looking for discussion on argument against open-completing

[Wynton]

I know I've read some threads where people convincingly explain why it is better to open-raise from sb than merely open-completing (with a plan to bet the flop no matter what).

But my search efforts are not working. Does anyone have a relevant link? If not, can you suggest some searches that might work?

[Surfbullet]

Hey Wynton,

I can't think of any threads off the top of my head.

My general understanding is that complete/bet or raise/bet differs depending upon your opponent. Many loose/passive players will dig in their heels once you raise them preflop, but if you complete and then bet they give you credit for hitting the flop because they don't feel like they are being pushed around.

This works quite well at 5/10 and below.

Of course if the BB is tight or weak then the raise is always better...and at 10/20+ there are many many players who will raise nearly any open-complete (as is correct most times) so this play loses its efficacy, but the open-reraise gains in potency with hands like ATs+ which figure to be a favorite over their raising standards.

GL,

Surf

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
My general understanding is that complete/bet or raise/bet differs depending upon your opponent. Many loose/passive players will dig in their heels once you raise them preflop, but if you complete and then bet they give you credit for hitting the flop because they don't feel like they are being pushed around.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, but I recall reading the same type of points before and being persuaded that, with the clear majority of all the player types out there, the better line was usually to raise pf. Unfortunately, I can't recall all of the various arguments.

Frankly, half of the reason for this post is to pick up some searching tips. I just can't seem to formulate a decent search.

[Surfbullet]

Search tips:

1) Include "-re:" in any search. This gets rid of replies to threads, so only original threads show up.
2) try searching for multiple phrases. put them in quotes. Searching for open complete(not in quotes) shows all threads with either word in them. Searching for "open complete" (in quotes) searches for that specific sequence of words. so... "open complete" + "continuation bet" + -re: might be a good first search. try swapping different phrases... "continuation bet" for "heads up" or add "blind war" etc.

GL.

Surf

[PokerCat69]

Search results makes me laugh/cry half the time.

Example: you search for something like a starting hand chart.
The threads that show up are all from people asking about a starting hand chart, and the replies those threads get are from people saying "use the search feature".

[Wynton]

Surf,

Thanks a lot for those tips. I'm sure they will come in handy in general, but unfortunately I can't come up with a relevant discussion to this particular inquiry.

I suppose it's also possible I imagined the prior discussions too. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif But I don't think so.

[Megenoita]

Wynton,

I don't see the advantage of open-completing and then auto-betting the flop in most situations. Might as well take the initiative right away. But it would be good where you have my image at a table. Tighter, doesn't auto-raise the blinds in position, but definitely goes strong with a piece. If you have this at a table, then open-completing and auto-betting has merit...villain will "know" you have a piece, and if he doesn't, he'll likely give up right away. But then you won a tiny amount, so I don't know...

The other thing I was going to say is to expand upon the concept that David Sklansky talks about, I think in HEPFAP, where he says against blinds that ALWAYS defend and go too far with their hands, it's often correct to open-limp with hands like A3o. The reason being that you really need an ace to flop to beat 2 guys who are going to the river every time. Well, applying that here, when I have a total fish in the BB, with hands like 97s I'll open-complete, and I knkow if I flop anything decent, he'll pay off to the river with K high, but conversely, I can get out cheaply if I miss. So here, I find open-completing better and this situation happens more often.

M

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]

The other thing I was going to say is to expand upon the concept that David Sklansky talks about, I think in HEPFAP, where he says against blinds that ALWAYS defend and go too far with their hands, it's often correct to open-limp with hands like A3o. The reason being that you really need an ace to flop to beat 2 guys who are going to the river every time. Well, applying that here, when I have a total fish in the BB, with hands like 97s I'll open-complete, and I knkow if I flop anything decent, he'll pay off to the river with K high, but conversely, I can get out cheaply if I miss. So here, I find open-completing better and this situation happens more often.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a really good point, and many players forget that initiative is worth nothing to a hand like 97s if you aren't folding out a better hand before the river.

Surf

[Wynton]

But here is the counterargument to the player who calls down with anything. Against this type, you still want to raise with your legitimate raising hands. You may not be able to win on the flop, but your equity still figures to be better than the random hand the opponent will have. Yet, if you are raising those hands, limping will give away too much info the rest of the time.

Also, the HEFAP discussion you cite refers to playing against 2 opponents postflop, which is much different. I am limiting the discussion to battles between the sb and bb.

The discussion I recall here did some more involved analysis, considering how different types of players in the bb might react when they face a sb raise. And my recollection is that the concensus still was that, with very few exceptions, you are better off raising/folding a vast majority of the time.

[Megenoita]

That's interesting, Wynton. I would like to read that discussion. But let me ask you this...with two cards suited under T, like 97s, 87s, 85s, etc., if you open-raise from the SB, how do you play post flop? Auto-bet the flop? If he calls, then what? If he raises, then what? Most of the time you'll have overcard flops with at least one broadway. If you check bad flops, even passive players will bet to take it down. If you open complete, now you have the option to play or not, and you don't feel obligated to force the issue. When you flop well, you are paid off a very high %. When you don't flop well, you have no risk because you get out. If you play 1 million hands like this, imagine how often you spew verses my way where you are always betting a hand against a guy who's guaranteed to call.

Maybe I just don't know how to play 97s post flop out of position against a fish when I don't flop well.

M

[irishpint]

IN the BB against an open complete what are you 3betting? We have position, 3betting gives us inititive, and we're against the ultimate steal. how low do you go? All PP, A?, K?, Q? etc. Im probably A7, K8, QT, and all PP but i really dont have any idea, and thats only against a player i know if capable of raising weak hands from the SB

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
That's interesting, Wynton. I would like to read that discussion. But let me ask you this...with two cards suited under T, like 97s, 87s, 85s, etc., if you open-raise from the SB, how do you play post flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am very unqualified to answer, because my blind play really sucks. But I do believe that this prior discussion - if it ever occurred anywhere other than my imagination - considered the ramifications of open-limping vs open-raising against: (1) players who defend with anything; (2) players who defend selectively; (3) players who over-react by 3-betting excessively; (4) players who always call the bet, but don't continue on the flop without a piece...etc.

As for those particular hands you mention, I think that I would dump them if I was up against someone who tended to contest the blinds vigorously. They're just too tricky for me to play. Against a more manageable opponent, I might raise with those hands, autobet the flop and then re-evaluate on the turn. That approach might cost more than open-limping those particular hands, but it could also lead the opponent to pay you off on future hands when you connect with superior starters.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
IN the BB against an open complete what are you 3betting? We have position, 3betting gives us inititive, and we're against the ultimate steal. how low do you go? All PP, A?, K?, Q? etc. Im probably A7, K8, QT, and all PP but i really dont have any idea, and thats only against a player i know if capable of raising weak hands from the SB

[/ QUOTE ]

I once asked similar questions here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=headsup&Number=3350333&fpa rt=1&PHPSESSID=) , but got no replies. I would love a discussion debating the merits of 3-betting various hands from the BB.

[rory]

maybe because you shouldn't be playing those hands HU out of position

plays that feel wrong usually are

[Monty Cantsin]

Against a player who seldom raises and never folds you would like to raise your good hands, fold your worst ones and complete with some in the middle. If your opponent does not punish you for completing, by exploiting the information leak, then why wouldn't you? This type of opponent isn't all that rare, when you find yourself up against this loose/passive/unobservant player completing some of your hands is correct.

Also, completing is part of the "conversation" you have with the player to your left. Some passive players will amp up their aggression when it becomes clear you always raise or fold. This has the effect of making them play more correctly. Against bad players I like to throw in an occasional complete just to keep things laid back and mellow.

Against a good, observant player completing the SB can be part of a much more complex "conversation" with subtle metagame meanings. See the recent Schneids/Gonores HU match thread for examples.

/mc

[Megenoita]

Rory, you shouldn't be RAISING them, maybe. But against a fish, it would be bad to fold 97s in the SB. I was playing 5/10 (6) a couple weeks ago open-completing hands like Q5o because I knew if I flopped a Q, I was getting paid by J high to the river. That's why in hands where you "can't" raise, sometimes you should limp.

[irishpint]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
IN the BB against an open complete what are you 3betting? We have position, 3betting gives us inititive, and we're against the ultimate steal. how low do you go? All PP, A?, K?, Q? etc. Im probably A7, K8, QT, and all PP but i really dont have any idea, and thats only against a player i know if capable of raising weak hands from the SB

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant vs and open raise, not an open complete. But I guess I'm curious about both. Too often I'll raise after the SB limped in and he'll 3bet me and now i dont know if he has AA/KK or is just pissed at me.

[Guruman]

A humble view from my perspective over here in the BB:

My standard play from the BB against a SB openlimper is to raise any two and autobet the flop if checked to (folding trash to any aggression). This costs 3sb and nets us 2sb when it works, so it has to work more than 2/3 of the time to be profitable if we fold the turn. If we fold to a pf reraise (which I tend not to do) or a flop donkbet (which I will do) then we only risked two small bets.

It also gives us the advantage of seeing most of the hand should an opponent call the flop bet. Sometimes I'll catch a wonky two pair that I can call down with, but I'd say more than 85% of the time I just win the hand on the flop.

I think the reason for this is that a small blind openlimp tells us

A)I don't think my hand is worthy of attempting to steal your blind (because it cant stand up to a reraise)
B)I'm trying to get lucky on the flop out of position (and I'll fold if I miss)
C)I don't care about taking initiative in the hand
D)I hope you'll let me see this flop cheaply
and occasionally
E)I have AA and I don't want to scare you off just yet.

If you want to get me off of this play from the sb, you'll have to spend 3 small bets (calling two preflop and the flop lead, or a pf reraise) to try and take my two SBs.

The difference is that you're oop and don't have a hand that you would just raise with.

Now don't get me wrong, I'll try an openlimp against weak players that will let me to the flop cheaply because they are more likely to suspect that I caught with a donkbet. But I won't go near it with someone who does what I do.

IMO an openlimp from the sb is a sign of extreme weakness, and it should be punished as such.

[Megenoita]

"IMO an openlimp from the sb is a sign of extreme weakness, and it should be punished as such."

Well, yeah, but you're a friggin' tag. I'd open-limp in the SB against you never. It's also terrible to open-limp from the BTN, but David Sklansky said to do it. So what's up with that?

The situation where you're up against a player who will always call a raise and go way too far with his hand makes open-limping the weaker hands better than folding them. All raising hands remain raising hands. But hands you'd normally fold (Q3o, 85s, etc.), you can limp because you'll be paid when you hit, and when you miss, you can get out.

I was in a 5/10 (6) game with a huge fish directly on my left, and one directly on my right. The rest of the table was really tight. After seeing the kinds of hands they were showing down, I realized I could play terrible hands profitably. I limped Q5o, J6o, just really bad hands. Because I knew if I hit my TP, I'm getting paid by 8 high.

The point is, open-limping is only taboo because of underlying reasons that don't exist in the situation against a terrible fish.

[Trix]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Include "-re:"

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, wish I would have known earlier though...

[helpmeout]

Open raise against tags fold your cheese,I usually open raise any ace K7o Q8 any pp JT T9s and fold the rest. Obviously I adjust depending on the opponent but thats about my range.

Against a loose passive you can limp with slightly worse with no fear of being raised. But dont limp and hope.

I made a thread on this a month or 2 ago cos i use to open limp with suited crap and such and got raped.

Openlimping sucks because most players in the BB raise you, this means you have no initiative and are out of position so you pretty much have to check/fold most flops.

In the lower limits autocompleting and betting out works ok but as you play against more aggressive players they will punish you with preflop raises and flop raises.

[Wynton]

Thinking about this a bit more, I believe that the occasional open-complete can make sense provided the following conditions prevail.

First, you need good reason to believe BB will not raise pf. Second, you need to believe that BB will not raise your lead flop bet on a bluff. And third, you need to have an image that will not let your opponents necessarily conclude that you have a weak hand.

In many ways what this comes down to is that BB must be bad, and bad in a certain way. He is passive, predictable and poor at reading his opponents. Under those conditions, I think open-completing can be ok, but still provided it is done just occasionally.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking about this a bit more, I believe that the occasional open-complete can make sense provided the following conditions prevail.

First, you need good reason to believe BB will not raise pf. Second, you need to believe that BB will not raise your lead flop bet on a bluff. And third, you need to have an image that will not let your opponents necessarily conclude that you have a weak hand.

In many ways what this comes down to is that BB must be bad, and bad in a certain way. He is passive, predictable and poor at reading his opponents. Under those conditions, I think open-completing can be ok, but still provided it is done just occasionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah, like a really big fish. 66/0, 57/2, 43/3.

Openlimping against passive BBs is fine. By passive I mean anybody with a &lt;5-8% PFR.

Against TAGs and maniacs, I usually raise hands with superior value (A7o, 55+, K9s, etc), but fold all others (22-44, A-little offsuit, Q9s). Less frequently, against TAGs, I will limp marginal hands like small pairs, ace-little, or hands like JT, then auto-checkraise the flop (after being autoraised preflop). But I generally try to avoid playing marginal hands OOP against smart/tricky/aggressive players.

Against tigher players, I will raise the same marginal hands and autobet the flop.

I rarely find the opportunity to autoraise any two.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The other thing I was going to say is to expand upon the concept that David Sklansky talks about, I think in HEPFAP, where he says against blinds that ALWAYS defend and go too far with their hands, it's often correct to open-limp with hands like A3o. The reason being that you really need an ace to flop to beat 2 guys who are going to the river every time. Well, applying that here, when I have a total fish in the BB, with hands like 97s I'll open-complete, and I knkow if I flop anything decent, he'll pay off to the river with K high, but conversely, I can get out cheaply if I miss. So here, I find open-completing better and this situation happens more often.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is talking about play from the button, where you are guaranteed last action on the flop. The situation is different from the SB because from the button, you can call the flop autobet, and bet the turn check with air, and still win the pot. On the other hand, from the SB, if your flop autobet is called, betting the turn is marginal against most opponents.

[aslowjoe]

I asked this question before and never got an answer. My most unfavorite hand. A3 in the SB. What do you do with it against

1. Loose passive who never fold to an open raise and will always peel one but will auto bet if checked to on the turn.

2. A LAG who will 3bet you bet often bluff raise on any street.

My play here is to open limp thinking if I do catch an A I can win an extra bet or 2 because since I did not raise pre flop they do not give me credit for an A.If I miss I just check fold only losing 1/2SB. Against these type of players I am more comfortable open raising K8o then A3.

Side note. Last time I mentioned that I just open complete I was told by a respected poster that that was just plain wrong. Any other thoughts?

[Wynton]

Aslowjoe,

Against a loose passive who is going to call with anything, I think you need to be raising. A3o is a clear favorite against a random hand.

Playing against the LAG is trickier. My question is whether the LAG is likely to raise pf if you merely complete. Some LAGs seem content to check along, yet with the same hand, will react to a possible steal by 3-betting. If the LAG fits into that particular category, I could see an argument in favor of merely completing. But if the LAG is going to raise pf regardless of what you do, then I'd be inclined to beat him to the punch and raise. Again, A3 stands to be a clear favorite against a random hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a loose passive who is going to call with anything, I think you need to be raising. A3o is a clear favorite against a random hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think raising against a LP with A3o is marginal to negative. You have some preflop equity, but who cares. Since he's loose-passive, he will call your flop autobet and maybe call you on the turn also. And even if your ace-high is good, are you really going to bet it on the turn? If he calls, do you bet the river again for value? Do you check-call a river bet after showing weakness on the turn or river?

Raising ace-rag I think has value only if there is a chance that the villain will fold. Preflop equity doesnt mean much if you consider that a LP-P will be going to at least 4th street, and possibly beyond.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

I think raising against a LP with A3o is marginal to negative. You have some preflop equity, but who cares. Since he's loose-passive, he will call your flop autobet and maybe call you on the turn also. And even if your ace-high is good, are you really going to bet it on the turn? If he calls, do you bet the river again for value? Do you check-call a river bet after showing weakness on the turn or river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I strongly disagree. A high amounts to a strong hand headsup. I'm not saying that there won't be some tough decisions, but considering the opponent's profile (LP), we should have some confidence in making better decisions post-flop.

And if the opponent is the type who is going to call down to the river with ANYTHING (which is pretty rare), then it's simple. Bet every street. Over the long run, you will make more than you will lose.

[ QUOTE ]
And if the opponent is the type who is going to call down to the river with ANYTHING (which is pretty rare), then it's simple. Bet every street. Over the long run, you will make more than you will lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true only in theory. One overcard against two non-paired undercards (e.g., A3o vs. 95o) is around a 5%-10% favorite hot-cold until the river (depending on suits and whether the villain's cards are connected). The slight edge you have is also offset by the positional advantage the villain has, in which case he will be able to raise you when he is ahead, and additionally raise you off the best hand when you are ahead. Sometimes you both will hit an ace but you will be dominated, in which case you will lose more money. I dont care whether you are a world-class player, even against a monkey, this is hard to play. The generic statement that "we will make better decisions than the villain postflop" is only partially true. Bottom line, I think you add significant variance, but not nearly as much EV as the hot-cold numbers tell you.

[Wynton]

Either the opponent here is calling down with everything or he's not. If he's calling down with everything, then the numbers will invariably hold up.

More realistically, the opponent is not literally calling down with everything, and at least folding on the turn sometimes. So you are going to be faced with a decision. Our opponent's position negates our superior post-flop skill somewhat, but not enough for me to be passive with a hand that is clearly better than a random hand.

Well "calling down the whole way" is not really what I meant to suggest would happen. Im not suggesting that this guy will call the river on hands like 9-high. He will fold those clear loser hands, but will call a river bet with Ace high, maybe king high, any pair, any pocket pair. So on the river, you make money only where you have an ace high/pair and he has an inferior calling hand. A lot of the times, your river bet will be -EV.

During earlier streets, he will raise you if he makes top pair, or possibly a strong middle pair with a strong kicker, or a pair and a draw, and of course if any of his draws hit. From your perspective, it is hard to play. If you've made a pair with your sidecard, you cant be happy since you're facing all overs. But you probably have to fold. If you make a pair with your ace, you can't extract the maximum from it for fear of domination, so you check-call and make the minimum because he checks behind on the river. But you pay off if he has a dominating ace.

Now add to the fact that even a LP-P opponent sometimes gets frisky. They might semibluff a plain vanilla 8/9 out draw periodically, or raise the river or a paired board in frustration. You wont know whether he has just spiked a 5 outer and made two-pair or trips, but you wont be happy paying off either.

The hot-cold analysis is helpful for analyzing all-in play, but I think it causes people to misanalyze HU play that develops by street.

On the bus yesterday, I was reading Byron Jacob's book. Problem 5, question #2 raises a similar problem. You're on the button holding A8o, playing a LAG BB. Jacobs asks: Which would you rather have in this situation: A8o, QJo, or 22. Jacob (correctly, I think) says QJo, even though in terms of hot-cold analysis, this hand is the worst. Essentially, he explains that while QJo has the worst of it preflop, it is the easiest hand to play postflop.

A3o, while it has preflop equity against a RH, has postflop characteristics of both 22 and A8o--namely the weak sidecard makes it very hard to play after the flop OOP, even against a passive opponent who is calling down on the flop &amp; turn on a wide range of hands, and who calls the river on some hands you beat, and some hands you dont.

Hence, I go back to my original point. Against a LP-P opponent, I wouldn't raise A3o. I would raise A3o OOP only against a tighter player who would either fold preflop, or who would fold a scary flop.

[Wynton]

OK, so now we've fleshed out the opponent a lot more.

You make some interesting points, and I have to run now, but I'll just mention that there's no requirement that we bet each street either. Certainly, it's reasonable to check/call the river against the type of opponent you describe, depending of course on the board.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The other thing I was going to say is to expand upon the concept that David Sklansky talks about, I think in HEPFAP, where he says against blinds that ALWAYS defend and go too far with their hands, it's often correct to open-limp with hands like A3o. The reason being that you really need an ace to flop to beat 2 guys who are going to the river every time. Well, applying that here, when I have a total fish in the BB, with hands like 97s I'll open-complete, and I knkow if I flop anything decent, he'll pay off to the river with K high, but conversely, I can get out cheaply if I miss. So here, I find open-completing better and this situation happens more often.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is talking about play from the button, where you are guaranteed last action on the flop. The situation is different from the SB because from the button, you can call the flop autobet, and bet the turn check with air, and still win the pot. On the other hand, from the SB, if your flop autobet is called, betting the turn is marginal against most opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. The reasons he gives are none of what you said (as I recall) and everything that I said.

M

If you recall something different, then we're talking about different section. I'll post page cites to what i was referring to when I get home and have my copy of HPFAP.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
If you recall something different, then we're talking about different section. I'll post page cites to what i was referring to when I get home and have my copy of HPFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see...HEPFAP pp. 197-198. I think you are right in that Sklansky says of position that "...you make it more likely that you will steal the pot if they both check on the flop" (p. 198 paragraph 1).

But I think that point is more an addendum than the main reason you limp some hands on the button. I believe that for two reasons. One, the focus of the section seems to be on the fact that pre flop, if the players are too loose, then you lose most of the reason you would raise in the first place:

p. 197 under the card picture when he begins his discussion of not raising on the button (A6o pictured): "Notice that most people will raise with these. But if you are in a game where both blinds are calling a very high % of the time, then you should just call. Otherwise you run into problems. Suppose you raise with A6o and get two calls. Unless the flop contains an ace, your hand is usually not worth much...thus you don't want to commit too much money before the flop."

p. 198 his conclusion: "Thus it is not worth raising with these types of hands unless you have a reasonable chance of stealing the blinds."

Secondly, in his discussion about opening in the SB on page 46, he says, "If you hold a hand like A6o you should frequently just call." (Unless they fold too much pre flop)

The idea he's presenting is that against players who will always "defend" and will go too far with their hands, it serves you better to wait until the flop to see if your hand flops well before putting more money in. I played a whole session against a fish where I was open-limping all kinds of bad hands, Q5o, J6o, 85o, because I knew that if I flopped a pair, and he didn't, I'd get paid and he wouldn't make me pay when he hit because he'd check. This is the kind of situation I'm talking about--against the bigger fish.

M

We're talking about the same section, then. And we're in total agreement in terms what Sklansky was saying.

Sklansky says dont raise A3o from the button unless you can steal. You/I say dont openraise A3o against a loose passive because you can't steal either preflop or postflop. But if you openlimp, you can bet your ace if it hits and get paid off, while only losing 1 SB if you miss. I totally agree.

See my discussion with Wynton about whether it makes sense to openraise A3o against a LP-P.

My point was to make clear that while Wynton was talking about open completing from ths SB, the Sklansky section was talking about opencompleting from the button. It is significant that you have last action postflop. Thus, the rationale for opencompleting from the button against a LP-P is greater, than from the SB.

But we generally are in agreement. I was just pointing out that you were citing Sklansky in a different context than what Wynton was talking about.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
in his discussion about opening in the SB on page 46, he says, "If you hold a hand like A6o you should frequently just call." (Unless they fold too much pre flop)

The idea he's presenting is that against players who will always "defend" and will go too far with their hands, it serves you better to wait until the flop to see if your hand flops well before putting more money in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to get my copy out when I get home and review this section, because I really don't get it.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking about the same section, then. And we're in total agreement in terms what Sklansky was saying.

Sklansky says dont raise A3o from the button unless you can steal. You/I say dont openraise A3o against a loose passive because you can't steal either preflop or postflop. But if you openlimp, you can bet your ace if it hits and get paid off, while only losing 1 SB if you miss. I totally agree.

See my discussion with Wynton about whether it makes sense to openraise A3o against a LP-P.

My point was to make clear that while Wynton was talking about open completing from ths SB, the Sklansky section was talking about opencompleting from the button. It is significant that you have last action postflop. Thus, the rationale for opencompleting from the button against a LP-P is greater, than from the SB.

But we generally are in agreement. I was just pointing out that you were citing Sklansky in a different context than what Wynton was talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your posts to Wynton and I see that we are in agreement for the most part. I don't think "the rationale is greater" for open-limping on the button per se, but other than that, yeah, I like your points to Wynton.

I think we'll both beat the fish /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

M

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in his discussion about opening in the SB on page 46, he says, "If you hold a hand like A6o you should frequently just call." (Unless they fold too much pre flop)

The idea he's presenting is that against players who will always "defend" and will go too far with their hands, it serves you better to wait until the flop to see if your hand flops well before putting more money in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to get my copy out when I get home and review this section, because I really don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wynton, I didn't get it either until I was in the situation and it clicked. I had read HEPFAP 3 times and hadn't gotten it. I'm still like that with many sections in that book, which is why I read it on the can every day /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

The point is simple. Pretend this situation occurs:

1. You are playing 6-handed like 5/10 or so.
2. The player to your direct left is a 57/0/.43.
3. He accordingly never folds to positional raises.
4. He almost never, ever folds post flop until the river, and even then, he calls with A high or even K-J high sometimes.
5. Fast-forward to all the hands where it's folded to you in the SB. You have A3o every time. This is like Groundhog's Day. Phil Murray style. You have this hand millions of times. In the long run, would you rather raise and have to see him win 42% of the time (because neither one of you will fold unless you are beaten), or would you rather just call, and play only the flops where you flop an ace or otherwise well? There your equity shoots up and he's still paying you off.

M

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
In the long run, would you rather raise and have to see him win 42% of the time (because neither one of you will fold unless you are beaten), or would you rather just call, and play only the flops where you flop an ace or otherwise well? There your equity shoots up and he's still paying you off.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm not sure about, being mathematically-impaired. If he wins 42% of the time, are you sure we don't come out ahead if we just bet each hand?

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In the long run, would you rather raise and have to see him win 42% of the time (because neither one of you will fold unless you are beaten), or would you rather just call, and play only the flops where you flop an ace or otherwise well? There your equity shoots up and he's still paying you off.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm not sure about, being mathematically-impaired. If he wins 42% of the time, are you sure we don't come out ahead if we just bet each hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, no, we would come out ahead if we had A6o every time against a random hand. But it would be very slight compared to smashing him if we just call and play only when we flop well, you know?

M

See this is where Im more on Wynton's side. When you have position after the flop, raising ace-rag is much more justifiable on preflop equity alone, because you're going to be able to bet when ahead and check and take free cards when behind. Do you see, Wynton, why the converse however--namely openraising ace-rag from the SB--is a problem? The positional disadvantage more than overcomes any preflop equity.

That said, I also agree with Sklansky's point about playing ace-rag from the button against loose/passive blinds. Since they're loose and passive, there is no steal equity, and your preflop equity is thin. So limp instead, and see a flop. If you hit a pair (even a sidecard pair), your advantage goes up enormously because of position. Since these guys are passive monkeys, they'll give as many free cards as you need, but you can make them pay when you have the edge.

Now Wynton, to really get your mind warped, note that Sklansky specifically limits his comments to playing ace-rag from the button. From the cutoff seat, he would recommend a raise. (The reason for this should be obvious: to gain last action)

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
See this is where Im more on Wynton's side. When you have position after the flop, raising ace-rag is much more justifiable on preflop equity alone, because you're going to be able to bet when ahead and check and take free cards when behind. Do you see, Wynton, why the converse however--namely openraising ace-rag from the SB--is a problem? The positional disadvantage more than overcomes any preflop equity.

That said, I also agree with Sklansky's point about playing ace-rag from the button against loose/passive blinds. Since they're loose and passive, there is no steal equity, and your preflop equity is thin. So limp instead, and see a flop. If you hit a pair (even a sidecard pair), your advantage goes up enormously because of position. Since these guys are passive monkeys, they'll give as many free cards as you need, but you can make them pay when you have the edge.

Now Wynton, to really get your mind warped, note that Sklansky specifically limits his comments to playing ace-rag from the button. From the cutoff seat, he would recommend a raise. (The reason for this should be obvious: to gain last action)

[/ QUOTE ]

Despot, two things.

One, I agree with you about position however I've always represented villain as a person who in all purposes gives us position by never or almost never betting. Two, Sklansky says A6o should be limped in the SB opening as well, regardless of the lack of position.

M

[ QUOTE ]
[Sklansky says A6o should be limped in the SB opening as well, regardless of the lack of position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh interesting. I had recalled that discussion as applying to button play. (I specifically remember it as a button discussion, because I remember Sklansky's point about how it SHOULD be openraised from the CO.) I'll have to go back and look at it again.

I do agree though, that A-rag offsuit is far from an autoraise on value against a loose passive player. A lot of the natural aggression that SH play brings out ends up having you spew preflop and on later streets, all in the name of "value."

All of this said, Im not a great HU player by any means, and usually leave the table after it drops below 3-handed play.

[Wynton]

I'm still skeptical whether betting out with Ax from sb is worse than a wait and see the flop approach.

Against the opponent type we're discussing, I think we'd all agree that it's near impossible to read what cards he has, since he's calling with such a huge range of hands. But if you limp pf, that means you're probably going to decline to bet a lot of flops also, and in many (or most) of the situations, you're actually ahead.

I guess what I'm saying is that the fallacy in the Sklansky approach (easy for me to say without having the book nearby to reread) is the idea that you'll have a better idea whether you're ahead after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
the fallacy in the Sklansky approach (easy for me to say without having the book nearby to reread) is the idea that you'll have a better idea whether you're ahead after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, lots of time the flop will miss both of you. But there are at least 2 advantages to an unraised pot that I can think of: (1) the pot is smaller, and thus less attractive for villain to call your autobet on the flop, particularly if he holds unsuited unders on a flop like KT3 rainbow; and (2) the villain is less "psychologically wedded" to defending the pot/his blind--I think a lot of these players doggedly call because they feel like they are being "bullied" preflop by TAGs/LAGs.

[Wynton]

But wait a second: I thought we were talking about a situation where the villain is going to call pf and the flop (if not the turn) REGARDLESS of whether we raise or limp pf: If the opponent is the type who respects a flop bet more when there was no pf raise, that changes my view.

Im not sure that we can ever get a close enough read on a player to determine whether he is the type of LP-P who will call a flop bet in a raised pot, but not an unraised pot. But I do think that all LP-Ps are going to be somewhat less likely to call in the second scenario.

Furthermore, even if you do not bet the flop, a LP-P will often check behind after you complete from the SB and check the flop, thus giving you a free card. You can then lead the turn on a decent scare card (e.g., Broadway card) or pair (A, 3), with an even greater likelihood that the LP-P will fold to the BB, getting only 2:1 odds.