looking for discussion on argument against open-completing

[helpmeout]

Open raise against tags fold your cheese,I usually open raise any ace K7o Q8 any pp JT T9s and fold the rest. Obviously I adjust depending on the opponent but thats about my range.

Against a loose passive you can limp with slightly worse with no fear of being raised. But dont limp and hope.

I made a thread on this a month or 2 ago cos i use to open limp with suited crap and such and got raped.

Openlimping sucks because most players in the BB raise you, this means you have no initiative and are out of position so you pretty much have to check/fold most flops.

In the lower limits autocompleting and betting out works ok but as you play against more aggressive players they will punish you with preflop raises and flop raises.

[Wynton]

Thinking about this a bit more, I believe that the occasional open-complete can make sense provided the following conditions prevail.

First, you need good reason to believe BB will not raise pf. Second, you need to believe that BB will not raise your lead flop bet on a bluff. And third, you need to have an image that will not let your opponents necessarily conclude that you have a weak hand.

In many ways what this comes down to is that BB must be bad, and bad in a certain way. He is passive, predictable and poor at reading his opponents. Under those conditions, I think open-completing can be ok, but still provided it is done just occasionally.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking about this a bit more, I believe that the occasional open-complete can make sense provided the following conditions prevail.

First, you need good reason to believe BB will not raise pf. Second, you need to believe that BB will not raise your lead flop bet on a bluff. And third, you need to have an image that will not let your opponents necessarily conclude that you have a weak hand.

In many ways what this comes down to is that BB must be bad, and bad in a certain way. He is passive, predictable and poor at reading his opponents. Under those conditions, I think open-completing can be ok, but still provided it is done just occasionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, yeah, like a really big fish. 66/0, 57/2, 43/3.

Openlimping against passive BBs is fine. By passive I mean anybody with a <5-8% PFR.

Against TAGs and maniacs, I usually raise hands with superior value (A7o, 55+, K9s, etc), but fold all others (22-44, A-little offsuit, Q9s). Less frequently, against TAGs, I will limp marginal hands like small pairs, ace-little, or hands like JT, then auto-checkraise the flop (after being autoraised preflop). But I generally try to avoid playing marginal hands OOP against smart/tricky/aggressive players.

Against tigher players, I will raise the same marginal hands and autobet the flop.

I rarely find the opportunity to autoraise any two.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The other thing I was going to say is to expand upon the concept that David Sklansky talks about, I think in HEPFAP, where he says against blinds that ALWAYS defend and go too far with their hands, it's often correct to open-limp with hands like A3o. The reason being that you really need an ace to flop to beat 2 guys who are going to the river every time. Well, applying that here, when I have a total fish in the BB, with hands like 97s I'll open-complete, and I knkow if I flop anything decent, he'll pay off to the river with K high, but conversely, I can get out cheaply if I miss. So here, I find open-completing better and this situation happens more often.

M

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky is talking about play from the button, where you are guaranteed last action on the flop. The situation is different from the SB because from the button, you can call the flop autobet, and bet the turn check with air, and still win the pot. On the other hand, from the SB, if your flop autobet is called, betting the turn is marginal against most opponents.

[aslowjoe]

I asked this question before and never got an answer. My most unfavorite hand. A3 in the SB. What do you do with it against

1. Loose passive who never fold to an open raise and will always peel one but will auto bet if checked to on the turn.

2. A LAG who will 3bet you bet often bluff raise on any street.

My play here is to open limp thinking if I do catch an A I can win an extra bet or 2 because since I did not raise pre flop they do not give me credit for an A.If I miss I just check fold only losing 1/2SB. Against these type of players I am more comfortable open raising K8o then A3.

Side note. Last time I mentioned that I just open complete I was told by a respected poster that that was just plain wrong. Any other thoughts?

[Wynton]

Aslowjoe,

Against a loose passive who is going to call with anything, I think you need to be raising. A3o is a clear favorite against a random hand.

Playing against the LAG is trickier. My question is whether the LAG is likely to raise pf if you merely complete. Some LAGs seem content to check along, yet with the same hand, will react to a possible steal by 3-betting. If the LAG fits into that particular category, I could see an argument in favor of merely completing. But if the LAG is going to raise pf regardless of what you do, then I'd be inclined to beat him to the punch and raise. Again, A3 stands to be a clear favorite against a random hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Against a loose passive who is going to call with anything, I think you need to be raising. A3o is a clear favorite against a random hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think raising against a LP with A3o is marginal to negative. You have some preflop equity, but who cares. Since he's loose-passive, he will call your flop autobet and maybe call you on the turn also. And even if your ace-high is good, are you really going to bet it on the turn? If he calls, do you bet the river again for value? Do you check-call a river bet after showing weakness on the turn or river?

Raising ace-rag I think has value only if there is a chance that the villain will fold. Preflop equity doesnt mean much if you consider that a LP-P will be going to at least 4th street, and possibly beyond.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]

I think raising against a LP with A3o is marginal to negative. You have some preflop equity, but who cares. Since he's loose-passive, he will call your flop autobet and maybe call you on the turn also. And even if your ace-high is good, are you really going to bet it on the turn? If he calls, do you bet the river again for value? Do you check-call a river bet after showing weakness on the turn or river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I strongly disagree. A high amounts to a strong hand headsup. I'm not saying that there won't be some tough decisions, but considering the opponent's profile (LP), we should have some confidence in making better decisions post-flop.

And if the opponent is the type who is going to call down to the river with ANYTHING (which is pretty rare), then it's simple. Bet every street. Over the long run, you will make more than you will lose.

[ QUOTE ]
And if the opponent is the type who is going to call down to the river with ANYTHING (which is pretty rare), then it's simple. Bet every street. Over the long run, you will make more than you will lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true only in theory. One overcard against two non-paired undercards (e.g., A3o vs. 95o) is around a 5%-10% favorite hot-cold until the river (depending on suits and whether the villain's cards are connected). The slight edge you have is also offset by the positional advantage the villain has, in which case he will be able to raise you when he is ahead, and additionally raise you off the best hand when you are ahead. Sometimes you both will hit an ace but you will be dominated, in which case you will lose more money. I dont care whether you are a world-class player, even against a monkey, this is hard to play. The generic statement that "we will make better decisions than the villain postflop" is only partially true. Bottom line, I think you add significant variance, but not nearly as much EV as the hot-cold numbers tell you.