For Wake up CALL--Discussion of OPENING

[mrwatson23]

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=rec.gambling.poker

From: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Subject: Re: "Flow" Limit Hold'em as a language
View: Complete Thread (7 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2001-03-24 01:53:07 PST
Here is a good example of my trying to play hands alike and making some
local sacrifices... In moderately tight games, I advocate always raising
when opening, i.e., I don't open-limp even in early position. Whether or
not you agree with this approach, you should at least understand what I'm
trying to do. From the very start, I'm playing my hands identically, so
that I give away less information. That's one less fork in the road, once
less branch in the tree, one less answer in the 20 questions game my
opponents are playing to figure out my hand.

From: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Subject: PHILOSOPHY: Value of different opinions
View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Date: 2001-03-23 08:21:50 PST

I am reminded of an argument David Sklansky and I were having.
Of course, his sidekick and all the 2+2 zombies just went along
with what Sklansky said, and thus their opinions were of no value.
I respect David Sklansky's opinion, but I respect the opinion of
David Sklansky plus 100 of his followers no more than I respect
David Sklansky alone. David and I then conducted a much more
valuable survey, grabbing random high limit players as they walked
past in the poker room. Daniel Negreanu's valuable opinion was the
first solicited, and his opinion matched David's. The next high
limit player's opinion matched David's too. But then Howard Lederer
walked by and David asked him... Howard's opinion matched mine.
A part of my strategy that one 2+2er had implied would make anyone a
losing player, even though I'm a winning player, was in fact a part
of the strategy of one of the biggest winning players of all time.
Maybe we have a hung jury here, but the point is, even if the
official vote is 103-2, after removing copied ballots, the
effective vote is 3-2. (How to weight those votes is another
matter.)

Take a wild guess what the argument between Sklansky and Abdul was about. Also notice that Lederer was on Abdul's side.

[Wake up CALL]

"Take a wild guess what the argument between Sklansky and Abdul was about. Also notice that Lederer was on Abdul's side. "

Whether or not they liked Mason? No? I wasn't there so I cannot be sure.

What does this have to do with always raising or folding in any type game in September,2003?

[CrackerZack]

[ QUOTE ]
What does this have to do with always raising or folding in any type game in September,2003?

[/ QUOTE ]

Much like Dark Helmet is to Lone Star... absolutely nothing. In a tight game (I'll drop the moderately) there are very very very few hands I can think of that I would open-limp with if I wasn't planning a limp-reraise. In most of the games I play today (up to 10-20) there are many more hands I'll open limp with because many of these games routinely have 4-6 seeing the flop for 1 bet.

Edit: FWIW, I've read abdul's PF stuff quite a few times and I like it. It has a hand-ranking-like feel which also sucks, but when you get past that its very good.

[Benman]

In a world where your opponents forgot everything they knew about you after each hand was over, then always open raising would be a mistake, as open limping with something like JTs is the mathematically "correct" play. Unfortunately, people do pay attention to how you play hands. If you sometimes open limp, and you sometimes open raise, and there is some correlation between that decision making process and the hand you hold, then I have just gained some information about your hand that I can use to my advantage. It has value. That information I just gathered about your hand somewhat offsets the benefit you get by always playing "correct".
The strategy of always open raising, on the other hand, is intriguing. Opponents of this strategy will have to admit that the person who always open raises has given away less information about his hand than has a person who sometimes raises and sometimes doesn't. The real question therefore is whether the value gained by giving away no information offsets the value lost by sometimes playing less than optimally. This calculation is hard to make, and varies based on game type.

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
In a world where your opponents forgot everything they knew about you after each hand was over, then always open raising would be a mistake, as open limping with something like JTs is the mathematically "correct" play. Unfortunately, people do pay attention to how you play hands. If you sometimes open limp, and you sometimes open raise, and there is some correlation between that decision making process and the hand you hold, then I have just gained some information about your hand that I can use to my advantage. It has value. That information I just gathered about your hand somewhat offsets the benefit you get by always playing "correct".
The strategy of always open raising, on the other hand, is intriguing. Opponents of this strategy will have to admit that the person who always open raises has given away less information about his hand than has a person who sometimes raises and sometimes doesn't. The real question therefore is whether the value gained by giving away no information offsets the value lost by sometimes playing less than optimally. This calculation is hard to make, and varies based on game type.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if you open limp with aces and open raise with JT suited about 10% of the time as well as mixing a few more oddball limps and raises in perhaps in a proportion which cannot be deciphered (See Game Theroy)? How does then open raising 100% of the time have any advantage at all?

PS: Due to the majority here using the convention of "open" to signify the first action of a holdem hand I will conform to its' usage during this thread for the sake of clarity and convenience.

[mrwatson23]

First, I did not use the words "any type of game" in my original post. I am sure that there are certain types of games where even the strongest advocates of this strategy would admit that you should sometimes open limp. I should have been explicit about the type of game. I was referring to a typical mid to high-limit hold'em game. Of course some mid-limit games are super loose, while others are tight. We could argue about exceptional games all day long. But I think it is safe to say that the typical mid to high-limit hold'em game is neither too loose, nor too tight. I should have said that, but I kind of thought it was understood. Maybe I should have posted to the Mid-, High Stakes Forum. Second, why didn't you comment on the first quote by Abdul in my post above? Unfortunately, Abdul has not been posting on 2+2 or rgp for a while. Maybe he has changed his views for games in September 2003. I have no idea. I was just referring to the numerous statements he made in the past. Maybe I should not have included him as an advocate of the "never open limp" strategy, since he hasn't written about it in September 2003. But wait, didn't you cut and paste a chart from

Hold'em Preflop Strategy According to Abdul

Copyright 1999, Abdul Jalib
(This version is dated May 11, 1999 . The most recent formatted version can always be found at http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html - Permission is granted to reproduce for netnews archives, netnews articles, and personal use.)?

Just for fun, here are some more posts:

o Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 8:26 a.m.
You ask about what revisions I would make to the preflop strategy essay. The main change I would make is to emphasize a point mentioned in passing: in games that are neither very tight nor very loose it's preferable to raise with every hand you play when opening, to preserve information about your hand.

§ Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 9:57 p.m.
In a game where if you open-raise early, you will win the blinds immediately the majority of the time, then you lose too much by raising with AA and should open-call with it often, and hence you can also open-call with some weak hands like 88 and maybe even 55, under the protection of the limping AA/KK/etc. I rarely see this tight a game at any limit anywhere, but it does occasionally happen in Vegas. In a game where if you open-raise early, you will get at least a couple of cold callers the majority of the time and likely the big blind too, then you don't have equity in stealing the blind with hands and hands like 88 want more passengers, not fewer.
In a game where if you open-raise early, and you're likely to wind up heads up versus either a blind or a later position player (but sometimes winding up 3-way, sometimes stealing the blinds), then you should strongly consider a raise-or-fold UTG strategy. If you open-call in such a game with a hand like QJs or 88, you are asking to be raised by a dominating hand or by a worse hand that can nevertheless outplay you with position, and the big blind may come along too with suited hands for its odds, whereas these hands would have folded had you raised.
IMO.
-Abdul

§ Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 11:00 p.m.

To clarify, I'm saying that in a particular kind of game, neither too loose nor too tight, you should open-raise six off the button with 88-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, AQ, and AK, while mucking everything else. I mean 100% raise-or-fold when opening in this particular kind of game.
(Because of the strength of the above hands, and because you do want to get some action on your pocket rockets, you could add open-raises with KJs, QJs, AJ, A9s, 77, A8s, and maybe even KTs, but 2+2ers tend to think of these hands as too frisky up front. You can certainly add those hands and more when the big blind is a weak player or appears ready to fold or something like that. I'd rather not cloud the debate with tightness considerations.)

§ Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 7:22 a.m.

For what it's worth (not much), I just got done playing $100-$200, and during 3 hours of play the only players who ever open-limped early were the fish.
-Abdul

Here is one by Howard Lederer: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=TLUXa.977%24Qe.470%40fed1read04

Message 10 in thread
From: Howard Lederer (hlederer@cox.net)Subject: Re: Lederer's Law, or Why I Should Send Howard a Check

View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.pokerDate: 2003-08-05 13:49:56 PST

Actually, you have simplified what I said a little. I suggested that you shouldn't limp when first in . But, you also should either re-raise an
opening raise or fold when it has been folded to you after the opener and
you have position. This strategy eliminates on of the biggest leaks I see
in intermediate players, calling raises when you are likely beat. This rule
does not apply when you are in the blinds. My point was this. It makes you
more selective with your starting hands, and when you play after an opener,
you usually get heads-up for three bets, in position with the best hand. In
poker this is a good thing.

Howard Lederer

If you read this far, please notice the date on Lederer's post. While not quite September 25, 2003, it's pretty close. But who knows, maybe he has changed his mind in the last 51 days.

Best wishes

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I did not use the words "any type of game" in my original post. I am sure that there are certain types of games where even the strongest advocates of this strategy would admit that you should sometimes open limp. I should have been explicit about the type of game. I was referring to a typical mid to high-limit hold'em game. Of course some mid-limit games are super loose, while others are tight. We could argue about exceptional games all day long. But I think it is safe to say that the typical mid to high-limit hold'em game is neither too loose, nor too tight. I should have said that, but I kind of thought it was understood. Maybe I should have posted to the Mid-, High Stakes Forum. Second, why didn't you comment on the first quote by Abdul in my post above? Unfortunately, Abdul has not been posting on 2+2 or rgp for a while. Maybe he has changed his views for games in September 2003. I have no idea. I was just referring to the numerous statements he made in the past. Maybe I should not have included him as an advocate of the "never open limp" strategy, since he hasn't written about it in September 2003. But wait, didn't you cut and paste a chart from

Hold'em Preflop Strategy According to Abdul

Copyright 1999, Abdul Jalib
(This version is dated May 11, 1999 . The most recent formatted version can always be found at http://www.posev.com/poker/holdem/strategy/preflop-abdul.html - Permission is granted to reproduce for netnews archives, netnews articles, and personal use.)?

Just for fun, here are some more posts:

o Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 8:26 a.m.
You ask about what revisions I would make to the preflop strategy essay. The main change I would make is to emphasize a point mentioned in passing: in games that are neither very tight nor very loose it's preferable to raise with every hand you play when opening, to preserve information about your hand.

§ Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 9:57 p.m.
In a game where if you open-raise early, you will win the blinds immediately the majority of the time, then you lose too much by raising with AA and should open-call with it often, and hence you can also open-call with some weak hands like 88 and maybe even 55, under the protection of the limping AA/KK/etc. I rarely see this tight a game at any limit anywhere, but it does occasionally happen in Vegas. In a game where if you open-raise early, you will get at least a couple of cold callers the majority of the time and likely the big blind too, then you don't have equity in stealing the blind with hands and hands like 88 want more passengers, not fewer.
In a game where if you open-raise early, and you're likely to wind up heads up versus either a blind or a later position player (but sometimes winding up 3-way, sometimes stealing the blinds), then you should strongly consider a raise-or-fold UTG strategy. If you open-call in such a game with a hand like QJs or 88, you are asking to be raised by a dominating hand or by a worse hand that can nevertheless outplay you with position, and the big blind may come along too with suited hands for its odds, whereas these hands would have folded had you raised.
IMO.
-Abdul

§ Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Tuesday, 18 July 2000, at 11:00 p.m.

To clarify, I'm saying that in a particular kind of game, neither too loose nor too tight, you should open-raise six off the button with 88-AA, ATs-AKs, KQs, AQ, and AK, while mucking everything else. I mean 100% raise-or-fold when opening in this particular kind of game.
(Because of the strength of the above hands, and because you do want to get some action on your pocket rockets, you could add open-raises with KJs, QJs, AJ, A9s, 77, A8s, and maybe even KTs, but 2+2ers tend to think of these hands as too frisky up front. You can certainly add those hands and more when the big blind is a weak player or appears ready to fold or something like that. I'd rather not cloud the debate with tightness considerations.)

§ Re: Question for Abdul ... discussion for all
Posted by: Abdul Jalib (AbdulJ@PosEV.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 19 July 2000, at 7:22 a.m.

For what it's worth (not much), I just got done playing $100-$200, and during 3 hours of play the only players who ever open-limped early were the fish.
-Abdul

Here is one by Howard Lederer: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=TLUXa.977%24Qe.470%40fed1read04

Message 10 in thread
From: Howard Lederer (hlederer@cox.net)Subject: Re: Lederer's Law, or Why I Should Send Howard a Check

View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.pokerDate: 2003-08-05 13:49:56 PST

Actually, you have simplified what I said a little. I suggested that you shouldn't limp when first in . But, you also should either re-raise an
opening raise or fold when it has been folded to you after the opener and
you have position. This strategy eliminates on of the biggest leaks I see
in intermediate players, calling raises when you are likely beat. This rule
does not apply when you are in the blinds. My point was this. It makes you
more selective with your starting hands, and when you play after an opener,
you usually get heads-up for three bets, in position with the best hand. In
poker this is a good thing.

Howard Lederer

If you read this far, please notice the date on Lederer's post. While not quite September 25, 2003, it's pretty close. But who knows, maybe he has changed his mind in the last 51 days.

Best wishes






[/ QUOTE ]

Many good points in this post. As long as you admitted you were incorrect in your first post I believe we can agree that never is poor advice in poker.

[ChipWrecked]

May we have the UB link to Howard's seminar mentioned in the other thread? Many thanks.

[slavic]

UB videos (http://www.ppvportal.com/poker/default.asp?ret='/poker/home.asp?packid=0')

Here ya go, Warning it's a pay for site.