Completing the SB

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's all about your implied odds, not pot odds. Maybe no one else cares to make this distinction, but it's really annoying me for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit Phil read my @#$@#%#%#$ posts. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that none of the responders referenced or understood implied odds.

I've just seen a smattering of posts recently talking about pot odds when trying to decide on a non-allin call. Pot odds are irrellevant here. If people don't understand this, they have bigger problems than what to complete with on level 3.

[kevstreet]

I use to get myself in trouble completing w/ K10 or Ax.
When a K or an Ace hits, now what do you do? Do you let go of the hand w/ such a weak kicker? I certainly don't feel confident enough to bet out on it so then am I only playing this hand for two pair or better on the flop? Sticky situation and I hate losing more chips on a hand I normally wouldn't play anyway.

[Phill S]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Less than 6 hours before this post, you said you limp all the time with junk.

[/ QUOTE ]

i never 'limp' with junk, i said i complete the SB with junk...my limping hands are very very tight. i also posted in the first place because i had an inkling i had a leak and i very quickly admitted that it was one-so i can take the 'high road' on this one.

Andre

[/ QUOTE ]

About 10 min after i posted i edited underneath i meant completing from the SB (ok, i put limp from SB, not the best language use in the world).

As for my opinion, see PVS - this applies even moreso in the deeper stack 1500 chip games.

Phill

[nokona13]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's all about your implied odds, not pot odds. Maybe no one else cares to make this distinction, but it's really annoying me for some reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit Phil read my @#$@#%#%#$ posts. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply that none of the responders referenced or understood implied odds.

I've just seen a smattering of posts recently talking about pot odds when trying to decide on a non-allin call. Pot odds are irrellevant here. If people don't understand this, they have bigger problems than what to complete with on level 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

My way to deal with this has been to favor straight hands over low flush hands. With a bunch of limpers with good stacks left, I'll complete AXs, and KXs where X is T or greater. But I'm liable to complete any one gapper, suited or not, down to 46. I've found the implied odds of hitting a low straight is huge, and the implied odds of flopping a flush is not that great when you've limped a blind unless someone hits with KQs or something... Is it a huge leak to complet 57o from the SB with ~t1000 with 3-4 limpers in front with at least T750 left on level 2? I'm tightening that a bit on level 3, when a t750 stack is more likely to make a play for a good pot.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I tend to agree with you, though in the face of this much evidence (good players not doing it) coupled with the fact that i 'tend to be' pretty loose...i'm gonna go ahead and side with yugo, curtains, nottom et al and fold that crap from now on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I have no problem admitting that these guys are better players than me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Meh....I guess. I'm pretty awful in the scheme of things.

[ QUOTE ]

The reason I'm on this forum is to learn. But couldn't this be one of the (rare) situations where "optimal play" might be different in the 11s and 22s than in the higher levels?


[/ QUOTE ]

No....this is a matter of how you must play the flop to extract enough chips (and not go broke enough) for the completion (or any limp in general) to be profitable. The idea (as Degen says more or less) is that while you get fat odds, the 'good' flops generally aren't even all that good for you and are tricky to play without risking too many of your own chips. There can even be an argument made for *not* completing with Axs on level 1 from the SB [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] .... it's much, much closer than everyone thinks and folding isn't 'just awful.'

[ QUOTE ]

What I mean is at the lower levels, the inferior post flop play of our opponents when we do flop a strong hand makes up for the times that we don't, whereas at the higher levels you're less likely to get paid off.

[/ QUOTE ]

At lower levels b/c of your opponents' bad post flop play you gain more by sitting out than sitting in and taking advantage...this is b/c there is no way to put them on hands so you never know where you stand. Which ones will run bluffs? Which ones won't pay off? Which ones are tricky? Which ones aren't? If you can't answer these questions and/or don't think it matters, then I don't think you can play these hands profitably.

The goods news is that playing them is only slightly -$EV, [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

Oh, and I go back and forth on what to play out of the SB on level 1.....so, meh! For a period during my 400 in 4 days I was even open limping small pocket pairs on level 1 and sometimes level 2 [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

Yugoslav
Folding is sublime...

[Unarmed]

[ QUOTE ]
For a period during my 400 in 4 days I was even open limping small pocket pairs on level 1 and sometimes level 2 [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

I limped 22 UTG last night on level 1 and it was CRAZZZZYYY!!!!
Note to forum: we are seriously this tight. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For a period during my 400 in 4 days I was even open limping small pocket pairs on level 1 and sometimes level 2 [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

I limped 22 UTG last night on level 1 and it was CRAZZZZYYY!!!!
Note to forum: we are seriously this tight. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't let Irie see that sh!t unless it's at one of his tables, [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

At least I have an excuse: my brain stopped working after about 130 STTs.... [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Yugoslav

[microbet]

Don't have time to read all the posts before I reply, sorry if I duplicate.

I'm generally pretty tight about completing SB outside of level 1. That said, 1 and 2 gappers are good, because if you hit the straight you are more likely to get paid and you won't get beat by another straight as often as with no gappers. If they are low or medium, all the better since you won't lose any more chips without at least 2-pair. Still, I don't automatically complete such hands in level 2-4. I have to have a big enough stack, there have to be enough limpers with big enough stacks and I have to feel BB is unlikely to raise.

[jgunnip]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm generally pretty tight about completing SB outside of level 1. That said, 1 and 2 gappers are good, because if you hit the straight you are more likely to get paid and you won't get beat by another straight as often as with no gappers. If they are low or medium, all the better since you won't lose any more chips without at least 2-pair. Still, I don't automatically complete such hands in level 2-4. I have to have a big enough stack, there have to be enough limpers with big enough stacks and I have to feel BB is unlikely to raise.


[/ QUOTE ]


I play a lot like this. especially concerning connecters and one gapers on level 1. I always complete with these as long as I'm not limiting my straight possibilities (i.e 24, A3o, 34, etc). I complete with Axs and Kxs is hopes of a flush as well as a few other hands. I don't have a large sample size of these situations yet so I can't say whether it's been successful for me (not the actual hand, but the effect on the rest of the tourney). Anyway, good discusion.

[Bigwig]

I'll complete with A7+, Axs, K9+, K3s+, Q9+, Q6s+, JT, J7s+, T9o, suited connectors, suited one gappers down to 64, pairs. Of course, some hands I'm raising.

EDIT--I'd add that this is specific to this situation (19BB, 3 limpers). You take away 2 of the limpers, or even a small portion of my stack, and my answer changes significantly.