looking for discussion on argument against open-completing

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm not sure about, being mathematically-impaired. If he wins 42% of the time, are you sure we don't come out ahead if we just bet each hand?

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

See, that's what I'm not sure about, being mathematically-impaired. If he wins 42% of the time, are you sure we don't come out ahead if we just bet each hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, no, we would come out ahead if we had A6o every time against a random hand. But it would be very slight compared to smashing him if we just call and play only when we flop well, you know?

M

See this is where Im more on Wynton's side. When you have position after the flop, raising ace-rag is much more justifiable on preflop equity alone, because you're going to be able to bet when ahead and check and take free cards when behind. Do you see, Wynton, why the converse however--namely openraising ace-rag from the SB--is a problem? The positional disadvantage more than overcomes any preflop equity.

That said, I also agree with Sklansky's point about playing ace-rag from the button against loose/passive blinds. Since they're loose and passive, there is no steal equity, and your preflop equity is thin. So limp instead, and see a flop. If you hit a pair (even a sidecard pair), your advantage goes up enormously because of position. Since these guys are passive monkeys, they'll give as many free cards as you need, but you can make them pay when you have the edge.

Now Wynton, to really get your mind warped, note that Sklansky specifically limits his comments to playing ace-rag from the button. From the cutoff seat, he would recommend a raise. (The reason for this should be obvious: to gain last action)

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
See this is where Im more on Wynton's side. When you have position after the flop, raising ace-rag is much more justifiable on preflop equity alone, because you're going to be able to bet when ahead and check and take free cards when behind. Do you see, Wynton, why the converse however--namely openraising ace-rag from the SB--is a problem? The positional disadvantage more than overcomes any preflop equity.

That said, I also agree with Sklansky's point about playing ace-rag from the button against loose/passive blinds. Since they're loose and passive, there is no steal equity, and your preflop equity is thin. So limp instead, and see a flop. If you hit a pair (even a sidecard pair), your advantage goes up enormously because of position. Since these guys are passive monkeys, they'll give as many free cards as you need, but you can make them pay when you have the edge.

Now Wynton, to really get your mind warped, note that Sklansky specifically limits his comments to playing ace-rag from the button. From the cutoff seat, he would recommend a raise. (The reason for this should be obvious: to gain last action)

[/ QUOTE ]

Despot, two things.

One, I agree with you about position however I've always represented villain as a person who in all purposes gives us position by never or almost never betting. Two, Sklansky says A6o should be limped in the SB opening as well, regardless of the lack of position.

M

[ QUOTE ]
[Sklansky says A6o should be limped in the SB opening as well, regardless of the lack of position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh interesting. I had recalled that discussion as applying to button play. (I specifically remember it as a button discussion, because I remember Sklansky's point about how it SHOULD be openraised from the CO.) I'll have to go back and look at it again.

I do agree though, that A-rag offsuit is far from an autoraise on value against a loose passive player. A lot of the natural aggression that SH play brings out ends up having you spew preflop and on later streets, all in the name of "value."

All of this said, Im not a great HU player by any means, and usually leave the table after it drops below 3-handed play.

[Wynton]

I'm still skeptical whether betting out with Ax from sb is worse than a wait and see the flop approach.

Against the opponent type we're discussing, I think we'd all agree that it's near impossible to read what cards he has, since he's calling with such a huge range of hands. But if you limp pf, that means you're probably going to decline to bet a lot of flops also, and in many (or most) of the situations, you're actually ahead.

I guess what I'm saying is that the fallacy in the Sklansky approach (easy for me to say without having the book nearby to reread) is the idea that you'll have a better idea whether you're ahead after the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
the fallacy in the Sklansky approach (easy for me to say without having the book nearby to reread) is the idea that you'll have a better idea whether you're ahead after the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, lots of time the flop will miss both of you. But there are at least 2 advantages to an unraised pot that I can think of: (1) the pot is smaller, and thus less attractive for villain to call your autobet on the flop, particularly if he holds unsuited unders on a flop like KT3 rainbow; and (2) the villain is less "psychologically wedded" to defending the pot/his blind--I think a lot of these players doggedly call because they feel like they are being "bullied" preflop by TAGs/LAGs.

[Wynton]

But wait a second: I thought we were talking about a situation where the villain is going to call pf and the flop (if not the turn) REGARDLESS of whether we raise or limp pf: If the opponent is the type who respects a flop bet more when there was no pf raise, that changes my view.

Im not sure that we can ever get a close enough read on a player to determine whether he is the type of LP-P who will call a flop bet in a raised pot, but not an unraised pot. But I do think that all LP-Ps are going to be somewhat less likely to call in the second scenario.

Furthermore, even if you do not bet the flop, a LP-P will often check behind after you complete from the SB and check the flop, thus giving you a free card. You can then lead the turn on a decent scare card (e.g., Broadway card) or pair (A, 3), with an even greater likelihood that the LP-P will fold to the BB, getting only 2:1 odds.