Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question

[EgoSlasher]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I was assuming that the preflop raise would increase the possibility that the flop would get checked through, but you should count the pot, before you say that. If 8 see the flop, and an early position player bets out, you will most likely be getting 22-1 or thereabouts to see the turn. Additionally, if you are closing the action, the implied odds, let you drop a little below the 22-1, down to about 17-1 to see the turn, and you will certainly be getting that depending on where the flop bet comes from.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's possible but doesn't seem like a strong enough justification to raise 5 people with the blinds to follow. There's a lot of boards where players are going to lead into you even with the preflop raise. Also, it's possible that with 5-7 players in the pot you'll be facing a bet and a raise on the flop and having to call 2 bets cold which will kill your set odds for the turn.

[Aces McGee]

[ QUOTE ]
it's possible that with 5-7 players in the pot you'll be facing a bet and a raise on the flop and having to call 2 bets cold which will kill your set odds for the turn.


[/ QUOTE ]

I cannot remember a scenario in which I raised preflop, there was no further preflop raising, and I was facing a bet and a raise by the time it got back to me on the flop.

-McGee

[BigEndian]

Ego, this is a commonly known tactic. It is also used as a contributing argument for a raise along with a the fact that a hand such as a small to mid pair already has good value in a lot of situations before the flop. It's a play worth putting in your playbook.

- Jim

[EgoSlasher]

[ QUOTE ]
Ego, this is a commonly known tactic. It is also used as a contributing argument for a raise along with a the fact that a hand such as a small to mid pair already has good value in a lot of situations before the flop. It's a play worth putting in your playbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you do have odds to raise for set value, your overall equity to win the hand is a small edge at best. Raising also means it's going to be harder to protect your hand if you flop an OP. The combination of thse two things makes a limp more profitable. You're going to flop an OP a lot more often than you're going to flop a set and you want to be able to protect your hand against overcards on the flop.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ego, this is a commonly known tactic. It is also used as a contributing argument for a raise along with a the fact that a hand such as a small to mid pair already has good value in a lot of situations before the flop. It's a play worth putting in your playbook.

[/ QUOTE ]

While you do have odds to raise for set value, your overall equity to win the hand is a small edge at best. Raising also means it's going to be harder to protect your hand if you flop an OP. The combination of thse two things makes a limp more profitable. You're going to flop an OP a lot more often than you're going to flop a set and you want to be able to protect your hand against overcards on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]


Nothing short of shooting the other players in the head with a gun will protect your hand if you flop an overpair in a 7 handed pot. Whatever comes on this flop won't change the fact that at least 3 or 4 people will likely showdown a hand unless there is super heavy action on the later streets.

Second of all "your equity is vary small" WHAT?! No it is not. What kind of crap do you think is out there when a pot is 7handed? Also in situations like this you get luckier than normal since a lot of the overcards to your 9s won't be very live at all.

[ QUOTE ]
While you do have odds to raise for set value, your overall equity to win the hand is a small edge at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno where you get this from. Playing around with PokerStove I generally found that a broad selection of typical limping hands in the first four hands (Ace rag, Ace and King small suited, suited connectors, small pocket pairs) had about 15% equity, while 99 had 25% equity. Of course that assumes they all go to the river, but it already points to a pretty large equity difference.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing around with PokerStove I generally found that a broad selection of typical limping hands in the first four hands (Ace rag, Ace and King small suited, suited connectors, small pocket pairs) had about 15% equity, while 99 had 25% equity. Of course that assumes they all go to the river, but it already points to a pretty large equity difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is one of those cases where you have to careful with PT. About 8% of your PT equity comes from making a set on the turn or river. If you give that 8% back to the rest of the field, 99 basically has no edge.

Elsewhere in this thread, someone said 99,TT, and JJ all play alike. The big difference between these hands is that an overcard will flop about 50% to JJ, but almost 75% to 99. The better the chance of an overcard, the more likely you're going to have to fold on the flop and not realize that 8% from the turn and river. JJ is far better than 99, in that respect.

99 has some equity edge against a large field, and is probably borderline between a limp and a raise. JJ is not 99 and you're giving up a lot of equity by not raising. 66, for instance, will flop overcards so often that you probably shouldn't be raising it unless you know 8 people will call your raise - even though 66 still shows a PT equity edge against 5 hands.

[chief444]

Having an edge even if small certaily in no way justifies a limp being more profitable.

Also, for a lot of arguments justifying one or the other there is a reasonable counterargument. For example, raising does bloat the pot somewhat and yes it will make it slightly more difficult to win unimproved. However, it will also tie opponents to the pot a bit more when you flop your set. And I really don't think with this sized field you're going to have much luck protecting unimproved either way.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
That's possible but doesn't seem like a strong enough justification to raise 5 people with the blinds to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]
Winning a nice pot 1/10 times or so when you would have otherwise lost that pot is a stronger justification than you seem to think. I agree (as I usually do) with Bob that if this is a passive game it's all the more reason to raise in this situation for that reason exactly. Not to mention 99 I'm sure has more than it's fair share of equity preflop.