My table of 6 handed open raising standards

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]

both - to clarify my original statement - open raising on the button is a universally known tactic for stealing the blinds - its a bit like isolating the loose maniac pre-flop - often when i 3 bet a maniac pre-flop the next guy who is semi solid caps with AJo because he knows that i might be attempting to isolate

[/ QUOTE ]

on AJo four-betting when you three-bet to isolate a maniac - I don't think this is a necessarily a winning play. If you three-bet a maniac with hands such as K9s, KTo, he's just getting himself into a zero expectancy spot, because if you three bet with hands from AA down to K9s/KTo, then your average hand would be AJo. But if your minimum to three bet is with ATo, KTs, 66, then your average hand is going to be better than his AJo, making his play on your move negatve.

[ QUOTE ]
i am after all the founding member of the always open raise on the button with A2o club

[/ QUOTE ]

my opinion is that all those hands in Button A are very close to A2o, some a shade above, some a shade below. A2o would rank a bit higher than those average hands, but its still representative of the whole. So I open-raise with A2o as well as those other hands.

[naphand]

I am wondering what you mean by:

"A bit tougher/aggressive" and "More passive/predictable"

Compared to which yardstick? The games that you typically find yourself in, or the games typical for $10/$20 (which could be different as you presumably are selective).

I think the numbers of players seeing the flop, and how a PF raise affects this, makes a significant difference. For example, hands like low-med PP are a favourite to win HU (22 only just so) and the raise makes a lot of cards on the board hard for opponents to play. But if the flops are frequently 3 way, you still raise with these (as they are looser)?

A PF raise with, for example 33, for a 3-way flop against a player who is predictable (as he always calls with any A or any part of the flop) and another passive player, is going to struggle to show a long-term profit. Against players who fold to a missed flop, or to a card like an A to a PF raisor, then you can win a lot of pots without showdown. Playing these hands well post-flop requires a predictable response from a player; if the player never raises without 2-pair it gets tough to know where you stand. HU not so tough, but 3-way?

If the blinds over-defend a lot of the time, I think your raising standards from OTB and CO will need to be higher surely? Getting dead-money into the pot turns a lot of slightly -EV hands into +EV hands, but if you are regularly facing blinds who won't fold, and will call any part of the flop this is not the case, and those raises could become expensive.

I think looser, more predictable games are very much post-flop games; it is difficult to get dead money into the pot, difficult to get HU and it's often 3 or 4 way, and with many more chances that at least one opponent has paired the flop, low-med. pairs become much harder to play. I'm not sure how looser games (as I see it) make lower pairs easier to play? If I can count on at least one blind folding to a raise, then 22-33 are playable (to an open-raise) OTB. From the CO I think I am chucking anything under 55, and OTB as well if they are not folding. Though my stats show 44 wins more than its share from any position... [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] so maybe I need to reconsider.

I think for the lower pairs to be +EV you need one of three situations: either a lot of limpers (full ring games mostly, for a flopped set), in the blinds for a cheap ride to the flop, or a raise to get it HU on the flop. I think for the weakest Aces A2-5o) this applies too as well (without the limper bit). Marginal hands need folds and few opponents.

I am most interested in your CO and Button plays, as it is here I see the differences between your raises and mine (UTG and UTG+1, standard), not every hand type but some of the offsuit connectors in "B" games, and pretty much all the suited connectors in "B" games OTB. Again, without folds and getting it HU with dead money a lot of these hands are struggling. I would think that you would need to be either winning PF or on the flop a lot, or showing down some decent cards to a PF raise from here to make this sustainable. A sequence of lower-value (cards-wise) raises like this, could be costly, particularly against more tenacious players.

Thoughts/comments on looseness, folding-to-raises and dead-money hands?

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to know which hands that I open raise with that you would play differently.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure a lot of people would be interested, but that's a little too much detail to go into about my play. I might not be playing in these games in a couple of months. If so, I'll be happy to post a lot more detail then.

I'll say a little, though. UTG is probably the position closest to my play. Sometimes I fold 66/77, but I almost always raise 88. ATo sometimes I fold, sometimes I raise, depending on the game. A9s, same thing.

[Schneids]

You raise a lot more hands than me.

Particularly UTG+1 and CO, with regards to aces and gappers.

[King Yao]

do you limp with those hands or do you fold?

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
Weak-tight? Like when you called my button PFR heads up with J6 and check-raised a 268 board and then capped it? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Weak tight, you aren't!
-James

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't recall this hand. This didn't happen to occur on a Thursday night, did it? I think you are confusing me with someone else. That must be it. I usually require at least mid pair, queen kicker to cap on the flop in any situation, regardless of number of opponents and who else is raising.

[King Yao]

[ QUOTE ]
I am wondering what you mean by:
"A bit tougher/aggressive" and "More passive/predictable"
Compared to which yardstick? The games that you typically find yourself in, or the games typical for $10/$20 (which could be different as you presumably are selective).

[/ QUOTE ]

that's a good question, of course its all relative to the SH games that I play in particular, which would be in the 10/20 thru 30/60 online. when I talk about passive/predictable players, I don't necessarilly mean players that will call with anything pre-flop. ... what i mean is that when these players bet or raise, I am much more sure when I have the worst hand than when an aggressive player raises me. When the predictable players raise, its much less likely to be a semi-bluff...it could be a bluff, but with hands that aggressive players may semi-bluff with, the predictable players would likely just call with. That makes them easier targets, and when I'm the underdog, its easier for me to get out of the way. Another issue, there are some players who will three bet with any playable hand against a button open raiser, and then bet out on the Flop...these players are tougher to play against than the guys who will flat out call in the SB with hands that they would also call in the BB.

[ QUOTE ]
I think looser, more predictable games are very much post-flop games

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this statement, and that's why I don't mind getting involved in these games against passive/predictable players with position.

But also note that when I open raise on the button with a hand like Q9o, these passive, loose, predictable players are going to be calling in the small blind with hands like 98, J9 and Q8, which I am perfectly fine with. They'll also call with hands like A2, A7 (as opposed to reraising or folding them), which I'm fine with too.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
Another issue, there are some players who will three bet with any playable hand against a button open raiser, and then bet out on the Flop...these players are tougher to play against than the guys who will flat out call in the SB with hands that they would also call in the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

My strategy against those guys is to tighten up my preflop standards a bit but cap with any hand that I'd raise with. If they want to spew chips against me whilst out of position, that's fine.

[James282]

Nah it was the first time we played, you did this to me after I check-raised someone on the turn with no pair on the turn in my first orbit at the table [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Just pushing your buttons Schneids! But seriously, I would never consider you weak-tight.
-James

I concur that the poster plays more hands than I do as well, specifically from the CO.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
on AJo four-betting when you three-bet to isolate a maniac - I don't think this is a necessarily a winning play. If you three-bet a maniac with hands such as K9s, KTo, he's just getting himself into a zero expectancy spot, because if you three bet with hands from AA down to K9s/KTo, then your average hand would be AJo. But if your minimum to three bet is with ATo, KTs, 66, then your average hand is going to be better than his AJo, making his play on your move negatve

[/ QUOTE ]

in a big picture sense this is typical of the thinking behind this post and several of your other posts king - i'm talking about a position where a player makes a decision based on a subjective view of his opponents - the guy with AJo knows that the initial raiser is a maniac who will routinely raise garbage hands - he also knows that i know that the maniac will routinely raise with garbage and he knows that i will therefore 3 bet with "marginal" hands - using all that knowledge he makes a strategic decision to cap with AJo which would otherwise be a very dangerous position - he probably also knows that i am likely to "respect" that cap unless i actually had a legitimate 3 bet or i hit the flop

you cant sensibly analyse the merits of this play by reference to the strength of the hands involved - the guy holding AJo is playing the man not his cards - ultimately you can drag every play back to the range of hands that should take specific actions and that knowledge is valuable to play the game well - but - in my view it has little meaning in this scenario

i like your posts - your analysis is always thorough and accurate in my view and i have learnt from several things you have posted about - i just feel better for saying this rather than continuing to merely think it...

stripsqueez - chickenhawk