Raising middle pairs
 

There is an active 10/20NL thread where the poster raised 66 preflop. Ive seen many other posts where someone raised 44 or 88 or whatever.

Im wondering what the purpose of this is. It seems like a -EV play to me.

You may steal the blinds and maybe some limpers money, but if you get called, you have to make a continuation bet every time and obviously youre going to have multiple overcards. True, you will take the pot down on the flop alot of times, but when you dont its going to be an expensive proposition and its very rare that you will get passed the flop and still win.

For me, my biggest pots are hands where I hit a set and someone cant fold their top pair or 2 pair. If I raise 88 and the flop comes K84, most people with KQ, KJ already folded to my raise so I dont think you can win many big pots this way.

The only benefit I see to raising these pairs is to give some cover for when you raise your real hands, but isnt it a high price to pay just to get more action on your big pairs?

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

If you only raise your real hands, you'll be taken apart very quickly by observant players. Small pairs are a good hand anyway, and you often don't need a set to take down the hand.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Are you talking about reasonable raising (3-4x bb) or unreasonable raising (5x+ bb)?

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

iceman, I agree with you here. I f-ing hate when I raise w/ a middle / small pair, flop a set w/ a high card out there, and get no action becuase it looks like you "hit" your AK or even if no AK, you are putting money out there, so you probably "have' AA / KK.

With all that being said, the extra folding equity you get from raising w/ these hands is good, and it provides cover for AA / KK. I still only raise pairs when the situation is right, and like to mix in limping / calling with them as part of my playbook. Just remember to balance your game in regards to preflop raising and you should do fine...

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Im talking about a standard 4BB raise.

66 is not a great hand when the flop comes JT8..or K97 or just about any other combination once you get called on the flop. Do you want to play a big pot with 66? You have the same odds of taking down a pot with a continuation bet with any 2 cards. Why not save your middle pairs to limp and hit a set. I would rather raise with a suited connector and play the flop strong than I would a middle pair.

I can play a big pot with a suited connector when I hit a draw because they will never see it coming when I hit the draw. I can also win the pot with a flop bet.

With a middle pair, it seems to me that its bet the flop and then check/fold the turn in way too many cases.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Sometimes I will be at a table that I'm beginning to notice is too tight, and I'll decide I need to raise the next late position hand I have. I'll raise with nearly anything, because I want to (a) disguise my big hands, and (b) see how long I can push before they push back.

In general, I like it a LOT when someone calls my preflop raise, even if I am sitting on nothing, because more often than not, they fold to my flop bet and I win more money than just the blinds. This happens a lot, and it adds up.

That said... my roommate likes to limp with anything up to TT and even JJ, because of pretty much what you said: people can't lay down their top or top two pairs. And they definitely don't see themselves being beaten by someone who doesn't even raise preflop.

I believe that my roommate's strategy is best, because we've found that much of our profit comes from the "one big hand" you have every session or two where your set is up against TPTK or top-two. It seems to outweigh all of those little pots that I pick up, and then some.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sometimes I will be at a table that I'm beginning to notice is too tight, and I'll decide I need to raise the next late position hand I have. I'll raise with nearly anything, because I want to (a) disguise my big hands, and (b) see how long I can push before they push back.

In general, I like it a LOT when someone calls my preflop raise, even if I am sitting on nothing, because more often than not, they fold to my flop bet and I win more money than just the blinds. This happens a lot, and it adds up.

That said... my roommate likes to limp with anything up to TT and even JJ, because of pretty much what you said: people can't lay down their top or top two pairs. And they definitely don't see themselves being beaten by someone who doesn't even raise preflop.

I believe that my roommate's strategy is best, because we've found that much of our profit comes from the "one big hand" you have every session or two where your set is up against TPTK or top-two. It seems to outweigh all of those little pots that I pick up, and then some.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that you can raise more often in late position on a tight table. I just dont want to do it with a small or middle pair that that could win me a big pot if I had limped and let KJ stay in the hand. Id rather raise with random cards.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Oh, it's also funny to stack an AA that smoothcalls your raise preflop and then gets it all-in on a 8-high flop. Maybe full ring is different, but a lot of 6-max players will call a raise with KJ, so 66 on a KJ6 board is pretty cool. The majority of the time when you raise preflop, it won't reach a showdown, so your cards aren't always important, but a small pair gives you a chance to have a somewhat deceptive winning hand. What about 44 on an AQ4 flop against AQ? There are a bunch of awesome flops for raising small pairs.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

It depends on your table and the image you're trying to create. The limping mid-big pairs strategy i've found quite effective myself and do it more often than not but if you're at a tight table I usually find it better to just go about picking up all the easy pots I can by raising middle pairs and continuation betting the flop. It's basically just another wrinkle in your game, though, and you should throw it in every now and then. I'm not sure it's the play itself which is + or -EV but rather the variation it creates for you at a smart table.
sox

PS. I was wondering above whether you were referring to when people overraise or even re-re-raise small and mid pairs, a phenomenon which still makes me scratch my head. I usually see them go broke, though, and that's comforting.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, it's also funny to stack an AA that smoothcalls your raise preflop and then gets it all-in on a 8-high flop. Maybe full ring is different, but a lot of 6-max players will call a raise with KJ, so 66 on a KJ6 board is pretty cool. The majority of the time when you raise preflop, it won't reach a showdown, so your cards aren't always important, but a small pair gives you a chance to have a somewhat deceptive winning hand. What about 44 on an AQ4 flop against AQ? There are a bunch of awesome flops for raising small pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres a very good chance Im stacking AQ with my 44 on a AQ4 flop no matter if I raised or not.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

your arguement is too position-player dependent, especially short handed I think. I raise all PP if it looks like

1) buys me button
2) decent chance blinds will fold
3) my image is tight enough / opponents are passive post flop and continuation bets can expect a decent +EV when I have position.

plus, shania is cool.

I am more prone to limp pp behind a limper, or in middle/early position.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]

Theres a very good chance Im stacking AQ with my 44 on a AQ4 flop no matter if I raised or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly ...

Unless the game is shorthanded the power of small PP's are in their implied odds. Get in there cheap and stack someone.

mj

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

I like to raise almost all PP's when playing shorthanded. It is very hard for them to get away from K57 flop when you have raised 55 and they have KQ. Don't tell me that you will be stacking them if the pot is unraised, it simply won't happen unless they are horrible.

Example in 5/10. You limp with 55 UTG+1. Button calls, and blinds call. $40 in pot. Flop is K57, and you have 55. Lets say you lead out and hope someone has a K. You can only really bet up to pot on this flop. I think its easier to get the money in raised.

So lets say you raise to $40 PF and flop is the same as before. Now you bet around $100 (3/4 pot, as one of the blinds is likely to call with the button), and now if he decides to raise with his TP, he is stacked.

It just makes it easier to get the money in when you hit a set if you raise PF. Also, say the flop is Jxx, and you bet the flop. The guy with KQ is folding, and you take down a small pot.

That is why I raise almost all small pairs (except out of the blinds and UTG with VERY small pairs. I will also limp after 2+ limpers up to JJ.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you prove that you are a jackass. You couldve avoided your response entirely if you had really ignored me like you promised you would.

I put the question out there to get other peoples opinions. Especially people who DO raise these pairs. They may have reasons for doing it that I hadnt considered which would make me and anyone else reading this thread a better player.

But I forgot that you know everything already. Why do you even read this board? Just go out and take all the money and stop harrassing up commonfolk.

Your obnoxiousness and assinine behaviour never ceases to amaze me.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]

Once again you prove that you are a jackass. You couldve avoided your response entirely if you had really ignored me like you promised you would.

I put the question out there to get other peoples opinions. Especially people who DO raise these pairs. They may have reasons for doing it that I hadnt considered which would make me and anyone else reading this thread a better player.

But I forgot that you know everything already. Why do you even read this board? Just go out and take all the money and stop harrassing up commonfolk.

Your obnoxiousness and assinine behaviour never ceases to amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hostile response? fimbulwinter took the time to give you an entire list of solid reasons to raise medium pocket pairs preflop. IMO his response was the most informative of them all. Why insult him for giving you a helpful answer to your question?

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Once again you prove that you are a jackass. You couldve avoided your response entirely if you had really ignored me like you promised you would.

I put the question out there to get other peoples opinions. Especially people who DO raise these pairs. They may have reasons for doing it that I hadnt considered which would make me and anyone else reading this thread a better player.

But I forgot that you know everything already. Why do you even read this board? Just go out and take all the money and stop harrassing up commonfolk.

Your obnoxiousness and assinine behaviour never ceases to amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hostile response? fimbulwinter took the time to give you an entire list of solid reasons to raise medium pocket pairs preflop. IMO his response was the most informative of them all. Why insult him for giving you a helpful answer to your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you read the last sentence? Hes mocking me and hes an [censored] who has nothing better to do. Its annoying and Im fed up with it. I dont care how much he knows about poker or how much he thinks he knows. He still an [censored] who Ive done absolutely nothing to.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

Once again you prove that you are a jackass. You couldve avoided your response entirely if you had really ignored me like you promised you would.

I put the question out there to get other peoples opinions. Especially people who DO raise these pairs. They may have reasons for doing it that I hadnt considered which would make me and anyone else reading this thread a better player.

But I forgot that you know everything already. Why do you even read this board? Just go out and take all the money and stop harrassing up commonfolk.

Your obnoxiousness and assinine behaviour never ceases to amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. i can see the subjects of the threads you post. that's all i need.

2. the reason i posted here is that i saw the other responses and wanted to provide a correct framework for looking at the situation. remember, like i said before, new players have a hard time filtering the good from the bad.

3. what is your level of education? i ask this because you very often post simple mathmatical problems couched as poker questions and then cannot do the math when asked to. this can be answered with a simple EV calcualtion, just like the one i had to do for you in the KK thread (how you got your answer, i don't know, but i can't see how you could screw the math up that bad). If you can't do 12th grade level math, then you probably shouldn't discuss some of the hands posted here because much of their analysis lies in doing the math. If you cannot, there is no shame in grabbing an algebra textbook and reviewing, it will make you a better poker player and a better person.

I'll leave your thread alone. I almost want to unblock you to see your response to this. almost.

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Once again you prove that you are a jackass. You couldve avoided your response entirely if you had really ignored me like you promised you would.

I put the question out there to get other peoples opinions. Especially people who DO raise these pairs. They may have reasons for doing it that I hadnt considered which would make me and anyone else reading this thread a better player.

But I forgot that you know everything already. Why do you even read this board? Just go out and take all the money and stop harrassing up commonfolk.

Your obnoxiousness and assinine behaviour never ceases to amaze me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why the hostile response? fimbulwinter took the time to give you an entire list of solid reasons to raise medium pocket pairs preflop. IMO his response was the most informative of them all. Why insult him for giving you a helpful answer to your question?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for noticing.

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good list. I should add that I almost always raise small pairs only when I'm in position. I don't like opening with 22 UTG in a 6-max game, but I'll sometimes raise a limper or two when I'm on the button. Basically, I just like raising in position, and as long as the cards are playable, I may go for it.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
That is why I raise almost all small pairs (except out of the blinds and UTG with VERY small pairs. I will also limp after 2+ limpers up to JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? The second sentence seems to contradict the first.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

I don't do it very much online until I build a stack (150xBB or greater) there is no reason to. I also wouldn't recommend it for 3/6 or lower, no reason. 5/10 and higher when you start to play with the same people everyday you have to start raising with a wide array of hands. When you play live (5/5 or higher), the stacks are often really deep so there is more room for creativity postflop, this move just helps throw your opponents off. Ice what hands do you raise with now? It sounds like you have a good system for the limits you play now, I don't think raising pairs would help, but against more observant, aggressive, tricky opponents, it becomes standard....

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't do it very much online until I build a stack (150xBB or greater) there is no reason to. I also wouldn't recommend it for 3/6 or lower, no reason. 5/10 and higher when you start to play with the same people everyday you have to start raising with a wide array of hands. When you play live (5/5 or higher), the stacks are often really deep so there is more room for creativity postflop, this move just helps throw your opponents off. Ice what hands do you raise with now? It sounds like you have a good system for the limits you play now, I don't think raising pairs would help, but against more observant, aggressive, tricky opponents, it becomes standard....

[/ QUOTE ]

I raise most of the standard raising hands of course ( AA-TT, AK/AQ). I also limp AK/AQ/AJ depending on position and who is in the hand. What I like to do to throw off the opponent is raise suited connectors (instead of middle pairs), raise from the button with just about anything if there is a limper or 2 who folds too much...and I also limp in EP with big pairs quite a bit.

Also, at Prima there is usually 2-4 short stacks (like 10-20BBs). If those guys are between me and the button, I cant see any reason to raise anything except a premium hand because they are liable to go all in with any hand they want to play.

My preflop raise % is about 4% but I limp in EP with AA and KK alot.

I know that has nothing to do with this "raising middle pairs" thread. I just thought I would mention it.

Can someone tell me how asking about raising middle pairs is a pure math question? If I raise to 4BBs with 66 and I get reraised to 10BBs and i think the guy has AA and I can bust him if I hit a set , would be a pure math question depending on stack sizes.....but the general question about raising preflop is not a pure math question.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]

The only benefit I see to raising these pairs is to give some cover for when you raise your real hands,

[/ QUOTE ]

middle pairs are real hands

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
3. what is your level of education? i ask this because you very often post simple mathmatical problems couched as poker questions and then cannot do the math when asked to. this can be answered with a simple EV calcualtion, just like the one i had to do for you in the KK thread (how you got your answer, i don't know, but i can't see how you could screw the math up that bad). If you can't do 12th grade level math, then you probably shouldn't discuss some of the hands posted here because much of their analysis lies in doing the math. If you cannot, there is no shame in grabbing an algebra textbook and reviewing, it will make you a better poker player and a better person.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I think that both you guys are being *really* childish. Please do the rest of us a favor and take the petty hostility out of the tone of your posts, and if you truly feel the need to bicker like small children, do it somewhere else and stop wasting everyone else's time.

Secondly, fim (and I don't know if you're even going to read this or not), but I graduated from a quite reputable college w/ honors, scored a 750 on the math section of the SAT, and still don't know how to make EV calculations. It's not a function of my level of education, or relative intelligence, it's simply b/c I've never seen a simple explanation of the mathematical formula one would use to make such a calculation. Perhaps the area I am most intent upon improving in my game is my ability to make quick mathematical intimations on the fly, and I feel like the boards here at 2+2 are the best place for me to do so.

In other words, instead of taking such a demeaning tone and insulting someone who may or may not be less intelligent than you are, perhaps take two minutes out of your day and lay out the numbers. I, for one, would certainly appreciate it a great deal.

As for raising middle pairs, when I'm playing short, I open raise w/ every pair, and depending upon the flow of the game, will sometimes reraise preflop w/ pairs 77-99 and good position. Of course, I wouldn't recommend that everyone try this, but it usually falls right in line w/ my aggro table image. At a full table, I'll sometimes pump it up preflop w/ the same hands, but not nearly as frequently, unless stacks are sufficiently deep such that the deceptive value of hitting a set after raising 55 and such in LP will pay significant dividends.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Obviously raising middle pairs is something that becomes more +EV the deeper the stack. I think you will find that raising middle pairs become a very good play with position b/c these hands have good showdown value even if you are called on your flop continuation bet and many players will just call a raise with AK out of position yet play their TPTK for their entire stack.

For example,
Limp from the CO with 66 and have the BB check AKo with a flop of A 2 6.

Now. .

Raise from the CO with 66, have the BB call you with AK then a flop of A 2 6.

Which hand do you think you will make more on?

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Exactly.

Raising pairs w/ position is effectively like a sweetener. If there's $30 in the pot preflop and you hit a set vs. someone's TPTK, you're not going to win nearly as much as if there's $100+ in the pot before the flop. It lets you win bigger pots w/ your big hands.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Agreed, but thats 1 in 8 times. What about the other 7 times when you miss your set, make a continuation bet, get called and have to give up?

Also, if you have 66 in the cutoff and the BB has AT with that same A62 flop (I think thats what it was), you will win more when you didnt raise because alot of guys will fold AT to a raise and if they do call, they wont give serious action.

Several people have mentioned playing short handed. Im assuming a full ring for this thread since thats all I play.

This is probably not possible to know, but is there any way to figure what percentage of continuation bets get called?

I mean has anyone just sat down and recorded how many times they raise preflop, bet the flop and get called (regardless of the flop)?

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
3. what is your level of education? i ask this because you very often post simple mathmatical problems couched as poker questions and then cannot do the math when asked to. this can be answered with a simple EV calcualtion, just like the one i had to do for you in the KK thread (how you got your answer, i don't know, but i can't see how you could screw the math up that bad). If you can't do 12th grade level math, then you probably shouldn't discuss some of the hands posted here because much of their analysis lies in doing the math. If you cannot, there is no shame in grabbing an algebra textbook and reviewing, it will make you a better poker player and a better person.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I think that both you guys are being *really* childish. Please do the rest of us a favor and take the petty hostility out of the tone of your posts, and if you truly feel the need to bicker like small children, do it somewhere else and stop wasting everyone else's time.

[/ QUOTE ]

first, you don't have to read any of this. like i've said before, what people think of an online poker persona means nothing to me for a plethora of reasons, so your complaints fall on deaf ears.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, fim (and I don't know if you're even going to read this or not), but I graduated from a quite reputable college w/ honors, scored a 750 on the math section of the SAT, and still don't know how to make EV calculations. It's not a function of my level of education, or relative intelligence, it's simply b/c I've never seen a simple explanation of the mathematical formula one would use to make such a calculation. Perhaps the area I am most intent upon improving in my game is my ability to make quick mathematical intimations on the fly, and I feel like the boards here at 2+2 are the best place for me to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

reading one of the many posts i've made where i calculate EV is enough to learn this. simply sum the EV's of individulal options tiems their likelyhood. you can take this many levels, but the baseline is the same. estimating the likelyhoods is where experience comes in. as for your SAT score/academic justification, i really don't know what to say. If i tell you my qualifications in turn it will sound like i'm bragging or demeaning you, if i don't it will sound like i'm asking for something out of the pale of most posters, so i'll leave that one alone.

[ QUOTE ]
In other words, instead of taking such a demeaning tone and insulting someone who may or may not be less intelligent than you are, perhaps take two minutes out of your day and lay out the numbers. I, for one, would certainly appreciate it a great deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

he is less intelligent than I am. One job ii've had, for which i was paid a very large amount, is screening applicants based on essays and written answers to problems. My experience there leads me to the conclusions i have previously presented.

as for the math, i'll put it in a separate post if you'd like, as i know there are many who are avoiding this spat. again, nobody is forcing you to read any of this.

[ QUOTE ]
As for raising middle pairs, when I'm playing short, I open raise w/ every pair, and depending upon the flow of the game, will sometimes reraise preflop w/ pairs 77-99 and good position. Of course, I wouldn't recommend that everyone try this, but it usually falls right in line w/ my aggro table image. At a full table, I'll sometimes pump it up preflop w/ the same hands, but not nearly as frequently, unless stacks are sufficiently deep such that the deceptive value of hitting a set after raising 55 and such in LP will pay significant dividends.

[/ QUOTE ]

this sounds about right with the caveat that the original proposition (playing very short) is unlikely to happen in a cash game but can very often be seen in tournament play.

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

you would be surprised how many BB's will call a continuation bet with AK on a T 8 3 flop then be happy to check it down with you.

you can also just hit your set on the turn if you miss the flop.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

Hi fim,

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't stating my academic "resume," if you will, for any reason other than to show that there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence, level of education, or mathematical aptitude and the ability to calculate EV (because for me, my current inability to do so is the result of not knowing how to frame the problem, not a lack of understanding of high school level math). I was in no way trying to start a dick measuring contest over who's a bigger math nerd, as I'm quite certain that this English major/writer/journalist would not fare well in this regard around these parts.

I would find it rather helpful to see a general formula to use in making EV calcuations, and perhaps an application to a simple example.

Also, when I referenced playing "short," I was talking about playing shorthanded, not short-stacked. Doesn't really change a whole lot I suppose, just wanted to clarify.

-neon.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but thats 1 in 8 times. What about the other 7 times when you miss your set, make a continuation bet, get called and have to give up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fire a second barrel? Honestly, I'm continually amazed at how often I can get people to fold hands that can beat my middle pair when I fire two healthy bets into the pot. My 88 might be well behind AJ on a KJ2 board, but someone's sure gonna have a hard time calling two big bets w/ it, no? Same w/ just about anything but AK, KJ and maybe KQ on the same board.

I think this depends a lot on how you play, and how they play, too. What works for me may not work for you.

[ QUOTE ]
Several people have mentioned playing short handed. Im assuming a full ring for this thread since thats all I play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. That does change quite a bit, but I still think there's value in raising middle pairs w/ good position at a full table.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]COME ON. you think you can really compute EV like this? you have lost it. EV in these situation is completely 100% dependent on game conditions, your opponents level of play, and your abilities after the flop.
if you are not a brilliant postflop player, who plays a solid style and are playing 1/2 with donkeys, you are gonna make way more limping 77 in MP.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just compare the EV's:

raising:

added EV of hitting set (easier to get stack in on bloated pot)
EV of getting to make continuation bet on flop (against certain/most opponents flop continuation bets are +EV with no cards at all)
added EV of folding best hand (you raise 44 and 55-jj play for set value)
added EV/shania of destroying implied odds with small pfrs's. (if you only have an overpair 1/3 times, someone trying to flop a set from a 4% stack raise is losing a lot of money.)

limping:

better implied odds



basically raising them, with position mostly, gets better as stacks get deeper (as do most all position raises).

FWIW you could have just done a little math on your own using your own assumptions and avoided the need for this thread entirely.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]COME ON. you think you can really compute EV like this? you have lost it. EV in these situation is completely 100% dependent on game conditions, your opponents level of play, and your abilities after the flop.
if you are not a brilliant postflop player, who plays a solid style and are playing 1/2 with donkeys, you are gonna make way more limping 77 in MP.

[/ QUOTE ]

ever notice how the standard response to your advice is crickets chirping?

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi fim,

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't stating my academic "resume," if you will, for any reason other than to show that there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence, level of education, or mathematical aptitude and the ability to calculate EV (because for me, my current inability to do so is the result of not knowing how to frame the problem, not a lack of understanding of high school level math). I was in no way trying to start a dick measuring contest over who's a bigger math nerd, as I'm quite certain that this English major/writer/journalist would not fare well in this regard around these parts.

I would find it rather helpful to see a general formula to use in making EV calcuations, and perhaps an application to a simple example.

Also, when I referenced playing "short," I was talking about playing shorthanded, not short-stacked. Doesn't really change a whole lot I suppose, just wanted to clarify.

-neon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look man, just give it up. Fimbulwinner is smarter than you, and it's not even close. For goodness sakes, he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO READ ESSAYS AND SCREEN APPLICANTS. And he's smart enough to pull off the whole "I'm ignoring you (but really I'm not and I'm quoting your posts)" routine, which I haven't seen since perhaps 9th grade. Did I mention he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY in one of his jobs? Clearly you lose the dick measuring contest.

And fimbul, awesome jab at the end of your post there. You're definitely not 12. Here's a tip: don't respond to posts if you "haven't read" them. You either come off as an immature liar, or someone who doesn't really know what the thread originally asked. And since you haven't pretended to block me yet, I might point out that this is about as far from a simple math problem as you can get. He's asking about theory here... if someone knew precisely how often a player would fold to a raise, would get stacked with top pair or top two, would get stacked against a limper, etc, then obviously this would be a simple math problem. But that's not the question. The question is asking for personal theories and heuristics to take the place of hard data in terms of the frequency of the above events. None of us knows exactly how often these things happen... so we're trying to figure out what each of us has come up with.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi fim,

Thanks for replying.

I wasn't stating my academic "resume," if you will, for any reason other than to show that there isn't necessarily a correlation between intelligence, level of education, or mathematical aptitude and the ability to calculate EV (because for me, my current inability to do so is the result of not knowing how to frame the problem, not a lack of understanding of high school level math). I was in no way trying to start a dick measuring contest over who's a bigger math nerd, as I'm quite certain that this English major/writer/journalist would not fare well in this regard around these parts.

I would find it rather helpful to see a general formula to use in making EV calcuations, and perhaps an application to a simple example.

Also, when I referenced playing "short," I was talking about playing shorthanded, not short-stacked. Doesn't really change a whole lot I suppose, just wanted to clarify.

-neon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look man, just give it up. Fimbulwinner is smarter than you, and it's not even close. For goodness sakes, he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO READ ESSAYS AND SCREEN APPLICANTS. And he's smart enough to pull off the whole "I'm ignoring you (but really I'm not and I'm quoting your posts)" routine, which I haven't seen since perhaps 9th grade. Did I mention he was PAID A LOT OF MONEY in one of his jobs? Clearly you lose the dick measuring contest.

And fimbul, awesome jab at the end of your post there. You're definitely not 12. Here's a tip: don't respond to posts if you "haven't read" them. You either come off as an immature liar, or someone who doesn't really know what the thread originally asked. And since you haven't pretended to block me yet, I might point out that this is about as far from a simple math problem as you can get. He's asking about theory here... if someone knew precisely how often a player would fold to a raise, would get stacked with top pair or top two, would get stacked against a limper, etc, then obviously this would be a simple math problem. But that's not the question. The question is asking for personal theories and heuristics to take the place of hard data in terms of the frequency of the above events. None of us knows exactly how often these things happen... so we're trying to figure out what each of us has come up with.

[/ QUOTE ]


where did you come from kiddo?

the swarm grows...

fim

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

i raise any pocket pair preflop for a few reasons:
1) build the pot
2) deception value
3) my hand will be good a good percentage of the time even though i don't hit my set...

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

I think it's a function of stack sizes more than anything else. with deep stacks it's fairly standard.

--turnipmonster

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That is why I raise almost all small pairs (except out of the blinds and UTG with VERY small pairs. I will also limp after 2+ limpers up to JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? The second sentence seems to contradict the first.

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically I either want it heads up or 4+ players with pockets. The worst is to have them vs. 2 or 3 players, because you basically have to hit a set, and won't get paid much when you do.

So I like to raise in position, and outplay them after the flop. I agree that raising them with short stacks is bad, but with large stacks, and image purposes, I think its standard.

Re: Raising middle pairs
 

[ QUOTE ]
you have to make a continuation bet every time

[/ QUOTE ]

i think your making a mistake assuming this. you may do this all the time, and for your current pre-flop game this may be 100% correct, but that doesnt imply others are or that this is the best strategy for someone who routinely raises pocket pairs.

i raise lots of hands pre-flop, including middle pairs. for me to routinely make continuation bets with all of these would be suicidal. after a pre-flop raise my bet/check ratio is pretty close to a 50-50 split. a lower % of continuation bets is a natural byproduct of raising more hands pre-flop.