Call or Raise from SB w/many Limpers?

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Sfer mentions checkraising with a TPWK hand

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between TPTK and TPWK is the fact that your hand is vulnerable to fewer overcards. The pot is small and you're worried about overcards, not gutshots.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between TPTK and TPWK is the fact that your hand is vulnerable to fewer overcards. The pot is small and you're worried about overcards, not gutshots.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. I just wanted to mention that I think, for those same reasons, a checkraise is good on a QJx type flop (or T9x/Q9x - if we're holding your J9 example).

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With that many limpers, the problem is giving odds to the other draws to hang around.

[/ QUOTE ]
You guys that are suggesting that we need to be manipulating the size of the pot are failing to take into account the fact that loose/passive players are calling regardless of the pot size. We bet against these players for value because they're either going to call or check-behind. If they're committed to seeing the turn then we're missing value by not making them pay for it with weaker hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say the flop was J95r. If you bet and a calling station to your left calls, you will have the other gutshots (KT) and middle pairs (98) calling as well (and possibly correctly).

[/ QUOTE ]
So I should check and let these gutshots and middle pairs check-behind and see a free turn card with their 3-7 outs. You're suggesting that this is preferable to betting?!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that the players were necessarily loose or passive (although multiple limpers might imply that). I believe I said -- but I will say it now -- that I would only check this flop if I was fairly confident that one of the LP limpers would bet -- whether for value, for a free card or just taking a stab at the pot. If you do not believe that a bet will come from a limper, betting out is certainly a better play.

And I take issue a bit with one of your assumptions. While a limper may not take into account the size of the pot, he often takes into account the size of the bet he would need to call. In my experience, limpers who catch a piece of a flop will call one bet far more readily than they call two bets -- making a check-raise for pot manipulation an effective "narrowing the field" play. (note: to the extent it effects my observations, most of my recent experience is in the club 10/20 game regularly discussed by W. Deranged)

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that the players were necessarily loose or passive (although multiple limpers might imply that).

[/ QUOTE ]
I know - the OP did. Actually he just said loose - I implied the passive.

[ QUOTE ]
While a limper may not take into account the size of the pot, he often takes into account the size of the bet he would need to call. In my experience, limpers who catch a piece of a flop will call one bet far more readily than they call two bets

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that check-raising has a much higher probability of narrowing the field. However, I still assert that betting is FAR often the better play. Even an late postition player that you expect to bet will, sometimes, check-behind. Sometimes a passive player on your immediate left will wake-up and bet - thwarting your check-raise plan. I believe I've seen this discussed elsewhere that you need to be around 90-95%+ sure that not only will the late position player bet - but, also, that it will be checked to him by the other 3-4 players. IMO, this is a lot of "ifs" and makes simply leading out a TPTK hand, especially OOP, is the best way to play. I think this is one of a few generalizations that we can make about most SSHE games.

I think that for a few times when a check-raise narrows the field and helps you win the pot there are many more times that your flop check misses value or allows a weak draw(s) to see a free turn card that either makes you second best on the turn or gives that player odds to draw out on the river. I wouldn't expect the comparative EV of checking vs betting to be close.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
Seven-handed, fairly loose game. You have AJo in the SB. There are three limpers to you. You know that there is a very high probabilty that, if you raise, all three limpers will call (and at least 50/50 the BB also calls).

Do you always/sometimes/never raise here?

What hands do you raise with in the SB?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a good player or two limped I would lean towards calling. Assuming the default weak limpers I am raising and leading the flop. If I do just call I am usually going for the check raise. I think that reminding players to give your check some respect is worth the risk of a free card which you are not going to usually get anyway if the limpers are strong.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Seven-handed, fairly loose game. You have AJo in the SB. There are three limpers to you. You know that there is a very high probabilty that, if you raise, all three limpers will call (and at least 50/50 the BB also calls).

Do you always/sometimes/never raise here?

What hands do you raise with in the SB?

[/ QUOTE ]

I would generally call in these circumstances with AJo. However, I would almost always raise with AQo.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, limpers who catch a piece of a flop will call one bet far more readily than they call two bets -- making a check-raise for pot manipulation an effective "narrowing the field" play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would I want to knock out people who will call 1 bet incorrectly? If people will call gutshots on 8-1 odds, that makes me more money than if I successfully checkraise and make them correctly fold.

Whiffing here is horrible. And even a successful checkraise is not necessarily better than a bet.