Sklansky on limping with mediocre hands knowing you can outplay opp.

[Buckmulligan]

In Advanced holdem players, sklansky points out that in a loose game, you can limp with hands as bad as K5s because you know you can outplay your opponents post-flop (i.e. fold top pair under the right conditions if need be)
My question is this: It seems like seeing too many flops always leads to eventual disaste, regardless of how disciplined/good at handreading you are post flop. How much can you really expect to win in the long run by limping with trash? It seems like the costly but occasional mistakes that anyone would are bound are bound to negate the value of the hand. If you play a hand like K5s too aggressively, you are bound to find yourself outkicked from time to time, but also, if you play it to carefully, you are bound to throw it away when your hand is actually best. Therefore, it doesn't seem like you can play hands like this without continually making mistakes; it seems to me the only money you can really expect to make would be on flush draws, because making the wrong decision with top pair would even out to about 0 EV

[Kaz The Original]

His point is you can only play it if you can toss it when you have top pair and are behind and play it when you're ahead. Seems impossible, but it's not.

[andyfox]

If I remember the passage correctly, they talk about playing additional suited hands in a loose, passive game, when you have position. Whereas your weak playing opponents will lose too much with this type of hand because they won't know what to do with it post-flop, a better player can play the hand because he will know when to push it and when to drop it, even if he flops top pair. There's no talk of playing it "too aggressively." You play it aggressively when the situation calls for it, and passively, to the point of folding, even with top pair, in other situations.

[GreywolfNYC]

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember the passage correctly, they talk about playing additional suited hands in a loose, passive game, when you have position. Whereas your weak playing opponents will lose too much with this type of hand because they won't know what to do with it post-flop, a better player can play the hand because he will know when to push it and when to drop it, even if he flops top pair. There's no talk of playing it "too aggressively." You play it aggressively when the situation calls for it, and passively, to the point of folding, even with top pair, in other situations.

[/ QUOTE ]\

I think the operative words here are "when you have position", and in HEPFAP that generally means on the button or the cutoff. The OP didn't mention this factor.

[AndyS]

Remember that playing too many hands is usually a costly mistake first off. Secondly as everyone else has already replied position with a hand like this is key. You can't expect to play this hand from early to middle position because than you are making that mistake of playing too many hands even if you are the best at the table.

This hand would play well mostly from late position without a raise to your right. If it is raised this is a hand to throw away if you are aiming for tight/aggressive.

As for similar hands I believe Sklansky meant you need to still take into account not only that you can outplay people after the flop but that you need to be relatively sure of the type of game as well. To limp with these hands you need to be pretty sure you won't be raised by someone to your left preflop and that it isn't so aggressive that you'll be bet out too often after the flop if you flop top pair or the flush draw. Those are the two ways these hands have value; making top pair or a good come hand. With only top pair though if the game is too aggressive you can't play that weak kicker with positive ev after the flop. And if the game is too aggressive you also won't get the correct odds for the come hand.

In reality it does boil down to position as you won't be able to glean enough info from early position to make this hand profitable most of the time.

-andy

[mosquito]

From experience, I can tell you I was mighty POed when
I flopped two pair with my K4s on the button, and lost
on the river to someone who stuck around with middle
pair, spiking trips on the river. Yuk.

But it has been profitable overall. I don't like doing
it with fewer than 3-4 limpers, and almost entirely on
the button (a few times in CO).

[Niediam]

Pissed off? You should be as happy as a bee who found a rose garden!

[#1donk]

if im correct, he says to only play k5s type hands if you are in position and at a loose table. i like to play kxs and axs suited in position even at semi tight tables. i would rather limp with an a suited ace or king than any pair below sevens in a multi way pot because of good ev.

[mmcd]

From my poker tracker:

K5s: VP$IP-15.79% BB/hand-0.16
K5o VP$IP-8.11% BB/hand-0.03

Obviously I haven't been dealt (and played) these two hands enough times to unequivically state that they are +ev, but these stats do at least lend some support to the supposition that trashy can be profitable in the hands of the right player in the right situation.

[Cooker]

I think another key reason to add a few more hands at loose passive tables is to give the illusion of action. Granted, these players don't notice much, but they will think crazy stuff like,"You don't really know what you have until the flop, why is that guy folding so much?" I have actually been asked this at online tables.

If they don't notice you playing tight, they are more likely to pay off your big hands, so it might be increase EV on your big hands to add in some very near 0 EV hands to your game so they don't notice your tight play. Also, when you win with one of these hands, it will confirm to poor players, that they should be playing them. This benefits you, because they will play them when they shouldn't and they won't be able to get away from TPWK.

[cnfuzzd]

i dont mean this in an insulting manner at all.

Usually, when you have to ask this question, you arent ready to make these plays....

peace

john nickle

[tubbyspencer]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont mean this in an insulting manner at all.

Usually, when you have to ask this question, you arent ready to make these plays....

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you see why?

[i collect chips]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont mean this in an insulting manner at all.

Usually, when you have to ask this question, you arent ready to make these plays....

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like that is the reason to ask.

[Cerril]

We may be poker players but we can still get annoyed at bad luck... when our Sklansky bucks can't be cashed out into real money it's never -enjoyable-

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont mean this in an insulting manner at all.

Usually, when you have to ask this question, you arent ready to make these plays....

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like that is the reason to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you are playing against marginal to bad players, you can exploit the post-flop advantage that your skill gives you by opening up your playing standards a small amount. The main reason for this is that you have good implied odds due to the tendancy of your opponents to go to far with their hands, even to the point of putting in multiple bets on each street despite clear indications that they are beat, while at the same time you are able to minimize the bets you lose when your hand is not good. In essence, you win the max, and lose the minimum. However, to succesfully play these marginal hands, you need a honed set of skills, that are often gained only through playing tens of thousands hands, thinking about your game, and discussion with other players about the ideas you have on poker. Simply telling someone "its ok to play hands like K5s because your opposition is so bad" is, imo, dangerous.

peace

john nickle

[ebull]

The B&M I play occasionally has lots of players who say "There are no bad hands, just bad flops." I always agree with them and hope they never get a clue!

[bobbyi]

The S&M advice here is accurate, but also very dangerous because many people use it to rationalize playing hands they shouldn't playing. This is partly due to ego. Everyone likes to think that he is so much better than his opponents that he can make money by playing trash hands and then "outplaying him after the flop", but it is usually not true. It is also because most people want to see flops and thus will embrace an easy excuse for playing a hand that they know they shouldn't. If you unsure in these spots, you are much better off folding. You should only being playing trash hands with the intent of making it up postflop when it is clear that you are way, way better than your opponent. These opponents also often play badly enough preflop that you aren't even that far behind with hands you (correctly) regard as trash. I tend to avoid these spots simply because I feel that I would rather conserve my mental energy for better situations. Even if it's slightly +ev, playing more hands is tiring and reduces the amount of time I can pay for without feeling that I'm getting too mentally tired and need to leave.

[AceHighone]

Part of outplaying your opponents assumes you are in a game where they will laydown medium hands. This does not happen much at low limits.

You also need to actually be able to outplay them, and that does not necessarily mean playing a K5 into a king high flop aggressively. Most of the money I personally make from limping with mediocre hands comes from the random excellent flop that hits my hand in a way that the other players refuse to believe I have what I am representing (and actually have) /images/graemlins/grin.gif. You will find that you will be mucking many of these weak hands. If you don't find this to be true, you are either getting them to lay down their hands, or you are probably losing money on them.

[Novalia]

Amen. You said it all Ace.

[Reef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont mean this in an insulting manner at all.

Usually, when you have to ask this question, you arent ready to make these plays....

peace

john nickle

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like that is the reason to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you need to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it