raise jacks out of the small blind?

[bad beetz]

$6/$12. A mix of four pretty crappy and loose players limp. I'm in the small blind (one chip) with jacks. Do I raise?

[Homer]

Okay, I get it now.

[Joe Tall]

If you are pretty sure you can knock out the BB, I raise 4 limpers, it's when it's 7 limps (like the games I play), I lay off raising this hand.

Check Vehn's post out, he raised.

What are you two trying to accomplish?

Opps, I forgot it's a $3 chip, sorry

[rkiray]

With JJ I go with the HPFAP advice that it does not want to play againt 3 or 4 opponents. It likes either more or less. So you have a clear call to keep the BB in.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
$6/$12. A mix of four pretty crappy and loose players limp. I'm in the small blind (one chip) with jacks. Do I raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing against you Beetz, but why must we rehash this silly question every week? This is a clear and easy raise, particularly against these players.

Hands I'd raise here virtually 100% of the time:
AA-TT
AK-Qo
AK-ATs
KQs, KJs

Hands I'd raise between 25-75% of the time, more or less depending on just how loose and poor the opponents are:
KQo, AJo, KTs, QJs, 99, A9-A8s.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
$6/$12. A mix of four pretty crappy and loose players limp. I'm in the small blind (one chip) with jacks. Do I raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

6-way action against a random hand and four $6-12 crappy player limping hands. Of course you raise.

[Ed Miller]

Dude, you raise here. Not even close.

[haakee]

raise. tie them to that big f**king pot for when you flop a set or overpair.

[SoBeDude]

I'm with beetz on this one clark.

I don't think this is a clear raise with JJ.

especially when there are weak players in the hand who will keep calling with even a single overcard and bottom pair (or just an overcard!), and adding to that the liklihood of flopping one or TWO overcards, I don't see why this is an auto-raise.

Please help me see why. (if I'm missing an important raise here I need to understand why and correct it)

Thanks!

-Scott

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
especially when there are weak players in the hand who will keep calling with even a single overcard and bottom pair

if I'm missing an important raise here I need to understand why and correct it)



[/ QUOTE ]

It's simple. The reasons you gave in your post for not raising are the reasons you should be raising with JJ.

[bad beetz]

It's like this:

I call before the flop:

I flop an ace check-fold to a bet and two calls. One small bet lost to a meekly played pair of jacks. Or, I flop a set, and get five callers on every street with a four-way showdown and I scoop a big ass pot.

I raise before the flop:

The flop comes king high. I bet and get four callers. I turn something and bet and get three callers. river comes something. I bet and get two callers with K3o and K2o.

when I raise before the flop I burn more chips after the flop. I would rather wait and push nut hands or nut draws that I got to see cheaply, because I'll get action regardless of pot size.

But. after 540 hours I make about a dollar and hour so I'm considering a 180 degree shift in these types of things. All the 1-bigbet+ winners I know are far mor aggressive than I am. I think a month of running bad has turned me into a pussy, just when I was starting to do things right.

I would have NEVER even thought about raising KJs out of the small blind, but I'm going to start for a while.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop comes king high. I bet and get four callers. I turn something and bet and get three callers

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't you see that the problem isn't with your pre-flop play? It's with your post-flop play. Why are you betting in these situations? You're not under an obligation to do so.

The pre-flop raise with JJ is profitable. Your losing money post-flop.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
The flop comes king high. I bet and get four callers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dynasty is correct, you are misplaying this hand after the flop. Check the flop with the idea of checking and folding.
If an aggressive late player bets, you might want to check/raise.

[bad beetz]

I think I'm losing most of my money in my post-river play.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
It's simple. The reasons you gave in your post for not raising are the reasons you should be raising with JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think this is an example of needing to manipulate the pot size so your opponents make mistakes. These players are going to make the mistake of calling. A raise puts 11 or 12 bets into the pot (depending on the BB). Gutshots and bottom pairs are getting the price to call on the flop. They aren't making a mistake. Add 2 or 3 limpers and I like a raise, take away 2 limpers and I like a raise. In this situation, I don't like a raise.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I'm losing most of my money in my post-river play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, strip clubs are hard on the bankroll.

[oddjob]

i have this weird thing about raising with the best hand. maybe it's just me.

[Dynasty]

Almost all low-limit players are calling with gut-shots and most are calling with middle and bottom pair regardless of the size of the pot. If they're going to call on the flop no matter what, it doesn't matter whether they're play is "correct" or not. That combined with getting the extra small bet from all the opponents limping with trash and missing the flop makes raising much better.

Manipulating the size of the pot is best left for games where several of your opponents play reasonably well.

Besides, I like to manipulate the pot by making it bigger when you've got a premium hand rather than making it smaller.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Almost all low-limit players are calling with gut-shots and most are calling with middle and bottom pair regardless of the size of the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
If they're going to call on the flop no matter what, it doesn't matter whether they're play is "correct" or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if they call with a gutshot getting 12:1 vs. calling with it getting only 6:1? You don't really believe that, do you?

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, I like to manipulate the pot by making it bigger when you've got a premium hand rather than making it smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general, of course that's true, but this is the weakest premium hand, out of position, against 4 or 5 opponents certain to call on the flop and probably the turn. JJ isn't in great shape here.

One of the admonitions in HEFAP is the worst scenario for JJ is exactly 3 or 4 opponents. If the raise knocks out the BB, you have exactly 4 opponents.

Like I said before, add a few limpers, it is an easy raise. Take away a couple of limpers, easy raise again. In this situation, I think just completing is better.

[Clarkmeister]

"It doesn't matter if they call with a gutshot getting 12:1 vs. calling with it getting only 6:1? You don't really believe that, do you? "

In one of those scenarios they are paying 3 bets to see the turn. In another they are paying 2 bets. Where do you really think you are making the most money? You are looking only at one street and not at their effective odds.

To put it another way, if you are failing to make a +EV raise before the flop (and raising JJ is clearly +EV against any number of random hand limpers) then it is you who are making the mistake. You are worrying so much about mistakes that your opponents *might* make later in the hand that you are making a mistake yourself right here, right now by letting them see the flop on the cheap when you have a hand that makes most of its money upfront.

[elysium]

hi bad
that's a tough question. you know i think you can raise here. you will need to flop an over-pair or set against four opponents but raising gets the bets into the pot right away, and from the SB that's what you want to do with a strong holding.

if you get over-carded, however, you will wish that you hadn't raised. so only make this raise if you're winning and are the force to be contended with on your table. and of course do not raise if there is an aggressive opponent who will reraise behind you. then you should call and even if over-carded, check-raise the LP aggressive to get him heads up provided the middle position players are weak tight.

JJ from the SB against four opponents is a very tricky hand to play. if you had 5 opponents in the hand you should just call. but interestingly bad, if you had TT or 99, you should raise 4 or more opponents because now you know that you must flop a set or fold. against fewer than 4 though, and you should normally call. the odds of flopping an over-pair just doesn't justify putting a lot of money in the pot with TT or 99.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if they call with a gutshot getting 12:1 vs. calling with it getting only 6:1? You don't really believe that, do you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statment suggests that they will be making a bigger mistake when you don't raise pre-flop. By raising pre-flop, you charge them 3 bets to draw to their gut-shot. Without the raise, you only charge them 2 bets. So, are you sure they're making the bigger mistake when you don't raise?

[SoBeDude]

they don't have a gutshot preflop.

once they call the raise and the pot is twice as big, then they are making LESS of a mistake to chase their gutshots.

-Scott

[Miah]

I think the more important issue here is not whether to raise or not preflop, but know when to lay them down from the flop on as jacks can loose much on their muscle once the flop comes. Raising preflop might make some people hold onto their hand for a bit longer than they should.

I'd probably raise them, but it isn't such a horrible thing to mix up your play is it?

[SoBeDude]

Hi Clark,

That logic may work perfectly in the types of games you play in.

I do not think it is quite correct in the low limits games we play (this IS the low limit forum).

If I was playing 30-60 then yea, I'd raise with JJ in the BB.

at 2-4 (or thereabouts) I think the raise is a mistake, because they'll stay to catch anything against you. The implied collusion is very powerful here.

Checking pokertracker (over 30,000 hands), I've had JJ in the BB 10 times. I've won with it 3 times. one of those times everyone folded to me, so I really won with it twice.

Of those two wins, one was heads-up. the other, the king-high flop was checked around so I bet the turn. one guy called me down.

I have a net loss of playing JJ in the BB of $2.30 PER HAND. remember this is mostly 2/4 and 3/6 with some 5-10.

Tell me again why I should put more money in preflop?

-Scott

[Clarkmeister]

"That logic may work perfectly in the types of games you play in."

It works perfectly in super loose games at every limit.

"I do not think it is quite correct in the low limits games we play (this IS the low limit forum).

If I was playing 30-60 then yea, I'd raise with JJ in the BB."

So you think this magically works better against better players? In reality the opposite is true because the better players will actually make decisions based upon pot size while worse players (presumable in the LL game) will call no matter what.

As an aside, why does everyone want their opponents to both limp correctly preflop (as not raising lets them do) and fold correctly after the flop? What is with this irrational fear of getting beat? Its baffling to me.

"at 2-4 (or thereabouts) I think the raise is a mistake, because they'll stay to catch anything against you. The implied collusion is very powerful here."

You are aware that JJ isn't AA, right? I only expect to win in this spot about 1 in 4 times. No one said you were a prohibitive favorite in the hand.

"Checking pokertracker (over 30,000 hands), I've had JJ in the BB 10 times. I've won with it 3 times. one of those times everyone folded to me, so I really won with it twice.

Of those two wins, one was heads-up. the other, the king-high flop was checked around so I bet the turn. one guy called me down.

I have a net loss of playing JJ in the BB of $2.30 PER HAND. remember this is mostly 2/4 and 3/6 with some 5-10."

Wow, clearly your sample size of 10 proves definitvely that raising JJ from the SB is wrong. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Give me a break, you know better than that. JJ is +EV from every position in every limit game. Your sample size of 10 is irrelevant.

"Tell me again why I should put more money in preflop?"

Well, I have. Many times. I posted a thread titled "A theoretical question" not too long ago that should explain why. I've given reasons in this thread. What do you not understand about how JJ and other reverse implied odds hands make money?

Note that 4 players in this thread who said it wasn't close and you should raise JJ are the 4 players who moved beyond LL games to beat mid limit games (myself, Ulysses, Dynasty and Majorkong). Do you think maybe we are onto something?

As for working only at LL games, you don't know me very well. I've played thousands of hours in LL games in the last few years. The looser they get, the more I win. I absolutely relish the "no foldem holdem" cali-style games. I am well aware of how they play in those games. By far they are my favorite and most profitable. And, yes, I raise JJ from the SB, as well as all the other hands I listed in a response aboe.

You know that its perfectly OK to raise then check the flop, right? You don't have to just go bet, bet, bet and hope you hold up. Being creative postflop is allowed. And if you aren't being creative enough to knock people out postflop when you raise, its unlikely you are doing it postflop when you don't raise. Remember, the pot on the flop is already 6 or 7sbs here. You need the perfect parlay of "everyone checks to the button, button bets, I get to checkraise" for you to really be able to force anyone to make a mistake anyways! How often does that ideal scenario actually happen in a 7 way pot? Are you really a good enough of a postflop player to recoup the significant amount of EV that you give up with your preflop mistake of not raising? (and not raising preflop is clearly a mistake, you are forsaking a +EV raise, which by definition is a mistake).

Also don't forget that just because their calls are correct, doesn't mean that you don't make money. You talk about how they "don't have a gutshot preflop". EXACTLY! Most of the time they will pay double the bet to fold. Then the rare time they do flop a gutshot (why is everyone obsessed with gutshots) they have now paid 3 bets and not 2 to see the turn. And while their flop call may be more correct on the flop (and it was probabaly close to correct even if you *didn't* raise preflop) you still make money from them *on that bet* and would actually like them to cap the flop for you.

You are getting an immediate 6-1 on your money and you will flop an overpair or a set about 60% of the time. What more of an overlay do you need?

[CrackerZack]

When I stopped thinking, hmmm...let me manipulate the pot size to let them make bigger mistakes later, and started firing when I had a good hand, I nearly doubled my win rate. I've taken a stab at bigger games with better readers, etc and I see where pot size manipulation can be effective, but this isn't the place.

[Ulysses]

If I was playing 30-60 then yea, I'd raise with JJ in the BB.

Let me get this straight. You'll raise JJ in a game where limpers typically have quality suited hands, pocket pairs, or big hands looking for a limp-reraise. Also, the players won't necessarily pay you off big time when you flop a set, but will punish you to the max when they outflop you.

On the other hand, you won't raise in a game where people are limping with all kinds of completely dominated garbage and will pay you off all the way when you flop a set or overpair.

That makes very little sense to me.

Tell me again why I should put more money in preflop?
Because against 4 LL limpers, you have the best of it by far.

And FWIW, I have a few hundred hours of both 3-6 and 6-12 experience. Those games started getting really profitable for me when I stopped worrying about all the bad things that could happen to my hand and started focusing on getting as much money as possible into the pot when I had the best hand.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Your statment suggests that they will be making a bigger mistake when you don't raise pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't. If I raise preflop, they are getting the right price to draw on the flop. If I don't raise preflop, they are not getting the right price on the flop. If they are getting the right price, they aren't making a mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
By raising pre-flop, you charge them 3 bets to draw to their gut-shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I charge them 2 bets preflop and one on the flop. They are getting the right price on the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
So, are you sure they're making the bigger mistake when you don't raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since they aren't making a mistake on the flop when I raise preflop, the mistake they make when I don't raise must be bigger.

You are implying they are making a bigger mistake when they call the raise preflop than they make when they call with the gutshot on the flop (without the raise). They have already limped, so it is only 1 bet to them. Assuming the BB folded, the first limper is getting 7:1, what hand is JJ a 7:1 favorite against? Each following limper gets a progressively better price.

An important consideration is just how "crappy" the players are. If they play virtually any 2 cards, then a raise would be better. If they are just "typical" loose players, I think completing is better.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Each following limper gets a progressively better price.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Each limper is getting charged one extra small bet to outdraw you. They are getting a worse price.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, why does everyone want their opponents to both limp correctly preflop (as not raising lets them do)

[/ QUOTE ]

Most of them aren't limping correctly preflop.

[ QUOTE ]
and fold correctly after the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't want them to fold correctly after the flop. I want them to play incorrectly on the flop. I don't think it would take many fingers to count the LL players who fold when they are getting the right price to call. Since their inclination is to call, why make their call correct?

[ QUOTE ]
Note that 4 players in this thread who said it wasn't close and you should raise JJ are the 4 players who moved beyond LL games to beat mid limit games

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I beat the Party 15/30 game.

2. Sklansky and Malmuth don't consider JJ an auto-raise hand (HEFAP p. 25.) Raising JJ is situational. I have about 70,000 hands in PokerTracker, I raise with it 87% of the time. Obviously, I don't see many situations where I don't raise, this just happens to be one of them.

[J.R.]

Why does the uncertain possibility of one of number of possible future events (the flop) dictate that you not take advantage of the large edge you now possess. Why not worry that you will flop an overpair or a set and they will call you down with a pair draw? So what if your opponents can flop a gutshot? You have a hand that is very likely to 1) be the best hand now and 2) be the best hand on the river EV of JJ (https://www.pokerroom.com/games/evstats/totalStats.php?order=value) . You should raise.

They have already limped, so it is only 1 bet to them. Assuming the BB folded, the first limper is getting 7:1, what hand is JJ a 7:1 favorite against? Each following limper gets a progressively better price.

Are you worried about your opponents' EV or your EV? If you have a hand that is going to win more than 1 in 5 times against 4 opponents, you are in a profitable betting situation and gain EV every time money is put into the pot. Worry about the flop when it comes. If jacks win 40% of the time here, you have a 40% equity in every dollar that goes into the pot. EV stats (http://www.gocee.com/poker/HE_Value.htm) With four callers, that's $5 dollars going into the pot, and $2 of it is yours, meaning you earn 1 dollar for every dollar you put into the pot with 4 callers pre-flop. Even if JJ wins less that 40% of the time noted in the simulation, it still wins far more than 20% of the time, so every bet/raise with it is a positive EV bet/raise.

What happens when they miss the flop and fold? You lose that pre-flop bet. And what happens when they flop a gutshot? They will call, and when they hit they will be recouping only part of the huge pre-flop error they made.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Each following limper gets a progressively better price.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Each limper is getting charged one extra small bet to outdraw you. They are getting a worse price.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, after each preceeding limper, the pot is growing larger. the size of your call is getting smaller in relation to the size of the pot as more people call ahead of you, thus, each following limper is getting a progressively better price.

-Scott

[J.R.]

If you don't raise, the limpers have to put in 0 bets to outdraw you. If you raise, the limpers have to put in one more bet to outdraw you. You are looking at the price each limper gets after you chose to raise, which is not relevant to an analysis of whether your raise offers the limpers a better or worse price.

In the first scenario where you rap, they are getting unlimited pot odds, as they put in 0 bets to win the pot after your preflop decision. In the second scenario where you raise, they are putting in 1 bet to win the pot after your preflop decision, so their odds are somewhere between 7-1 and 11-1, which are finite pot odds. Something for free (infinite pot odds) is less expensive, and hence a better price, than something you have to pay for (finite pot odds).

[SoBeDude]

wow. long post there clarky

An overcard will NOT flop 57% of the time. In the games I play there is a good chance someone has it. Additionally, an overcard will land on the board a whopping 76.3% of the time by the river...And its been my luck that some fish is usually there to catch it.

It works perfectly in super loose games at every limit.

I didn't know there were super loose games at every limit, and was under the assumption the skill level improved as you go up levels.

You are aware that JJ isn't AA, right? I only expect to win in this spot about 1 in 4 times. No one said you were a prohibitive favorite in the hand.

So against 4 limpers raising JJ is 0 EV and high varience. against 5 limpers its +EV.

But having said that, I think you're right and raising out of the blinds with JJ is a small +EV play in loose games. Just high varience as well.

I'll start raising with it in the blinds.

-Scott

[slavic]

Scott-
Look the loose limpers are going to stay in anyway. The pot odds don't make a difference. You have the best of it right now, get the money in, you will win more than your fair share of the time.

Last night I was in the BB with JJ 8 limpers to me. I popped it up. Flop comes Ten high. I bet the table all call. Turn comes a blank I bet 3 callers. River comes a blank 1 caller he has 23o for a straight on the river.

I charged him and the table the max to catch one of his 4 outs. Did he have odds to draw? yes. But did he know that? No, he just liked playing crap. Heck he didn't even raise the river. Pot manipulation just seems wrong to me in this case. Yes I understand what the fundamental theorem say but I think you make the player make a bigger mistake by calling a preflop raise than by calling a gutshot when there are only 11sb's in the pot.

Now take this hand and play it with any AA, KK, QQ, JJ, TT, or 99 and tell me how this changes? 23o is a dog to each.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
So against 4 limpers raising JJ is 0 EV and high varience. against 5 limpers its +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're misunderstanding. Raising with JJ is +EV regardless of how many opponents you are up against.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
take advantage of the large edge you now possess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think JJ has a "large" edge right now.

[ QUOTE ]
You have a hand that is very likely to 1) be the best hand now and 2) be the best hand on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

Clark said he expects to win 1 in 4, is that "very likely" to be the best hand on the river?

[ QUOTE ]
jacks win 40% of the time here,

[/ QUOTE ]

They aren't likely to win 40% of the time here. If they did, yes, it is an easy raise.

The game isn't as simple as "this has has positive EV, therefore I raise". Not too long ago there was a JJ on the button question. It was raised and 3-bet in front of you. There was a poll asking "what do you do?". Dynasty responded it was an easy fold. I agree. The point is, JJ had a -EV in that situation. JJ's EV varies according to the situation. In this situation, I don't think the overlay is large. I would prefer to complete, then play the flop with an even larger edge - or bail if necessary.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Last night I was in the BB with JJ 8 limpers to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

8 limpers is a different situation than 4. Your situation was an easy raise. Bummer about the river, obviously it wasn't the blank you though it was /images/graemlins/wink.gif. I hate it when that happens.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Where do you really think you are making the most money?

[/ QUOTE ]

I make the most where they make the biggest mistake. In this case, I'd rather push a larger edge after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
You are worrying so much about mistakes that your opponents *might* make later in the hand

[/ QUOTE ]

I know they will make those mistakes later in the hand. I'd rather push a larger edge later.

[ QUOTE ]
you are making a mistake yourself right here, right now by letting them see the flop on the cheap when you have a hand that makes most of its money upfront.


[/ QUOTE ]

We are talking about a very specific situation here. 4 limpers to you in the SB. If your raise knocks out the BB, you have JJ, out of position, in HEFAP's "worst case scenario", exactly 4 opponents. I don't think a raise is so clear cut here.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
JJ's EV varies according to the situation. In this situation, I don't think the overlay is large.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there is an overlay. How much of an overlay (which I read as meaning a positive EV situation) do you need to raise here? I used the 40% for ease of mathematics, and conceded it was probably too large a figure. Is 30% enough? JJ is clearly in a positive EV situation here. Does the preflop raise change the character of your and your opponents' post-flop play so much as to change the profitablity of JJ here?

[ QUOTE ]
Clark said he expects to win 1 in 4, is that "very likely" to be the best hand on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

I think JJ wins more than 25% of the time against the type of loose players Bad Beetz described. Even if it only wins 25% of the time here, it earns extra 4 bets (or 5 bets if the BB calls) 25% of the time when raised preflop, and loses 1 extra bet 75% of the time when raised preflop. That makes the preflop raise a money earner. Does this pre-flop raise cost you so much post-flop as to nullify the preflop edge and make the overall play of the hand -EV? I don't think so, but am open to your thoughts.

[bernie]

they are not getting infinite odds to draw because you dont raise. that initial limp bet they put in is still charging them to draw on you.

not to mention, the last player to call your raise could be getting better odds now to there hand than when they first limped.

the preflop raise also isnt large enough to really punish limpers at this point. (depending on structure) this isnt a pot limit or no limit hand. especially if you go too far with your hand knowing youre beat. which can negate anything you made with your preflop raise.

but that said, id alter raising preflop and limping in this spot.

both have advantages and disadvantages. but as a default, go ahead and raise.

b

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so, but am open to your thoughts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever I get JJ, I think of the warning in HEFAP.

[ QUOTE ]

The worst scenario is when exactly three or four opponents see the flop with you. This most likely would occur if you called in a tight game or raised in a loose game.


[/ QUOTE ]

p. 25. When I say JJ isn't an auto-raise, I am agreeing with Sklansky and Malmuth. (I noted in another post that my PokerTracker stats show I raise with JJ about 87% of the time, so I am far from passive with them)

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it only wins 25% of the time here, it earns extra 4 bets (or 5 bets if the BB calls) 25% of the time when raised preflop, and loses 1 extra bet 75% of the time when raised preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's use the 1 in 4 to make it easy. You gain 4 or 5 bets 25% of the time. We'll use 4.5. .25 * (+4.5)= 1.125. .75 * (-1)= -.75. 1.125 + (-.75) = .375 SB. So, raising is worth .375 SB.

From the loose games section of HEFAP:

[ QUOTE ]

You should . . . (f)requently keep it to a single bet preflop because you gain a lot when bad players make incorrect calls on the flop and beyond , as long as the pot is kept small.


[/ QUOTE ]

p. 159. Those who say it is never correct to keep the pot small in loose games are disagreeing with Sklanksy and Malmuth, not just me.

I think the mistakes they make on the flop and beyond will more than make up the .375 SB. Just getting a checkraise in on the flop could make up for that (it can be difficult to checkraise from the SB after raising preflop). I don't think a raise is as clear cut as others have claimed.

You should never do anything all of the time, you need to change the way you play a hand sometimes. This is about as weak a position as you could get for JJ in an unraised pot. This seems like a good time to mix up your play.

[Clarkmeister]

"p. 159. Those who say it is never correct to keep the pot small in loose games are disagreeing with Sklanksy and Malmuth, not just me. "

I think much (not all) of the loose games section in HPFAP is borderline atrocious. I've told Mason in person I strongly disagree with their "JJ against 4 players" advice.

[bernie]

"I think much (not all) of the loose games section in HPFAP is borderline atrocious."

because, after all, there is only one way to play your hands that will win...

i would have to disagree with the above. especially since when i learned the concepts in that section, my win rate was noticeably better. and theyre reasoning behind the concepts are well explained, IMO.

giving up a little EV preflop to gain it postflop is very valid. though many may not like it. a single postflop mistake is usually worth more than a single preflop mistake. and the more players who will play too far postflop, offsets the effect of what you can gain preflop. especially if the pot is smaller.

after all, the odds do get longer with only 2 or 1 cards left to come rather than 3 coming.

i wouldnt discount the value of postflop mistakes compared to preflop. i would much rather have them make mistakes on multiple streets other than just one. unless of course, they tend to fold alot postflop. which is a mistake if they have the odds to call. but in many loose games, they dont fold.

there is also substance to punish them more after the biggest luck factor in the game has passed. (the flop)

actually, it can be contrued that you are 'gambling' more preflop than postflop because of that luck factor. not to mention if one's postflop play sucks, and they go way too far when theyre obviously beat, it will negate any gain they made preflop.

exagerated example...

say a guy raises QQ preflop with many limpers...
flop comes 6 7 8 monotone...not his tone.
and he gets involved capping the flop with normal passive players. then finally realizes he may be behind after 2 bets on the turn. yes, he gained preflop, but how much post flop did he lose in comparison? (again, i know this is an extreme example)

but again, as i said in my initial response, raising preflop is a good default play. but it certainly isnt the only way to get the chips off the table.

just some ideas...

b

[Clarkmeister]

So you agree with me. The advice in HPFAP for this situation is a good alternative, but not the recommended default. Hence, flawed. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[JTG51]

say a guy raises QQ preflop with many limpers...
flop comes 6 7 8 monotone...not his tone.
and he gets involved capping the flop with normal passive players. then finally realizes he may be behind after 2 bets on the turn.

I think it was pointed out somewhere else in this thread, but the fact that you raised preflop doesn't mean you have to play terribly post flop.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
they are not getting infinite odds to draw because you dont raise. that initial limp bet they put in is still charging them to draw on you.


[/ QUOTE ]

My post was in response to the notion that the limpers are getting a better price, as opposed to a worse price, when you raise with JJ from the small blind. Its irrelevant that they limped when making this analysis. What is relevant is the price they get when you complete versus the price they get when you raise. From that perspective, your mere completion with JJ means the limpers have to put no further bets into the pot preflop, so they have infinite pot odds (putting in 0 bets to win the pot) versus the siutation where you raise, where each limper has to put one further bet into the pot and has finite pot odds.

I never said they get infinite pot odds because they limped, I only stated that their pot odds when you decide to complete with JJ are infinite because they have to put no further bets into the pot, so the limpers get a better price when you complete (seeing the flop for no further bets) as opposed to when you raise (seeing the flop paying one more bet).

[J.R.]

I appreciate your input, this has been a very thought provoking thread for me. I know my position is at odds with the loose games advice in HPFAP. I also agree one should not play the same hand in the same manner each time, and as the play of JJ in this situation is tricky and persuassive arguments can be found on both sides, either approach can't be that far off. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I know they will make those mistakes later in the hand. I'd rather push a larger edge later.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are confusing mistakes with EV. You often make money from plays that are +EV for your opponent. Say you flop an overpair w/JJ and one of your opponents flops a flush draw. You have 5 opponents preflop, so there are 6 small bets in the pot. You bet, everybody folds but the flush draw, 4 BB in pot. You bet the turn, your opponent calls because he is getting 5:1, more than correct odds to call. You are still making money because you are the favorite to win the hand.

[bernie]

"The advice in HPFAP for this situation is a good alternative, but not the recommended default. Hence, flawed."

according to this line, every piece of advice in any book is flawed since it isnt defintive to every situation. like limp reraising with AA /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

flawed is far from atrocious. and there is a definition of 'default' play. a play made without really exploring other avenues that may better serve in the given situation. the default play can be the safest route, but not always the most profitable.

i agree there are many ways to extract money. many ways to go from point A to D by stopping along the way at B or C and other places in between.

there is also an argument about collecting from more players preflop than you will postflop, but that has to be factored on to the likelihood of how many will see the turn. (offsetting value bets) but i use that more-so when players are playing tighter postflop. and their postflop play is one factor where/when i use to decide which preflop plays to make.

but here's another thing to think about. the hedge of your hand. im sure you agree that you can make money on a hand where you dont drag the pot. if you agree, where do you make the most during the hand? (no definitive answer here, since you can combine plays on different streets together)

the bigger(more) a mistake(s) and the more it costs the more you make in the longrun. which helps offset the losing of the pot since in the longrun you made alot of chips during the other rounds of betting. and not just one one street. so the more money you make overall, even though you lose the pot, is in one's best interest. isn't it? sometimes you can win a big pot, where you couldve made more in the longrun if you actually won a smaller pot. though a bigger pot sure helps one's outlook at that point in the session. especially if youve been getting bent over the table all night.

sure, you could just throw chips at the table until someone says to slowdown. (not saying youre advocating this, freewheeling a bit) basically bullying the pot. it has it's effectiveness, but it's not really tactical and it's not always optimal.

military example: (slight correlation, not direct parallel) the old times they just lined up the troops and whoever had the least ammo lost. (some play cards kind of like this. throw chips in and see who has the best at the river. this covers not only aggressive but also passive callers who throw chips in calling the guy throwing in the chips betting) enter the sniper and the value of a well aimed shot. the ammo to kill ratio was much more effective. instead of taking say, 8,000 rounds to kill an enemy, it was cut to 5 or 6,000 or less. tactics and efficiency. (yep, it was a great sniper book i read. there was alot of poker(thought process) in that book, though not 'about' poker)

now the difference between raising and limping here isnt anywhere close to the gap between the above tactics. in fact, both plays have lots of dynamics to work off of postflop which can make them even in advantages. you touched on one in an earlier response about postflop play which i thought was a great response that i dont usually see accompanying the recommendation of this raise. many times i see 'just raise' and that's it. well, then what? but anyways...

gotta go shear a sheep, but i have to pick which shears. one pair is sharp but smaller, the other is much bigger and will take less time. but then i just hope the sheep doesnt get frisky and wrestle the shears away from me and shave me.

i dont think id look good bald. not to mention the nicks and cuts i may get from a sheep weilding my shears for the first time. he may get clumsy and nick an ear.

b

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing mistakes with EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? So EV only occurs preflop? Their later mistakes don't have any positive EV for me? My later bets don't have any positive EV?

I did a quick estimate of the EV of the raise in another post. It was about .375 SB. I think it is probably reasonable to say the EV is in the .35 to .40 SB range.

How often will you be able to get away from the flop when the overcard(s) hit? For the sake of this discussion, we've been using Clark's numbers. He said he only expects to win 1 in 4, and expects an overpair or a set 60% of the time. That gives us overcards 40% of the time. What percentage of the time will you bail when the overcard(s) hit? Does 80% sound reasonable? If not, feel free to use a number you feel is more reasonable. 80% of 40% gives us 32%. So, we lose on the flop 32% of the time, leaving 43% of our losses to come after the flop. We are now only a 43:25 (1.7:1) dog to win, rather than 3:1. If you raise preflop from the SB, it can be difficult to checkraise the flop because they don't want to fall for your trap (I'm not saying you can't checkraise if you raise preflop, only that it is generally easier to checkraise from the SB if you didn't raise preflop). What percentage of the time will you get the "extra" checkraise? I don't know, but it will happen some, and you will be getting the extra bets as a 1.7:1 dog rather than as a 3:1 dog.

I prefer a limp here, I've given my reasons. Overall it is a very close play. My main point is the "you must raise here"/"only a fool wouldn't raise here" crowd is wrong. It isn't that clear cut.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
So EV only occurs preflop? Their later mistakes don't have any positive EV for me? My later bets don't have any positive EV?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. What I'm saying is your opponent doesn't have to be making a mistake for you to be gaining EV from him. +EV for you is not equal to mistakes of opponents. You usually benefit (gain EV) from you opponents mistakes. You can benefit (gain EV) from your opponents playing correctly.

Remember these are loose games with loose, calling station players. A lot of them are going to call whether they have pot odds or not. So keeping the pot size small won't increase the amount of times you win the pot.


[ QUOTE ]
I think it is probably reasonable to say the EV is in the .35 to .40 SB range.


[/ QUOTE ]

That sounds reasonable. It's probably around .5 small bets. The thing to realize is the EV for JJ is probably about 4 small bets or less preflop. And you probably make about 4 small bets an hour or less, in loose games. So you are giving up 12.5% of your expected earnings for this hand and for the hour by limping preflop. I would say that's a mistake and your opponents are gaining by it.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
the bigger(more) a mistake(s) and the more it costs the more you make in the longrun.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the biggest mistakes are folding when you have pot odds to call, losing the whole "big" pot. Ergo, the biggest mistakes are made in bigger pots. Not the smaller pots.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is your opponent doesn't have to be making a mistake for you to be gaining EV from him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said only mistakes create EV.

[ QUOTE ]
pot size small won't increase the amount of times you win the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said keeping the pot small increases my chances of winning it. I said keeping the pot small makes the calls on the flop incorrect. When your opponents make mistakes, you gain.

[ QUOTE ]
(.35 to .40) sounds reasonable. It's probably around .5 small bets . . . . So you are giving up 12.5% of your expected earnings for this hand and for the hour by limping preflop. I would say that's a mistake and your opponents are gaining by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is I believe you can gain more than the .35 to .40 after the flop if you don't raise preflop. Therefore, you are not giving up any expected earnings, you are just "earning" them on a different round.

For example, I believe you will have a better chance of checkraising on the flop if you don't raise preflop. Again, I can't really quantify that, but I do believe the chances are significantly better. That raise will be as a 1.7:1 dog, rather than a 3:1 dog. (Someone else might be able to give better numbers, these are guesstimates)

[bernie]

in the bigger pots, these types of players are calling not folding. so how do you get them to play wrong?

b

[bernie]

"So keeping the pot size small won't increase the amount of times you win the pot."

the idea isnt to win the most pots, but play your hand in a way to maximize longterm gain. you can win a big pot but not maximize your gain on the hand. longrunwise.

(see my response to clark with the thoughts on the hedge dynamic of the in-between streets)

b

[Clarkmeister]

"the idea isnt to win the most pots, but play your hand in a way to maximize longterm gain."

Wrong. S&M specifically recommend this play primarily to increase the number of times you win the pot, at the cost of winning smaller pots.

[Clarkmeister]

Do you need a dictionary or reading comprehension classes?

CM: "The advice in HPFAP for this situation is a good alternative, but not the recommended default. Hence, flawed."

B: "according to this line, every piece of advice in any book is flawed since it isnt defintive to every situation."

No, that's not correct at all. I never required their advice to be definitive, and you should be able to see as much. I said their advice is inferior to another strategy (something you agreed with), hence as a default play it is flawed.


B:"there is a definition of 'default' play. a play made without really exploring other avenues that may better serve in the given situation. the default play can be the safest route, but not always the most profitable. "

What bizarre definition of default are you using? A default play is the play that one executes the majority of the time because it is the most profitable decision. There can be no other reason to have a given play be a "default" play. Its like you are making chit up.

As an example that dovetails into your subsequent point, S&M recommend raising something like 78s "occassionally" in EP to help the EV of your overall range of hands, even though raising 78s UTG is, in and of itself, a -EV play. However their "default" is to fold.

What they recommend with the JJ and even with QQ is a "default" of limping against 4 opponents. You have stated that you agree with me that raising is the preferred play. Hence, their advice is flawed, just as it would be flawed if they recommended raising 78s UTG as a default play.

No one is denying that there are multiple ways to play a hand. But part of the important goal of the small stakes forum in particular is to give newer players both a "default" play that will show them the highest average EV, and to get them into a winning mindset and approach. Raising preflop does both of those.

That's also part of the big problem that small stakes players have reading HPFAP. It really is more geared towards tougher more thinking opponents in middle limit games than to mindless LL retards. Concepts not fully understood and taken out of context end up costing money. I firmly believe this is such an example. There *are* games and situations where I would limp with this hand against that many opponents. LL games against unthinking fools aren't among those situations.

[bernie]

no, i dont need reading comprehension classes, but thanks for the suggestion.

"No, that's not correct at all. I never required their advice to be definitive, and you should be able to see as much. I said their advice is inferior to another strategy (something you agreed with), hence as a default play it is flawed"

when it comes to playing, against any given opponent, one could play differently than another opponent. a default play is primarily a general play. much like a basic strategy in blackjack is the default play. even if your counting and say you lose count, you fall back to the default of basic strategy until you pick up the count or a new shuffle. however, in poker the default plays and alternate plays can be very close in value. not as definite as BJ, but you get the idea. you will use more default plays in poker than in BJ. why? because you make money off of the mistakes of players. in BJ the dealer doesnt make a mistake so the odds at the given time are at a constant for that next card. there is a definitive play in every BJ situation (counting) yet there is also a default basic strategy play. youre also not really leaving any gray area for crossover. youre just saying it's one way and the only way. and that's wrong.

"A default play is the play that one executes the majority of the time because it is the most profitable decision."

but because you can tailor a certain play to any given situation, even a default play can be flawed for that situation. it may not be the most profitable decision for that situation. it certainly isnt the most profitable play for every situation. it is a generalized blanket approach. though it is very effective, there may be other alternatives both equal or better profitability-wise. some even worse.

i also didnt say the alternate play was inferior, i said it was an alternative with (at times) equal or more advantages and disadvantages of a default play. then it's a matter of which tactic to use in the situation. which road you want to take given what is being presented to you. where did i say it was inferior? ill have to reread my post.

im not making chit up. i just got a little wordy. too much wanting to get stuff down and typed.

"But part of the important goal of the small stakes forum in particular is to give newer players both a "default" play that will show them the highest average EV, and to get them into a winning mindset and approach. Raising preflop does both of those."

ive also addressed this in a different thread before. the small stakes is one of the more active forums. not everyone new to the forum is new to the game. this isnt a beginner's forum. there's nothing wrong with giving them a glimpse into a different way of playing. who knows, it may even inspire one to look deeper into their own game. in fact, the more they develop and recognize a bigger arsenal of plays the more dangerous they can become. on top of that, some very good players do actually play in the lower limits. not all play higher for whatever reason.

something to think about when a lesser known poster is debating a concept he may have a good grasp of yet youre telling him it's wrong. when it isnt. (like the other guy in this thread trying to explain his view on it)

lastly, not all LL games have mindless retards on it. though many do. the texture of the game can vary quite a bit. though most games are pretty gravy. but you never know when you may be on a table with tougher guys than normal. i was just on one last week. a bunch of overlimit guys playing while waiting for a seat in the higher game. yet they were playing much better than most LL players. they didnt loosen up too much for the lower stake.

nothing wrong with developing a rounded game. they have to expand sometime and try new ideas. better to try them out on a lower limit and explore it to get the grasp of it cheaply than pay an expensive lesson on a higher limit. especially if it pertains to a said table texture they may be facing. the loose games section has great ideas for LL plays. i dont believe that section is tailored for the thinking opponent. not to mention, you can run into the dimbulb opponent(s) on just about any reasonable limit.

there's nothing to agree or disagree about really. we're debating a black and white approach to a gray area approach.
be open to teaching the alternatives.

b

ps..

im sure i left some stuff out. but it's hot here and im tired. had a long day. /images/graemlins/grin.gif fun thread though

[bernie]

and....

that's not the only reason...

youre also maximizing your longterm gain should they call when they shouldnt. so it's a win-win. again, your goal isnt to win the most pots, it's to play the hand so that even if you lose, you gained the most longterm. not just shortterm. so you either win a smaller pot, or gain even more longterm by their mistakes in calling. thereby, even if you lose the pot, youve made more off of them in the longrun.

it's not just about winning the pot. postflop pot manipulation is more than just that. that's only 1 part of it.

b

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
S&M specifically recommend this play primarily to increase the number of times you win the pot, at the cost of winning smaller pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. The recommendation with JJ is because as the number of opponents goes up, the chance of JJ winning unimproved goes down.

[ QUOTE ]
With two jacks you would prefer either to have no more than one or two opponents in the hope that your hand holds up without improvement, or to have as many opponents as possible when the majority of your profits come from flopping three-of-a-kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

HEFAP, P. 25. Their advice about JJ is about the value of the hand in that situation. With 3 or 4 opponents you are vulnerable to overcards without getting the price to hit your set. Your hand is certainly more vulnerable with 7 or 8 opponents, but you are then getting the price to hit the set.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
(like the other guy in this thread trying to explain his view on it)


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe I am this guy.

[ QUOTE ]
we're debating a black and white approach to a gray area

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I haven't done a good enough job explaining myself.

I think this is a gray area, I just prefer the limp.

Bad Beetz started this thread and he was criticized for asking such a stupid question because the answer is clear. I don't think the question was stupid or the answer is that clear.

[bernie]

if you look back the last few weeks in threads or even watch in your own game, you will see many players who overplay postflop. they either arent hand reading or are ignoring their read. not as extreme as the example, but enough that it does have an impact over anything done preflop. (some are about as bad as the example) basically giving back some of what they earned, sometimes more than what they earned. i purposely exaggerated the example to make the point.

of course, there is no way of playing absolutely perfect, but a big part of winning is also minimizing losses when youre behind or beat. this makes your +EV plays that much better. when you give it back later in the hand, it can offset your earlier gain a bit.

hence, the opposite where you make money even though you lose the pot. this can be reversed. you can lose money even though you win the pot. and the various points in between

b

[bernie]

"I believe I am this guy."

you are. but it was also a general statement meaning we really dont know the level of some of the newer posters so we cant just assume that they are greenhorns who are just now experimenting with the concept. especially when they are making good points. i mean, what if howard Lederer were to post under a different name a concept that some wouldnt agree with? some would call him insane or something, until they found out who it is posting it. then itd be, OH, well, then youre right...

i also dont think the answer is clear/definitive. it is a gray area because you can make up EV later in the hand.

i think you presented the other side very well.

b

b

b

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
It really is more geared towards tougher more thinking opponents in middle limit games than to mindless LL retards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the vast majority of the book assumes opponents who can think.

The loose games section does take into account the "mindless retards" factor. Specifically, the advice to raise less preflop so they make bigger mistakes on the flop and beyond. The mindless retards' inclination is to call. The bigger the pot is, the closer to correct that inclination is.

The "raise less preflop" advice is the part I follow the least. However, I do think the "bigger mistakes later" factor comes into play in this situation.

[Clarkmeister]

Counter-quote: Poker Essays II P143:

"...it is probabaly best to call. This is because a pair of queens can frequently win without improving. However, it is much harder for this pair to win by itself if you give your hand away and double the size of the pot"

As you can see, it assumes two things. 1. That you are trying to win *more* pots with the tradeoff being smaller. 2. That you play unimaginatively enough that raising preflop in that spot gives away your hand.

[Your Mom]

2. That you play unimaginatively enough that raising preflop in that spot gives away your hand.

Exactly. I raise all kinds of suited stuff from late position after limpers. ATs, KQs, 55 - I don't think anyone believes I have anything when I raise after they all limp.

[Clarkmeister]

In addition, your quote from HPFAP is for a different spot than the situation we are talking about.

Namely, it assumes most players have not acted yet. I'm sure you see the difference between that raising UTG in that scenario and raising after 4 people (bad players in this example) have *limped*.

[SoBeDude]

Do you need a dictionary or reading comprehension classes?

You need to read a book. It's called "how to win friends and influence people". By andrew carnegie.

Recently your posts are belligerent and combative if someone disagrees with you or misinterprets what you're saying.

You did the same thing to me with the post about JJ in the BB.

A little less vinegar, a little more honey, please!

And by the way, I think a 'default' play is the one which has the broadest applicability (generally applies to the widest range of situations), not the one which makes the most money.

I greatly respect your opinion on poker, but try to be less of a (insert favorite word here).

-Scott

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
Counter-quote: Poker Essays II P143:


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought your complaint was about the advice in HEFAP?

[ QUOTE ]
This is because a pair of queens can frequently win without improving

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought we were talking about JJ?

I really don't understand how your disagreement with a different hand in a different situation in a different book supports your complaint about HEFAP.

The Essay is Raising Before the Flop and includes a section on playing pairs from the BB when everyone calls. Mason says raise most pairs, but specifically states not to raise with QQ, as you indicated.

[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, it assumes two things. 1. That you are trying to win *more* pots with the tradeoff being smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

The advice for the QQ certainly does imply it is better to win more smaller pots rather than fewer larger pots. The introduction to the essay includes this: "But automatically raising with many hands is also wrong. In reality, you should play your hands in the way that maximizes your expectaion." Poker Essay's II , p. 142. They obviously believe that, in that situation, QQ in the BB, with everyone calling, the expectation (EV) is greater if you don't raise. I'm not sure I agree. In fact, I'm sure I don't.

Right or wrong, that is a very specific situation. You seem to be taking advice about a specific hand in a specific situation and taking it to be their general rule.

[ QUOTE ]
2. That you play unimaginatively enough that raising preflop in that spot gives away your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is implied at all in that essay.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, your quote from HPFAP is for a different spot than the situation we are talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

This from a guy who used a quote from a different book about a different hand in a different situation.

My point was about the concept of the number of opponents against JJ.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I greatly respect your opinion on poker, but try to be less of a (insert favorite word here).


[/ QUOTE ]

You are way out of line here, dude.

Only Clarkmeister is patient enough to keep trying. Everybody else has given up. I know I have.

It seems to me bernie and Jim are confused about important concepts concerning EV and "mistakes". Clarkmeister is trying to tell them the information is in his and others posts. But they aren't comprehending it. They think they understand the issue well. How can Clark reconcile this, except to tell them they don't seem to be comprehending what he, me, Ulysses, majorkong, dynasty, et al are saying?

[Homer]

You are way out of line here, dude.

In my opinion, Scott's statement:

I greatly respect your opinion on poker, but try to be less of a (insert favorite word here).

is no more out of line than Clarkmeister's statement:

Do you need a dictionary or reading comprehension classes?

-- Homer

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me bernie and Jim are confused about important concepts concerning EV and "mistakes".

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I'm not confused.

[ QUOTE ]
But they aren't comprehending it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I comprehend it just fine. I understand and agree that raising with JJ is positive EV. The rough estimate for the EV of the raise in this situation is between .35 and .40 SB. There is no argument about whether raising preflop has positive EV.

The problem is you don't seem to understand it can be made up post flop.

I believe not raising will give tactictal opportunities to recoup the .35 to .40 SB that is lost by not raising (such as it will be easier to checkraise the flop).

If you disagree with this, then explain why. Don't just say "raising is positive EV and if you disagree, then you don't understand."

You will get JJ about once every 220 hands, you'll have it in the SB 1 in 10 (10 handed table), which means you'll have JJ in the SB about once every 2200 hands. If you have exactly 4 limpers half of the time, you'll face this situation about once every 4400 hands. With an EV of somewhere in the neighborhood of .35 and .40 SB's, whether you raise or not will have virtually no effect on your results long term.

The more important issue is to think about your hand and the situation when you make a play. To just think "I have JJ, therefore I raise" just isn't the best way to play poker. Look at the situation and decide whether raising is the best play. The vast majority of the time, raising will be the best play with JJ, and it won't take long too decide that. There will also be times when folding JJ preflop is the best play, such as when a solid player raises and a rock 3-bets in front of you.

[Clarkmeister]

Bernie has a habit of ignoring what is written and then writing a 10 page monologe that, in two words, says "it depends". In this specific case, he so blatantly ignored what was written, that it was completely appropriate to basically ask him "what the hell he was smokin'"

The problem, you see, is that arguing "it depends" is quite reasonable when talking about a general situation. But when talking about a specific situation, in this case, 4 poor limpers to you in the SB with JJ, it has little to no use. This isn't a general situation, you see. It is a specific situation with all the variables that could cause someone to say "it depends" being defined. With the relevant variables defined, the discussion reverts to the optimal course of action, and in the end, it doesn't "depend". It may not matter (as I think Jim Easton is really arguing), but it is impossible for it to "depend" because all the variables are defined. One course of action must be superior or equal to another in a clearly defined scenario. But it cannot depend. There is no longer anything unknown for it to depend upon.

In short, I think his ramblings saying "it depends" in a very specific question are harmful to those who are seeking answers.

And permit me some self indulgence by saying that if I am out of bounds in my handling of my response to bernie, then it is far far outweighed by the good I have done on this site. I certainly don't think I need defend myself and I'm only really responding because someone felt the need to defend me.

I'm off to Commerce for the weekend. I hope to get a chance to raise JJ in the sb against those crazy LA players. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

gla, peace.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm off to Commerce for the weekend.

[/ QUOTE ]

YOU'RE WHAT?

[AceHigh]

I've had a long winded conversation with bernie or 2, so I can appreciate how Clarkmeister felt.

bernie's a good poster, but when he gets on a roll he tends to wander around the subject some.

[Homer]

I've had a long winded conversation with bernie or 2, so I can appreciate how Clarkmeister felt.

bernie's a good poster, but when he gets on a roll he tends to wander around the subject some.

Whether this is true or not, I don't think Clark's comment is called for. It just comes off as condescending.

-- Homer

[AceHigh]

I think you're this close to getting it. But my fingers are too tired to type anymore. I suffered a near disaster by dropping my beer, just before I started to post this. Fortunately, the cap was still on at the time.

If you want to discuss this farther, why don't you PM me? Maybe we can talk on the phone or something and iron this out.

I'm tired of this thread. 'Cept for argueing with Homer, D'oh!

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
It may not matter (as I think Jim Easton is really arguing),

[/ QUOTE ]

That wasn't my main argument, more of a bottom line kind of of statement. I got the idea from Mason ("It Doesn't Matter" - PE III).

[ QUOTE ]
One course of action must be superior or equal to another in a clearly defined scenario

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't chess or backgammon with complete information. While I agree we are beyond the point where "it depends", I don't think this situation has a clearly superior action.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm off to Commerce for the weekend.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck.

[ QUOTE ]
I hope to get a chance to raise JJ in the sb against those crazy LA players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you don't kill yourself getting the 2200 hands in. /images/graemlins/wink.gif My money says you'll have far more than 4 limpers, too. EASY RAISE.

[Jim Easton]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you're this close to getting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I could have made all those points a long time ago, it isn't about me nearly "getting it".

[ QUOTE ]
Fortunately, the cap was still on at the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thank God for small miracles. I spilled a glass of Cabernet on my keyboard about a year ago, not a good move.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm tired of this thread

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm getting tired of it, too, but I'll give it one last go.

Hand 1:
JJ in the SB, 4 limpers, I raise, all call. Flop comes J 6 3, I decide to checkraise, I check. My opponents remember me checkraising before and are suspicious of this raise from the SB and check trick, it is checked around.

Hand 2:
JJ in the SB, 4 limpers, I complete. Flop is J 6 3. I decide to checkraise and check. BB bets, all call, I raise, all call.

EV of the preflop raise - we'll stick with the .35 to .40 SB.

EV of the flop checkraise - 5 players * 2 SB = 10 SB. What are the chances of the top set winning? I'll just use 80% (Though, I did have 3 flopped sets lose today at Party - to the same person - runner, runner all 3 times. 2 times she called 2 cold on the flop and the 3rd time she called 3 cold. I just pray she has lots of money to keep playing). 80% * 10 = 8. Discount that for the roughly 1 in 8 times we flop a set and we get 1 SB. We then need to discount that because it won't work nearly so perfectly (all call 2) all the time. We would also need to further discount it because there would be a certain percentage of time you could raise preflop and checkraise the flop.

Then do the same thing for each situation where we get in a checkraise that we wouldn't have otherwise (very difficult to quantify).

Now, I will concede I used about the best case scenario here, but I'm just trying to show my point. Not raising preflop can present tactical opportunities later to make up the EV that is lost by not raising preflop. I'm not sure how close you are to getting that.

[pudley4]

Sorry to bring this thread up again, but I missed it the first time around since we were moving into a new house at the time.

Jim, I see 3 problems with your example:

1 - If you raise preflop, then just bet the flop (instead of going for, and missing, the check-raise) you'll end up getting the same number of bets in as you do in Hand 2.

2 - Your EV assumption of .35 to .4 for the preflop raise included all postflop scenarios. If you calculate the EV for this specific scenario, you'll see the EV of Hand 1 (assuming you bet the flop) and Hand 2 are identical.

3 - Your argument throughout this thread has been to make the players play incorrectly postflop. However, notice that in Hand 1 if you raise preflop, then bet the flop, you'll be facing Opponent #1 with 13-1 pot odds, Opponent #2 14-1, #3 15-1, #4 16-1, and #5 17-1. Now look at Hand 2. After BB bets and everyone calls, you checkraise. Opponent #1 will only have to call 1 bet, and there will be 13 in the pot (6 preflop, 6 flop calls, plus your raise), so he'll get 13-1. #2 gets 14-1, #3 15-1, #4 16-1, #5 17-1 - they get the same odds as they would in Hand 1

Here's an example to look at that compares limping + checkraising versus preflop raising + betting:

4 limpers, you are SB with J /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/club.gif. Opponent 3 has 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif6 /images/graemlins/club.gif. Opponent 4 has A /images/graemlins/spade.gif9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif. Flop is 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif2 /images/graemlins/heart.gif We'll assume the other 3 opps call preflop but fold on the flop, and we'll only look at the betting up until the turn.

Scenario A: You raise preflop, and bet the flop. There will be 12 sb in the pot on the flop. You will be giving your opponent with the gutshot (#3) 13-1 odds to call. He will call. Opp 4 will get 14-1 to call with his 5 outs. He will also call. You will win 60% of the time. Opp 3 will win 21% of the time. Opp 4 will win 19% of the time. There are 15 sb in the pot. Your EV is .6 * 15 = 9 minus the 3 sb you put in = 6 sb.

Scenario B: You call preflop, and checkraise opp 4 on the flop, and opp 3 correctly folds. There will be 10 sb in the pot after the flop betting. You win 78% and opp 4 wins 22%. Your EV is .78 * 10 = 7.8 minus the 3 sb you put in = 4.8 sb.

Scenario C: You limp preflop and checkraise opp 4 and opp 3 incorrectly calls. There are 12 sb in the pot, you will win 60% of the time. Your EV is .6 * 12 = 7.2 minus your 3 sb = 4.2 sb.

So in this scenario, you are able to get a checkraise in and get your opponent to incorrectly call, but you end up making the least /images/graemlins/shocked.gif You do the best by raising preflop, even though your opponents now get correct odds to call. This is because your other 3 opponents put in 1 sb each, but they have 0 postflop EV, and most of that goes directly to you.

Now we add another player (opp #2) into the mix who holds K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif2 /images/graemlins/club.gif. You will now only win 42% of the time when all 4 players stay in. This new player will win 17% of the time.

Scenario A:If you raise preflop and these three call the flop bet, there will be 16 sb in the pot. Your EV is 16 * .42 = 6.72 minus 3 = 3.72.

Scenario C:If you limp preflop and checkraise and they call, there will be 14 sb and your EV is 14 * .42 = 5.88 minus 3 = 2.88. <font color="red">So if they will call regardless of the pot size and the number of bets, your best play is to raise preflop then bet the flop.</font>

Scenario B: If you can get #2 and #3 to fold by limping and then checkraising, you end up the best of all: 10 sb in the pot, 78% win, EV = 10*.78 = 7.8 minus 3 = 4.8.

However, opponents 2 and 3 must be players who are capable of folding! In most low limit games, they will call 1 or 2 bets with the same frequency, regardless of the pot size or the prior action.

<font color="red"> So your plan should be based on your opponents: If they will fold, you should limp preflop and checkraise. If they won't fold, you should raise preflop and bet. </font>

[Dynasty]

bumped op for over c.