EP Raises scaring people off at 0.02/0.04 limits

I am just working my way though SSH and playing the 0.02/0.04 limits on Stars.

The games are loose and generally passive.

What I am sometime finding is that when I raise a monster UTG, it scares most (SB/BB aside) into folding.

I know raising UTG with a great starting hand is the thing to do, but in the scenarios how much value I am really getting if 80% of oppenents fold. Would I be better limping and hope a few other limp behind? And even better limp and hope a LP opponent raises so I can then reraise? ie. get people to limp in and commit some cash and then hope someone in LP bumps it up so I can extract some more into the pot.

Advice much appreciated.

Regards,
Ian

[AKQJ10]

Wow. That's a very atypical micro-limit game.

Often, in micro-limit hold 'em, people will cold call two bets almost as loosely as they do one bet, with 10 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif, A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif, and other -EV hands.

[Songwind]

Stars micros are tighter than most sites, but I find that overall I'm getting more out of people coldcalling than I would from letting them limp.

[SheridanCat]

Mason Malmuth has an essay where he talks about how to play aces UTG. He discussed this, I think (I don't have the book handy), with Mike Caro. Caro advocating limping with aces to get maximum players in.

In the end Mason basically reasons that it doesn't really matter what you do with aces UTG since you will so rarely get ace UTG that either way to play will not be a mistake.

My point is, don't worry about it. Raise them usually. Sometimes limp and hope for a chance to rereaise. Either way, in the long run, it's not going to make any difference.

Big pairs play well against many or few opponents. So, try adapting your plays to the table texture and see what happens.

Regards,

T

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]

Big pairs play well against many or few opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's certainly true of AA (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/LHE:Preflop:AA), but less so as you go down the food chain. My understanding: "conventional wisdom" says one reason to raise with KK (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/LHE:Preflop:KK) or QQ (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/LHE:Preflop:QQ) is to avoid losing to ace-bad kicker who might limp in and catch an ace on the flop.

At micros Axo is going to cold call two bets anyway, so thinning the field is less realistic. You're mostly just raising for value with the best hand preflop, and changing Axo to draw at a dominated (http://poker.wikicities.com/wiki/Domination) three-out hand.

[SheridanCat]

Even with the random aces in the hand, your equity with non-AA large pairs is better than your fair share, so letting those hands in is fine, I think. In the long run. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Painful now of course.

Regards,

T

[bernie]

Simple. Raise more hands preflop.

b

[TripleH68]

Just using AA as an example UTG.

If you raise the callers you get will often hold hands you dominate.
Pocket pairs and if you are lucky AK or AQ. The blinds will have to pay to play.

When you limp it can be easy to lose control of the hand.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
When you limp it can be easy to lose control of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's an interesting way to put it. I suppose that in ultra-loose games I never feel like I have control of the hand. To use Ed Miller's brilliant simile, it's like I can sweep the ice furiously but I'm not going to make that damn curling stone move very fast in the right direction!

[Felipe]

i went through the same: stars and paradise at 2c/4c, then up a notch and up a notch

If you raise AA UTG at 2c/4c and the flop is 2/3 handed, I think you've made a mistake. I would suggest leaving and finding a softer table. Players here play looser tables at $5/$10!

When I raise UTG, i often see the guy to my left a few seats 3 betting it, and two/three other players cold calling, along with the blinds. Then i cap it!! It's insane!

ENJOY THE MICROS!!
felipe

[djhoneybear]

You should be happy to win a small pot rather than lose a big one. Cutting down the field is important but make sure you are raising all hands UTG which should be raised (AA-TT, AK, AQ, AJs). If you get everyone to fold with TT then more power to you. I can't do that playing 6/12

[ QUOTE ]
You should be happy to win a small pot rather than lose a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that statement in principle, but........

The fact that I hold AA before the flop means that I am a BIG favourite to win? I WANT a BIG pot.

My actual chances of winning the hand at the point (before the flop) aren't going to change one bit, no matter who bets or raises, etc. I know in reality the actual chance of winning gets better with less players- what I am trying to say is that I am still a big favourite to win AT THAT POINT.

Surely you raise AA to gain value? You are not raising it to thin the field? You are hoping you get called, raised, re-raised- the more the better?

Consequently, IF I thought by raising I would get 2 callers V me just calling and getting 5 callers- would I not be better doing that?

I just want to make sure my understanding of the principles is sound, rather than the exact specifics of the hole cards, no. of callers, etc.

Many thanks,
Ian

Ideally you want a large pot with few players. Yes you must always be favourite pre-flop with AA, but that edge decreases with the number of opponents - particularly if they will all go to showdown.

Another point to consider, which is possibly less relevant at 0.02/0.04, but important as players get stronger, is what hands would call/reraise a raise (e.g. KK-TT, AK-AQs/o), i.e. the hands against which you are strong favourite. Allowing limpers in (and BB for free) increases the range of hands you may be up against. This means that you won't know where you are with many flops. So don't be surprised to lose on occasion to raggedy 2-pair or runner-runner straights and flushes.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be happy to win a small pot rather than lose a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that aphorism makes a ton of simplifying assumptions that simply don't apply to the question at hand. You're not guaranteed to win the small pot if you raise with AA UTG, and you're not guaranteed to lose a big pot if you limp. Since your probability of either is less than one, it matters how likely you are to win the small pot or lose the big one, and it matters how small the small pot and how big the big pot are.

In a typical low-stakes game, by raising, you have a slightly improved chance of winning (because occasionally one of your opponents might fold a marginal hand that would draw out on you). When you win, you win substantially more. Win you lose, you also lose more, but you're putting in one extra bet to raise and the field may be putting in four or five.

So it's almost always correct to raise AA in a small-stakes game, but it has nothing to do with "winning a small pot." You won't increase your chances of winning that much because so many opponents will cold call with junk and draw out on you. But when you win you'll win more, and you'll win more than your fair share. (Aces make an overpair, aces up, sets, and full houses, and when they do they get paid off by top pair, lower two pair, trips, straights, flushes, and even the occasional underboat.)

When you have an equity advantage, put more money in the pot. That's all there is to low-limit poker.

[Felipe]

[ QUOTE ]
You should be happy to win a small pot rather than lose a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am really not a fan of statements that oversimplify, and obsure the true and delicate nuances of poker. They are dangerous, and often unimportant to the overall strategy of a truely good player.

[POKhER]

Move up where they will respect your raises. Oh wait they do!!!

hehe, find a fishy table or raise more hands and bully these wimps into giving you their "blinds that arn't worth fighting over".

[donkeyradish]

I would say if you are playing 0.02/0.04 and most people usually fold to a raise, your best plan is to switch to another 0.02/0.04 table.