looking for discussion on argument against open-completing

[Wynton]

Either the opponent here is calling down with everything or he's not. If he's calling down with everything, then the numbers will invariably hold up.

More realistically, the opponent is not literally calling down with everything, and at least folding on the turn sometimes. So you are going to be faced with a decision. Our opponent's position negates our superior post-flop skill somewhat, but not enough for me to be passive with a hand that is clearly better than a random hand.

Well "calling down the whole way" is not really what I meant to suggest would happen. Im not suggesting that this guy will call the river on hands like 9-high. He will fold those clear loser hands, but will call a river bet with Ace high, maybe king high, any pair, any pocket pair. So on the river, you make money only where you have an ace high/pair and he has an inferior calling hand. A lot of the times, your river bet will be -EV.

During earlier streets, he will raise you if he makes top pair, or possibly a strong middle pair with a strong kicker, or a pair and a draw, and of course if any of his draws hit. From your perspective, it is hard to play. If you've made a pair with your sidecard, you cant be happy since you're facing all overs. But you probably have to fold. If you make a pair with your ace, you can't extract the maximum from it for fear of domination, so you check-call and make the minimum because he checks behind on the river. But you pay off if he has a dominating ace.

Now add to the fact that even a LP-P opponent sometimes gets frisky. They might semibluff a plain vanilla 8/9 out draw periodically, or raise the river or a paired board in frustration. You wont know whether he has just spiked a 5 outer and made two-pair or trips, but you wont be happy paying off either.

The hot-cold analysis is helpful for analyzing all-in play, but I think it causes people to misanalyze HU play that develops by street.

On the bus yesterday, I was reading Byron Jacob's book. Problem 5, question #2 raises a similar problem. You're on the button holding A8o, playing a LAG BB. Jacobs asks: Which would you rather have in this situation: A8o, QJo, or 22. Jacob (correctly, I think) says QJo, even though in terms of hot-cold analysis, this hand is the worst. Essentially, he explains that while QJo has the worst of it preflop, it is the easiest hand to play postflop.

A3o, while it has preflop equity against a RH, has postflop characteristics of both 22 and A8o--namely the weak sidecard makes it very hard to play after the flop OOP, even against a passive opponent who is calling down on the flop & turn on a wide range of hands, and who calls the river on some hands you beat, and some hands you dont.

Hence, I go back to my original point. Against a LP-P opponent, I wouldn't raise A3o. I would raise A3o OOP only against a tighter player who would either fold preflop, or who would fold a scary flop.

[Wynton]

OK, so now we've fleshed out the opponent a lot more.

You make some interesting points, and I have to run now, but I'll just mention that there's no requirement that we bet each street either. Certainly, it's reasonable to check/call the river against the type of opponent you describe, depending of course on the board.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The other thing I was going to say is to expand upon the concept that David Sklansky talks about, I think in HEPFAP, where he says against blinds that ALWAYS defend and go too far with their hands, it's often correct to open-limp with hands like A3o. The reason being that you really need an ace to flop to beat 2 guys who are going to the river every time. Well, applying that here, when I have a total fish in the BB, with hands like 97s I'll open-complete, and I knkow if I flop anything decent, he'll pay off to the river with K high, but conversely, I can get out cheaply if I miss. So here, I find open-completing better and this situation happens more often.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is talking about play from the button, where you are guaranteed last action on the flop. The situation is different from the SB because from the button, you can call the flop autobet, and bet the turn check with air, and still win the pot. On the other hand, from the SB, if your flop autobet is called, betting the turn is marginal against most opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. The reasons he gives are none of what you said (as I recall) and everything that I said.

M

If you recall something different, then we're talking about different section. I'll post page cites to what i was referring to when I get home and have my copy of HPFAP.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
If you recall something different, then we're talking about different section. I'll post page cites to what i was referring to when I get home and have my copy of HPFAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's see...HEPFAP pp. 197-198. I think you are right in that Sklansky says of position that "...you make it more likely that you will steal the pot if they both check on the flop" (p. 198 paragraph 1).

But I think that point is more an addendum than the main reason you limp some hands on the button. I believe that for two reasons. One, the focus of the section seems to be on the fact that pre flop, if the players are too loose, then you lose most of the reason you would raise in the first place:

p. 197 under the card picture when he begins his discussion of not raising on the button (A6o pictured): "Notice that most people will raise with these. But if you are in a game where both blinds are calling a very high % of the time, then you should just call. Otherwise you run into problems. Suppose you raise with A6o and get two calls. Unless the flop contains an ace, your hand is usually not worth much...thus you don't want to commit too much money before the flop."

p. 198 his conclusion: "Thus it is not worth raising with these types of hands unless you have a reasonable chance of stealing the blinds."

Secondly, in his discussion about opening in the SB on page 46, he says, "If you hold a hand like A6o you should frequently just call." (Unless they fold too much pre flop)

The idea he's presenting is that against players who will always "defend" and will go too far with their hands, it serves you better to wait until the flop to see if your hand flops well before putting more money in. I played a whole session against a fish where I was open-limping all kinds of bad hands, Q5o, J6o, 85o, because I knew that if I flopped a pair, and he didn't, I'd get paid and he wouldn't make me pay when he hit because he'd check. This is the kind of situation I'm talking about--against the bigger fish.

M

We're talking about the same section, then. And we're in total agreement in terms what Sklansky was saying.

Sklansky says dont raise A3o from the button unless you can steal. You/I say dont openraise A3o against a loose passive because you can't steal either preflop or postflop. But if you openlimp, you can bet your ace if it hits and get paid off, while only losing 1 SB if you miss. I totally agree.

See my discussion with Wynton about whether it makes sense to openraise A3o against a LP-P.

My point was to make clear that while Wynton was talking about open completing from ths SB, the Sklansky section was talking about opencompleting from the button. It is significant that you have last action postflop. Thus, the rationale for opencompleting from the button against a LP-P is greater, than from the SB.

But we generally are in agreement. I was just pointing out that you were citing Sklansky in a different context than what Wynton was talking about.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
in his discussion about opening in the SB on page 46, he says, "If you hold a hand like A6o you should frequently just call." (Unless they fold too much pre flop)

The idea he's presenting is that against players who will always "defend" and will go too far with their hands, it serves you better to wait until the flop to see if your hand flops well before putting more money in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to get my copy out when I get home and review this section, because I really don't get it.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
We're talking about the same section, then. And we're in total agreement in terms what Sklansky was saying.

Sklansky says dont raise A3o from the button unless you can steal. You/I say dont openraise A3o against a loose passive because you can't steal either preflop or postflop. But if you openlimp, you can bet your ace if it hits and get paid off, while only losing 1 SB if you miss. I totally agree.

See my discussion with Wynton about whether it makes sense to openraise A3o against a LP-P.

My point was to make clear that while Wynton was talking about open completing from ths SB, the Sklansky section was talking about opencompleting from the button. It is significant that you have last action postflop. Thus, the rationale for opencompleting from the button against a LP-P is greater, than from the SB.

But we generally are in agreement. I was just pointing out that you were citing Sklansky in a different context than what Wynton was talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your posts to Wynton and I see that we are in agreement for the most part. I don't think "the rationale is greater" for open-limping on the button per se, but other than that, yeah, I like your points to Wynton.

I think we'll both beat the fish [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

M

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
in his discussion about opening in the SB on page 46, he says, "If you hold a hand like A6o you should frequently just call." (Unless they fold too much pre flop)

The idea he's presenting is that against players who will always "defend" and will go too far with their hands, it serves you better to wait until the flop to see if your hand flops well before putting more money in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will have to get my copy out when I get home and review this section, because I really don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wynton, I didn't get it either until I was in the situation and it clicked. I had read HEPFAP 3 times and hadn't gotten it. I'm still like that with many sections in that book, which is why I read it on the can every day [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

The point is simple. Pretend this situation occurs:

1. You are playing 6-handed like 5/10 or so.
2. The player to your direct left is a 57/0/.43.
3. He accordingly never folds to positional raises.
4. He almost never, ever folds post flop until the river, and even then, he calls with A high or even K-J high sometimes.
5. Fast-forward to all the hands where it's folded to you in the SB. You have A3o every time. This is like Groundhog's Day. Phil Murray style. You have this hand millions of times. In the long run, would you rather raise and have to see him win 42% of the time (because neither one of you will fold unless you are beaten), or would you rather just call, and play only the flops where you flop an ace or otherwise well? There your equity shoots up and he's still paying you off.

M