(11) Raise 5xbb with 1010/JJ from EP according to HOH?

From early position in an $11 Sng, how do you play pockets tens and jacks? Harrington advocates raising 5x bb (more than you would with AA-QQ). I suppose this 5xbb would translate into more like 7xbb since the people on party 11s are so loose. Is this a good strategy? Or better to limp with these pp? Also, does is it different for level 1 and level 3?

-grant

[pineapple888]

Personally, I think it's an awful idea to open raise different amounts with different starting hands, since you are leaking information.

There are valid arguments for limping, raising, and folding these hands in EP. In a nutshell:

Limp: play for set value/undercard flops

Raise: Protect a strong but vulnerable hand, hope to get heads-up

Fold: Can't stand any heat with these hands, too many other players to act, too many other tables demanding my attention.

I think Harrington was talking about people that knew hands like A4o and K7s aren't premiere hands, unlike the people that play the 10+1s. I limp and call a 3xBB at most. If undercards flop I'll usually bet the pot.

[runner4life7]

I disagree completely with the leaking info idea. At the 100s maybe, but at the 10s, come on. No one takes notes like raised to 65 meant AK raised to 70 means QQ, and if they do they are wasting their time at the tens.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely with the leaking info idea. At the 100s maybe, but at the 10s, come on. No one takes notes like raised to 65 meant AK raised to 70 means QQ, and if they do they are wasting their time at the tens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it seems like you *agree* completely that it's a leak, then you *assume* everyone will ignore that leak. I personally prefer to plug leaks, even at the so-called "awful" 10s.

But whatever.

[runner4life7]

and thats why i bet random amounts from like 65-80 with hands like AK, QQ, JJ and so forth to prevent it, but if you can get reads based on the bets of people at the 10s, which im not saying is impossible then by all means do it because +EV is +EV

[JudoGirl]

I never raise 3x bb from EP with 10/15 blinds. It essentially accomplishes the same thing a minraise would, which most people would agree is not good. Either call or raise around 5x. But that goes for AA-QQ and AK too (except that calling with AA-QQ,AK should be a rare occurance and only when you know that someone will raise behind).

1010/JJ in early stages of 11s is a limp/fold to reraise hand. Im not open raising this hand because of too many players calling with K4o etc. Too many chances an overcard is going to hit someone and then my pair is dead.

[Lloyd]

[ QUOTE ]
Harrington advocates raising 5x bb (more than you would with AA-QQ).

[/ QUOTE ]
This is only part of his advice. The other part has to do with randomizing your raises with hands like AA and KK as well so if you do raise more UTG people don't know if you've got a monster , AK, or a middle pair. Plus, somewhere in there he specifically mentions that this randomizing is done when people are paying attention to your bet size to throw them off. You should go back and re-read that whole chapter.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree completely with the leaking info idea. At the 100s maybe, but at the 10s, come on. No one takes notes like raised to 65 meant AK raised to 70 means QQ, and if they do they are wasting their time at the tens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it seems like you *agree* completely that it's a leak, then you *assume* everyone will ignore that leak. I personally prefer to plug leaks, even at the so-called "awful" 10s.

But whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game theoretic optimal poker should not be your goal. You should actively try to exploit your opponents' weaknesses. This necessarily means exposing a weakness in your own game. You can't exploit someone else's suboptimal play without playing suboptimally yourself.

You shouldn't consider it a leak to do this. A leak is a mistake you regularly make that costs you money. If "No one takes notes like raised to 65 meant AK raised to 70 means QQ" then it isn't costing you money to raise different amounts, and in fact if you correctly exploit the fact that no one takes such notes then it will make you money. If the cash is flowing IN instead of OUT, that certainly can't count as a leak, 'cause nothing is leaking.

I hope you mean it's a limp, then fold to a raise AND a re-raise hand. If you limp for 15, and then fold if some donk makes it 45 or 50, then this is far too weak tight in my opinion...But, if it goes limp, raise to 50, reraise to 150, then easy fold. You are either dominated or possibly up against a combination of all the overcards. You wouldn't advocate limp folding to a single raise, would you? If so, then why?

[sofere]

I like to bet more with AA and KK at the 11s than I do with mid pockets. Do you see why?

[JudoGirl]

[ QUOTE ]
I like to bet more with AA and KK at the 11s than I do with mid pockets. Do you see why?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Do you see why?" is one of the worst responses I routinely see on 2+2. People should be flogged for doing it. Do you see why?

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
From early position in an $11 Sng, how do you play pockets tens and jacks? Harrington advocates raising 5x bb (more than you would with AA-QQ). I suppose this 5xbb would translate into more like 7xbb since the people on party 11s are so loose. Is this a good strategy? Or better to limp with these pp? Also, does is it different for level 1 and level 3?

-grant

[/ QUOTE ]

the key thing in this question lies within. are you able to lay down jj to an overcard? or are you fascinated by the two pretty paird cards in front of you? if the first is true, id raise it. if the second is true, play for set value.

[pineapple888]

OK, I'll bite...

[ QUOTE ]

Game theoretic optimal poker should not be your goal. You should actively try to exploit your opponents' weaknesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory takes into account your opponent's weaknesses.

[ QUOTE ]

This necessarily means exposing a weakness in your own game.



[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

You can't exploit someone else's suboptimal play without playing suboptimally yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]
Wrong. You really should learn at least a little bit about game theory.

[ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't consider it a leak to do this. A leak is a mistake you regularly make that costs you money. If "No one takes notes like raised to 65 meant AK raised to 70 means QQ" then it isn't costing you money to raise different amounts



[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read my post? Your assumption that *nobody* at the tens *ever* pays attention has to be *100% correct* for this not to cost you money.

[ QUOTE ]

and in fact if you correctly exploit the fact that no one takes such notes then it will make you money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody in this thread has yet demonstrated the wonderful money-making potential of the OPs suggested strategy.

[ QUOTE ]

If the cash is flowing IN instead of OUT, that certainly can't count as a leak, 'cause nothing is leaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong again. At least you are consistent.

If your results are worse than they should be, it's a leak, regardless of whether you are ahead or behind at any particular moment.

[deathpotato]

I like how you misunderstood a lot of what he was trying to say and then responded in a totally retarded and unnecessary confrontational tone.

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
1010/JJ in early stages of 11s is a limp/fold to reraise hand. Im not open raising this hand because of too many players calling with K4o etc. Too many chances an overcard is going to hit someone and then my pair is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really hope you see why you want a call from K4o here.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]
I like how you misunderstood a lot of what he was trying to say and then responded in a totally retarded and unnecessary confrontational tone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for such an insightful contribution to the topic at hand.

[ QUOTE ]

Quote:

Game theoretic optimal poker should not be your goal. You should actively try to exploit your opponents' weaknesses.




Game theory takes into account your opponent's weaknesses.

Quote:

This necessarily means exposing a weakness in your own game.





Wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not claiming to be expert on geme theory, but i suspect you've got wrong definiton for what 'game theoretic optimal strategy' stands for.

This can be useful for example
Game-Theoretic Optimal Strategies (http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~jonathan/Grad/papp/node29.html)

[ QUOTE ]
Did you read my post? Your assumption that *nobody* at the tens *ever* pays attention has to be *100% correct* for this not to cost you money.


[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this statement is wrong. For this not to cost you money profitablity of such move against opps not paying attention just had to outweight loses from players who can exploit it.
On different note statement 'nobody at $11 level know how to play' doesn't have to be 100% correct for $11 SNG to be profitable.

[pineapple888]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Did you read my post? Your assumption that *nobody* at the tens *ever* pays attention has to be *100% correct* for this not to cost you money.


[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously this statement is wrong. For this not to cost you money profitablity of such move against opps not paying attention just had to outweight loses from players who can exploit it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed... if somebody actually demonstrates that this strategy can be profitable in some way against opponents not paying attention, which I haven't seen yet.

[SonnyJay]

My only comment on the pineapple-everyone else argument on the issue of varying your raises is that it's really immaterial. If you feel like betting 70 sometimes and 60 others, it's not a huge difference. However, I do think that a lot of the people that would be "observant enough" to notice things and take advantage normally are multitabling and thus aren't paying enough attention to notice.

Anyway...

Harrington wrote a very good book, but I think its concepts are misapplied at the STTs. HOH/I is referring (mostly) to full tabled, deep stacked, gradual blind-increase multi-table poker. This is not a Party STT.

The raise 5xBB with JJ in EP may be optimal advice for the situations in the book, but the STTs are different. A reasonable raise will be called very often, and you'll be out of position. If you raise 5 BB (never mind 7...don't do that) you'll find yourself building a large pot with a hand you're not going to be thrilled with often once the flop comes. The pot will be too big to manage. A continuation bet after a few callers will be a large portion of your stack, and anyone coming along with you will freeze you. Limp, call a reasonable raise if necessary, and hope for a set or undercards.

Once the blinds are at 25-50 and a few opponents are eliminated, I usually raise this to 3xBB or so (if my stack allows), but I don't know if this is a leak. I figure that there are fewer opponents behind me, people are less likely to call with medium/bad hands, and stacks are shallower. I may be giving the situation too much credit however.

-SonnyJay

Fortunately the few people that have read this thread are the only ones who know that I raise (or used to raise) 5xbb with 1010/JJ. I find it very hard to believe that anyone at the 11s would figure out this tell. For them to figure it out, I would have to get 1010/JJ twice in a single sng, and they would need a semi decent hand that hit the flop in order to capitalize on my non-randomness, in which case I would probably fold easily anyway. Hope that all made sense. Long story short, at this stage im 10 times more concerned about making the correct mathematical play than randomizing my plays and out-thinking my opponents. Ill leave the randomized raises for my regular live games against my friends.

-grant

[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll bite...

[ QUOTE ]

Game theoretic optimal poker should not be your goal. You should actively try to exploit your opponents' weaknesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory takes into account your opponent's weaknesses.


[/ QUOTE ]

Game theoretic optimal play is unexploitable, and of course it naturally exploits suboptimal play, but not maximally. You have to deviate from optimal play to attempt to maximally exploit a weakness you believe your opponents have. And of course deviating from optimal play necessarily means playing in such a way that you can be exploited.

But game theoretic optimal play does not take into account your opponent's weaknesses: It assumes an opponent without weaknesses. That's why it should not be your goal. Because you should try really hard never to play poker against such an opponent.

[ QUOTE ]

Did you read my post? Your assumption that *nobody* at the tens *ever* pays attention has to be *100% correct* for this not to cost you money.


[/ QUOTE ]

I made no such assumption, I was countering your flawed logic. I haven't actually made a stance about the OP.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

and in fact if you correctly exploit the fact that no one takes such notes then it will make you money.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody in this thread has yet demonstrated the wonderful money-making potential of the OPs suggested strategy.


[/ QUOTE ]

Nor have I actually claimed it exists. I have only pointed out a flaw in your logic because I think it will help you reach incorrect conclusions even if it didn't do so this time.