[Aisthesis]

I've been reading back and forth in Harrington's 2-volumes and ran across one note that I found rather shocking--namely not playing 22 to a raise.

I should perhaps add that I'm playing mainly cash games at the moment and that the book is a tournament book, but early tournament and cash games seem to me fairly similar (as long as the Ms are quite high).

Anyhow, for cash games, I find 22 (along with the other little pairs) a great way to crack the big ones. All of the little pairs are for my taste "set it or forget it" type hands, again at least in cash games. And 22 is at greater risk of getting oversetted than 66, but I don't see that as sufficient reason to miss a setting opportunity.

Does anyone care to agree or disagree here?

Admittedly, in tournaments, you usually don't have the time to play for a set, although I'll sometimes try it with high Ms. To a raise, I'm not sure... One could at least argue that you get bled down too much in a tourney before hitting the set. But then I'd also have problems with 66 early, which I'd hate to get in heavily with without improving (perhaps very raggedy boards or something).

Anyhow, I don't really want to get into the tournament aspect here so much as just a cash game question: Essentially, aren't all the little pairs very much playable to reasonable raises in cash games (with the idea of setting or letting them go and assuming adequate stack depth)? And that also includes 22...