[CJC]

Hi,

[ QUOTE ]
To make this a profitable move then you must only limp in with middle pairs where the chances of improvement are the greatest and secondly where the chances of getting the improved hand paid off are maximised.


[/ QUOTE ]

So you only are going to raise with big pairs? Are you saying you will never re-raise with middle pairs? How long do you think decent, observant opponents will pick up on this at the poker table???

[ QUOTE ]
Hence I would never come in with a middle pair if one of my pair cards were dead

[/ QUOTE ]

So you wouldn't play a pair of sevens with an Ace or King kicker with a seven out? Do you play in a no ante game or a game with a tiny ante? Cause in a bigger game if you play as you suggest you are going to go broke, it is really that simple.

[ QUOTE ]
I am less inclinded to play split pairs than concealed pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this one please

[ QUOTE ]
tend to disregard secondary outs such as suited and connected kickers

[/ QUOTE ]

Really explain this one please

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly I am ready to give up the hand either on 4th or 5th street if I have not improved

[/ QUOTE ]

Alot of times this might be true, but as I responded to the original poster, there is NOT NEARLY enough information on his part, or your part, to be making these rash questions and generalazations.

If you, even 'generally', play as you suggest, you will go broke in any game that has a sizeable ante.. It really is that simple, and it really isn't even close. Now, if you were playing in a $1-3 or $1-5 game with no ante... I would probably agree with you 100%. But that is just my point, again I asked the original poster, what games and or limits/structures are we talking about? You really can't ask a 'General Stud Theory' Question like this..

Happy Holidays,

CJ