Consensus III [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

StellarWind

05-24-2004, 03:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I also would call in this spot. I go with the "you're hurting your own implied odds if you raise."

Hmm, but raising may allow you to take control of the table though. You might be able to get yourself a free card on flop or turn. And there's deception value there too. Who would believe you had trips if that 8 did hit?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's quite complicated. The "free card" could cost you money when you flop a set and they check to the raiser instead of betting for you.

The "deception" could also backfire. When they decide you have a premium overpair or TPTK aces/kings they may make the right fold for the wrong reason.

I get a headache every time I think about this raise-the-small-PP-from-LP question.

StellarWind

05-24-2004, 04:06 PM

It's a little appreciated fact, but 88 is about as likely to flop an overpair as a set. That really changes things compared to a genuinely small PP like 44. The raise becomes a better value bet because it can often win somehow without flopping a set.

If you do raise and flop an overpair, the good news is that a junk overcard hand like KJ will be terrified that his outs are no good. The bad news is the pot may be too big for him to fold, at least until the turn.

Despite Sarge's stated condition, a raise always carries the possibility of folding the blinds. If the SB completes 100% but only cold calls 70% thats still a 30% gap. Similarly, maybe the BB defends 80% but that is still a lot of folds. Blinds who totally don't consider raises are rare in any game. That will definitely hurt you if you have 44 and are totally relying on a set/straight to win in a large field. With 88 the situation is much less clear. If you flop a set you will still wish the blinds were in, but any hand an 88 overpair can force out preflop is a blessing.

Sarge85

05-24-2004, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The "free card" could cost you money when you flop a set and they check to the raiser instead of betting for you.

The "deception" could also backfire. When they decide you have a premium overpair or TPTK aces/kings they may make the right fold for the wrong reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now this is a good point....

Suppose I get a flop like 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif

If I am playing very weak players I may very well have any person acting before me with an Ace or Jack "check" to the raiser, I will be in poor position to collect any extra bets on the flop. (No one to raise) I really need a player with cahonnies to bet into me if I hope to collect anything extra.

That makes me think to myself -

"Self- if you did this 'play' wouldn't it have more benefit if you were in the SB or the BB with your baby or med-pokcet pair?" Consider -

If i get the flop again of 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif

and I check my set in the blinds, it may look like the flop scared me, and I could get a LP bettor that I then can CR and I'm able to pick up these extra bets.

Then I further think to myself '

"Self- you sure are hoping for alot of things to happen here to get those extra bets.... I think your better off seeing the flop cheaply as possible, and rely on post-flop tactics to get your extra bets...."

Cleary I'm still a bit undecided here.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Warik

05-24-2004, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The "free card" could cost you money when you flop a set and they check to the raiser instead of betting for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?

When you raise AA preflop from on the button, won't people check it to you as well? Unlike with 22, you don't need to spike a set with 88 every time to win.

Raise preflop. If you flop a set, bet again. A bunch of people will call you.

Trust me on this.

If you don't flop a set, there's always the turn... and if you hit it on the turn, you can bet your bottom dollar (and you will /images/graemlins/smile.gif) that someone is going to bet before it's your turn to act.

Warik

05-24-2004, 04:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose I get a flop like 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif

If I am playing very weak players I may very well have any person acting before me with an Ace or Jack "check" to the raiser, I will be in poor position to collect any extra bets on the flop. (No one to raise) I really need a player with cahonnies to bet into me if I hope to collect anything extra.

[/ QUOTE ]

Suppose everything were identical and you had AA before the flop instead of 88.

[ QUOTE ]
"Self- if you did this 'play' wouldn't it have more benefit if you were in the SB or the BB with your baby or med-pokcet pair?" Consider -

If i get the flop again of 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif A /images/graemlins/club.gif Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif

and I check my set in the blinds, it may look like the flop scared me, and I could get a LP bettor that I then can CR and I'm able to pick up these extra bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sure is better. I did it with pocket deuces live the other day. Check to the raiser and check-raise. You're not in the SB or BB though. You're in LP and you have to play accordingly. If you whiff the flop with 88 from the SB/BB you're in trouble, but if you're in LP you have position and the ability to take a free card.

[ QUOTE ]
Then I further think to myself '

"Self- you sure are hoping for alot of things to happen here to get those extra bets.... I think your better off seeing the flop cheaply as possible, and rely on post-flop tactics to get your extra bets...."

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the bets you'll get before the flop when you raise and everybody correctly calls for another SB? Nobody's calling your turn bet without an ace or a queen, so it's not like you would have gotten those bets anyway if you limped with 88 instead of raised.

StellarWind

05-24-2004, 04:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So?

When you raise AA preflop from on the button, won't people check it to you as well? Unlike with 22, you don't need to spike a set with 88 every time to win.

[/ QUOTE ]
The advantages of raising AA are so great that the *real* disadvantage of having people check to me is completely outweighed.

When a small pocket pair flops a set you make less money if you have to do all your own betting. It's much nicer to have a blind bet out and build the pot before I raise from the button.

Raising with 88 is a close decision. The chance for a free card when you miss is an advantage of raising. Reduced flop profits when you hit a set is a disadvantage.

Unless all of the good and bad points of raising are considered, this discussion won't serve its intended purpose of helping us learn how to play this situation. That's why I pointed out that check-to-the-raiser is a double-edged sword and not a total freebie.

Warik

05-24-2004, 05:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When a small pocket pair flops a set you make less money if you have to do all your own betting. It's much nicer to have a blind bet out and build the pot before I raise from the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but let's look at the big picture. What happens the other 87-88% of the time when you whiff? Check and fold? Passively call down? I think we're overlooking the fact that 1) 88 will not flop a set every time and 2) 88 does not always need to spike a set to win. You might sacrifice some bets when you raise 88 in the original scenario, but you may sacrifice even more bets when you limp and miss that you could have saved had you raised PF.

[ QUOTE ]
Raising with 88 is a close decision. The chance for a free card when you miss is an advantage of raising. Reduced flop profits when you hit a set is a disadvantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a close decision, which is why we are able to have this great debate on the merits of either action. I believe that SUM(total profit after 1,000,000 raised 88) - SUM(total profit after 1,000,000 limped 88) > 0. It all adds up and I believe it adds up better when you raise (which is why I do it).

[ QUOTE ]
Unless all of the good and bad points of raising are considered, this discussion won't serve its intended purpose of helping us learn how to play this situation. That's why I pointed out that check-to-the-raiser is a double-edged sword and not a total freebie.

[/ QUOTE ]

Understandable. How about situations where you limp, you flop your set, and it gets checked to you anyway. Also, shouldn't your eventual table image as an aggressive player come into play where some of the more observant players will know that you are likely to raise PF with a hand that does not contain an ace or a queen?

BeerMoney

05-24-2004, 05:13 PM

I love raising on the button with pocket pairs in multi-way pots. I suppose it may get expensive, but if you get the "free card", its worth it. I think a great scenario is when you get your free card on the turn after its been checked around and someone bets into you!! Yeehaa!

StellarWind

05-24-2004, 05:18 PM

Did I mention that I voted for raising?

I just want to see all aspects of this discussion come out. Next time I get 88 I'll be in cutoff or there will be only four limpers or SB is a rock or ...

That's why I'm not satisfied with just an answer. Every deal is different.

Warik

05-24-2004, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Did I mention that I voted for raising?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I mention that I voted for calling? (just kidding /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Usually arguing in favor of the opposition is the best way to figure out the best side to stick to. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
That's why I'm not satisfied with just an answer. Every deal is different.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely true. Many times in poker though we have to settle for the best answer if not the correct one.

BaronVonCP

05-24-2004, 05:50 PM

Please note, that HEPFAP suggest raising these small pairs in LP with lots of limpers in hopes of making the pot large enough that they will call with overcards and other weak draws when you flop a set.

It was my opinion that they will chase anyways. But I'm starting to lean.

Sarge85

05-24-2004, 06:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey Sarge:

I would just limp is the players played like monkeys post flop. Raise if they just play moderately bad.

--Rico

[/ QUOTE ]

It actually took me awhile to understand why. I've seen similar verbage in HPFAP. Basically the book was saying that if your opponents are morons - then raising small pocket pairs probably wasn't worth it, and you should just limp in. However if your opponenets, were weak, but not outright awful - then a raise would be profitable.... For awhile that didn't make sense, because I figured well if I hit my set - then I hit my set - why do I care how good or bad my opponents are..... I think this is why....

Addressing the morons first - basically they want to play..they want to call...and they want to see the showdown irregardless because I might be bluffing, and their third pair just may be the nuts. They really could care less how small or large the pot is - they just want to see if they have a "shot" at it, and by golly - that third pair just might be good.

But the weak -- but not morons-- they actually may think one step further. I may actually need to give them a reason to call. If I make the pot large - well they just might hit their two outer, or hit that gut shot, or runner runner - after all the pot is "big" in thier opinion (thought they may still have incorrect odds to call, but it wouldn't be by much)and if it's big, well that's worth playing for.

The long story short - since the morons are coming along anyway - there is not a real need to increase my variance at all - but if players have even a little clue I need to intice them to call.

Am I on to something?

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

bernie

05-24-2004, 08:02 PM

How the players play postflop helps. Raising here can lose some (defnitely not all) value if the players will chase the pot regardless of size should you hit your hand. So making a raise to make a bigger pot thinking that it will keep players in loses some a little. Theyll call anyways.

Generally, i'd probably throw a raise out there. Gets 'em nice and miffed when ya whiff the flop and fold. Eventually this can help get action on better hands. With this many callers, and counting the blinds coming, 7-1 + implieds, it's good enough value to raise for me.

It's also nice to be the raiser on the table where they dont know exactly what you could be raising with in comparison to the rest of the table who, with this texture, can be very predictable when they raise. You'll look like a LAG, but really aren't.

b

bernie

05-24-2004, 08:11 PM

How many extra bets do you need to make it worth the raise? You're getting 7-1 on an 8-1 in your scenario. You only need 2 callers (which equals 1 BB since your 8-1 is now doubled because you doubled the bet postflop) on the flop out of 7 to call to make it even money postflop. Any more you collect is sugar that helps offset the times you will get set over set or redrawn out on.

b

bernie

05-24-2004, 08:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody's calling your turn bet without an ace or a queen, so it's not like you would have gotten those bets anyway if you limped with 88 instead of raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depending on the turn card, dont be suprised what youll see them call the flop with, and then the turn. Some will call down with 4s, just, well, because they have a pair.

Another benefit is you will now be getting at least 15-1 on someones initial bet should you flop a gutshot. Say the flop comes 5 6 9 rainbow...

You will also have near enough odds to call a single bet should you miss for spiking an 8 on the turn alone.

b

Raven

05-24-2004, 09:55 PM

I voted limp, but I did some simulation after that:
If you put 88 against 7 random hands, wich is about right in this problem, 88 win 17,8 % of the time. It is far more than the random hand who wins 11,85 % of the time. So its a +EV bet if you only look at the math.

Im going for the raise!

JohnShaft

05-24-2004, 09:57 PM

[This is less about 8's perse, and more about a low PP]
I think of the things that decide my action the passive/aggressiveness of the players postflop is by far the most influential.
Sets generally make their money by driving the money in on the early streets and with a passive lineup you just are unlikely to be able to do that. They'll check often and bet rarely, precisely because you've shown the PF aggression. *Very* rarely will you get to drive in more than 2 bets on one of your flops. Passive players are also, by definition bad, and very often chasers, so we don't really need to entice them to hang around postflop.
As such I'm definitely weighted towards calling.

In an aggressive lineup it definitely changes. Here, despite our PF raise we have a very good chance to get multiple bets in postflop, and a lot of action even before it gets to us. If those players are also good then we could also be generating action by helping them to misread our hand often.
I think it's pretty criminal to not Raise at a *very aggressive* postflop table (given that we are very rarely going to get 3-bet PF).

And the difference between raising Aces and a mid/low PP here is huge. I think a good part of the reason you don't want people firing at will on you on the flop is that Aces are very easily beaten. If I flop a set let them put all the action in they can before it gets to me, all the better.

Given that Sarge meant this to be more an exercise about raising low pairs (and that 88 is really too high) after many limpers I think that people thinking you should raise because of the chances of flopping an overpair aren't looking at what it is really about. Sure with 88 raising makes more sense because we can win unimproved, but what about 22/33/44? That's a much tougher, and more debatable decision, with the overpair factor taken out of the equation.

So me, Passive table = Call
Aggressive table = Raise
I'm sorta discounting the 8's factor because that tips the scenario closer to the Raise scenario in any event.

And another thing, 8's may win unimproved but you are building such a large pot that a lot of people will chase it down. 8's stand much less chance of winning by the River, and you have a much better chance of raising a raggy flop (and getting people to fold overcards) if you haven't raised preflop.

Good question. Complicated answer I think (if we lower the PP).

JohnShaft

05-24-2004, 10:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I voted limp, but I did some simulation after that:
If you put 88 against 7 random hands, wich is about right in this problem, 88 win 17,8 % of the time. It is far more than the random hand who wins 11,85 % of the time. So its a +EV bet if you only look at the math.

[/ QUOTE ]

Forgive me for saying this Raven, but I find that nearly irrelevant.
We aren't playing showdown poker (nor are our opponents) so who would win in that scenario has very little bearing on all the dynamics we have here.
Not to mention you are not, and are *never* against RANDOM hands. You are more likely against QJ than you are 32 even in the worst of lineups. Up the overcard quotient considerably and you would have a different answer, even in showdown poker, which this isn't.

Raven

05-24-2004, 10:30 PM

Thats why I said "if you look only to the math" its a value bet. And even if I toggle Slansky groups 2 to 8 (assuming group 1 would raise) for 5 of the opponents you are still up 3% of the average with 88.

I agree with you that since you will not go to the showdown most of the time, these numbers are not right. But the others hand will not always go to the showdown also.

It was only a little model to support the discussion.

JohnShaft

05-24-2004, 10:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It was only a little model to support the discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know man, I understand.
These type of analyses of the situation are about all we can do, other than express opinions, I'm just not the greatest fan of them. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

I guess that's the beauty of Holdem. Even a simple scenario is so complicated that it's almost impossible to statistically analyse it.
I always meant to use TTHE to analyse these situations, but never did take the time to figure out how to do it. Let alone if it was actually worthwhile.

StellarWind

05-25-2004, 12:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I always meant to use TTHE to analyse these situations, but never did take the time to figure out how to do it. Let alone if it was actually worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]
TTHE simulations are very vulnerable to biases because the computer plays in certain ways. For instance it might be more or less conscientious about pot odds when drawing to a gutshot than your average real table. That type of bias can skew the results toward raising (building the pot) or folding.

I suspect it can be much more helpful if your question is something like "How much better is raising 88 than 77?" The biases will tend to affect 88 and 77 in about the same way. If you get answers of "definitely raise 88" but "77 is a tossup" that is probably a real measure of the difference between 88 and 77. But the real truth could be that 88 is really good and 77 is sort of good.

Trix

05-25-2004, 12:42 AM

"So me, Passive table = Call"

I raise here, because it will often give me a free turn card.

"Aggressive table = Raise"

I would be more inclined to limp here as I dont want to get reraised and I know I´ll get action if I hit. They also wont make the "check to the raiser" as often.

JohnShaft

05-25-2004, 12:53 AM

I think that has us on opposite ends of the spectrum for both Trix. /images/graemlins/cool.gif
[ QUOTE ]
me, Passive table = Call"

I raise here, because it will often give me a free turn card.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Maybe not. You won't find it two or three bets to you very often, but I don't think that's quite the same as a free card, point noted though. But if they are going to check to you a lot it doesn't exactly help you get bets in when you DO flop set does it? And that's the important and most likely occurance (compared to a free Turn hit).

[ QUOTE ]
"Aggressive table = Raise"

I would be more inclined to limp here as I dont want to get reraised and I know I´ll get action if I hit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I mentioned the "I don't want to be 3-bet" bit. But that isn't going to happen that often.

[ QUOTE ]
They also wont make the "check to the raiser" as often.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which is exactly why I don't mind raising. I don't want them checking to me. I want them to fire bets at me like maniacs. I want them to often misread my hand.

In short my logic for both is entirely based on me *flopping* a set and getting action in ON the flop (and not getting the odd free turn with a miracle chance of hitting my card in one).

Trix

05-25-2004, 01:02 AM

The missread part is good, guess I wanna raise both now /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe. Maybe not. You won't find it two or three bets to you very often, but I don't think that's quite the same as a free card, point noted though. But if they are going to check to you a lot it doesn't exactly help you get bets in when you DO flop set does it? And that's the important and most likely occurance (compared to a free Turn hit).

[/ QUOTE ]

You are 7.5:1 to hit the set, so you will miss 7.5 times out of 8.5 times. I want those free cards. People will also chase more when the pot gets large and like you said. The raise will make them missread my hand. Even passive players will throw in a raise when they hit whatever they are chasing.

Bob T.

05-25-2004, 03:23 AM

I pretty much play it like John does.

Dynasty

05-25-2004, 04:47 AM

After lots (4+) of limpers, I just limp with small pocket pairs on the button. I can't remember ever raising with 77 or less after lots of limpers.

I think the EV of raising in this spot is overrated even in a family pot. The play is usually very close to being EV neutral.

I prefer to take the benefits of the great implied odds of putting just one bet into the pot.

Joe Tall

05-25-2004, 07:47 AM

Call, the raise is EV-neutral for the most part and I find I'll make much more postflop when I do flop a set by not raising, especially when an overcard flops w/my set.

Peace,
Joe Tall

StellarWind

05-25-2004, 12:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You are 7.5:1 to hit the set, so you will miss 7.5 times out of 8.5 times. I want those free cards.

[/ QUOTE ]
We are discussing cases where the opponents would have bet the flop if you called, but check to the raiser instead.

For every time this happens and you turn a set, there will be three cases where you already flopped a set. Those are the basic odds on this check-to-the-raiser issue: 3-1.

So how do the flop profits you lose on three deals compare to the extra set you make on one deal? That is the question.

But there is something else to consider. Often someone will bet either way and the missed pair will have to fold. But the raise may hurt the nature of the flop action the set gets:

1. People refuse to call the bet with a PF raiser behind them. The fear of being sandwiched knocks people out. [But the bigger pot locks them back in. Yes, this is a tricky subject.]

2. The cutoff won't try a free-card/buy-the-button raise.

3. The initial bet comes in a later seat because the blinds are intimidated or go for the checkraise. Of course this is unfavorable because you confront more of the field with a double or triple bet.

I hope this shows that John's point about the lost flop action is not trivial. The free card is nice but it doesn't necessarily outweigh everything else.

StellarWind

05-25-2004, 12:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds generally don't fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Especially for the truly small pocket pairs this assumption is burying an important issue.

Raises do knock blinds out even at very loose tables. How about these sample numbers:

SB completes: 90%
SB coldcalls: 60%
BB checks: 100%
BB calls: 80%

These guys don't look like geniuses. Still, on average you just lost half of a loose/passive player from your implied odds. Ouch.

StellarWind

05-25-2004, 12:24 PM

Dynasty,

[ QUOTE ]
After lots (4+) of limpers, I just limp with small pocket pairs on the button. I can't remember ever raising with 77 or less after lots of limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about the raise with 88 or 99?

Dynasty

05-29-2004, 11:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Dynasty,

[ QUOTE ]
After lots (4+) of limpers, I just limp with small pocket pairs on the button. I can't remember ever raising with 77 or less after lots of limpers.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you feel about the raise with 88 or 99?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that as I gain more and more experience, I lower my standards for raising in that spot. It used to be JJ when I started playing. By the time I was a mid-limit regualr, it was TT. Today, it's probably 99. 88 is still a limping hand. Check back in about a year. /images/graemlins/smile.gif