Raising Preflop

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with her about this and I cant see how it's dumb.

When I play 2/4 live in our casino I notice the same thing. The games are so loose that I rarely even get the chance to open, much less open raise to try to steal the blinds.

That's merely an observation, Im not sure why it would be "dumb".

And if I understand her point, I think she's just pointing out the reasoning behind raising, it's not like she's necessarily doing anything any diffrent than anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think discussion is gooing anywhere, but playing 3/6 online you'll be facing steal/isolating-situations on a regular basis.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with her about this and I cant see how it's dumb.

When I play 2/4 live in our casino I notice the same thing. The games are so loose that I rarely even get the chance to open, much less open raise to try to steal the blinds.

That's merely an observation, Im not sure why it would be "dumb".

And if I understand her point, I think she's just pointing out the reasoning behind raising, it's not like she's necessarily doing anything any diffrent than anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think discussion is gooing anywhere, but playing 3/6 online you'll be facing steal/isolating-situations on a regular basis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isolating is really just another name for value raising and I DO play 3/6 online, I just practice my game selection at this limit very carefully. I do not encounter these situations. I am not saying I never open raise on the button, I do that (although it is rare that it is very rare that it is folded around to me). I am saying I never "blind steal". My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, I refuse to play in games like this, so it doesn't really matter to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok cool. Good for you. But then I don't see why you'd even bring this up. In this poker forum most of us are striving to improve, and not only to get better at beating loose passive games but all kinds, especially the tougher ones at higher levels. And most anyone who has posted here for any length of time should know that we raise most of our hands for value (AA, I want 9 callers, etc). So it's all well and good to say "I don't need to steal/raise for fold equity", but for most of the people here, we need to learn and work on those situations where our raise may not be for value in terms of pot equity but for fold equity. And so I guess I just don't see what relevance this whole thread has in really educating anyone. It's just sort of "This is what I do" and we say "good for you"? Or is there something I'm missing?


[ QUOTE ]
Isolation raising is really just value raising by another name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of. If I raise a limper on the button with A7o or something and get called by the SB and BB, I'm not sure how much of an equity edge I have. Now if we're counting fold equity as a part of "value", then yes, raises are always for value. If you're talking in terms of pot equity, I don't know that it's always the case. I agree we aren't usually raising with a significant disadvantage, but that doesn't mean it's a pure value raise all the time either, it has to do with fold equity then and on later streets.

[jackdaniels]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if we're counting fold equity as a part of "value", then yes, raises are always for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now if we're counting fold equity as a part of "value", then yes, raises are always for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's take this down a level. Explain fold equity.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I never "blind steal". My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take this as an insult, but this shows a poor understanding of the game. Let's say you're raising from Button or CO. SB folds, BB is getting 3.5:1 on his preflop call. You'll have to raise only VERY strong hands for him not having the odds to call. Even if his hand is worse than yours he'll be correct to call with many hands. You'll want him to fold these hands.

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]
My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah ok. But before you said you really never want people to fold. Your hands certainly do have an edge against whatever random hands they may hold. But like in my A7o example, iso-raising a limper, you have an edge against his range and probably against the likely holdings of the blinds too, but not necessarily WHEN YOU ARE CALLED (this obviously depends, but if they have quasi-reasonable standards then this is going to be a hit or fold flop oftentimes). Given how this hand will play out postflop, you probably do not want to be playing 4 ways. Hence, you probably want folds so you can win UI with Ace high/small pair either at showdown or on the flop/turn. So you are raising for value, but you really may not want to be called, which you disagreed with earlier.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am saying I never "blind steal". My hand always compares favourably (in my opinion) to the hand ranges of the small and big blind when I raise (that is ATC).

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take this as an insult, but this shows a poor understanding of the game. Let's say you're raising from Button or CO. SB folds, BB is getting 3.5:1 on his preflop call. You'll have to raise only VERY strong hands for him not having the odds to call. Even if his is worse than yours he'll be correct to call with many hands. You'll want him to fold these hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a similar manner to what you are describing it is heads up on the flop. I have JJ and the flop is J42, 4 and 2 of hearts. The pot is 4SB. I bet, and my opponent with A and K of hearts calls. Both he and I are making money on the call.

Similarly, the BB with 89s may be right to call my open raise with AK on the button. This doesn't mean I am blind stealing. It does mean he would be making a mistake to fold. This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. My hand compares favourably to his hand (and his hand range). He is right to call. This means nothing.

Ahhh... I see now the point. That I do in fact want 89s. This is partially correct. Because I make $$$$ on his call I want him to call. Because he makes $$$ on his call, I want him to fold. I want him to fold more than I want him to call.

So, I suppose, yes, this makes a little sense. In part I am wrong. I do want my opponent to call in this situation but I want them to fold more.

I hope this isn't too confusing : )

[2+2 wannabe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Its well know that some hands like big pairs and big off suit cards play better in pots contested by few players, because thier expected value and pot equity go down as more opponents are added."

Prove it. This is not well known by me.

"but hands like KQo, KJo, or JJ do not. "
KJo doesn't like multiway pots because it's dominated by AQo when not AK / bigger pair is out and JJ when no bigger pair is out love big pots. Don't they? Prove it one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

AA vs 9 randomed hands in two-dimes: ( LINK)
Holdem Hi: 201376 enumerated boards
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 46336 23.01 154940 76.94 100 0.05 0.230
Qd Jd 35012 17.39 166264 82.56 100 0.05 0.174
9s 9h 12600 6.26 186842 92.78 1934 0.96 0.067
8s 8h 28213 14.01 173063 85.94 100 0.05 0.140
4s Kc 6470 3.21 192968 95.82 1938 0.96 0.037
6s 6c 18051 8.96 183225 90.99 100 0.05 0.090
2c 3h 8167 4.06 191840 95.26 1369 0.68 0.044
9c 2h 137 0.07 198036 98.34 3203 1.59 0.008
Kh Th 18625 9.25 180813 89.79 1938 0.96 0.097
7s 7c 22724 11.28 178552 88.67 100 0.05 0.113

Pokerstove enumerates to about 30% equity with 9 random hands

Now... AA vs 2 other random hands
Holdem Hi: 1370754 enumerated boards ( LINK)
cards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EV
Ac Ad 971323 70.86 395974 28.89 3457 0.25 0.709
Qc Jd 141501 10.32 1225796 89.42 3457 0.25 0.104
9s 9h 254473 18.56 1112824 81.18 3457 0.25 0.186

Pokerstove enumerates AA vs two random hands to 73% equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is there 5 pairs in this "random hand" distribution [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] 66, 77, 88, 99. At a 22/6 table you'd have 7 of these hands playing for sure.