Three moves from an article on Small Stakes Tournaments

[tewall]

Jeremiah Smith wrote a series of articles on playing small stakes tournaments. I like the articles fine, and think his overall focus is right one, which emphasizes selective aggression, making the point that you can't just sit around and wait for great hands. However, there were three moves he suggested which struck me as questionable. After thinking about it some more, one of the three moves seems reasonable, but the other two still seem questionable to me.

1)Limp with AA, hoping several limp behind, and it gets raised, so you can re-raise the raiser and pick up a lot of dead money.

2)Check raise on the flop with a hand you think might be best but aren't sure (like 99 when the flop comes T x x).

3)Raise in position with drawing hands like KJ down to 98. after a couple of limpers have come in, planning to follow up with a bluff if the flop misses.

Regarding 1), it seems to me that if you want to hope for something, you'd be better off pushing and hoping someone calls you. Just making a standard raise expecting to get it heads up, or all-in if lucky, seems like the best play. The only way I could see limping was if there was a maniac in the mix that I knew would raise.

Regarding 2), I don't see any sense to this. A check-raise will get out the worse hands and keep in the hands that beat you. You'd be better of check-raising a nothing hand than a hand like this which has some value. If the guy is bluffing, you could call, and hope he bluffs again. I would usually bet the flop and fold to a raise. If called, I would check and see what he did on the turn. He seemed worried if you bet that someone could easily raise you off your hand. That's true, but so what? You OOP with a hand that's so-so.

Regarding 3), this makes some sense to me, although it's not something I've tried. If it gets checked to you, you can take a free card if you get something like an OESD, or bet it if it misses you or you make a pair. Is this a play anyone here rotinely makes?

[Snarf]

#1 isn't horrible if you have an expectiation of it getting raised behind you. I've even limped in CO before when both the button and SB were VERY aggressive. (Raising any pair and any 2 face cards type of aggression. One guy was good and used his reading skills to bluff at most pots, the other guy sucks.)

#2 I absolutely hate. The ONE advantage of it is that you MIGHT get a hand like J 10 to fold - if they're solid. No point. A useless play...Unless you plan on tabling your 99 and later c/r with top set.... hate this line.

#3 I'll make this play live at a weak table when I'm confident of my reads. Any crazies, any loosies calling down 2nd and 3rd pair, any TAGs who will C/R or bet out draws heavily - this move is HIGHLY -EV. ...but I don't abuse my button privelages even so...people get suspicious quickly. Besides those table conditions being right, I'll usually NOT make this play - though still may on occasion later in tourneys if I have the table image to accompany.

[runner4life7]

the reason 2 is ok is because if you bet out and get called you really havent learned too much where as the check raise might help you put a hand on them but cost more chips.

[good2cu]

these moves all suck in SNGs. In multi-tabl tournaments, none of them are that bad.

[tewall]

Yeah, the basic problem is you don't have enough time. After c/r ing and finding out you're probably beat, you're about pot comitted anyway. The information is way too expensive.

I'm not convinced line 3 is bad, especially at level 1 (on Party) it seems playable. There's a good chance you could add 150 or so to your stack even if you miss the flop.