To tighten or not to tighten?

[Poker Jon]

Hello All,

Just wanted to get your thoughts on something I have been pondering for a while.

There are a lot of posts here about calling/raising with mediocre hands like AJ, A10, KQ etc, after there has been a raise preflop. Everyone suggests that you are either going to win a small amount, or lose a large amount.

I completely agree - where do you stand when raising with A10 being called and an ace hits the flop? You just don't know.

I have almost completely cut out calling with Ax (x being below Q) as I found this to be a huge leak in my game.

However, my real point that I want to discuss is the calling of a raise in late position, with real semi-rubbish.

Lets say we are playing a Stars 1 table SNG T1500 to start and 9 runners 10/20 blinds. If EP raises to lets say T120 and all fold to me UTG with 65s. What is your play here?

If you call, can we change the rational of the above 'you are going to either win a small amount or lose a big amount' to ' you are going to lose a little or win a lot'.

OK, fine the flop comes AQJ rainbow - you bow out straight away having lost 7% of your stack.

But if the flop say comes A66, A65, 884, any 2/3 of your suit - you are laughing all the way to bank against the majority of hands (except AA) of course. OK you may lose occasionally to the odd higher flush, but not many people will put you on such a poor starting hand, which may give you a huge advantage.

Also you can also try a bluff if you dont think that someone has an ace, if one happens to hit the flop.

I have been trying this out a little bit of late, and it seems to work quite well, especially if you have a really tight table image. Just wanted to know others thoughts, if youve tried it, how successful etc.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Against any legitimate raise at a full table I basically chunk AQ and lower aces, KQ and lower kings, QJ and lower queens, etc into the muck. The only exceptions here are late position steal raises or maniacs.

Now it may seem strange, but you've hit on the concept too... I will call with 76s, 22 etc, as long as the raise is not too big (ring games) or the raise and the blinds are still small (tourneys). I do play much tighter in tourneys tho, but will still sometimes make these high implied odds plays.

The thing is, you're not going to be dominated when you call with 76, as long as the raiser doesn't have A7 or something like that, in which case you'd best re-evaluate whether it was a solid raise or not. But as you stated, flops like K 7 6 can make you a lot of money. Small sets against overpairs or TPTK can double you up. These plays are great when the circumstances are appropriate.

al

[Cigwin]

I have also seen these plays be successful (usually against me). In the example given, however, he was HU. Do you still make this play even though the implied odds are not there?

[DaNoob]

You can still get great implied odds HU, as long as your opponent is likely to give up a lot of his stack if you make your hand. Instead of needing many callers, as you do in limit games, no limit can give you great implied odds if you play an unexpected hand.

If you can call a small raise (especially if blinds are small in proportion to your stack) and then hook a guy for the rest of his stack when you hit, you only need to make your hand 1 in x times in order for this to be a EV+ situation.

Hope this helps

[Cigwin]

Thanks, that does help. I missed the fact this was NL.

[Copernicus]

I agree that big drawing hands to the probable nuts are very playable from late position (or even early or middle in a very passive game)....sometimes. The sometimes is when you have already won a few pots and have a well above average stack. The problem when you are only on the average stack is many of those hands will flop a draw roughly 1/3 of the time, that is going to hit 1/3 of the time, but you will have the proper odds to call. You will rarely flop the nuts. So 2/3 of the time you are folding losing a blind or two, a little under 2/9 of the time youve invested 3 or 4 big blinds and lost or been bet out of the hand, and hitting your hand a little over 1/9 of the time. You can bleed a lot of chips before you hit one, and even then you might not get callers. Thats too much risk from an average stack imo. (I experimented with it from an average stack for a while, and found that I usually lost enough that it hampered my play when I hit a real hand pre-flop).

You have to be careful when you think of NL as offering huge implied odds. For that to be true you have to be fairly certain that when you hit it will be the nuts, and fairly certain that you will get a call when you do hit the nuts. If either isnt true then you arent getting anywhere near the implied odds you think you are, and are far better off only looking at current odds.

[DaNoob]

Well stated. I actually couldn't agree more, and in practice, I rarely do this unless I have some extra cash to throw around.

I do notice a lot of players doing this, however, with limited success.

As you said, a lot of it depends on your read of the player, blind/bet size, and the nature of the hand you are calling with.

In levels 1 & 2 at Stars, when blinds are small and a typical PF raise is 60-80 (in relation to stacks of 1500), I might call a raise with one of these hands every now and again. I look at it more like a chance to 1) get a better read on the opponent and how he will handle PF raises after the flop & 2) hit the lottery if I get a nice flop.

[fnurt]

Your odds of flopping 2 pair or better are around 25-1, so the raise needs to be pretty small, or the stacks need to be pretty deep, before it makes sense to call with one of these suited connectors.

The problem is twofold. First, if you flop anything, what you're likely to get is a draw, and you're a lot better off folding in the first place than trying to outdraw someone heads up. Second, your hand is not as well-disguised as you think, because if you end up making a flush, or in some cases a straight on a coordinated board, you're unlikely to get paid off huge. The big payoff is when your opponent has AK and you have 65 on a flop of A65... but how likely is that, compared to the depth of the stacks?

People say that a hand like 65 is unlikely to be dominated, but I think that misses the point. For one thing, you're simply a huge dog against any overpair, dominated or not. For another thing, even if you're up against overcards, the fact that you're not dominated is irrelevant unless you intend to play one pair like it's the mortal nuts. It makes no difference whether a pair of 6s is good, unless you're prepared to take those 6s all the way to the end.

A pocket pair is the ideal hand to call with for the implied odds, both because you can flop a hand that you would be very confident in, and because your hand is well-disguised if you hit. You simply don't get the same benefits by calling with small suited connectors.

I see no problem with calling a minimum raise at Level 1 with a hand like this, but in the stated problem, calling T120 out of a T1500 stack is not what I would consider a good play.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

"Do you still make this play even though the implied odds are not there? "

Absolutely NOT.

Tho they might be there heads up. EP puts in a small raise, I call with 22 or 76, everyone else folds. As long as both our stacks are big enough for me to get paid off big time if I hit, I'll consider calling. But say he raised 1/5 of my stack. Now there are insufficient implied odds, so I'll fold.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As I stated, in tourneys these plays have limited usefulness because you can't rebuy. I generally only make them in tourneys when the blinds are VERY small and so is the raise. That's why I play much tighter in tourneys than ring games, because I'll make a lot more of these plays in ring games. I have played these hands with great success in ring games. Small pairs especially are hands you will generally lose a little or win a lot with. Small connectors are a bit trickier to play, but still valuable in the same way.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

"People say that a hand like 65 is unlikely to be dominated, but I think that misses the point. For one thing, you're simply a huge dog against any overpair, dominated or not. For another thing, even if you're up against overcards, the fact that you're not dominated is irrelevant unless you intend to play one pair like it's the mortal nuts. It makes no difference whether a pair of 6s is good, unless you're prepared to take those 6s all the way to the end."

You have a point, and it was me that stated that domination was not an issue. However, it's not an issue because you're not facing the problems AQ faces against AK, not because you would regularly take one pair to the river.

Flopping a draw with 76 or such is not such a bad thing, but it's (as I stated in another reply) much trickier to play than a small pair. Small pairs are really no brainers to play after the flop. Connectors can be quite tricky, and if the preflop raiser makes a big bet on the flop, you're probably going to have to give it up, even with a decent draw.

Another point is that suitedness is much LESS valuable in no limit than limit. It's often pointless to draw at a flush in no limit, because it's so obvious that you've made one that you're not likely to get paid off enough to justify the cost. Straights are where it's at in NL, especially double belly busters. If someone puts in a small raise preflop, then makes a small bet on the flop, it can be very much worth it to call with a str8 draw, as long as you think they will pay you off when you hit and make a big raise. Even gutshots can be worth taking one off if they bet small enough, and in the small no limit games online, they often do.

Good discussions to all on this thread.

al