Completing the SB

[45suited]

I think that PVS made the key point when talking about implied odds. I would never complete from the SB with a connector unless the limpers had significant stacks so that I could win a big pot if I hit.

Oh, Yugo, one more thing: I don't think we're as different as you might think... On level one, I'm so tight that I don't even play AQ unless it's suited. Good discussion on this one... good points all around. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that PVS made the key point when talking about implied odds. I would never complete from the SB with a connector unless the limpers had significant stacks so that I could win a big pot if I hit.

Oh, Yugo, one more thing: I don't think we're as different as you might think... On level one, I'm so tight that I don't even play AQ unless it's suited. Good discussion on this one... good points all around. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

AQ is one of the hands I do play on l1, suited or not suited, [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

This implied odds concept doesn't apply to STTs the way it does to NL ring games. It simply doesn't....theoretically and practically. That is why in many cases they can be ignored completely....implied odds will only have you leaking chips (small amounts of chips...but...that's not really the issue).

This implied odds thing may be a lot better for Adanthar and PVS (among others)....they will both make sure they extract close to the maximum and give up close to the minimum wheverever possible.

Yugoslav

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]

What flop do you want to see when you complete with K7-K9 and Q8-Q9?

I would rather complete with K2s than K9o.

[45suited]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7.

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[ QUOTE ]
What flop do you want to see when you complete with K7-K9 and Q8-Q9?

I would rather complete with K2s than K9o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote or I wasn't clear... I agree that I would not complete with K9o or Q8o for the very reason that I don't know what flop I want. I will complete (under the right circumstances that have been previously discussed) with connectors or AXs, although I might be rethinking completing with those hands given the lenghty discussion on the topic.

[Phil Van Sexton]

[ QUOTE ]
This implied odds concept doesn't apply to STTs the way it does to NL ring games. It simply doesn't....theoretically and practically. That is why in many cases they can be ignored completely....implied odds will only have you leaking chips (small amounts of chips...but...that's not really the issue).

This implied odds thing may be a lot better for Adanthar and PVS (among others)....they will both make sure they extract close to the maximum and give up close to the minimum wheverever possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Yugo, don't be such a pessimist.

It is true that your post flop style impacts your implied odds, but they still exist.

I'm sure that Andathar has better implied odds than me when we are dealt 65s in the SB, but that doesn't mean I should just ignore my own odds.

Also, I think we both would say that we wouldn't lose just the "minimum" compared to the tightwads on this board. I'm pretty sure we are willing to lose a bit more in an attempt to win more.

Maybe this is bleeding chips, but I see it as taking shots at winning a lot of chips. I have less than 100 hands to get 10000 chips. Going broke is bad, but investing a few chips to maybe win a lot is worth it to me.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
That is why in many cases they can be ignored completely....implied odds will only have you leaking chips (small amounts of chips...but...that's not really the issue).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is the issue. Leaking 20 or 30 chips in level 1 doesn't seem likely to ever damage the almighty folding equity. Limping in with suited connectors in level 4 when the average stack is going to be somewhere around 12-15 BBs isn't such a good plan from any point of view, but I really don't see the harm in it at early levels if you think you're likely to get paid when you hit. That's the big if.

[microbet]

Not really part of this discussion, but in general - and I'd like to here PVS's and Yugo's take:

Just for the last couple days (and I don't play a lot of hours), I've been loosening up in the $33s as far as calling down reasonable bets with a decent, but not great hand, and I'm about to start kicking myself for all the times I folded the best hands in the past (or maybe even for betting people off of weak hands with no draw).

What are your general thoughts on calling down with TPmediumK and such?

I know it's a really vague question and a hijack. Please don't threaten to skull-fk my mother or anything. I don't really mind if it makes baby jebus cry.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't really mind if it makes baby jebus cry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Naw...baby jesus is too busy rereading that Dali thread and laughing his itty bitty ass off.

As far as calling down...ugh....really depends on the opponent and stack size and pot sizes.
-> What chance can you take the pot away on the turn or river?
-> How much will it cost to get to showdown? You obviously can't go broke on this hand...that's no good.
-> Will you really be ahead enough of the time at this point to make the initial call wortwhile?
-> Does the range of hands you put your opponent on include enough hands you're ahead of?

This remind me:
Check out the $215 hand in my 'losing my mind' thread....it involved this very issue.....besides...I haven't gotten any good feedback for that yet, [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

Yugoslav

[Bigwig]

We're talking 1/38 of your stack here people. Playing for 2 pair on the flop is good enough odds to call. Not with 74, mind you, but certainly with something that will likely be top 2, and could get action (KT on a KT8 flop vs. KQ, for example).

I've given this piece of advice before--if you cannot get away from top pair very easily, or even check fold it, then you shouldn't play a HUGE number of hands from EP, including the SB. If, however, you are confident in your ability to deduct whether or not you're ahead in a given hand, play away.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'll complete from the small blind on level 3 with AXs and connectors. Not with something that is tricky and doesn't play well multi-way like K7

I play this way cuz I know don't want to play a hand multiway with say K7, flop a K and not be able to bet it strong out of position and with a terrible kicker. If I put myself in situations like that too often, I'm bound to screw the pooch.

[/ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[ QUOTE ]
What flop do you want to see when you complete with K7-K9 and Q8-Q9?

I would rather complete with K2s than K9o.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote or I wasn't clear... I agree that I would not complete with K9o or Q8o for the very reason that I don't know what flop I want. I will complete (under the right circumstances that have been previously discussed) with connectors or AXs, although I might be rethinking completing with those hands given the lenghty discussion on the topic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I just replied to the wrong person [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] Sorry!