Simple Question

100-200. Small blind is 50. BB 100. All fold to button who merely limps. SB limps for 50 more. BB raises. Button calls 100 more. SB folds. Are there hands that the SB is right to play this way?

Nope. The SB is getting 5:1 odds on his completion. He is also getting 5:1 on calling the raise. Though with many hands he would have prefered to see the raise coming and not completed in the first place.

Well, it's not QUITE that simple. If you absolutely know BB will only raise with AA, then you would be right to fold any hand that is more than a 5:1 dog to AA (well, less than 5:1 because the button can beat you too). But if the BB would raise here with a range of hands, then it is never right to fold.

I'm probably going to be wrong on this, but this is how I play this situation 90% of the time. Button limping tells me weak holding who figures they can see the flop cheaply. If I am going to complete the small blind in this situation, it means I feel that my cards are a favorite more times than not to beat the two I will be competing against -- so I will raise it. If the BB reraises me then I can feel comfortable mucking it if I'm not certain I have the best hand.


In this situation though I would almost NEVER complete the SB and then fold on a reraise. Speculative hands that I might normally limp on are no good here and a strong hand should be bet as such in the hopes of getting heads up with the BB and eliminating the button limper. By raising with a strong showing you are forcing the BB to tell you the strength of his cards. If he folds, you win. If he calls then he has strong cards (assuming he is a decent player) but is not certain that he can beat you. If he reraises, you are more than likely beat.

This is the best question yet

in the recent series of questions.


I think the key factor has

to be the skills and personalities of

the Button and BB.

Yes. Immediate odds are the same, but the implied odds are different. Also, barring idiots, a raise from the big blind implies a range of very strong hands (in the big blind) that dominates a fair range of small blind limping hands.


Angelina Fekali

Studying People Inc.

Ljubljana, Slovenia

http://angelina.is.dreaming.org

David,


Once again, I assume the button limp is not a trick play with a big hand. I’ll also assume the big blind is a decent player.


First, given the fact that you will be up against opponents (at least the big blind) who play well post flop you can’t call with the wide range of hands you would in a lower limit where you can often steal on their misses.


The raise on your left means you will not be able to steal that often and it means your medium high cards could be in trouble due to domination. You will also have a problem with middling implied odds hands that need to semi-bluff or draw cheaply.


I might only call with A5 offsuit and below then throw it away to a raise. With a better offsuit ace I’m raising.


Other off suit hands include K9 and below (with KT and better I would have raised). I would also call fold QJ down to about Q8 (Q7 or worse I wouldn’t play). Some other hands to call fold with would be JT, J9, T9, 98 and T8 offsuit. Smaller offsuit cards are not worth a call at this level.


I would tend to raise with all suited aces except for A3 and A2. If I called with A3 or A2 suited I would throw it away to the raise


Other suited hands would include hands like 98 down to 64 or so. With a hand like JT suited I wouldn’t raise but I think it is good enough to call again.


Regards,


Rick

Would it be perhaps correct to play a small pair (like 44 or 55) in this way? Although you wouldn't know the BB is going to raise you'd probably raise the limper with a small pair.

Depends on how they play.

David, we're the ones with the questions, you have the answers.

Assuming no card knowledge from action..


Yes there are hands to be played this way. Pot odds are the same but - volatility is now higher - this has to do with something called a utility function - risk aversion and crap.


With additional card knowledge it can change or help if you think you now have more information increase implied odds...


David - I challenge that there is an exact answer to this one.. (-:


This is often why I raise in games where no on folds when someone raises. Same odds for me either way - I can take the VOL and I like the image (for my style of play) that it creates - PHD

In the above situation, it would be hardly ever correct for the small blind to make the FIRST call, rather than to raise or fold. I would almost always fold (if my hand is too bad to raise with) or raise (if my hand is too good to fold). In the unlikely case I would call here, then I would almost never fold against a raise by the BB, unless I figure my cards to be dominated (i.e. I have K9o and I fear the BB has AK or KQ, for example). Also weak aces would apply here, but why would you ever call with a weak ace in the first place? (you either raise, if you think your ace is good, or you pass if you think the button might have a bigger ace that he will not lay down after the flop, even with no help). Just my thoughts,

Rolf.

Mostly no.


It depends on what the small blind thinks he knows about the big blind. If he thinks the big blind would only play AA this way and he holds a hand that would be a huge dog to AA like Axo, then I guess it would be correct. But most limping hands (JTo/T9o/86s) would only be a 4.5-1 dog or less (played to showdown) to even a powerhouse like AA, and he would be getting 5-1 to call. So folding them would not be correct. When you include AK/AQ/KK/QQ in the mix even A/small is playable.


BTW, I would think the BB raising requirements would go way down in this situation, so the fold by the SB would likely be even more incorrect.

The initial SB call is automatic with any small pocket pair or suited connectors 45s or better. The current pot odds alone (not to mention some implied odds) justifies it. I think the main issue here is SB's read of BB's raising requirements from that position. If BB is maniacish then SB should only call with hands that do well three handed. If BB is passive, he can go ahead and call with small pairs and small suited connectors.

The implied odds are different but are they better or worse?


They are certainly worse in the regards that you have to pay 1 1/2 vs. 1/2 bet.


However, given the situation that the BB raised and button called, you are probably now against two decent hands(as opposed to two very weak hands). Therefore, if you hit aren't you more likely to get paid off thus making your implied odds better (as oppposed to hitting and having your opponents folds)?

I think she means that your implied odds are better in the first case (calling SB), because suppose you get 5 SB postflop (implied), than you implied odds would be 0.5:5 (1:10) in the first case and 1:5 in the other (calling the raise).


Regards

I understand that.


However, is a raised pot with button,sb,bb you are much more likely to get more in the pot post-flop than with a hand where the button limps and the BB checks.


In simple math terms: in the raised pot won't both the numerator (potential for future bets) and demoninator grow (cost to see the flop)?


My question is whether the numerator grows enough to compensate for the rise in the denominator?

Would the ratio of future profits to investment be a reason to play your smaller suited connectors and suited one gappers in this manner (34s/53s)? I believe that the odds of making a straight or flush with suited connectors is about 12:1. That means your pot only has to yield 3.5 BB in profit to be playable (remember you are only putting in 1/2 a small bet). This is not an unlikely profit given 2 opponents.


However, by calling the raise of 1 full SB, you now need the pot to yield 6.5BB in profit. Not nearly as likely as 3.5 BB in profit even though you are starting out with an extra 2 SB in the pot.

I think that if the SB's hand is worth half a bet than it should be worth an additional full bet.

I'm not addressing anything else in this thread, but if you know he only raises on AA then your implied odds are certainly much higher than 5-1, as you undoubtedly get at least some action should you flop a hand that beats AA.

Both times you are getting five to one. The second time you realize you are up against a good hand so you fold most of the hands you wouldn't have called originally with had you known it at the time. You guys are trying to make this too complicated.

"Both times you are getting five to one."


This was said a few times in the thread.


"The second time you realize you are up against a good hand so you fold most of the hands you wouldn't have called originally with had you known it at the time. "


I do think there can be a bit more to it (as your "most of the hands" suggests)- if you want to go there.....(-:


The raise gives you new information. It is not clear (or should I say simple) to me, that the only effect of this information would be to throw out those hands you would not have played had you known the raise was coming.


For example, I could see chucking that A7 but playing that J 10 (I'm worried about being dominated here). But I do like keeping it simple -