poll: quick preflop TT multiway OOP

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
while TT on a 9 high flop is very weak ten handed, it is usually easier to know where you are at in the hand leading to higher implied odds situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you explain what implied odds you are talking about? If tens are an implied odds hand, then you certainly don't want to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is a question of degree. if you compare any two hands one of them will have higher implied odds than the other, I am saying TT as an overpair has higher implied odds on the flop than top pair tens no kicker.

there is no reason why high implied odds should be a detriment to raising, that makes no sense. AKs has very high implied odds. what you are probably thinking of are hands that do not have enough value to justify calling preflop on equity/pot odds basis alone, and *require* high implied odds to continue. this is by far not the case for TT -- we definitely have an equity edge against a loose field of limpers.


also all outs are not created equal: sure you have 5 outs to improve a split top pair, but you're only improving to beat one pair and some two pair hands, and you will often be abused by draws that hit and making second best hands will be much more common (this is where the reverse implied odds come in). your two outs with the tens will very often crush the competition.

[slik]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not call and bet/raise the flop so they have worse pot odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have likely alraedy made a mistake by callin in the first place. You are now making it a bigger mistake for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. They are making a mistake by limping but not by calling your raise. If you raise they will be getting 6:1 or better to call your raise and they would be correct to call with these odds. On the flop they are getting 12:1 to call and thanks to your raise preflop they are now free to chase even weak draws.

I believe Skalansky talks about not value betting in certain situations in loose games for this reason alone - to control the pot size and increase the chance of your opponents making an error later in the hand. I believe this is the better course of action here.

[/ QUOTE ]
To everyone that advocates raising, is there an effective counter argument to this? I voted for raising, but cannot find a flaw in this argument.

[oxymoron]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe this is a better course of action here?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to raise hands that play well against a family pot here because I'll need the 12:1 odds to continue with on the flop. These hands would be SC's, low digit one gappers and high card two gappers.

I'm at work now and cannot run any numbers on how well TT holds up 6 handed but I don't think it is that good. Any other position I am raising TT to limit the field but you are not doing that here.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I believe Skalansky talks about not value betting in certain situations in loose games for this reason alone - to control the pot size and increase the chance of your opponents making an error later in the hand. I believe this is the better course of action here.

[/ QUOTE ]
To everyone that advocates raising, is there an effective counter argument to this? I voted for raising, but cannot find a flaw in this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is validity to that argument. It is a tradeoff between the value of the preflop raise, and the mistakes that will be made postflop by your opponents.

if you happen to have something like 30% equity preflop, you are forfeiting getting 6*.3=1.8 small bets in immediate value (you are paying 1 sb for the oppurtunity for .8 profit). however the kind of mistakes your opponents will be making will be to do things like peel the flop with a gutshot, if they call the flop getting 8-1 when you don't raise instead of correctly calling getting 13-1, this type of mistake is quite small -- in this case about 2/9 of a small bet. there have to be a lot of these small mistakes to add up to all the missed value. But there is a tradeoff here.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
They are making a mistake by limping but not by calling your raise. If you raise they will be getting 6:1 or better to call your raise and they would be correct to call with these odds. On the flop they are getting 12:1 to call and thanks to your raise preflop they are now free to chase even weak draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the same erroneous reasoning that leads players to incorrectly open-limp weak drawing hands and then call a raise. Each individual action is not an egregious error due to pot-size, but paying 2 bets for a drawing hand cripples implied odds and is a significant mistake. hands like J7s that are crushed by TT are making a BIG mistake by calling 2 bets preflop...a far bigger mistake than calling, say, a gutshot getting 8:1 odds on the flop.

To the player who said that TT on a 9-hi flop is equivalent to Tx on a T-hi flop: you are wrong.

That's all there is to it. The risk with top-pair-no-kicker in a 8 way pot is that you are very often outkicked by a better Ten. When you hold an overpair to the board you are FAR less likely to be behind, especially since we were the only preflop raise - we can virtually rule out JJ+. As a result we can correctly protect our hand since it is more reasonable to infer whether our hand is currently best. Additionally, on a board like 522 we will often have single-pair hands that are behind( like 65/75) drawing to 2 outs, while trips is unlikely.

Our reverse implied odds are poor if the field opts to chase, but our overall equity is good and the pot size (that we created) more than compensates. If we are able to drive out players postflop we gain a significant %age of the pot with each additional fold.

I'm not saying raising is unequivocally the best play - but there is a lot of errant reasoning being thrown around in this thread and I felt inclined to chime in.

Surf

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why not call and bet/raise the flop so they have worse pot odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

They have likely alraedy made a mistake by callin in the first place. You are now making it a bigger mistake for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. They are making a mistake by limping but not by calling your raise. If you raise they will be getting 6:1 or better to call your raise and they would be correct to call with these odds. On the flop they are getting 12:1 to call and thanks to your raise preflop they are now free to chase even weak draws.

I believe Skalansky talks about not value betting in certain situations in loose games for this reason alone - to control the pot size and increase the chance of your opponents making an error later in the hand. I believe this is the better course of action here.

[/ QUOTE ]
To everyone that advocates raising, is there an effective counter argument to this? I voted for raising, but cannot find a flaw in this argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

To echo Surfbullet's point: anytime we take an action that is not closing the action, we are risking more than what we're putting into the pot because we may be forced to put more money in to continue. If we're getting 11:1 on a gutshot with 4 players to act behind us, especially if we have reason to believe that it might be raised behind us, we're making a mistake to call the immediate bet since we're effectively putting in more than one bet (once we adjust for the risk of being raised). If it gets raised behind us we've effectively paid more than 11:1 for our gutshot. We might think "well, each individual call was correct when made" but in reality we haven't properly evaluated our first call and priced in the risk that it gets raised. Raising a limper with a strong hand, or someone on a draw who has called with thin odds not closing the action, punishes these mistakes. Checkraising an expected aggressor on our left to trap the field that calls after he bets is a classic example of this.