Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

9 handed. This game is loose as they come.

5 limpers to me in hijack, I have pocket 9's, If I limp last 2 are coming in with almost any 2. If I raise I've got a chance at getting the button. Cutoff and button are regulars(more money than game). No matter what the action the blinds are coming in(Raise, Reraise no matter). More on hand a little later.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

You have to raise. Your hand is not better than that you want as few people as possible to compete with you for the blinds/ pot. QQ-KK-AA you could have limped for your reasons. QQ probably marginal.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
QQ-KK-AA you could have limped for your reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]
No way.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

I disagree. This is a huge multiway pot, where cutting down opponents is wishful thinking. You raise, but the primary reason is the pure profit from set value. If you can nab the button or catch a favorable non-set flop, that's nice too, but sets are most important, and most profitable, against a loose-passive field.

And you realize that limping AA/KK/QQ here gives up at least 7 small bets preflop, right?

You should raise preflop for value. Any pocket pair figures to win more than its fair share in an 8-10 handed pot, so it can raise profitably. Larger pairs win more often unimproved. The primary value of low-mid PPs now derives from sets and full houses, which is why 22 can raise here also. AA/KK win so often UI that sets are less important, but this has nothing to do with not raising. These hands are even more valuable to raise.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
You have to raise. Your hand is not better than that you want as few people as possible to compete with you for the blinds/ pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not really clear on what you're trying to say. We already have 5 limpers. I think that I would raise because it's fun, but I don't see what's so wrong with limping along for set value. You're gonna dislike about 70% of the flops that come, right?


[ QUOTE ]

QQ-KK-AA you could have limped for your reasons. QQ probably marginal.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand this part at all.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Sorry, my bad. I misread OP, for some reason I thought folded to hero, of course QQ-AA should be raised in this scenario.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Think it may involuntarily qualify my first post for worst advice ever. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

It's going to be at least 8 handed raise for value.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

It doesn't matter. Limp sometimes, raise others.

The one maybe non-obvious reason to raise is to give yourself a chance to check through on a nasty board and get 4 swings at a set.

But really, this is not a ball-buster.

- Jim

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

I raise. Getting the button would be nice. Also, while in many cases the five limpers will collectively hold at least one on the each of the cards that outrank your nines, it's possible that they don't, and if someone behind you holds it and you knock them out, you've increased your chance of winning the pot. You might also knock out some hands that could make weird straights or two pair to your overpair or set if the flop comes rags.

-McGee

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

I raise, but I don't think there's much to be gained by knocking players out. Its a raise purely for value. 99 will win more than its fair share against a bunch of limpers. Especially as the number of limpers cuts down on the possibility of domination by a higher pocket pair. Raise it up [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

It's certainly a value raise, and I regret neglecting to mention that in my post. But knocking players out is an excellent supporting argument in this case, particularly if it will buy you the button.

-McGee

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
particularly if it will buy you the button.


[/ QUOTE ]
The button has next to no value in this hand. In fact, button would probably be the deciding factor for my play in this situation - I wouldn't raise if I thought a raise would knock button out.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
particularly if it will buy you the button.


[/ QUOTE ]
The button has next to no value in this hand. In fact, button would probably be the deciding factor for my play in this situation - I wouldn't raise if I thought a raise would knock button out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain this please? I'm more than a bit lost.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Limp everytime, you don't have a large enough equity edge to justify raising with 5 limpers preflop. When you're up against that many opponents play 99 for set value.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

For the most part, CP games play so passively that I think the four swings at a set is the overriding factor on this hand, assuming all of your opponents can remember who raised preflop.

The other thing that makes me like the raise, is that if you make the set on the turn after the flop gets checked through, you could potentially be facing a lot of action before it gets to you, and could win a pot that you need the circus pony to jump over when all those yellow chips start flying.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Limp, raising here builds the pot up too much, if the flop comes up where you have an overpair rainbow it provides all the more incentive for someone to stay in and draw you out with overcards.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, CP games play so passively that I think the four swings at a set is the overriding factor on this hand, assuming all of your opponents can remember who raised preflop.

The other thing that makes me like the raise, is that if you make the set on the turn after the flop gets checked through, you could potentially be facing a lot of action before it gets to you, and could win a pot that you need the circus pony to jump over when all those yellow chips start flying.

[/ QUOTE ]


Last I checked we needed 22:1 to draw to our set past the flop. it's unlikely we'll be getting those odds.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, CP games play so passively that I think the four swings at a set is the overriding factor on this hand, assuming all of your opponents can remember who raised preflop.

The other thing that makes me like the raise, is that if you make the set on the turn after the flop gets checked through, you could potentially be facing a lot of action before it gets to you, and could win a pot that you need the circus pony to jump over when all those yellow chips start flying.

[/ QUOTE ]


Last I checked we needed 22:1 to draw to our set past the flop. it's unlikely we'll be getting those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For the most part, CP games play so passively that I think the four swings at a set is the overriding factor on this hand, assuming all of your opponents can remember who raised preflop.

The other thing that makes me like the raise, is that if you make the set on the turn after the flop gets checked through, you could potentially be facing a lot of action before it gets to you, and could win a pot that you need the circus pony to jump over when all those yellow chips start flying.

[/ QUOTE ]


Last I checked we needed 22:1 to draw to our set past the flop. it's unlikely we'll be getting those odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

re-read the reply

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Last I checked we needed 22:1 to draw to our set past the flop. it's unlikely we'll be getting those odds

Well, I was assuming that the preflop raise would increase the possibility that the flop would get checked through, but you should count the pot, before you say that. If 8 see the flop, and an early position player bets out, you will most likely be getting 22-1 or thereabouts to see the turn. Additionally, if you are closing the action, the implied odds, let you drop a little below the 22-1, down to about 17-1 to see the turn, and you will certainly be getting that depending on where the flop bet comes from.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

I raise here but there are reasons why calling might be better (you keep the pot smaller and maybe encourage less chasing and/or encourage your opponents to make worse calls later on if you hit a good flop).

My primary reason for raising is that raising is fun. I think it actually is a little better for value, but BigEndian is right that it is not all that crucial really as 99 is going to need to improve that vast majority of the time to win against a 5+ field.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I was assuming that the preflop raise would increase the possibility that the flop would get checked through, but you should count the pot, before you say that. If 8 see the flop, and an early position player bets out, you will most likely be getting 22-1 or thereabouts to see the turn. Additionally, if you are closing the action, the implied odds, let you drop a little below the 22-1, down to about 17-1 to see the turn, and you will certainly be getting that depending on where the flop bet comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's possible but doesn't seem like a strong enough justification to raise 5 people with the blinds to follow. There's a lot of boards where players are going to lead into you even with the preflop raise. Also, it's possible that with 5-7 players in the pot you'll be facing a bet and a raise on the flop and having to call 2 bets cold which will kill your set odds for the turn.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The button has next to no value in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. Having position is always an advantage.

Never mind the fact that you may get an extra chance or two at spiking your set.

-McGee

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's possible that with 5-7 players in the pot you'll be facing a bet and a raise on the flop and having to call 2 bets cold which will kill your set odds for the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot remember a scenario in which I raised preflop, there was no further preflop raising, and I was facing a bet and a raise by the time it got back to me on the flop.

-McGee

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The button has next to no value in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please. Having position is always an advantage.

Never mind the fact that you may get an extra chance or two at spiking your set.

-McGee

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure I said "next to no" value. It's not that there's zero value, it's that there's very little value when you're drawing to a big hand. If you make your set or flop an overpair, you don't care that much of button is behind you or not. Likewise if you flop overcards and there's action in front of you, the fact that button will still get to act after you fold probably won't concern you.

With something like AJ, having the button is worth a ton. When you're drawing to set, having the button is almost valueless.

And we can somewhat quantify how much seeing the free turn card is worth - you will make a set (and win the pot, we assume) 4% of the time that you see a free card. That's not going to be enough to justify a raise. Besides, if you want to put in a single bet to see the turn, you'll probably be able to put it in on the flop anyway.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Ego, this is a commonly known tactic. It is also used as a contributing argument for a raise along with a the fact that a hand such as a small to mid pair already has good value in a lot of situations before the flop. It's a play worth putting in your playbook.

- Jim

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

i think not raising this would be ----------EV

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

I limp this. Since it's going to be 7-handed minimum, 99 is a hand that's going to need to improve to win. With this many players in, it's usually going to need to flop a set or it's done. So encouraging the CO and Button to stick around isn't too bad at all; just padding for when we flop a set. Again, this is the difference I've noticed between live and online. Online it's a raise; live it's a limp.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Don't we often raise smaller pocket pairs in late position after limpers in order to tie people to the pot if we flop our set? If this hand definitely needs to improve to win, why is this any different?

-McGee

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's possible but doesn't seem like a strong enough justification to raise 5 people with the blinds to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Winning a nice pot 1/10 times or so when you would have otherwise lost that pot is a stronger justification than you seem to think. I agree (as I usually do) with Bob that if this is a passive game it's all the more reason to raise in this situation for that reason exactly. Not to mention 99 I'm sure has more than it's fair share of equity preflop.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter. Limp sometimes, raise others.

The one maybe non-obvious reason to raise is to give yourself a chance to check through on a nasty board and get 4 swings at a set.

But really, this is not a ball-buster.

- Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Jim, I liked your response. I feel good that I thought raising for set value here is correct (which is incorrect in NL SNGs). But the **hope** of getting 4 swings part is something that didn't come to my mind.

I have a question. Why does changing your position on limping vs raising matter if you **might** knock out the button. We're talking about missing 1 bet and 1 player vs the 7 other raise calls. Am I missing something?

One last thing, to the newbies recommending limping here. The thing that really sticks out in my mind here is the following. You want to maximize your earn on your good hands, and minimize your loss on your bad hands. Think a little more about gain v loss when you hit and when you miss, and you'll see why raising here is very profitable.

Good luck at the tables.
Scuba Chuck

Edit: and I can't wait to find my way to the CP tables. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. But my indifference to raising vs. folding has a lot to do with the hand plays differently post flop depending on what you do here.

Sure, raising here creates a bigger pot so that if you hit your set you will likely win a pile from all the hangers-on that go to the river. But it also creates a big pot so that if you whiff it makes it tougher to protect the pot if presented with that situation. It also creates reverse implied odds where you also have to go futher with your hand because of the size of the pot. The door swings both ways.

I can't tell you for certain which is precisely more profitable, raising or folding. I can tell you that I don't believe the difference between the two is very big. Thus, it really doesn't matter.

- Jim

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]


I can't tell you for certain which is precisely more profitable, raising or folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you mean raising or limping. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me phrase it this way. Postflop, we're talking about a pot of 8sb v 14. When you consider the implied odds, isn't the latter better?

Sure there's a tradeoff, like trying to protect your hand if you whiff, but that seems like a challenge anyway with 8 in the pot.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

limping = bad

you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]


you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You need at least 8 opponents to have pure value in raising for set value, and that's not taking into account the fact that you won't win everytime you hit your set.

I think it's safe to say that it is never correct to raise 22 purely for set value.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You need at least 8 opponents to have pure value in raising for set value, and that's not taking into account the fact that you won't win everytime you hit your set.

I think it's safe to say that it is never correct to raise 22 purely for set value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search for a QTip thread on the benefits of raising low pairs in LP after a lot of limpers. The crux of the argument was that often times in loose passive games you will get a free turn card and thus have 4 chances to hit your set which makes the raise +EV.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic

[/ QUOTE ]

No. You need at least 8 opponents to have pure value in raising for set value, and that's not taking into account the fact that you won't win everytime you hit your set.

I think it's safe to say that it is never correct to raise 22 purely for set value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Search for a QTip thread on the benefits of raising low pairs in LP after a lot of limpers. The crux of the argument was that often times in loose passive games you will get a free turn card and thus have 4 chances to hit your set which makes the raise +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, against the right field of opponents.

Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
 

Yep, that was a can't wait to leave work typo. =)

- Jim