Quick question re: sshe guidelines on preflop play and raises

[comstock]

In their preflop guidelines, when they say "against a raise" what if you already called half before the raise.

ie: You have JTs from early position, someone infront of you raises, they say you shouldn't play this against a raise, so fold, no problem.

Now say you have JTs from early position, but this time you call and someone AFTER you raises, now your half in with a decent hand, still fold?

[CPA]

I don't have a copy in front of me, but in miscellaneous points at the end of the chapter, I think there is a paragraph that says something like ... with a hand that was good enough to make your initial call, it is almost always correct to call a 1 bet raise.

[brettbrettr]

editied, wrong post, wrong topic

[easypete]

If it was correct to limp with it before... it's more correct to call a raise (1 more bet).

Think about it this way... if there are 5 players to the flop... without a raise, you are getting 5:1. If you limp and it's raised behind... you are getting 9:1 on the second call. It's true that you're actually getting just 5:1 total, preflop... but your first bet is not yours anymore... so you are putting in 1 bet to win 9 pf.

There are very few situations where folding after limping is correct. I would release weaker holdings like QJo or KJo if I limped in (from LP) and it came back 3-bet or capped. Or some hands that are good multi-way, but don't play heads-up if you will be heads-up if you call a strong player's raise.

[Chairman Wood]

Easypete already gave the answer I was intending to give but I would like to add one thing: Just about the only time where you limped in and it it was raised behind you where it may not be correct to call (providing you limped with a suitable hand for that position in the first place) is when you complete from the Small Blind and the BB raises. Often times you will be completing with poorer hands such as any two suited ( in the SB=1/2 Big Blind structure) and sometimes then it may not be correct to call one more bet after you completed.

[ErrantNight]

you should maybe try to read the entire preflop section, as this is pretty clearly explained in detail in that book /images/graemlins/smile.gif

if you're in for a bet, it's almost never correct to fold for one more.

if you're in for one bet and it comes back two (or more) bets back to you, then you re-evaluate the situation as if "against a raise"

[amulet]

When i read posts like this, it makes it clear that SSH is considered my many readers a starter book, and it is not. I wrote the below in response to a different question, and while it is not exactly the correct response for this question, it certainly fits the issues brought up in this question.

I loved SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM. I thought it was a brilliant. In some ways it reminded me of a combination of THE THEORY OF POKER and HOLD ‘EM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS. However, as I talk with fellow poker players and read posts on internet sites, I find myself wondering if SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM has hurt many players quality of play? This may seem strange to that I can praise a book as being brilliant, yet suggest that it can hurt some of it’s readers quality of play. Before fellow 2+2ers jump all over me, please read the rest of my thoughts.

To paraphrase David Sklansky badly, most people who come to poker are not innately genesis at poker. There are a few who have innate ability, but they don’t generally read books, and poker books are written for those of us who learn through a process of reading, playing, thinking about the game, more reading, playing, etc. Additionally, it is human nature to want to play more hands. And most beginning players, most losing players, and therefore, most players play too many hands. Those that survive at Hold ‘em learn to have discipline, develop a better understanding of the hand values and position, and learn to play less hand. SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was written for small stakes games (or really lose games). Games where a player can have a positive expectation on hands you would ONLY play in a loose game. However, it is really not that simple. Playing those extra hands, often involves pushing small edges, being skilled enough to understand how to get away from a hand post flop, understand that many of said hands can only be played in late position (once you know how many opponents and how much it will cost you vs what is in the pot, plus many other considerations. These abilities take a good understanding of the game. Which brings me to my point. SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was not written for beginning players, in fact I think a reader needs a fairly good understanding of poker to apply what is written in the book. And I think many new and inexperienced players are reading it, however, they are not yet on a level to really understand a lot of the book. Therefore, their play has suffered because instead of trying to play less hands, understand positions, etc., they now have read it is often correct to play hands most players on their level were mucking before SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM told them it was alright to play more hands. I believe from my observations and conversations that that is their understanding of what it said. Of course what it really said was much more complicated but the newer player, or the player without a good understand of poker, cannot really understand this. Also having read the book they now do not understand they do not have the level of understanding need to apply what they learned. While SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM was not written for the beginner it has such terrific information that eventually the readers will understand the game better, and improve their play, but for a while I think their play will be hurt because they do not have the understanding of general poker theory and experience to get out of SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM what they think they do. In the meantime, I suggest they need to be well rounded by reading others books such as THEORY OF POKER, HOLD ‘EM FOR ADVANCED PLAYERS, MIDDLE LIMIT HOLD ‘EM, INSIDE THE POKER MIND, and maybe even WINNING LOW LIMIT HOLD ‘EM, etc., and develop a good general understanding of the game. Also Ed Miller is working on a book that will be the prequel that many of these plays should have read first.

One last point. I love the aggressive style of play that SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM has advocated, and clearly said is correct in most situations. However, I also see players taking that super aggressive style way too far, and applying it where I believe it does not belong. This super aggressive style is becoming pervasive in some players, and it is not correct for all situations. This is a subject that I could write as much as I wrote above, however, I will leave that for another time.

Overall, I love SMALL STAKES HOLD ‘EM, but I think a player needs a good understanding of Hold ‘em before they are ready to apply much of what is written. Instead it has become a bible for players who still have their training wheels.

[Sarge85]

Book suggestion: Theory of Poker

Good stuff and will help you understand many of the "Whys" of poker.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[amulet]

the fact that your are asking this question means you need to read books written for newer players. however, the question is a good question, and all new players ask it. for one bet you call. you are getting good odds, and if you limp, and it is raised ONE bet back to you call that bet. be careful limping in aggressive games in early position, or you will find yourself playing weaker hands for 2 bets while out of position.

[Ed Miller]

the fact that your are asking this question means you need to read books written for newer players.

While that may be true... and SSH is definitely not intended for beginners... this particular question is addressed specifically on p. 86. (It even uses JTs as the example hand.)

[comstock]

actually I did read the book cover to cover, but it's been a couple weeks and I don't have it with me today.

I now vaguely remember it late in the book saying something like "..you may have wished you hadn't called in the first place but now you have to call the raise"

I probably read more in a day than you read in a week, why jump to conclusions....

[comstock]

thank you, think it's in my car, great book btw.

thanks to those with the informative posts who don't have to be condescending

[amulet]

i know it is not intended for beginners, however, many biginners are using it as if it was.

[amulet]

sorry if you found my reply condescending, it was not my intention.

[edtost]

any reasonably intelligent beginner would be giving up ev by starting their reading with anything else, as long as they know to study the book rather than just breeze through it.

[amulet]

i disagree. it is not a beginner's book. they need to start with other books. ssh is brillant, but it is not for beginners. the concepts are advanced, no beginner will understand what they are reading until they have played for a while and read other books. this is exactly the type of thinking that sets back beginners.

[Elbie]

Interesting thread.

In my post yesterday "a rather common situation" the issue wasn´t how to react on a raise with JTs. I was heavily criticised for limping with such a hand in EP.