On raising from the BB with medium pocket pairs.

[Grisgra]

This has turned into quite an interesting discussion (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1974594), but really off-topic for the thread, so I thought I'd move the discussion to a thread of its own.

My weak-tight position on raising 99/TT from the BB (though those on extreme ends of the spectrum could make the same argument about 88/JJ) is that:

1) Playing 2nd pair out of position sucks.
2) A hand like 99 or TT against many loose limpers is probably destined for 2nd pair, and with only two outs to improvement on the turn/river.
3) So while raising 99/TT from the BB against lots of limpers seems profitable from an equity standpoint, because it is tough to play when you "miss", i.e., the majority of the time, and because overcards are more likely to see a turn and even river when you raise pf, due to pot size, AND because you get a little extra value from deception when you just check (you can have any two cards) . . . checking 99/TT in the BB after three or more limpers is okay. (I also think it's easier to set up a flop checkraise to protect your hand when you don't raise preflop, but I may be wrong.)

The other side of the argument is, of course, 99/TT is a premium hand, raise for equity, period.

Fact is that this is such a rare occurrence (after doing some PT filtering over my last 40k hands of 5/10, I've played TT in the BB with 3+ seeing the flop a grand total of 19 times, and 99, only 13 times) this argument is more theoretical than anything.

Still, it's an interesting one -- I am MOST interested in how everyone here plays their hands when raise preflop and they miss the flop, i.e., there are broadway cards out there. Obviously a lot of it is player dependent, but some sort of default strategy would be nice. Maybe it's just plain old check/fold, something I have a very difficult time doing when I raise preflop.

[Grisgra]

From Danenania in the other thread:

[ QUOTE ]
Beating 6-max is not about sacrificing small edges for the sake of comfort or less variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very, very true, but again, we have a situation where raising preflop may be +EV if everything postflop is identical, but if people are more likely to call the turn or river with overs when the pot is larger, the EV it looks like you're getting preflop may be eaten up by the number of people calling to the river with overs postflop.

I grant you that on some tables, people will be scared enough of your from-the-BB-raise that they may even be LESS likely to call down with overs, as obviously you raised from the BB with AA or KK, and in those cases the raise is double +EV.

[MAxx]

ok..... i have relocated my post:

this is just a general statement, but i would lead the flop if there is just one overcard or less. an ace, maybe not. i migt lead a QT too. Something like AKT or AKx or KJx... i will likely check fold. If I bet at an over and face hot heat (like multiple people taking interest in the hand with raises or whatever)... fine- i'm done. Do I say to myself that I wish I didnt raise pf... no I say I will get em next time and when I do it will be for more, b/c I am raising with the best of it.

o and if i lead at an over and get 2 callers with no raising... i am leading turn and river unless some real scary stuff comes out or I get raised in which case... I will have to decied whether to fold or not based on player reads and the board texture.

[Grisgra]

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=839055

Your advantage with 99 against three lame-os is extraordinarily minimal, and if by limping preflop I can better protect my hand/stop someone from seeing the river, so much the better. (But like I said, on some tables people will be less likely to chase to the river with overs when you raised pf, which makes raise vs no-raise almost completely table-dependent).

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
9s 9d 282188 25.98 801932 73.84 1888 0.17 0.260
Qs Th 278717 25.66 805403 74.16 1888 0.17 0.257
4c Ad 256768 23.64 827352 76.18 1888 0.17 0.237
Kc 8c 266447 24.53 817673 75.29 1888 0.17 0.246

[MAxx]

don't you have a similar problem after checking 99 in the bb? you still face decisions on how to play that. i'm not discounting fully what you were saying about being able to c/r in a smaller pot... etc. but i am saying it isn't THAT much different.

[rory]

If you are putting more money in the pot having a break even expectation you are just increasing your variance-- since variance is something we would like to minimize while maintaining the highest expectation, it's bad to raise these out of the blinds. But not bad due to BB/100 issues, bad to due to sanity and tilt issues.

[MAxx]

lets try another hand bra:

9s 9d
Ks Th
5d 5c
Kc 8c

pokenum -h 9s 9d - ks th - 5d 5c - kc 8c
Holdem Hi: 1086008 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
9s 9d 450171 41.45 633318 58.32 2519 0.23 0.415
Ks Th 283104 26.07 762273 70.19 40631 3.74 0.279
5c 5d 193451 17.81 890038 81.96 2519 0.23 0.179
Kc 8c 118651 10.93 926726 85.33 40631 3.74 0.127

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=839087

[STLantny]

imo, you are sacrificing equity preflop, due to the fact that you cant play it post flop. If the flop comes AK2 and Ive raised TT preflop, Im no worse or better off ON THE FLOP, if I raised it preflop. Although, the times I did fail to raise preflop, I lost money, because I didnt raise with the best hand, when I could/should have. Your play on the flop/turn river is just as weak/tight, or non-weak/tight, or LAG or TAG etc etc, whether you raised preflop or not. Its just that not raising preflop is wrong, because you have the best hand. You have to be able to make street by street decisions, i guess is what Im getting at. that make sense or am I rambling?

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
since variance is something we would like to minimize while maintaining the highest expectation

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? variance doesnt bother me. If I know that I have the same amount of +EV in two situations, one just happens to have more variance, I really dont care which one happens?

[rory]

Come look at this thread again the next time you are in the middle of a 200 BB downswing.

[btspider]

yeah, two dimes is a bit weak for this discussion...

http://twodimes.net/h/?z=839114
pokenum -h 9s 9d - js qh - ad ts - kc 9c
Holdem Hi: 1086008 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
9s 9d 174235 16.04 893946 82.31 17827 1.64 0.168
Js Qh 282992 26.06 800389 73.70 2627 0.24 0.261
Ts Ad 326640 30.08 756741 69.68 2627 0.24 0.301
Kc 9c 284314 26.18 783867 72.18 17827 1.64 0.269

[STLantny]

I dont need too, Ill analyze my play, and if Im making mistakes Ill notice, and treat it as such. But, I have a fundamentally sound understanding of the math involved to realize whether its mistakes or variance.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

If I know that I have the same amount of +EV in two situations, one just happens to have more variance, I really dont care which one happen


[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

Extreme example: choose between these two games.

1) I give you a dollar. Game over.

2) We roll a one million sided die. (I think role-playing-game enthusiasts have these.) If it comes up 1 - 999,999, I give you two dollars. If it comes up 1,000,000 you give me $999,998. Game over and your life in ruins.

If a million bucks is small change to you, change the numbers a bit.

Guy.

[MAxx]

don't make me break out the:

99
27o
27o
27o

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[STLantny]

er, maybe im mistunderstanding this. But, in situation one, you give me infinite odds, and just give me a dollar? In which there is no comparison between the two, of course I take a free dollar, cause thats the most +EV bet ...... And in situation 2, theres a million to one shot, that I owe you 999,998, otherwise I get 2 dollars every roll? Ya def lets roll that [censored], but I get to roll as many times as i want. Cause that is what poker boils down to, re-occuring edge correct?

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah, two dimes is a bit weak for this discussion...

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you need to use PokerStove to put in ranges of hands for weak limpers (Ax, broadway cards, pairs, suited connectors -- maybe a tighter range for one player). This will at least give a clearer picture of your equity against their ranges of hands, although it still has its limitations.

There are of course other factors such as having a hand that is a bit tricky to play out of position.

Also, there is a not-so-insignificant difference between 99 and TT, which we've sorta lumped together in this thread.

[Grisgra]

I should be so lucky with my 99 to be up against an underpair and a dominated overcard!.

I think that a reasonable guess is ~30% pf equity when 4-handed. Enough that your preflop equity gain by raising CAN be overwhelmed by postflop concerns.

Also keep in mind table image -- every time I raise pf and then don't take in the pot, I lose a little face /images/graemlins/mad.gif.

I think that in conclusion (ha!), not raising with 99 or TT here gives up a small amount that can be overwhelmed by postflop concerns, variance-avoidance, and maybe even table image concerns -- in other words, it can be less +EV monetarily and possibly -EV psychologically some of the time.

On the other hand, I'll grant that at many tables people will respect your from-the-BB-raise and be LESS likely to chase with overs, making not raising with 99/TT even more of a mistake than before. Plus, everyone always gets annoyed when the BB raises (I know I do), and that's a good thing /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[sammy_g]

Gris, do you raise these hands on the button after 3 limpers?

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
Gris, do you raise these hands on the button after 3 limpers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yeah. But playing 2nd pair in position is easier than playing it out of position.

[STLantny]

[ QUOTE ]
not raising with 99 or TT here gives up a small amount that can be overwhelmed by postflop concerns, variance-avoidance, and maybe even table image concerns -- in other words, it can be less +EV monetarily and possibly -EV psychologically some of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said, Ill take increased variance, with higher EV, then the opposite, any day. I think that more times than not though, your preflop play, and post flop play will be very similar, whether you raised or not. BUT I think the image part is interesting, one, do ppl notice this enough (raising pre, check folding flop V a couple players)? two, what do they think of it if they do notice it?

[Rudis]

I think this might be case of what positions limp...
If it's utg and utg1 that limp...it might be worth a check...
If it's co and button...raise away.
That's my opinion. If it's 3 limpers to you in the BB I think it's a case of raising for set value.
If it's 1 limper it's raising for command. If it's two...see above=)

[sammy_g]

Hey, Grisgra said that, not me /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Danenania]

One of the reasons I like to raise from the SB and BB so often, and I'm sure I'm in the minority here, is that I actually find early position postflop play easier after raising PF. When I'm out of position I'd rather go in guns blazing (which is at least a plan of action) than have to feel my way around. And of course PF equity edges are nothing to scoff at either. It is really more complicated but there's a summary of how I feel.

Note: some of these factors will be quite different from 5/10 to 10/20 which could be the source of much of the dispute. Players are in general much weaker postflop at 10/20. 5/10 as we all know is the realm of the beloved calling station and against these players smaller pots are preferrable.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Players are in general much weaker postflop at 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is this really true?

[Danenania]

By weak I mean weak/tight, not poor playing. And yes it is most definitely true. Especially of the semi-decent players. There are so many 32/11/1.5's I can hardly believe it. And most are rigidly weak/passive and predictable postflop. I believe the presence of these players en masse is what allows a relatively loose and selectively aggro style to get the money. If players were all loose-passive or loose-aggro then rocks would be the rich ones.

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
By weak I mean weak/tight, not poor playing. And yes it is most definitely true. Especially of the semi-decent players. There are so many 32/11/1.5's I can hardly believe it. And most are rigidly weak/passive and predictable postflop. I believe the presence of these players en masse is what allows a relatively loose and selectively aggro style to get the money. If players were all loose-passive or loose-aggro then rocks would be the rich ones.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting observation . . . you're right, there's definitely a lot more 32/11/1.5's than at 5/10. Probably almost ten times as many, percentage-wise.

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
When I'm out of position I'd rather go in guns blazing (which is at least a plan of action) than have to feel my way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahem

[Danenania]

I know it sounds weird. I'm not suggesting any extra aggression from out of position, just saying that raising PF can make the transition to postflop streets more predictable and easier to handle.

[Guy McSucker]

[ QUOTE ]

er, maybe im mistunderstanding this. But, in situation one, you give me infinite odds, and just give me a dollar? In which there is no comparison between the two, of course I take a free dollar, cause thats the most +EV bet ...... And in situation 2, theres a million to one shot, that I owe you 999,998, otherwise I get 2 dollars every roll? Ya def lets roll that [censored], but I get to roll as many times as i want. Cause that is what poker boils down to, re-occuring edge correct?


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you misunderstood my point completely.

The point is that these two games have the same EV for you: one dollar.

The first one has no chance of costing you anything. The second might just ruin you.

If you don't have a million dollars to spare, you'd be a fool to take the second bet: if you lose all your money and then some, you will have nowhere to live, nothing to eat, and no future. Pretty dumb to end up in that situation when you could just have taken a dollar.

These are two situations with the same EV and different variance. You said you wouldn't care which you took. I say you should care. Lower variance with the same EV is a Very Good Thing.

Guy.

[MAxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I know it sounds weird. I'm not suggesting any extra aggression from out of position, just saying that raising PF can make the transition to postflop streets more predictable and easier to handle.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know exactly what you mean, and it is my SOP with hands such as good second pairs. Am I going to cap the flop and turn with these out of position? ...Well- of course not. Am I going to continue to rep a big hand with these type of hands by leading, you bet. Generally, someone is going to have to step up and tell me that my hand is no good by playing back at me... or they can sit back and try and suckout, or they can relax and watch me bet their hand for them.... up on onto a point. Beware this is a general statement... of course I make judgements along the way.

To anyone with a different view...If you think checking and calling is better in these situations, please tell me why you think so.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
http://twodimes.net/h/?z=839055

Your advantage with 99 against three lame-os is extraordinarily minimal, and if by limping preflop I can better protect my hand/stop someone from seeing the river, so much the better. (But like I said, on some tables people will be less likely to chase to the river with overs when you raised pf, which makes raise vs no-raise almost completely table-dependent).

cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
9s 9d 282188 25.98 801932 73.84 1888 0.17 0.260
Qs Th 278717 25.66 805403 74.16 1888 0.17 0.257
4c Ad 256768 23.64 827352 76.18 1888 0.17 0.237
Kc 8c 266447 24.53 817673 75.29 1888 0.17 0.246

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are better than even money against the absolute worst case scenario. Nice example.
-James

[ddubois]

But what if...!

Hand 1: 01.8657 % [ 00.01 00.01 ] { 99 }
Hand 2: 01.8657 % [ 00.01 00.01 ] { 99 }
Hand 3: 79.3800 % [ 00.79 00.00 ] { TT }
Hand 4: 16.8886 % [ 00.17 00.00 ] { 87s }

[BreakEvenPlayer]

This thread is disgusting.

[ QUOTE ]
But playing 2nd pair in position is easier than playing it out of position.

[/ QUOTE ]

You automatically assume your hand is beat when an overcard flops?


Raising the hand pre-flop makes it a lot easier to play. Equity considerations aside (even though there's no way in hell that not raising these hands PF increses equity), multi-tablers benefit from anything that simplifies a play.

By checking PF you are going to be losing a lot of pots, you're going to be checking to people more than willing to pump the hell out of draws and bottom pairs and other underpairs and ace high... jeez it is so much easier to play the hands with a PF raise. Define your hands with aggression and then with the flop let the fish define their hands with their passivity or aggression... Simple stuff.

With your strategy you are getting into terrible guessing games and you are going to be folding the winner a largely disproportionate percentage of the time. For a multitable the lack of the raise PF is an even worse mistake because inherent in the more passive strategy is the necessity to have great reads on the players and to pay an inordinate amount of attention to the hand in order to make the right decision.

[Grisgra]

Uhhh that's not the ultimate worst case example. Duh. My point was that your advantage pf is marginal, and -- well, hey, I've explained my position a half-dozen times at this point. Why bother continuing?

[Trix]

I think I raise 99 here most of the time, maybe just call/check if I know someone in LP autobets the flop, but it has to be a pretty strong read as it sucks to see it checked around usually with 99.

I think it´s more interesting to discuss raises in the BB with one limper in late position and a SB completion as it´s more common and you should be able to raise very freely there as SB often have any two and limper usually is pretty weak too.

[Girchuck]

Looks like checking and raising is pretty close.
Why not just flip a coin and do one or the other based on coinflip results? Make the coin loaded to one side if you have a hunch one way or the other.
That'll make you harder to read at almost no cost to you, provided you know how to play it postflop both after you check and after you raise.