Adjusting to the $200 games
 

I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead.

Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this?

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead.

Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this?

[/ QUOTE ]
regardless of the level, small-mid pocket pairs hitting sets is a major source of income.

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead.

Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this?

[/ QUOTE ]
regardless of the level, small-mid pocket pairs hitting sets is a major source of income.

[/ QUOTE ]
They're also about the easiest hands to play OOP vs. a preflop raiser.

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

I think what both of you said are pretty obvious. But against people who are raising many hands and likely do not have much to pay off with I am not sure they are worth it, obv. this is read dependent. Shouldn't I be more likely to limp w/PPs at a tight/aggressive and loose/passive table instead of loose/aggressive tables?

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wrote up a long question here but decided to be simple instead.

Due to the difference of aggression between the $100 and the $200 games I have decided to not open limp small PPs in EP, but I decided to replace them with c/c'ing SCs when I have position and am against somebody with at least a 100bb stack...even when it will likely be HU. How bad is this?

[/ QUOTE ]
regardless of the level, small-mid pocket pairs hitting sets is a major source of income.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
pretty obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks joker, true to your name.

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what both of you said are pretty obvious. But against people who are raising many hands and likely do not have much to pay off with I am not sure they are worth it, obv. this is read dependent. Shouldn't I be more likely to limp w/PPs at a tight/aggressive and loose/passive table instead of loose/aggressive tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

If its really a table where most of your opponents are loose-aggresive, online at the $200 NL level, I would get up and find another table. However, in my experience, there are not many good LAGs per table, and even against them, a set is a nice hidden hand that can pay off very well.

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

Do you play 6-max or full ring?? Not that it really matters with the pocket pair, just wondering out of curiosity.

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

sorry, full ring games.

Re: Adjusting to the $200 games
 

What do you do with your suited connector when you hit bottom/middle pair no kicker and are faced with a pot sized continuation bet........your thought process is in the wrong place. Why would you need to "replace" a group of hands with another group? Dont follow rigid rules preflop. Play what is profitable, which will change depending on the table, but will nearly always include small pocket pairs from all positions.