Harrington on 22

[Aisthesis]

I've been reading back and forth in Harrington's 2-volumes and ran across one note that I found rather shocking--namely not playing 22 to a raise.

I should perhaps add that I'm playing mainly cash games at the moment and that the book is a tournament book, but early tournament and cash games seem to me fairly similar (as long as the Ms are quite high).

Anyhow, for cash games, I find 22 (along with the other little pairs) a great way to crack the big ones. All of the little pairs are for my taste "set it or forget it" type hands, again at least in cash games. And 22 is at greater risk of getting oversetted than 66, but I don't see that as sufficient reason to miss a setting opportunity.

Does anyone care to agree or disagree here?

Admittedly, in tournaments, you usually don't have the time to play for a set, although I'll sometimes try it with high Ms. To a raise, I'm not sure... One could at least argue that you get bled down too much in a tourney before hitting the set. But then I'd also have problems with 66 early, which I'd hate to get in heavily with without improving (perhaps very raggedy boards or something).

Anyhow, I don't really want to get into the tournament aspect here so much as just a cash game question: Essentially, aren't all the little pairs very much playable to reasonable raises in cash games (with the idea of setting or letting them go and assuming adequate stack depth)? And that also includes 22...

[nolanfan34]

The problem is, there are way too many factors that have to be right, for it to make sense to play 22 against a raise. Those include:

- Extremely deep stacks, which will give the required implied odds, AND
- Few people left to act who could make a large reraise, AND
- No small stacks behind me, which could decide to make a stand, and most likely give me incorrect odds to call PF, etc.

Usually there are too many things that have to go right, especially related to stack size, to make a small pair like that worth playing to a raise, IMO.

[Hold'me]

You forget to mention that small pairs can be counterfeited by the board. In a full ring game 22 is a weak hand in early/middle position, though I'd play it in late position and on the button if the action wasn't too hot. You have to remember that you're a 7.50-to-1 underdog to catch your set on the flop.

[lehighguy]

I play the low pairs for a limp in any posistion because the games I play are very loose and full of very bad opponents. I'm confident limp calling is +EV in those games because my opponents post flop play is poor and I play sets well post flop.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
You forget to mention that small pairs can be counterfeited by the board. In a full ring game 22 is a weak hand in early/middle position, though I'd play it in late position and on the button if the action wasn't too hot. You have to remember that you're a 7.50-to-1 underdog to catch your set on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that's true, but in a tournament you're either flopping a set or giving up with that hand, so getting counterfeited really isn't a huge concern.

I agree with playing the pocket pairs to a raise 2s and upwards if i think the guy will pay me off im in there you get these guys that hit there ace or pair and dont back off and you get paid everything.If i think he has pocket aces all the better if i trip up hes not folding very few do...

[Aisthesis]

Very good points, which I think also point in the tournament direction. I at least find this kind of PF aggression much more common in tournaments than in cash games, where a re-raise usually does signify a pretty big hand.

The stack depth issue is of course critical in both cases, and there's an additional problem even in cash games with loose raisers. Even if you do hit and AJ was the raiser, then you have to hit AND have your opponent hit in order to have any chance of getting correct implied odds.

I pretty much agree with all of your concerns, though.

Just as (generic rather than actual) example from cash game not in LP: I limp UTG with 22, get a raise to, say, 4-6xBB and a few callers in LP. I'll definitely continue with the hand given some healthy stacks (particularly on the part of the raiser) and actually HOPE the raiser has AA simply because he's going to have serious trouble getting away from his hand.

But, the way a lot of tournaments play, you're likely to get a raise from AJ, then a huge re-raise from TT--at least at a lot of the tourneys I've played. If it's early and play is pretty civilized, though, it seems to me again much like a cash game, and I might indeed try to set given the opportunity (although the bleeding concern is also very real in a tourney).

My own general guideline is that I don't like to get more than 10% of available stack depth (depending on what the raiser has--I usually keep a fair amount of stack depth in order to have plenty of potential when I hit big) in on any of the little pairs. I think that's at least fairly reasonable, since it's obviously not a guarantee that you stack someone whenever you hit--they may have AK and miss, and you might also be oversetted if there's any big card on the board. Actually, 10% is probably a fairly aggressive amount for those reasons.