Completing the SB

[Degen]

I've been reviewing a lot of hand histories over the last couple of months in coaching players, helping friends improve and also swapping with other sup bro?'s to plug leaks...and i've noticed something in most other peoples play that at first i thought was a leak of theirs, and now i'm thinking may be a leak of my own and wanted to toss it out there for ya'll and see what is the 'norm'.


So here is the question...

What are your calling standards from the SB in the following situation:


$33 Buy-In...LVL 3...8 Players...t950....three limpers

I would complete with any ace, K7+ Q8+, any pair, any straight flush cards, any connector 56+, any one gap 57+, any big little suited...all of these types of hands.

The pot odds are large and the price to enter is small...leak? Or is it a leak to be folding these?


What about with less limpers? What about with more?

With less I complete with any A or K and remove all of the low drawing hands. With more I don't complete with any A or K and I broaden range to any suited cards and most str8 cards.




Andre

[Nottom]

It may be a leak, but I'm a tight fcuk from my SB. I'll complete with crap like Axs and suited connectors and some other decent hands, but I have no desire to play somehting like K7 from the worst position.

[NYCNative]

I was under the impression that you have pot odds to complete the SB with almost any two cards if there are 3+ limpers in front of you.

[curtains]

Don't worry nottom, Im folding K7 and Q8 in those situations too in SNGs.

[Degen]

ya that was my hunch...and why i posted this

most HH's i saw, the ppl were folding them too...u+nottom=i have a leak

thx guys


Andre

[The Yugoslavian]

So lemme get this straight (bear with me....my brain is jacked from 400 stts)....you are 'coaching' players...and giving them advice. And from *their* HHs, you realize you have a *very* basic and obvious leak like completing too many hands in the SB on l3???

That's great!

BWahahahahhahahHWHAHAHAHAHhahahahah!

SHIP IT !!!!!!!!!!!!

3u0

Yugoslav

[Degen]

si senor

i'm a bubble/HU/ITM pro...i pay the rake on the flop and early tourney, i advertise my services as such.

nottom+curtains+yugo=i definately have a leak lol


Andre

[45suited]

I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those hands you mentioned don't play well 'multi-way.'

Sorry.

Yugoslav

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Those hands you mentioned don't play well 'multi-way.'

[/ QUOTE ]

If there are 2 or 3 limpers, completing on level 3 from the SB makes sense even with small connectors. I don't see how a connector or AXs is not worth playing when getting 6:1 or better to complete. They do play well multi-way in that it is easy to know where you're at. Obviously, I'm not going to get excited about flopping middle pair, but the straight and flush possiblities with these hands play very well mult-way and for a cheap price.

[The Yugoslavian]

Yeah..it's perfectly fine to think this way....

But you are certainly not profiting from it.

Yugoslav

[45suited]

Yugo, I'm not trying to be a smart a$$ here. Thus far, I have only played on the 11s and 22s. Maybe that is why we see this different. What I can tell you is that I have no problem getting away cheaply (just the cost of completing) if all I flop is a weak holding. However, again maybe this is because I am playing against total fish, but if you flop a big hand, you can get paid off big time.

I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong but can you give me a reason other than just stating that it is bad to limp in with a connector from the SB against multiple limpers when you are getting 6:1 or better in level 3?

[Degen]

what yugo is saying...is that if you add up all the money you'll make from limping with this hand it will be less than all the money you lose from limping (missed draws, bleeding chips, missed flops, beaten strong hands). Therefore (according to Yugo) it is not a profitable play.

I tend to agree with you, though in the face of this much evidence (good players not doing it) coupled with the fact that i 'tend to be' pretty loose...i'm gonna go ahead and side with yugo, curtains, nottom et al and fold that crap from now on.

Andre

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with you, though in the face of this much evidence (good players not doing it) coupled with the fact that i 'tend to be' pretty loose...i'm gonna go ahead and side with yugo, curtains, nottom et al and fold that crap from now on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I have no problem admitting that these guys are better players than me. The reason I'm on this forum is to learn. But couldn't this be one of the (rare) situations where "optimal play" might be different in the 11s and 22s than in the higher levels?

What I mean is at the lower levels, the inferior post flop play of our opponents when we do flop a strong hand makes up for the times that we don't, whereas at the higher levels you're less likely to get paid off.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that you have pot odds to complete the SB with almost any two cards if there are 3+ limpers in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]Hello? Anyone? Beuller?

[Degen]

this is absolutely not true..if we are assuming that the SB is 1/2 the BB.

if the SB is 2/3rds of the BB (as in lvl 1)...then yes.

Andre

[Degen]

if what you are saying were true then you would also need to start limping with hands like AJ and KQ due to this same poor play, and i know that this is without a doubt -EV.

you seem like you just want an excuse to play loose man...go ahead and play loose, call with all the trash you want.

Andre

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that you have pot odds to complete the SB with almost any two cards if there are 3+ limpers in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]Hello? Anyone? Beuller?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well with unsuited high low crap you stand a 3.44% chance of hitting something playable on the flop (trips, two pair with no pair on board, FH, quads) So, no...

[NYCNative]

Okay, help me out here:

Say the blinds are 10/20. There are four limpers to me in the SB which means there is now $110 in the pot. This means that I am putting in $10 for a chance to win a $120 pot assuming BB checks. Seems to me that I have the correct odds against five players putting on only $10 for that chance to win $120 no matter what two cards I am holding.

Is the distinction what is "playable" here? In other words you might have a hand that turns up a winner often enough to make completing it the correct move but that there is really no way to legitimately play many or most of those hands acting first in a multi-way pot?

So when we discuss "pot odds," is this concept somewhat meaningless when it comes to this particular item?

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
if what you are saying were true then you would also need to start limping with hands like AJ and KQ due to this same poor play, and i know that this is without a doubt -EV.

you seem like you just want an excuse to play loose man...go ahead and play loose, call with all the trash you want.

Andre

[/ QUOTE ]

Less than 6 hours before this post, you said you limp all the time with junk.

You cant take the 'im right, your wrong' high road on this one.

Phill

edit: limp all the time from SB

[gasgod]

One of the problems completing behind many limpers is that even a minraise from BB will spoil your odds. So, it might very well be buy-in and read dependent.

GG

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
you seem like you just want an excuse to play loose man...go ahead and play loose, call with all the trash you want.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, relax. Two things: 1) A connector is not "trash". J5 is trash, 6-5 is not trash, it's not a great hand, but it's not trash. 2) So far, other than saying "you're wrong", nobody has explained why, with multiple limpers, it is wrong to take odds of anywhere from 6:1 to 10:1 from the SB with a connector to try to hit a flop. In level 3, this would cost a grand total of 25 chips. Whatever happened to pot odds and implied odds? And if it is such a bad play, why do pros limp from the SB with connectors once a pot gets 4 or 5 way?

Again, I'm not saying I have all the answers. If I'm wrong, tell me why, not just a knee jerk, "you're wrong" answer.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the problems completing behind many limpers is that even a minraise from BB will spoil your odds. So, it might very well be buy-in and read dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly a good point, and if the BB had been raising that would certainly be a reason not to complete from the SB.

At the 11s and 22s anyway, I think it's probably alot rarer for the BB to make a raise without actually having a hand. They (we) are just not that sophisticated, so I don't see it as often as probably occurs at the higher levels.

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Okay, help me out here:

Say the blinds are 10/20. There are four limpers to me in the SB which means there is now $110 in the pot. This means that I am putting in $10 for a chance to win a $120 pot assuming BB checks. Seems to me that I have the correct odds against five players putting on only $10 for that chance to win $120 no matter what two cards I am holding.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you're getting 12-1 pot odds in that case. If you have 72o or something, you're 28-1 to hit something playable. (this excludes xxy flops where y=7) If you add that flop in its 12-1. (I wouldn't though, multiway you'll probably lose more than you make over the long-term in those cases) So, you're not always getting correct pot odds, but in multiway pots your implied odds are good enough to justify a call in most cases.

[Degen]

[ QUOTE ]

Less than 6 hours before this post, you said you limp all the time with junk.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never 'limp' with junk, i said i complete the SB with junk...my limping hands are very very tight. i also posted in the first place because i had an inkling i had a leak and i very quickly admitted that it was one-so i can take the 'high road' on this one.

Andre

[pooh74]

Havent read the whole thread yet but here's why I feel pot odds are crap here.

There are many hands where you may, in fact, have good odds to complete but where you are completely lost post flop out of position. if you complete with K7 against 4 players, what sort of flop do you feel comfortable firing first at? calling a bet and raise? Even if there's 1 bet and all folds (rare bc this will only be when player immediately to your left bets first) to you, and its a K high flop, you have kicker problems.

Further more, I dont think this is a formulaic thing we're talking about. As with all in this game, "it depends"...but seriously, if there are two limpers who are playing every hand and you have a super tight table image, maybe you want to complete and fire...but usually this is not good with mediocre junk as you posted above.

my dos cents

[lehighguy]

At lvl 3 I'll complete with a PP and nothing more. I treat the raise hands like raise hands.

The hands you described are not worth 25 chips.

The only time I complete with any two is the SB at lvl 1.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
I was under the impression that you have pot odds to complete the SB with almost any two cards if there are 3+ limpers in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's all about your implied odds, not pot odds. Maybe no one else cares to make this distinction, but it's really annoying me for some reason.

If 2 people limp and they each have 100 chips left, I'm not going to complete with 65s. If they each have 1000 chips, I will.

I'm not completing with K7 or Q8.

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
It's all about your implied odds, not pot odds. Maybe no one else cares to make this distinction, but it's really annoying me for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit Phil read my @#$@#%#%#$ posts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[stupidsucker]

completing in the small blind is often a bad play reguardless of your cards. If I am going to play from the small blind I come in raising more often then not.

Listen to Phil though, he hit it.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's all about your implied odds, not pot odds. Maybe no one else cares to make this distinction, but it's really annoying me for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit Phil read my @#$@#%#%#$ posts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that none of the responders referenced or understood implied odds.

I've just seen a smattering of posts recently talking about pot odds when trying to decide on a non-allin call. Pot odds are irrellevant here. If people don't understand this, they have bigger problems than what to complete with on level 3.

[kevstreet]

I use to get myself in trouble completing w/ K10 or Ax.
When a K or an Ace hits, now what do you do? Do you let go of the hand w/ such a weak kicker? I certainly don't feel confident enough to bet out on it so then am I only playing this hand for two pair or better on the flop? Sticky situation and I hate losing more chips on a hand I normally wouldn't play anyway.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Less than 6 hours before this post, you said you limp all the time with junk.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never 'limp' with junk, i said i complete the SB with junk...my limping hands are very very tight. i also posted in the first place because i had an inkling i had a leak and i very quickly admitted that it was one-so i can take the 'high road' on this one.

Andre

[/ QUOTE ]

About 10 min after i posted i edited underneath i meant completing from the SB (ok, i put limp from SB, not the best language use in the world).

As for my opinion, see PVS - this applies even moreso in the deeper stack 1500 chip games.

Phill

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's all about your implied odds, not pot odds. Maybe no one else cares to make this distinction, but it's really annoying me for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit Phil read my @#$@#%#%#$ posts. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that none of the responders referenced or understood implied odds.

I've just seen a smattering of posts recently talking about pot odds when trying to decide on a non-allin call. Pot odds are irrellevant here. If people don't understand this, they have bigger problems than what to complete with on level 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

My way to deal with this has been to favor straight hands over low flush hands. With a bunch of limpers with good stacks left, I'll complete AXs, and KXs where X is T or greater. But I'm liable to complete any one gapper, suited or not, down to 46. I've found the implied odds of hitting a low straight is huge, and the implied odds of flopping a flush is not that great when you've limped a blind unless someone hits with KQs or something... Is it a huge leak to complet 57o from the SB with ~t1000 with 3-4 limpers in front with at least T750 left on level 2? I'm tightening that a bit on level 3, when a t750 stack is more likely to make a play for a good pot.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with you, though in the face of this much evidence (good players not doing it) coupled with the fact that i 'tend to be' pretty loose...i'm gonna go ahead and side with yugo, curtains, nottom et al and fold that crap from now on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I have no problem admitting that these guys are better players than me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Meh....I guess. I'm pretty awful in the scheme of things.

[ QUOTE ]

The reason I'm on this forum is to learn. But couldn't this be one of the (rare) situations where "optimal play" might be different in the 11s and 22s than in the higher levels?


[/ QUOTE ]

No....this is a matter of how you must play the flop to extract enough chips (and not go broke enough) for the completion (or any limp in general) to be profitable. The idea (as Degen says more or less) is that while you get fat odds, the 'good' flops generally aren't even all that good for you and are tricky to play without risking too many of your own chips. There can even be an argument made for *not* completing with Axs on level 1 from the SB /images/graemlins/shocked.gif .... it's much, much closer than everyone thinks and folding isn't 'just awful.'

[ QUOTE ]

What I mean is at the lower levels, the inferior post flop play of our opponents when we do flop a strong hand makes up for the times that we don't, whereas at the higher levels you're less likely to get paid off.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower levels b/c of your opponents' bad post flop play you gain more by sitting out than sitting in and taking advantage...this is b/c there is no way to put them on hands so you never know where you stand. Which ones will run bluffs? Which ones won't pay off? Which ones are tricky? Which ones aren't? If you can't answer these questions and/or don't think it matters, then I don't think you can play these hands profitably.

The goods news is that playing them is only slightly -$EV, /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

Oh, and I go back and forth on what to play out of the SB on level 1.....so, meh! For a period during my 400 in 4 days I was even open limping small pocket pairs on level 1 and sometimes level 2 /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

Yugoslav
Folding is sublime...

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
For a period during my 400 in 4 days I was even open limping small pocket pairs on level 1 and sometimes level 2 /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I limped 22 UTG last night on level 1 and it was CRAZZZZYYY!!!!
Note to forum: we are seriously this tight. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a period during my 400 in 4 days I was even open limping small pocket pairs on level 1 and sometimes level 2 /images/graemlins/blush.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

I limped 22 UTG last night on level 1 and it was CRAZZZZYYY!!!!
Note to forum: we are seriously this tight. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't let Irie see that sh!t unless it's at one of his tables, /images/graemlins/grin.gif.

At least I have an excuse: my brain stopped working after about 130 STTs.... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Yugoslav

[microbet]

Don't have time to read all the posts before I reply, sorry if I duplicate.

I'm generally pretty tight about completing SB outside of level 1. That said, 1 and 2 gappers are good, because if you hit the straight you are more likely to get paid and you won't get beat by another straight as often as with no gappers. If they are low or medium, all the better since you won't lose any more chips without at least 2-pair. Still, I don't automatically complete such hands in level 2-4. I have to have a big enough stack, there have to be enough limpers with big enough stacks and I have to feel BB is unlikely to raise.

[jgunnip]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm generally pretty tight about completing SB outside of level 1. That said, 1 and 2 gappers are good, because if you hit the straight you are more likely to get paid and you won't get beat by another straight as often as with no gappers. If they are low or medium, all the better since you won't lose any more chips without at least 2-pair. Still, I don't automatically complete such hands in level 2-4. I have to have a big enough stack, there have to be enough limpers with big enough stacks and I have to feel BB is unlikely to raise.


[/ QUOTE ]


I play a lot like this. especially concerning connecters and one gapers on level 1. I always complete with these as long as I'm not limiting my straight possibilities (i.e 24, A3o, 34, etc). I complete with Axs and Kxs is hopes of a flush as well as a few other hands. I don't have a large sample size of these situations yet so I can't say whether it's been successful for me (not the actual hand, but the effect on the rest of the tourney). Anyway, good discusion.

[Bigwig]

I'll complete with A7+, Axs, K9+, K3s+, Q9+, Q6s+, JT, J7s+, T9o, suited connectors, suited one gappers down to 64, pairs. Of course, some hands I'm raising.

EDIT--I'd add that this is specific to this situation (19BB, 3 limpers). You take away 2 of the limpers, or even a small portion of my stack, and my answer changes significantly.

[45suited]

I think that PVS made the key point when talking about implied odds. I would never complete from the SB with a connector unless the limpers had significant stacks so that I could win a big pot if I hit.

Oh, Yugo, one more thing: I don't think we're as different as you might think... On level one, I'm so tight that I don't even play AQ unless it's suited. Good discussion on this one... good points all around. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that PVS made the key point when talking about implied odds. I would never complete from the SB with a connector unless the limpers had significant stacks so that I could win a big pot if I hit.

Oh, Yugo, one more thing: I don't think we're as different as you might think... On level one, I'm so tight that I don't even play AQ unless it's suited. Good discussion on this one... good points all around. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

AQ is one of the hands I do play on l1, suited or not suited, /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

This implied odds concept doesn't apply to STTs the way it does to NL ring games. It simply doesn't....theoretically and practically. That is why in many cases they can be ignored completely....implied odds will only have you leaking chips (small amounts of chips...but...that's not really the issue).

This implied odds thing may be a lot better for Adanthar and PVS (among others)....they will both make sure they extract close to the maximum and give up close to the minimum wheverever possible.

Yugoslav

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]

What flop do you want to see when you complete with K7-K9 and Q8-Q9?

I would rather complete with K2s than K9o.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[ QUOTE ]
What flop do you want to see when you complete with K7-K9 and Q8-Q9?

I would rather complete with K2s than K9o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote or I wasn't clear... I agree that I would not complete with K9o or Q8o for the very reason that I don't know what flop I want. I will complete (under the right circumstances that have been previously discussed) with connectors or AXs, although I might be rethinking completing with those hands given the lenghty discussion on the topic.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
This implied odds concept doesn't apply to STTs the way it does to NL ring games. It simply doesn't....theoretically and practically. That is why in many cases they can be ignored completely....implied odds will only have you leaking chips (small amounts of chips...but...that's not really the issue).

This implied odds thing may be a lot better for Adanthar and PVS (among others)....they will both make sure they extract close to the maximum and give up close to the minimum wheverever possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Yugo, don't be such a pessimist.

It is true that your post flop style impacts your implied odds, but they still exist.

I'm sure that Andathar has better implied odds than me when we are dealt 65s in the SB, but that doesn't mean I should just ignore my own odds.

Also, I think we both would say that we wouldn't lose just the "minimum" compared to the tightwads on this board. I'm pretty sure we are willing to lose a bit more in an attempt to win more.

Maybe this is bleeding chips, but I see it as taking shots at winning a lot of chips. I have less than 100 hands to get 10000 chips. Going broke is bad, but investing a few chips to maybe win a lot is worth it to me.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
That is why in many cases they can be ignored completely....implied odds will only have you leaking chips (small amounts of chips...but...that's not really the issue).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is the issue. Leaking 20 or 30 chips in level 1 doesn't seem likely to ever damage the almighty folding equity. Limping in with suited connectors in level 4 when the average stack is going to be somewhere around 12-15 BBs isn't such a good plan from any point of view, but I really don't see the harm in it at early levels if you think you're likely to get paid when you hit. That's the big if.

[microbet]

Not really part of this discussion, but in general - and I'd like to here PVS's and Yugo's take:

Just for the last couple days (and I don't play a lot of hours), I've been loosening up in the $33s as far as calling down reasonable bets with a decent, but not great hand, and I'm about to start kicking myself for all the times I folded the best hands in the past (or maybe even for betting people off of weak hands with no draw).

What are your general thoughts on calling down with TPmediumK and such?

I know it's a really vague question and a hijack. Please don't threaten to skull-fk my mother or anything. I don't really mind if it makes baby jebus cry.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really mind if it makes baby jebus cry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naw...baby jesus is too busy rereading that Dali thread and laughing his itty bitty ass off.

As far as calling down...ugh....really depends on the opponent and stack size and pot sizes.
-> What chance can you take the pot away on the turn or river?
-> How much will it cost to get to showdown? You obviously can't go broke on this hand...that's no good.
-> Will you really be ahead enough of the time at this point to make the initial call wortwhile?
-> Does the range of hands you put your opponent on include enough hands you're ahead of?

This remind me:
Check out the $215 hand in my 'losing my mind' thread....it involved this very issue.....besides...I haven't gotten any good feedback for that yet, /images/graemlins/frown.gif.

Yugoslav

[Bigwig]

We're talking 1/38 of your stack here people. Playing for 2 pair on the flop is good enough odds to call. Not with 74, mind you, but certainly with something that will likely be top 2, and could get action (KT on a KT8 flop vs. KQ, for example).

I've given this piece of advice before--if you cannot get away from top pair very easily, or even check fold it, then you shouldn't play a HUGE number of hands from EP, including the SB. If, however, you are confident in your ability to deduct whether or not you're ahead in a given hand, play away.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[ QUOTE ]
What flop do you want to see when you complete with K7-K9 and Q8-Q9?

I would rather complete with K2s than K9o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote or I wasn't clear... I agree that I would not complete with K9o or Q8o for the very reason that I don't know what flop I want. I will complete (under the right circumstances that have been previously discussed) with connectors or AXs, although I might be rethinking completing with those hands given the lenghty discussion on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I just replied to the wrong person /images/graemlins/blush.gif Sorry!

[The once and future king]

Ive got some strange stats in my PT database for the early levels.

Played 315 25+2 Turbos on Stars. ROI 37.14 (Yes I know this will go down, this isnt about that)(In fact it has gone down whilst I have been typing)

BB 15/30 Hands 1151 V$SB 21.54% PFR 2.87% Tchipswon= +14,083

BB 25/50 Hands 379 V%SB 15.56% PFR 2.9% Tchipswon= -5485

BB 100/200 TH 1686 V%SB 37% PFR 21.47% TChipswon = +35500

Ive won as much at 15/30 as I have at 50/100 but am leaking chips at 25/50.

I know my sample for this level is very small but thanks to this thread I am going to be paying more attention to these stats over the next 1000 games more than I otherwise might have done.

[microbet]

That was like 3rd pair, dude, but I'll check.

[Degen]

[ QUOTE ]
What are your general thoughts on calling down with TPmediumK and such?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya good question. I'd like to see a new thread on this so it gets it due attention.

I usually check/fold TPNK and bet small with TPMK and fold to a raise and check fold the turn. I know thats about the weakest line there is but I just hate playing pots where I know there is a damned good shot I'm beat.


If its lvl 4 or later and its a HU pot, all of this changes of coarse.


Andre

[fatherofmany]

One thing I've noticed at the lower buy-in sng's is that there are normally a few terrible players who will be routinely out or severely crippled by level 3 or 4 unless they luckbox into a hand. They overvalue tptk, tpwk, draws, etc and generally pay off. Their chips are up for grabs and the better players are going to recognize that and act on it, leaving the tighties stuck in observor mode unless they pick up some solid values. Obviously, this doesn't apply to every table or limit, but when this situation exists, I'm going to complete and limp behind with lots of suited 1 gappers and unsuited connector type hands I normally wouldn't bother playing.

The real key for me is getting paid off when I do flop the monster hand or draw. If I'm up against players who aren't going to pay off though, there's zero point in playing these hands other than adding deception (which is almost worthless at the low buy-ins) and enticing action on my legitimate hands.

Obviously, this only applies to deep stacks against poor players, but it's one type of scenario where pot and implied odds make many hands playable that normally should be mucked.