Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

ok.

I raise TT because I'm only beat by JJ-AA. Most likely these 4 hands are not dealt. I protect my hand by raising. If ppl call with overs I'm ahead on most flops. And I like to play bigger pots when I'm ahead.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

[ QUOTE ]
I protect my hand by raising. If ppl call with overs I'm ahead on most flops.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is wrong. If you raise medium, say 50ish, you will get called by all kinds of J/Q/K/A hands (IF you are playing a low buy-in at Party. I acknowledge that this is not true at higher buy-ins or at other sites). ~70% of flops will have overcards. You will be facing so many opponents that it is very likely that at least one of them will have you beat. The only way you are good is if you flop a T with the over cards. You didn't need to raise preflop to get this set value.

If you raise more, say 75-100, you may be able to knock down the number of callers to where you will be ahead on most flops. If that's the case, what are you doing? Betting out? Villain will just fold. Giving free cards? Not such a good idea.

The only value you ADD to the set value by showing strength preflop is the value of stealing the pot on the flop when villain misses. If it was worth raising TT to add that value, then if would be worth raising 57o, 92s, etc.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

I play it the exact same in the first couple levels MP, JJ as well for that matter. It is just way too vulnerable, and there is more to lose than to gain at this point.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

Raising to 50ish is not medium. It's too small. I raise to t75 with all my raising hands: TT+, AK.

And you talk about extra value from the ability to steal on the flop? I like the idea of knowing whether the 2+2'er in the blinds could have 65o or not.

And please don't even think of comparing TT with 92s.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

[ QUOTE ]
And you talk about extra value from the ability to steal on the flop? I like the idea of knowing whether the 2+2'er in the blinds could have 65o or not.

And please don't even think of comparing TT with 92s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I surrender. The first of these two statements makes no sense, and the second indicates that you didn't understand my post.

Thanks for playing.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

I said that it wasn't the only gained value. I did understand it - you were talking about the value of representing aces with any two cards. I'm just saying the comparison is stupid.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

A limper with an Ace will not pay you off if the flop misses him. Low PP will not likely play unless they hit a set - and then YOU are paying them off.

So - limp and let many people to limp in and stay in. If you hit the set on KTx or ATx or even QTx board - most likely someone will pay you off, sometimes with their entire stack. The more people see the flop - the more people you have to get a piece of teh flop and pay you. With AQs+ and QQ+ you want to isolate, with JJ and below early on - limp for set value.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

Open up Pokertracker/Pokeroffice and compare how you guys do with TT in the early rounds of 800 chippers. Wouldn't prove anything by itself, but might be interesting.

Re: $22: TT in early levels
 

I could see arguments for raising or limping. I think raising is more +EV but limping may allow you to make ITM more often. I think more than anything it depends on your ability and your style. If you are aggressive then raise. If you are a puss then limp. jk all you limpers.