looking for discussion on argument against open-completing

[irishpint]

IN the BB against an open complete what are you 3betting? We have position, 3betting gives us inititive, and we're against the ultimate steal. how low do you go? All PP, A?, K?, Q? etc. Im probably A7, K8, QT, and all PP but i really dont have any idea, and thats only against a player i know if capable of raising weak hands from the SB

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
That's interesting, Wynton. I would like to read that discussion. But let me ask you this...with two cards suited under T, like 97s, 87s, 85s, etc., if you open-raise from the SB, how do you play post flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I am very unqualified to answer, because my blind play really sucks. But I do believe that this prior discussion - if it ever occurred anywhere other than my imagination - considered the ramifications of open-limping vs open-raising against: (1) players who defend with anything; (2) players who defend selectively; (3) players who over-react by 3-betting excessively; (4) players who always call the bet, but don't continue on the flop without a piece...etc.

As for those particular hands you mention, I think that I would dump them if I was up against someone who tended to contest the blinds vigorously. They're just too tricky for me to play. Against a more manageable opponent, I might raise with those hands, autobet the flop and then re-evaluate on the turn. That approach might cost more than open-limping those particular hands, but it could also lead the opponent to pay you off on future hands when you connect with superior starters.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
IN the BB against an open complete what are you 3betting? We have position, 3betting gives us inititive, and we're against the ultimate steal. how low do you go? All PP, A?, K?, Q? etc. Im probably A7, K8, QT, and all PP but i really dont have any idea, and thats only against a player i know if capable of raising weak hands from the SB

[/ QUOTE ]

I once asked similar questions here , but got no replies. I would love a discussion debating the merits of 3-betting various hands from the BB.

[rory]

maybe because you shouldn't be playing those hands HU out of position

plays that feel wrong usually are

[Monty Cantsin]

Against a player who seldom raises and never folds you would like to raise your good hands, fold your worst ones and complete with some in the middle. If your opponent does not punish you for completing, by exploiting the information leak, then why wouldn't you? This type of opponent isn't all that rare, when you find yourself up against this loose/passive/unobservant player completing some of your hands is correct.

Also, completing is part of the "conversation" you have with the player to your left. Some passive players will amp up their aggression when it becomes clear you always raise or fold. This has the effect of making them play more correctly. Against bad players I like to throw in an occasional complete just to keep things laid back and mellow.

Against a good, observant player completing the SB can be part of a much more complex "conversation" with subtle metagame meanings. See the recent Schneids/Gonores HU match thread for examples.

/mc

[Megenoita]

Rory, you shouldn't be RAISING them, maybe. But against a fish, it would be bad to fold 97s in the SB. I was playing 5/10 (6) a couple weeks ago open-completing hands like Q5o because I knew if I flopped a Q, I was getting paid by J high to the river. That's why in hands where you "can't" raise, sometimes you should limp.

[irishpint]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
IN the BB against an open complete what are you 3betting? We have position, 3betting gives us inititive, and we're against the ultimate steal. how low do you go? All PP, A?, K?, Q? etc. Im probably A7, K8, QT, and all PP but i really dont have any idea, and thats only against a player i know if capable of raising weak hands from the SB

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant vs and open raise, not an open complete. But I guess I'm curious about both. Too often I'll raise after the SB limped in and he'll 3bet me and now i dont know if he has AA/KK or is just pissed at me.

[Guruman]

A humble view from my perspective over here in the BB:

My standard play from the BB against a SB openlimper is to raise any two and autobet the flop if checked to (folding trash to any aggression). This costs 3sb and nets us 2sb when it works, so it has to work more than 2/3 of the time to be profitable if we fold the turn. If we fold to a pf reraise (which I tend not to do) or a flop donkbet (which I will do) then we only risked two small bets.

It also gives us the advantage of seeing most of the hand should an opponent call the flop bet. Sometimes I'll catch a wonky two pair that I can call down with, but I'd say more than 85% of the time I just win the hand on the flop.

I think the reason for this is that a small blind openlimp tells us

A)I don't think my hand is worthy of attempting to steal your blind (because it cant stand up to a reraise)
B)I'm trying to get lucky on the flop out of position (and I'll fold if I miss)
C)I don't care about taking initiative in the hand
D)I hope you'll let me see this flop cheaply
and occasionally
E)I have AA and I don't want to scare you off just yet.

If you want to get me off of this play from the sb, you'll have to spend 3 small bets (calling two preflop and the flop lead, or a pf reraise) to try and take my two SBs.

The difference is that you're oop and don't have a hand that you would just raise with.

Now don't get me wrong, I'll try an openlimp against weak players that will let me to the flop cheaply because they are more likely to suspect that I caught with a donkbet. But I won't go near it with someone who does what I do.

IMO an openlimp from the sb is a sign of extreme weakness, and it should be punished as such.

[Megenoita]

"IMO an openlimp from the sb is a sign of extreme weakness, and it should be punished as such."

Well, yeah, but you're a friggin' tag. I'd open-limp in the SB against you never. It's also terrible to open-limp from the BTN, but David Sklansky said to do it. So what's up with that?

The situation where you're up against a player who will always call a raise and go way too far with his hand makes open-limping the weaker hands better than folding them. All raising hands remain raising hands. But hands you'd normally fold (Q3o, 85s, etc.), you can limp because you'll be paid when you hit, and when you miss, you can get out.

I was in a 5/10 (6) game with a huge fish directly on my left, and one directly on my right. The rest of the table was really tight. After seeing the kinds of hands they were showing down, I realized I could play terrible hands profitably. I limped Q5o, J6o, just really bad hands. Because I knew if I hit my TP, I'm getting paid by 8 high.

The point is, open-limping is only taboo because of underlying reasons that don't exist in the situation against a terrible fish.

[Trix]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Include "-re:"

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, wish I would have known earlier though...