Pre-flop Theory Question
 

Limit hold'em, not in a blind, and you have a hand worth playing pre-flop. If the "proper" play is to call, how much worse is raising? What's the worst case violation, expectation wise?

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

I'm not sure I totally understand your question.

I have been playing sort handed lately, so in my book if you are first in, you always want to raise (I think the same is true first in from late position in a full game).

I get the geeling that you are talking about the situation where you have a hand like T9s in middle position in a full game. No one else has come in and you want to limp. In those types of situations, the expectation of limping vs. raising is highly dependent on the players to your left.

Is the BB a call down artist who will go to SD with K high? Is the player to your left a smart LAG who will 3 bet you and bet every street. Get what I'm saying?

Another improtant factor is how many players are acting after you. From early postion a rasie with T9s is much worse expectation wise (metagame considerations aside) than a raise first in form the button with T9s. IMO there is no time where it is correct to limp first in from the Button or CO.

Looking back at your post you may be talking about any time you want to limp even if others are in the pot. If 5 players have limped behind you, then raising with A2s would be a big mistake.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limit hold'em, not in a blind, and you have a hand worth playing pre-flop. If the "proper" play is to call, how much worse is raising? What's the worst case violation, expectation wise?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is about the cost of a mistake. In the worst case it will cost you the pot. That's why it is usually the safer play to call on the river than to fold. For more, read ToP pages 252ff.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

I think that what you are after is something like this


Given that you have a hand, that is getting the right price to call but not to raise, what happens then if you raise

Given that you connect on the flop, you have the best of it, no doubt about it

Usually a hand that can call, but not raise is a drawing hand or a hand in danger of being dominated (An example of the first is 78s and the second is ATo)

I will only look at the drawing hand

Scenario 1
By just calling you are encouraging the players to your right to come in as well .. you have sweetened the pot and they are getting a better price on there calls
If a player to the left should raise, no harm done since everybody will just have to call a single bet and that is most likely not driving anybody out
Since you have a drawing hand, if you hit it you will have a very strong hand, that can stand a lot of callers
The price is right

Scenario 2
You raise ... suddenly you are driving the players on your left out of the pot, since there are very few hands that can cold call a raise ... so most likely they fold or reraise
Now if someone has reraised, limpers before you suddenly have to cold call two bets as well and again ... not very likely
So what has happened is, that you have reduced the price you are getting on your drawing hand

The chances on you connecting with the flop are the same



While I doubt that it is a very big mistake EV wise if we are talking about a single hand ... if done repeatedly it turns into a big leak, that will cost a lot

Which is why you see players once in a while raise with suited connectors for deception, but you see noone doing it on a regular basis

Small EV loss in a single hand ... Big leak over 10000+ hands

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

First in from EP with a small pair or small suited-connector in a [very] loose game would be bad spots for raising despite the fact that the pair is definitely playable and the S-C is almost certainly playable.

K-Ts and the like would also be bad raising hands; maybe even worse than small S-Cs since the former is far more likely to be dominated. (7-6 plays badly against K-Q but nowhere near as badly as K-T does).

Big unsuited cards (including A-K) are also bad raising hands if there are already 4+ players in the pot.



I'm not sure which of these is the worst but all are bad.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

If 5 players have limped behind you, then raising with A2s would be a big mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think what you meant to say is,

"If 5 players have limped behind you raising A2s is close to a no-brainer".

Small pairs, suited connectors and suited Aces are excellent late position raises when several opponents have already limped in.

In other words, everything you said was right - except for, well, everything you said. [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

* Re. "behind" - I'm assuming you meant "before" [you], as in you're on the button, 5 players limp, 2 fold, and it's now up to you.

I'm not sure it's possible for anyone to ever [legally] "limp behind you".

*

You have had your knuckles officially rapped; it doesn't mean we don't love you, it simply means you had it coming. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

*

"You had me at hello (but lost me when you opened your mouth and spoke)". [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

There are two worst cases to check.

First is if you have an absolutely marginal calling hand. With n players in the pot, your chance of winning is less than 1/n, but close enough that the amount already in the pot makes your call attractive. In this case, by raising you lose the different between 1/n and your chance of winning. That can't be very big preflop in hold'em, but in later stages it can be crucial.

The other bad situation in when you will drive people out of the pot who will pay you if you hit. This also can't be very big preflop in hold'em since even the worst drawing hand can become powerful on the flop, and even the best made had can be undone by a flop.

You can't lose much by raising when you should call preflop in hold'em, while you can lose a lot by calling when you should raise or fold. You can play good poker and never call, but you can't play good poker and always call.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

[ QUOTE ]

I think what you meant to say is,

"If 5 players have limped behind you raising A2s is close to a no-brainer".

Small pairs, suited connectors and suited Aces are excellent late position raises when several opponents have already limped in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah way to destroy your implied odds on the exact hands that need those odds to be playable.

Now see here -
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think what you meant to say is,

"If 5 players have limped behind you raising A2s is close to a no-brainer".

Small pairs, suited connectors and suited Aces are excellent late position raises when several opponents have already limped in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah way to destroy your implied odds on the exact hands that need those odds to be playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

*

I see you've posted almost 4,000 times.




Let me know when you get to having READ as many.



I will explain the nature of your ignorance IF and only if you promise to IM me with the table number whenever you sit down.



P.S. I would have been more gentle had you prefaced your opinion with something like, "I may be wrong" OR "I may be an imbecile but" . . .

- Chris

*

Would anyone like to help this lost soul ?

(Suggestion: Use small words).

Re: Now see here -
 

Well I was going to tell you to stick to poker because your comedy sucks but I also see your poker sucks too.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think what you meant to say is,

"If 5 players have limped behind you raising A2s is close to a no-brainer".

Small pairs, suited connectors and suited Aces are excellent late position raises when several opponents have already limped in. [ QUOTE ]
Yeah way to destroy your implied odds on the exact hands that need those odds to be playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Ohnonotthat is saying is that although it appears that you would be destroying your implied odds by putting in an extra bet preflop, that you are in fact helping your implied odds. By investing an extra small bet preflop, you are encouraging everyone to stay in the hand in the later streets since the pot will be bigger. Usually when you make a hand with a small pair, suited connector, Axs, it will be a very strong hand. Therefore, it doesn't really hurt you when you have people sticking around since you will typically have to make the hand you are drawing to to win.

I will now quote from Hold'em Poker for Advanced players...

[ QUOTE ]
One of the nice things about raising with suited cards before the flop (especially the ace suited), is that when you flop a flush, or for that matter a four-flush, you welcome all bottom pairs calling. They may be right to call, but it doesn't hurt you. They may be making money by calling on the flop because there are other people involved. But they are not taking money from you. They are making you money

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, one of the reasons to raise with these flush cards is because if you flop the draw, by making the pot bigger, people now play hands that can't win against your hand if you hit it. (This is also why if there are many players in, it is right to raise with small pairs on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

fish,

Pages 53, 67, 70 and 71 of SSHE disagrees with that advice.


Anyway, I digress. ohnonotthat is a class act as obvious by his reply.

That is
 

precisely what "ohnonotthat" was saying. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It backfires against great players since they won't fall for it; it backfires against horrible players because it's simply not necessary - they need no [additional] inducement to pursue all the way to the river (although even nitwits are more inclined to chase dreams if the pot is large).

*

Note to Bradley T. - Ponder the words of Abraham Lincoln . . .

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

As I no longer play small stakes I neglected to purchase this work. (Shame on me - I should have bought it anyway and am, as we speak, rectifiying this error).

I have a proposal for you.

If you would be so kind as to quote from the pages you mention as refuting my claims, I will post an impressively contrite apology for having offended.

I'll even sweeten the deal.



If you can quote a passage which states that raising from the button with A-2/s, a suited connector, or small pair, after four or more limpers have entered the pot is a BAD play I will purchase for you any book in the 2+2 collection and sign it "to the finest player I know . . ."

The gauntlet has been tossed down; what say you, man ?

- P.S. I have already acknowledged that it is not a great play against extremely weak competition; I need to know where it says it's a BAD play.

*

Sincerely,

"Ohnonotthat", a/k/a "Chris", a/k/a "a class act"

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

I'll do it. I've got SSHE open due to another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
p. 53 [referring to speculative hands like small pocket pairs and suited, connected hands] "These hands, especially the weak ones, need to see the flop cheaply. Since they often miss, they lose money with every extra bet that goes in before the flop."

[/ QUOTE ]
(...and thus voluntarily putting in extra money by raising is a bad thing.)

I don't see anything relevant on p. 67.

[ QUOTE ]
p. 70 [discussing suited aces] "From late position, consider raising with A9s or A8s after limpers if your opponents are loose."

[/ QUOTE ]
(...which implies that raising with a weaker suited ace is a bad play.)

I don't see anything relevant on p. 71

----

To quote a relevant passage from HPFAP, p. 173-4, which discusses raising with hands like Axs and little pairs.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, one of the reasons to raise with these flush cards is because if you flop the draw, by your making the pot bigger, people now play hands that can't win against your handif you hit it...however, if they are tough you should just call, and if they are terrible, you should again just call. When the other players are terrible, there is no reason to make this raise in order to attract their call on the flop because they will stay in anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of you seem to be in violent agreement. Raising costs a little EV with Axs. That's okay because against a certain class of opponents, it'll make them make mistakes later. Other classes of opponents will make those mistakes without the raise, so it's a bad thing to raise. Why are we arguing?

PP

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

In addition:

Could be page #'s (I have the first edition of the book)

p. 67 Small Pairs (22 - 66)
[ QUOTE ]
You would like to see the flop cheaply, for one or at most, two bets

[/ QUOTE ]

p. 72 (not 71) suited connectors
[ QUOTE ]
you also need to be able to see the flop for one bet. WIth a few exceptions, you cannot overcome your preflop disadvantage if you must pay two or more bets to see the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere does it state A2-A7s, small pairs, small connectors are raising hands.

ohnonotme,

I don't need your book offer, I already have 18 2+2 books. And SSHE is recommended for anyone playing up to $40-$80.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

[ QUOTE ]
If 5 players have limped behind you, then raising with A2s would be a big mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this, necessarily. If A2s has positive pot equity following 5 limpers (let's assume it does based on the game, your reads, ranges, etc.), then won't it continue to have positive pot equity for two bets instead of one?

Now, if you didn't think the hand had positive pot equity, but might have favorable implied odds due to your position, then raising might not be ideal.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

A question: if playing 4 or more tables, amidst the almost constant change of players (many of whom have no footprint in either one's notes or in PT), how can these caveats--applying as they do to extremely confined and particular circumstances--be realistically applied? And if they cannot be realistically applied (and as I pose the question, it is obvious I harbor suspicions that they cannot), how can the recommendations that they support be implemented without risk to a bankroll?

The advice to play Axs, amidst other similar plays suggested in SSHE and HEFAP, is accompanied with warnings about the minimal edge such actions offer, under the best of circumstances. If one cannot, except under much less than ordinary circumstances, expect a positive result to said tactics, why bother with them at all?

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

If you passed on every hand that only has marginally positive expectation, you'd be a very tight player. I wouldn't give you much action on your good hands, thus reducing the expectation on those.

Re: Pre-flop Theory Question
 

Three reasons -

1. Poker is [occasionally] still played in cardrooms.

2. You may have no read/notes on your online foes but that does not mean they have none on you.

3. These marginal hands are alot less marginal than the author suggests (author" refers to my assumption that these statements come from SSHE) especially once the holder of these hands gains in ability.

We are born knowing how to play AA profitably and we learn quickly how to do so with KK; Ax/s and the like require skills that are acquired as me grow; the author may or may not have taken this into account - I'm guessing that if he did he minimalized its significance.