reckless, ridiculous, or good application

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm asking you which of those hands you'd limp-raise with.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Limp-reraise is a NECESSITY in EP with AA|KK against a table of aggressive players some percentage of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[microbet]

I'm with spentrent. There are some tables where a limp-reraise with AA,KK is killer.

[deacsoft]

Of course, I figured that would be your response. I was only trying to make the point that it is an extremely predictable play.

Point 1) When a limp-raise occurs you can count on the player having one of the two hands and simply fold losing much less that what you would have if you called a raise and hit the flop. Thus, because it is so obvious it makes it that much easier for opponents to fold and possibly costs the limp-raiser chips.

Point 2) There is no way of telling, at all, while playing on-line poker wether on not someone is going to raise the pot behind you when you limp-raise. Sure players left to act may have tendencies of raising often and there may be 3,4,5,6 aggressive players yet to act. This would increase the possibility of a raise but in no way insures one. Thus, there is a chance (even if sometimes a small one) that you may let inferior hands enter the pot cheaply and out flop/draw you.

Point 3) A-A does not play well in multi-way pots. Every day and countless times I see players limp and call raises and even re-raises. Once players put some chips in the pot they're less likely to fold their hands (at least at the levels we're talking about here). Allowing a few players to limp and call (even a horrible call) is terrible for A-A.
A-A vs 8-8: A-A is about 80%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6: A-A is about 70%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6 vs J-T: A-A is about 60%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6 vs J-T vs Q-Q: A-A is about 50%
(I'm sure you can see the patern here, and if that J-T or 9-6 is suited it A-A decreases about another 3% per suited hand) Even while crushing all of these hands independently A-A decreases in value with every player in the pot.

Point 4) If a player does raise from EP it does not mean that the player has A-A or K-K. Sure, it narrows the range of hands that player is likely to have but does not mean that an aggressive player will not call a raise with A-8, K-Q, or any other number of hands. Nor, does it eliminate the chance of a player re-raising with T-T, A-K, A-Q, or other hands. The point being that just because you raise in EP with A-A doesn't mean you won't get action from the other end of the table. They don't know you have A-A.

Point 5) We're talking about SNGs here. Proper SnG play suggests tight play early and aggressive play later. These tourneys can go pretty quick and valuable hands can be few. It probably wouldn't be too far off to estimate that a player will recieve A-A well less than once per SnG on average. Why risk not being able to get your chips in the pot with the best starting hand there is?

I could go on but I think anyone who reads this this will get where I'm coming from. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm by no means the greatest player in the world. This is simply the way I see it. And if anyone could site a book and chapter/page that advocates limp-raising I'd like to have it. Maybe I'm missing something.

[microbet]

Just addressing how well AA plays in a multiway pot. Assuming the first hand of tourney with 800 chips. I'm using your numbers on how well you do against multiple opponents.

% win x ICM if you win = $EV
.8 x .184 = .147 1 opponent
.7 x .255 = .179 2 opponents
.6 x .313 = .188 3 opponents
.5 x .361 = .181 4 opponents

Based on ICM, unless I messed up, AA is best against 3 other players and it is much worse to be only HU.

I know that is assuming everyone is allin and that doesn't neccessarily happen if try and limp/reraise.

[spentrent]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, I figured that would be your response. I was only trying to make the point that it is an extremely predictable play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should have figured it to be my response before you asked, since I made it pretty clear in my post to which you responded. Your hindsight is amazingly accurate.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 1) When a limp-raise occurs you can count on the player having one of the two hands and simply fold losing much less that what you would have if you called a raise and hit the flop. Thus, because it is so obvious it makes it that much easier for opponents to fold and possibly costs the limp-raiser chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind the original raiser folding to my reraise. It takes a lot of discipline to fold to my reraise with TT-QQ and AK. If I limp-reraise such that my opponent is getting decent 2 to 1 or so to call, I can squeeze that much more money out of him when he folds to my flop action.

Yes, a strong player can read a big pair, know that I know that he knows that, and shovel chips in on any flop expecting me to lay down the best hand. This is a ballsy move foiled by my shania abuse where there's a small chance that I will make any play at any time with any cards.

And in an SNG, I can still call his flop bet and show a profit.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 2) There is no way of telling, at all, while playing on-line poker wether on not someone is going to raise the pot behind you when you limp-raise. Sure players left to act may have tendencies of raising often and there may be 3,4,5,6 aggressive players yet to act. This would increase the possibility of a raise but in no way insures one. Thus, there is a chance (even if sometimes a small one) that you may let inferior hands enter the pot cheaply and out flop/draw you.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a calculated risk. Period. And of course I wouldn't make the play if I didn't think there were a high probability of being raised.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 3) A-A does not play well in multi-way pots. Every day and countless times I see players limp and call raises and even re-raises. Once players put some chips in the pot they're less likely to fold their hands (at least at the levels we're talking about here). Allowing a few players to limp and call (even a horrible call) is terrible for A-A.
A-A vs 8-8: A-A is about 80%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6: A-A is about 70%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6 vs J-T: A-A is about 60%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6 vs J-T vs Q-Q: A-A is about 50%
(I'm sure you can see the patern here, and if that J-T or 9-6 is suited it A-A decreases about another 3% per suited hand) Even while crushing all of these hands independently A-A decreases in value with every player in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

See response to Point 2. Point 3 is nice support for Point 2 but it says the same thing with numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 4) If a player does raise from EP it does not mean that the player has A-A or K-K. Sure, it narrows the range of hands that player is likely to have but does not mean that an aggressive player will not call a raise with A-8, K-Q, or any other number of hands. Nor, does it eliminate the chance of a player re-raising with T-T, A-K, A-Q, or other hands. The point being that just because you raise in EP with A-A doesn't mean you won't get action from the other end of the table. They don't know you have A-A.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to use Harrington's method of randomizing his decision as to when to limp the monster in EP or raise. Please be aware that I never recommended making this play ALL the time. Not even most of the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Point 5) We're talking about SNGs here. Proper SnG play suggests tight play early and aggressive play later. These tourneys can go pretty quick and valuable hands can be few. It probably wouldn't be too far off to estimate that a player will recieve A-A well less than once per SnG on average. Why risk not being able to get your chips in the pot with the best starting hand there is?

[/ QUOTE ]

I read your original "don't do it ever post" as a general statement about NLHE. I'm even less likely to make this play in a Party-style SNG with fast blind increases.

[ QUOTE ]
I could go on but I think anyone who reads this this will get where I'm coming from. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, and I'm by no means the greatest player in the world. This is simply the way I see it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know exactly where you're coming from and from your elegantly made points I think you've shown that you have a strong grasp of playing solid poker. However, I believe there is a lot of EV you're denying yourself by eliminating what I consider a strong, +EV play from your game.

[ QUOTE ]
And if anyone could site a book and chapter/page that advocates limp-raising I'd like to have it. Maybe I'm missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

See:

Super System, Brunson, Doyle
Tournament Poker for Advanced Players, Sklansky, David
Harrington on Hold'em, Harrington, Dan

...for starters. You can find the page numbers on your own. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

(If I am way off base because of my assumption that you never do this in any NLHE game, ring or tournament, then I apologize for wasting your time.)

[Joboo]

[ QUOTE ]
Point 3) A-A does not play well in multi-way pots. Every day and countless times I see players limp and call raises and even re-raises. Once players put some chips in the pot they're less likely to fold their hands (at least at the levels we're talking about here). Allowing a few players to limp and call (even a horrible call) is terrible for A-A.
A-A vs 8-8: A-A is about 80%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6: A-A is about 70%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6 vs J-T: A-A is about 60%
A-A vs 8-8 vs 9-6 vs J-T vs Q-Q: A-A is about 50%
(I'm sure you can see the patern here, and if that J-T or 9-6 is suited it A-A decreases about another 3% per suited hand) Even while crushing all of these hands independently A-A decreases in value with every player in the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Every hand's percentage to win goes down with more opponents, that's a fundamental truth. For a hand to play well multiway means that its expectation will go up with more opponents, which is certainly the case with AA. Certainly you will get outdrawn more, but with that higher volatility comes a better expectation, which is never a bad thing if you can handle the swings.

I'll leave the upside of limp-reraising to someone who is smarter than me, but I certainly think the downside isn't as heinous as conventional wisdom would have us believe.