low limit low pair play

[me454555]

Why do a lot of the low limit authors recommend folding low pairs such as 22-44 but playing medium pairs like 55-77 in the same position? IMHO, a small and medium pcket pair get most of the value from the ability to make trips. In a normal low limit ring game with 4 or more people seeing the flop, having 77 or 22 seems like almost the same hand. Both will probobly loose unless they make trips.

[TobDog]

Are you reading the same authors? I agree with you about 22 being about equal to 66 or even 77, with one exception, occasionally your 55-66-77 can flop a weird open ender that is hard to do with 22-33(usually at the low end). But in reality, I treat 22 about the same as 66, if its loose and I can slip in for 1 bet, I'll try, but UTG, if there has been some aggression, I'll usually dump it, not wanting to pay 2 or 3 to see a usually dissapointing flop. I'm sure Dynasty will pop in here to give you some more insight why he would play it.

[me454555]

I guess I was just referring to lee jones book (WLLHE). He comments that you can play a 55 66 or 77 but not a 22-44 from ep.

[Lost Wages]

On a really raggy flop 55-77 still has a fighting chance while 44-22 is pretty much dead if it doesn't flop a set. For example on a flop of 864 your 77 may very well be the best hand plus you have a gutshot so you can play this hand strongly. If you had 33 on this same flop it would be check fold.

Also with a flop of KK6 you would much rather have 77 than 33.

Lost Wages

[Robk]

Mike Caro makes the same suggestion (ie dump pairs below 55). In addition to the things already mentioned he argues that the small pairs are more likely to go set under set and lose a bunch of chips. I would trust the S+M advice (which is to play the small pairs) over both these authors in a heartbeat. I've never read WLLH but I have read a bunch of stuff by Caro and he occasionally gives some bad advice.

[Gainsay]

Shouldn't you expect to get more action from medium pairs when you hit trips than you would with low pairs. People on straight draws will give you action if they hit two pair, or are still drawing to the straight.

[Tosh]

If the board is T64 what you rather havve; 77 or 22 ?

[Bob T.]

Middle low pairs are stronger hands for a couple of reasons.

They have a better chance of winning unimproved. Their are flops where they will be an overpair.

If there is a set over set confrontation, they might be the larger set, and win.

If they make a four card straight, it might not be on the idiot end of the straight.

All that said, I think that in most passive low limit games, you can play any pocket pair for 1 bet, in almost any position.

[me454555]

I completely agree w/the above poster in saying that 77 is a better hand than 22 b/c of the chances of a ragidy flop. Heres my question. Do the odds of a ragidy flop make the difference between playing a medium pair and low pair in the same position? IMHO, it just seems that chances of a ragidy flop happening at the same time you have a pocket pair is so small that I dont know how much +EV can be gained by folding your small pairs early. I just think you would hit your set w/small pairs and win money more often than not hitting your set and getting help from a ragidy flop when your holding a meadium pair.

[Bob T.]

The better your position is, the better information you have to act in every round.

Preflop, you might be able to tell how many players are going to see the flop, and there are fewer players left to raise preflop, improving your implied odds.

After the flop, you might be able to guess that your weak pair might be good, or more likely fold without a second guess. Additionally, you might be able to trap everyone for two bets when you flop good.

Position almost always helps.

[Lost Wages]

Sorry to dredge up this dead post but this article is very interesting and relevant:

http://www.pokerpages.com/articles/archives/samuel22.htm

Lost Wages

[Nate tha' Great]

It's interesting that he's placing QQ, JJ and TT in the same group as one another; that is, he's suggesting that the difference in strength between KK and QQ is far greater than the difference between QQ and TT.

Personally, I've noticed that I tend to overplay QQ hands when there's an overcard on the board, sticking with them for -EV bets in a way that I never would with JJ or TT.

[GuyOnTilt]

The only reason his system makes this distinction is because of his rule 2.5. He rules that A or K overcards are real threats, whereas a Q overcard doesn't change the strength of your holding: a big mistake IMO.

[Nate tha' Great]

Well, this gets at sort of an interesting empirical question:

At a typical LL table, what percentage of hands containing an A are played? (Um, 99.99% /images/graemlins/smirk.gif)

What percentage of a hands containing a K are played?

Containing a Q, and so forth?