

Gar

[/ QUOTE ]

thank you again. to simply ignore THE KIND of opponent you're playing in favor of employing a concept that said opponent does'nt know anything about or care about is bad poker. that's like saying, "i'm a superior player and the methods i use to win, whether more advanced and unknown to the general poker playing public or not, i'm gonna employ them without fail and still triumph". i only need to look toward players like Daniel Negreanu and Sammy Farha in this year's WSOP ME to see how similar thinking backfired royally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give specific examples of what they did to hurt them?

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]

thank you. once again, this has nothing to do with the level you play. it has to do with THE KIND OF OPPONENT you're playing at that level and how you ADJUST to that player(s) playing style. to simply ignore that fact in favor of employing TGC, simply just because (regardless of the opponent or level), is bad poker. you can't just sit hear and follow David Sklansky's TGC to the letter of the law because he or the LAW says so. in theory, TGC makes alot of sense but in reality, "COMMONSENSE" (and experience) should tell you it does'nt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming all you're talking about is that you shouldn't be too tight against the typical low level player. That's fine, but adjusting to a loosie who calls big raises with trash doesn't mean you ignore TGC. It means you don't raise all in with K6o and/or do call a reraise with TT - but you are still using it, since you're not (for example) calling all in with any ace.

If you're saying that none of TGC applies at all and are calling all ins with any ace, well, now we know why you're a losing player at the lowest possible stakes.

[eastbay]

This is a pretty boring semantics game.

Yes, it does. It just happens to be a limiting case with a degenerate result.

eastbay

[texasrattlers]

Very nice summary and strategy guide. Made a lot of sense to me. Question on Strategy #3 -- Aggression/Bubble Play: When you say raise, do you mean standard 3xBB or push? (or does raise by convention mean not a push?)

[morgan180]

for me it means: 3 x BB raise for typical games, more if its aggressive, push if 3 x BB is >= 40% of your stack.

[Desdia72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

thank you. once again, this has nothing to do with the level you play. it has to do with THE KIND OF OPPONENT you're playing at that level and how you ADJUST to that player(s) playing style. to simply ignore that fact in favor of employing TGC, simply just because (regardless of the opponent or level), is bad poker. you can't just sit hear and follow David Sklansky's TGC to the letter of the law because he or the LAW says so. in theory, TGC makes alot of sense but in reality, "COMMONSENSE" (and experience) should tell you it does'nt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming all you're talking about is that you shouldn't be too tight against the typical low level player. That's fine, but adjusting to a loosie who calls big raises with trash doesn't mean you ignore TGC. It means you don't raise all in with K6o and/or do call a reraise with TT - but you are still using it, since you're not (for example) calling all in with any ace.

If you're saying that none of TGC applies at all and are calling all ins with any ace, well, now we know why you're a losing player at the lowest possible stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

adanthar, you can't be so lame as to think the losing spell i went through is because of not calling all-ins with any Ace, do you? most of the losing i have endured lately has to do with losing on the river all-in with the favored hand, not because i chose to call an all-in with a weak A-x hand and lost.

*then again, with the way some of you forumers shoot your mouths off as if what you say is written in stone (even when it's completely off base), there 's no such thing as, "your opponent played the hand badly and still won, no, it's 'you played the hand right, still lost, and that explains why you're a loser at the lowest limits. oh, and not acknowledging that YOU'RE a bad player (a leak) is one of the main reason you're never become a good player ([quote- Phill S])'".*

[SpeakEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
Question on Strategy #3 -- Aggression/Bubble Play: When you say raise, do you mean standard 3xBB or push? (or does raise by convention mean not a push?)

[/ QUOTE ]

My typical raising standards in a SNG:

1. If my stack is equal to or less than 10xBB, its always a push or fold.

2. If my stack is anything more than 10xBB, my open raise will typically be 3xBB at the early and mid levels.

3. When the blinds get high, like when the BB is 150 or 200+, it is often enough to raise just 2xBB or 2.5xBB. A raise at this point depends on your position and the size of the stack(s) you are raising into. If the stack you are raising into is average, the 2xBB typically represents a significant commitment, and will have the same impact as a 3xBB raise. If you are raising into the big stack, your raise often needs to be 3xBB to get the same respect. Measure your raises accordingly, but try to stay generally consistent without regard to your card strength (lest you give one of the few possible on-line tells).

Another extremely minor, but interesting, point. My raises are almost never a round amount. For example, if the BB is 50, my raise will be 155. This will, from time to time, be a minor irritant to a player while they ponder the extra 5 (poker players can be very anal and used to convention). Its like wearing sunglasses at a live table -- any extra edge...

[Burno]

[ QUOTE ]
adanthar, you can't be so lame as to think the losing spell i went through is because of not calling all-ins with any Ace, do you? most of the losing i have endured lately has to do with losing on the river all-in with the favored hand, not because i chose to call an all-in with a weak A-x hand and lost.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Des,

I'm not being sarcastic here, but you do realize that it's often correct late in a SNG to call with what you know is the worst hand because of the price the pot is laying you, right?

I just get this feeling from your posts that you are one of these bubble folders who gets half his chips blinded off on the bubble and finally pushes their AJ only to get outdrawn by a K5s who correctly called the shortstack. And then whines about it.

[poboy]

[ QUOTE ]

thank you again. to simply ignore THE KIND of opponent you're playing in favor of employing a concept that said opponent does'nt know anything about or care about is bad poker. that's like saying, "i'm a superior player and the methods i use to win, whether more advanced and unknown to the general poker playing public or not, i'm gonna employ them without fail and still triumph". i only need to look toward players like Daniel Negreanu and Sammy Farha in this year's WSOP ME to see how similar thinking backfired royally.

[/ QUOTE ]

You just truly don't get it do you? Everything you have said makes no sense at all. TGC is best applied against people who don't understand it or even know what it is. If someone knew what you were doing(better players) it wouldn't work as well for obvious reasons. Doesn't the fact that everyone always disagrees with what you say tell you something? Blaming your losses on river suck-outs is pretty weak, everyone here gets sucked out on and still manages to win except you. I wonder why?

[sofere]

[ QUOTE ]
3. Bubble play and 3 players -- AGGRESSION. Constant raises in position. Even fewer flops are seen. Gap concept is virtually gone at this point of the game. I will play position over cards and keep raising and stealing until someone pops me back. On the button -- raise. Button folds and I’m the SB -- raise. Button folds and SB limps -- raise in the BB. Fewer flops are seen at these levels, and I want to be the one collecting the chips. Ultra-aggressive play at this point can generate a big stack in just a few orbits. Again, exceptions apply, and if someone else is using this strategy, position (rather than your hole cards) becomes even more critical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to be pretty piss poor at bubble play...a lot of my finishes are in 4th-5th place. So this thread is very interesting to me and i have a bunch of questions.

So does this mean that you will raise any two if no raisers behind you? What about when you're in SB and the Button Calls (As happens a lot in the lower limits)? What do you do when they start reraising you? Calling you? How often do they have to call/reraise you (percentage wise) in order for you to start adjusting your play to a narrower gap?

Thanks a bunch