POLL: Vote with your mouse!!

[rtrombone]

[David Steele]

It is not really enough of game description.

It is important whether many players will see the flop.
Also you may not want to play if it is often going up
to 3 or more bets before the flop.

What you really don't want to do, is limp get raised and have most everyone else fold.

It is not such a big deal that there is one raise sometimes.

I am in the Dynasty camp on this one, though like I mention, the poll description is not quite the Dynasty hands description.

D.

[rtrombone]

You're right, there's some disagreement over the exact type of game we have in mind. By a game in which 50% of all hands are raised pre-flop, I mean one in which you can expect there to be a raise behind you. Technically, I guess this means over 50% of all hands are raised pre-flop. Whatever, close enough.

BTW, while the number of players seeing the flop is important, it's not as important as the likelihood of the pot being raised. The presence of multiple players seeing the flop for two bets doesn't mean the final pot is going to be twice the size of a normal one. A bunch of these guys are going to fold at the flop for one bet. So while a pot that is raised pre-flop is certainly bigger than a pot that isn't raised pre-flop, it's not twice as big. But you're paying twice as much pre-flop as you would have had the pot not been raised. While your implied odds aren't cut in half, they are significantly reduced.

Thanks for the response. I could have described the game better: the issue is whether you limp with these holdings when you EXPECT a raise behind you.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, while the number of players seeing the flop is important, it's not as important as the likelihood of the pot being raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line and the rest of your post about the # of players seeing the flop was obviously well thought out. That, more than anything else, makes me think you haven't got a good overall grasp of starting hand selection.

Knowing how many players will see the flop is absolutely critical. You can not make a proper decision without that information. If I were 100% sure that I would take the flop with nine opponents, it would be correct (+EV) for me to call five bets cold with 22. I'm certainly not going to fold because there's a chance it might go a meager two bets.

On the other hand, if the flops were being taken heads-up or three handed all the time, there's no way I would play either 22 or Axs UTG.

HEPFAP explicitly states you should play any pocket pair and any Axs UTG in loose-passive games (it also says to play hands like J9s). Too much pre-flop aggression makes these hands less valuable. But, the pocket pairs in particular can handle the aggression.

So, at what rate do the hands become unplayable? I'm sure that both pocket pairs and Axs can handle 1/3 of the pots being raised pre-flop if flops are routinely being seen by many players. At 1/2, the pairs are still good but Axs is getting tricky.

A proper poll would be something like this:

Assuming the flop is expected to be seen by 4-6 players, at what raising % rate do 22 and Axs become unplayable UTG? 20%? 30%? 40%? 50%? 60%? 70%? (It should probably be two different polls since the pairs can handle more raising).

[rtrombone]

I don't think our stances are that far off. You acknowledge that the more aggressive the game is, the less wise it is to limp with hands like Axs and 22. We differ only on the level of aggression at which these hands become unprofitable.

Personally, I think a 50% chance of the pot being raised behind me is plenty high enough to warrant a pass. I think even 33% is too high. I want a truly loose-passive game, where it's a limp-fest 90% or so of the time.

So we've identified our differences as to that aspect of UTG play.

This whole thread should probably be in the theory section. Oh well. Same for the discussion that is probably going to ensue over your statement:

Knowing how many players will see the flop is absolutely critical. You can not make a proper decision without that information. If I were 100% sure that I would take the flop with nine opponents, it would be correct (+EV) for me to call five bets cold with 22. I'm certainly not going to fold because there's a chance it might go a meager two bets.

One of us is wrong here. IMHO, the number of opponents that come along is less important than the number of bets you expect to have to pay to see the flop. Why? I explained why in my poll clarification post. (Your implied odds go down with each additional bet; you pay five times what you normally would to play, but the final pot is not going to be five times the size of a normal pot--far from it.)

A game in which a capped family pot is common is, by definition, a wild game. HPFAP explicitly states that if 7 people are regularly coming in for 4 (5) bets each, it becomes correct to play only AA, KK, QQ and AKs. I play a few more hands than this, but 22 is not among them. I play big pairs and big cards. Against poor players who are on tilt, KQ is fine.

The fact that all these other people are seeing the flop with you doesn't change the fact that your implied odds are shot. Your odds of flopping a set are about 7.5 to 1. You're putting in 5 bets to see the flop. Sure, it's a family pot so you're getting immediate odds of 9 to 1. But these odds are deceptive. The real odds you must consider in any hand are the odds that you will win the pot. So here, it's the odds that you flop a set and win (nobody flops a bigger set or otherwise draws out on you). You need better than the 9 to 1 you're getting pre-flop. How much better, I'm not sure. But because you're paying 5 bets to see the flop, I suspect that it is highly unlikely that the final pot will be big enough to justify the pre-flop entry.

Otherwise, Sklansky would have said it's correct to play all pocket pairs in wild games.

If anyone can explain this concept better than I have, please do so.