|
|
#31
10-04-2005, 05:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ 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. 
|
|
#32
10-04-2005, 05:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter. Limp sometimes, raise others. The one maybe non-obvious reason to raise is to give yourself a chance to check through on a nasty board and get 4 swings at a set. But really, this is not a ball-buster. - Jim [/ QUOTE ] Thanks Jim, I liked your response. I feel good that I thought raising for set value here is correct (which is incorrect in NL SNGs). But the **hope** of getting 4 swings part is something that didn't come to my mind. I have a question. Why does changing your position on limping vs raising matter if you **might** knock out the button. We're talking about missing 1 bet and 1 player vs the 7 other raise calls. Am I missing something? One last thing, to the newbies recommending limping here. The thing that really sticks out in my mind here is the following. You want to maximize your earn on your good hands, and minimize your loss on your bad hands. Think a little more about gain v loss when you hit and when you miss, and you'll see why raising here is very profitable. Good luck at the tables. Scuba Chuck Edit: and I can't wait to find my way to the CP tables. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#33
10-04-2005, 05:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. But my indifference to raising vs. folding has a lot to do with the hand plays differently post flop depending on what you do here.
Sure, raising here creates a bigger pot so that if you hit your set you will likely win a pile from all the hangers-on that go to the river. But it also creates a big pot so that if you whiff it makes it tougher to protect the pot if presented with that situation. It also creates reverse implied odds where you also have to go futher with your hand because of the size of the pot. The door swings both ways. I can't tell you for certain which is precisely more profitable, raising or folding. I can tell you that I don't believe the difference between the two is very big. Thus, it really doesn't matter. - Jim
|
|
#34
10-04-2005, 05:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ QUOTE ]
I can't tell you for certain which is precisely more profitable, raising or folding. [/ QUOTE ] I hope you mean raising or limping. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
|
|
#35
10-04-2005, 05:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. [/ QUOTE ] Let me phrase it this way. Postflop, we're talking about a pot of 8sb v 14. When you consider the implied odds, isn't the latter better? Sure there's a tradeoff, like trying to protect your hand if you whiff, but that seems like a challenge anyway with 8 in the pot.
|
|
#36
10-04-2005, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
limping = bad
you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic
|
|
#37
10-04-2005, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ QUOTE ]
you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic [/ QUOTE ] No. You need at least 8 opponents to have pure value in raising for set value, and that's not taking into account the fact that you won't win everytime you hit your set. I think it's safe to say that it is never correct to raise 22 purely for set value.
|
|
#38
10-04-2005, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic [/ QUOTE ] No. You need at least 8 opponents to have pure value in raising for set value, and that's not taking into account the fact that you won't win everytime you hit your set. I think it's safe to say that it is never correct to raise 22 purely for set value. [/ QUOTE ] Search for a QTip thread on the benefits of raising low pairs in LP after a lot of limpers. The crux of the argument was that often times in loose passive games you will get a free turn card and thus have 4 chances to hit your set which makes the raise +EV.
|
|
#39
10-04-2005, 06:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Canterbury 8/16, Preflop question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] you could probably even raise 22 for set value here - maybe I'm being optimistic [/ QUOTE ] No. You need at least 8 opponents to have pure value in raising for set value, and that's not taking into account the fact that you won't win everytime you hit your set. I think it's safe to say that it is never correct to raise 22 purely for set value. [/ QUOTE ] Search for a QTip thread on the benefits of raising low pairs in LP after a lot of limpers. The crux of the argument was that often times in loose passive games you will get a free turn card and thus have 4 chances to hit your set which makes the raise +EV. [/ QUOTE ] Possibly, against the right field of opponents.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
