[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
At a table where there is little PFR'ing, lots of limping and tight play against raises, then raising is clearly best as you will not get paid when you do flop a set, and when you are getting called in an unraised pot they are likely drawing to hands that beat yours. This is not what you want. When they're playing tightly the value of the continuation bet especially goes up, so raising pairs, especially with position, seems like the way to go in weakloose and weaktight games.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with what you say, but the first sentence of this conclusion seems to lack a nuance.

I think this is what you were getting at, but correct me if I'm wrong: Your sets won't pay off if you limped your pair PF. Often, a set will neither pay off if you raised and flopped it, but at weak tight tables, your hand only starts to really matter as soon as you get played back at on the flop. PPs, SCs etc can make postflophands that stand up against the typical range of hands of weak/tight players who play back at you on a flop. Therefore, raising them PF will have tremendous value on later streets in the big pots. The reverse is true for good TPGK hands, with which you will always want to play smaller pots on weak/tight tables.

On another note: raised pots contain much more information on your opponents hand range than unraised pots, which also adds to the value of raising liberally PF (under the right conditions).

Marnix