Inconsistency in loose game advice in HEFAP and Small Stakes Holdem

[Wynton]

At another forum I saw someone note that the 2 books seem to advocate playing AQ differently, even when both are addressing loose games. In the loose game section of HEFAP (the 21st century edition), on page 161 the authors write that if you have AQ, you often should not raise preflop, because it can tend to give away too much information and that it makes the odds better for someone to call you down later. Then when discussing AQ offsuit more specifically on page 175, they repeat that it is not good to raise with from ep because it is unlikely to cut down on the field.

But in Small Stakes, on page 73, the authors recommend raising with AQ from any position (provided that you are opening the action).

Have I missed something or is this just a flat-out contradiction?

[twankerr]

The assumption in the first case is that the players will be able to read you as your session wears on. In SSH hold 'em you don't need to disguise your hand.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Have I missed something or is this just a flat-out contradiction?

[/ QUOTE ]

In HEFAPs loose-section the following concept is very important:

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is not to immediately punish someone because you happen to have an edge. (Afterthought, p. 180)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think they would agree that this concept isnt as important as they once thought. Its not a useless, but limping with AQo UTG is one of those spots where they now prefer raise as default play.

There is a bit of a contradiction in the loose-section in HEFAP because they are talking about tables where people are so bad that many of them will coldcall if you raise UTG but still they seems to think that the other players are thinking (aware of odds, putting a raiser on a hand, etc.) Its like the other players are the same thinking players as in the rest of HEFAP but now suddenly starting to call with hopeless hands.

[flair1239]

The Difference is tha HEFAP assumes that even though the game is loose, the players are generally average to above average.

SSH assumes that most of the players are clueless.

So in a loose game against thinking players, you would want to play differently, than in a loose game dominated by bad players.

[BarkingMad]

I noticed this too awhile back, so I did some careful reading to figure it out.

Here is what I came up with.

First, I believe that the loose games section of HEPFAP is talking about the exact same type of game that SSHE was written for. Specifically, the type of game where "opponents play too many hands and go too far with them". I don't think assumptions of clueless opponents has anything to do with it.

Second, I think Sklansky would stand by what he wrote in HEPFAP and I doubt his view on the idea of not raising pre flop with alot of "pretty good" hands has changed (I don't hang out and drink beer with D.S. so I could be wrong).

Check out pg 159 of HEPFAP where it says; "...With a hand that is pretty good but not great, if you don't raise and thereby cost yourself a little bit of money at that point , you gain it back plus some because had you made the pot bigger there would be less opportunity for your opponents to make significant mistakes later on".

If you really want to split hairs you could call the AQ issue a contradiction. In my thinking, what it really is, is a slight difference in what the two books consider "good but not great" hands.

SSHE is more apt to push small edges preflop, wheras HEPFAP is more apt to limp, and use small pot size to exploit bad play later.

I would call the divergence between the books "Two slightly different winning approaches", rather than a contradiction. I believe that HEPFAP's approach is probably slightly less + EV than SSHE, but with less standard deviation.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi BarkingMad:

It also says on the bottom of page 159:

[ QUOTE ]
There is a bit of a two-edged sword here. If you’re playing against extremely terrible opponents, it’s hard not to raise with pretty good hands because even though you’re costing yourself money on the later streets, your’re gaining so much before the flop because your hand is usually so much better than theirs. In other words, if people are coming in with absolutely everything, you have got to raise with an AQ simply because your hand is so much better on average than so many of the other players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Best wishes,
Mason

[Ed Miller]

The key issue in this debate is preflop vs. postflop expectation. When you choose to limp with a hand like ace-queen, you are almost always giving up preflop expectation. That is, if there were no betting after the flop, you would always raise.

But raising before the flop tends to lower your expectation on the postflop betting rounds. You give your hand away somewhat, you tie yourself to the pot when you flop bad, you "act first" by encouraging your opponents to check to you (and possibly check-raise you), etc.

So to choose whether to raise preflop or not, you have to weigh the preflop expectation you gain by raising against the postflop expectation you lose.

When your opponents play loosely but not extremely loosely (e.g., they might come in early with a hand like J8s when they shouldn't... but they would quickly fold Q5o or 82s) then sometimes limping makes sense because, since their hands are bad but not terrible, raising immediately doesn't punish them as much. Furthermore, if they are tricky and play reasonably well after the flop, they can take better advantage of your postflop disadvantage from having raised.

But when your opponents play truly terrible hands, and they don't play any better after the flop, you absolutely need to raise ace-queen in these situations. You cannot make up postflop the expectation you lose preflop by failing to raise.

In general, in small stakes games your opponents play so loosely and poorly that it doesn't make much sense to try these cute limping plays with big hands. Just raise away.

In a "loose" higher stakes game where people play reasonably well, but play a few too many hands, trading off your preflop gain sometimes makes sense. That's the idea HPFAP was trying to get across.

While it is kind of hidden away in the paragraph Mason quoted, HPFAP does address this condition on using the limping play.

[Wynton]

Thanks everyone. These explanations have really helped me understand the debate much better.