standard TPNK hand?

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
In a 50+, with 1K chips, I'd call this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just started the $55s and would appreciate your thoughts.

I would think it would have some affect if you knew button or the blinds were very aggressive preflop (which isn't that rare).

You don't limp here with A6o do you? Would you limp with connectors and one or two gappers?

One thing about flush draws, I think anyway, is that they are not often paid off very well when they hit.

edit: well, often is relative. The ? is, are they paid off enough to make it worth it.

[adanthar]

Yeah, this is all marginal. I like playing marginal hands - at worst, they're neutral EV and give me practice.

Not A6o, but I'd limp something like 97s there with 1K chips, position, loose/passive table, etc.

Also, I don't want a flush draw. Generally, although I'll take a draw if people give me odds, I want a pair + draw, gutshot + flush draw, etc. or better to really go anywhere. The implied odds are nice because so many people limp AK or JJ and can't get off it when they flop good.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is all marginal. I like playing marginal hands - at worst, they're neutral EV and give me practice.

[/ QUOTE ]

with all due respect, this is a ridiculous statement. marginal hands are neutral EV if played perfectly everytime, which i can guarantee you do not (as i can guarantee with any one).

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
with all due respect, this is a ridiculous statement. marginal hands are neutral EV if played perfectly everytime, which i can guarantee you do not (as i can guarantee with any one).

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? If a hand is neutral EV when played perfectly, it's not a marginal hand.

The definition of a marginal hand - at least I've always thought so - is a hand that is marginally profitable/unprofitable depending on the situation.

Suited aces, 97s, etc. in LP behind limpers are more than marginally profitable.

edit: oh, I see what you meant...nah, I meant neutral EV as in 'my PT DB will have it at 0 when all is said and done'. My bad.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
with all due respect, this is a ridiculous statement. marginal hands are neutral EV if played perfectly everytime, which i can guarantee you do not (as i can guarantee with any one).

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? If a hand is neutral EV when played perfectly, it's not a marginal hand.

The definition of a marginal hand - at least I've always thought so - is a hand that is marginally profitable/unprofitable depending on the situation.

Suited aces, 97s, etc. in LP behind limpers are more than marginally profitable.

edit: oh, I see what you meant...nah, I meant neutral EV as in 'my PT DB will have it at 0 when all is said and done'. My bad.

[/ QUOTE ]



while true, i think it is best (especially for some of the players with a little bit less bubble expertise) to encorporate an almost abc style of play early in sngs due to the fact that (at least up to the 55s) people are willing to go broke with suboptimal holdings.

[Bigwig]

[ QUOTE ]
In a 50+, with 1K chips, I'd call this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually will as well, but will sometimes fold in this seat. I'm definitely calling in the CO or on the button, however.

I like your style. Too many tight a**es around here.

[Matt Walker]

If a hand is 0 in your PT database I think you should definatly be playing it for Shania's sake. Playing more hands which in themselves are 0 EV would most likely increase your overall profit or at least I would think so because it makes it so much harder to put you on a hand and I expect your seeing the same people a lot at the level you play.

[johnnybeef]

[ QUOTE ]
If a hand is 0 in your PT database I think you should definatly be playing it for Shania's sake. Playing more hands which in themselves are 0 EV would most likely increase your overall profit or at least I would think so because it makes it so much harder to put you on a hand and I expect your seeing the same people a lot at the level you play.

[/ QUOTE ]

which would be +EV in and of itself

[Newt_Buggs]

do the $100 players limp this in their games?

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
I play it like you did.

Don't listen to the pussies who tell you to play super-tight the first few levels. They are afraid of post-flop play, playing against unpredictable players, playing against bad players, and playing poker in general. Unfortunately for them, they're missing out on all of the terrible players' chips, because while they're fold-fold-folding the first few levels, you're gambling it up with the terrible players, and taking all their chips before the tighties have even seen a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is mostly why i posted the hand. i think folding preflop is too tight given some players' incredible desire to dump their chips.

but i know you should play tighter at the 10/15 in a stt compared to a mtt, so i wanted to see what other people said. i probably would've folded if i were 1 seat farther out of position.