Help me explain something

[DMBFan23]

so I'm talking to someone who fancies himself as somewhat of an NL player, making reads, using deception, etc. as far as I know he's a fairly low limit player.

we're talking about limit, and he talks about sometimes limping TT/JJ for 'deception' but I suspect it's because he's weak tight and fears overcards or 'donkeys drawing out on him'. I tell him, 'no way man, in the long run raising wins you way more when your hand does hold up, plus you get to flop sets and you can always counterfeit two smaller pair'. he replies 'but that's such a robotic way to play poker, there's never a 100% correct way to play a hand - you need to take into account position and you opponents' and I say 'in limit, against loose low limit players, deception wins you less than solid straightforward play. not only that, but TT/JJ are so strong that raising them is more profitbale than limping in any position against any lineup'.

So, what was it, for you, that drove home the point that you should raise these big pairs? I can't break through his 'robotic poker' and 'you need to consider position' arguments.

[jaxUp]

Here are 2 options:

1) be deceptive, and win an average of .25BB/hand
2) be robotic and win .35BB/hand

There is value to being deceptive, but not here, against non-thinking players. You lose too much value by not raising. Limit is a game of small edges and you MUST push them when you have them. If your friend does not understand this then he is going to have a hard time grasping more specific concepts. The problem with his argument is that it's not very specific. He is using a general statement that "there is more value to being deceptive" but cannot justify it. This is classic bad player thinking.

TT and JJ are very susceptible to OCs. It is important to be able to get those 6-out hands to fold on the flop in larger pots. Without a PFR this is much more difficult. When we raise preflop we give players reason to believe that they may be behing even if they hit.

The way this board reacts when you post a HH that shows you limping KQo or AJo should make it clear that everyone will agree with you.

But yeah, I never limp JJ/TT. I can't really think of a situation where that would be best.

[car ramrod]

For one thing, deception is worth a lot more in nl, b/c you can win a lot bigger pots. In limit, you may gain a few extra bets w/ deception, but you are not getting someone to push all his money in.

more later, but good post, gets me thinking about the 'why' we do things, vs, just saying raise.

[car ramrod]

One more thing:

Like Brad says, limit is all about pusing our equity edges. We can't make up for missed equity in limit, but you can in nl. This is why we have to raise pf, that is when we have a huge advantage. Every call that we get pf with a worse hand is essentially making us money.

[imported_The Vibesman]

I would attack it another way; try to get him to talk about specific situations where he thinks it would be good to limp these hands and then try to explain why raising might be better in that situation. Get him to explain just what position and against which opponents he thinks it should be limped and just when he would think it should be raised.

At microlimits, your opponents are so often just "bad" and your position is so often "in between two donks."

[milesdyson]

i raise because i win a lot with the hands and because people will call raises with J9o and 33.

A raise is almost always the right move with JJ/TT. I'm sure there are specific times where a limp/call may be correct, but not often. And at micro limits I'd say almost never. Most of the players at micros are 1 dimensional and are only playing their cards so why worry about deception with a strong hand.