Reverse Implied Odds?
 

You are in MP+3 with AJo at a LP fishy table. UTG, UTG+1, UTG+2, MP, MP+1, and MP+2, all limp.

Fold is correct, right? Our hand may be best now - but chances of our one pair catching hand winning on the showdown are slim and we will just bloat the pot on further streets and lose on river more often than not - correct?

Correct me if I am wrong.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

?

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

Not correct. You'll win less often. But that doesn't mean you'll lose money or win less money.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

Limping is fine. Folding is bad.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

With that many limpers, would you guys still raise it, or would it become a call at this point?

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

Like jason said, limping is fine. But it should be a profitable hand unless you really play poorly postflop so folding is bad.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

I don't think that the expectation associated with this hand matters if you raise or call, but you certaintly don't want to give up all your expectation by folding.

I prefer to raise, but then again, I am a "fast" player, of sorts.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
With that many limpers, would you guys still raise it, or would it become a call at this point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just limp. At this point the EV of raising and calling is probably pretty close, but here it's better to pass up an equity edge to exploit one later in the hand. Pot size control, etc.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With that many limpers, would you guys still raise it, or would it become a call at this point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would just limp. At this point the EV of raising and calling is probably pretty close, but here it's better to pass up an equity edge to exploit one later in the hand. Pot size control, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

The decision to raise or call here should probably be made on tactical considerations, though I agree with Jason that limping is usually going to be correct.

I'd raise if:

1. Some/most of the limpers are weak post-flop my pre-flop raise might buy fold equity.

2. Some of my opponents play VERY bad hands. If, for example, this were at the 2/4 at Foxwoods, where players would be likely to be limping hands like J7o and T6o and so on, I might raise simply because my equity is likely to be higher than usual.

3. If the blinds are really tight, and I could definitely eliminate them, I like raising. The reason is that the dead money provided by two folded blinds increases our overlay in the pot. If the blinds are not very tight, we lose too much in raising (because of the pot control issues Jason mentioned).

Personally, I would raise AQo here in most situations. AJo and KQo would be the strongest offsuit hands I'd limp here. Suited hands like KJs and A8s becomes easy equity-edge raises here.

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

Do you limp hands like, KJo, QJo, ATo?

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you limp hands like, KJo, QJo, ATo?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I play AT and KJ, but probably fold QJ. With no raise coming yet, we're unlikely to be dominated with KJo and ATo (though QJ is probably just too precarious to be worth it). Our odds are great and we have position.

Here's one way to think about these sorts of hands: In a pot with a ton of players, our pre-flop equity is unlikely to be significantly better or worse than many of our opponents. Since the pot is big already, calling is not likely to be either hugely + or - EV at the moment.

BUT, we play better than our opponents! Since pre-flop is sort of a wash, and because we are in good position, limping makes sense because we can anticipate that we are going to be able to play our hands profitably on the post-flop streets, whereas our opponents will generally make mistakes.

Winning players seek to play as many hands as possible that they can profitably. Our ability to play better than our opponents post-flop (which basically means losing the least on our bad hands and winning the most with our good hands) means that with marginal hands like AT and KJ we can play a little bit more loosely in such situations because we can anticipate making up any minor losses we might incur pre-flop (and, note, any losses would be minor and, in fact, might not even be losses!).

Re: Reverse Implied Odds?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fold is correct, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With that many limpers, would you guys still raise it, or would it become a call at this point?

[/ QUOTE ]

In “Small Stakes Hold’em”, AJo is classified as a Big Offsuit Broadway hand. In that section(p. 73) it says,

[ QUOTE ]
You can open with any of these hands from any position. Raise any of these hands if it has not been raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, according to the authors, not only is folding incorrect, your first thought should be to raise. However, in a footnote at the bottom of the page, the authors recommend that if 5 or 6 people have already limped in, then consider just limping in as well due to the fact that your preflop edge is small against so many opponents, and just calling can gain some strategic advantages that will help you make more money after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Our hand may be best now - but chances of our one pair catching hand winning on the showdown are slim and we will just bloat the pot on further streets and lose on river more often than not - correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't sitting at a table and playing someone heads up and only getting paid 1:1 on each of your bets, where you would need to win more often than not for the hand to be profitable. In your example, if everyone stayed to the river, then you would be getting paid 5:1 on your bets, which means you would just need to win more than 1 time out of 6 to make money.

Consider these two examples:

1) You sit down at a roulette table where the wheel has 38 numbers on it. You can bet $1 on any number, and if you win you will be paid $1. Should you play? Why or why not?

2) Same roulette table, but this time it costs $1 to bet on a number, and if you win you will be paid $50. Should you play? Why or why not?