Hypothetical question: completing in the SB

lufbradolly · #1 05-18-2005, 08:28 AM

Ok your in a full 10 handed ring game and EVERYONE limps in and your in the SB and the BB is very passive so your quite sure he'll check. What range of hands would you complete with in the SB? Your gettin 19-1 on the call or maybe 18-1 minus the rake. What im wondering is it worth taking a shot with any 2 cards cos your getting good odds on the call or shud there still be a range on the hands you should play in this position.
I know that this is quite hypothetical but it does occasionally happen online so i was wondering what peoples opinions on this are.

A

JoshuaD · #2 05-18-2005, 08:34 AM

It looks like you're assuming a 1/2 small blind structure?

I'm completing there with any hand that has any possibility of making a monster. Any PP, Any suited cards, any connected cards, any 1 gappers, any decent 2 gappers, anything with some high card potential. I'm staying away from hands like J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

crunchy1 · #3 05-18-2005, 08:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
maybe 18-1 minus the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't take the rake into account when factoring pot odds.

[ QUOTE ]
What im wondering is it worth taking a shot with any 2 cards cos your getting good odds on the call or shud there still be a range on the hands you should play in this position.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, the range of hands you would complete with here (if it's smaller than any two cards) is entirely dependent on how well you play post-flop and how well you feel your opponents play post-flop. I also think that as your starting hole cards decrease in value - the strength of a hand I need to flop gets exponetially higher to continue after the flop against a full field.

crunchy1 · #4 05-18-2005, 08:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm staying away from hands like J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that a good post-flop player can turn a small profit with a hand like that against 9 limpers?

lufbradolly · #5 05-18-2005, 08:47 AM

thats kinda what i was thinkin if your pretty good postflop then this could be a good investment with just about any 2 cards.

A

crunchy1 · #6 05-18-2005, 09:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
thats kinda what i was thinkin if your pretty good postflop then this could be a good investment with just about any 2 cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me say 2 things:

(A) I don't think "pretty good post flop player" is cutting it with any two. I think you need to be an "exceptional post flop player" - PLUS the competition needs to be less than average

(B) I'm not making any claims that any two cards in this spot are (a) profitable for me or (b) profitable for anyone. I have no math to back this up. It's only an opinion that any two cards could be profitable - for the right player in the right situation.

JoshuaD · #7 05-18-2005, 09:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm staying away from hands like J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think that a good post-flop player can turn a small profit with a hand like that against 9 limpers?

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that the reverse implied odds with a hand like that make it a fold. I don't think it's a bad limp as long as you come into it with the right mentality, but it's the kinda hand I'm avoiding.

damaniac · #8 05-18-2005, 09:55 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Don't take the rake into account when factoring pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? Granted, it is rarely going to swing a play one way or the other, most especially in a large pot, but it represents the money you will actually win, since the pot will be smaller than normal due to the rake.

crunchy1 · #9 05-18-2005, 10:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Don't take the rake into account when factoring pot odds.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? Granted, it is rarely going to swing a play one way or the other, most especially in a large pot, but it represents the money you will actually win, since the pot will be smaller than normal due to the rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP extracts 1 SB to adjust his pot odds for the rake - justify this. Why only adjust to 1SB? Why not 2SB? Why not the max - 6SB?

I've never seen anyone ever take into account the rake when factoring pot odds. Maybe they are and it's me that's behind the times but, I doubt it. You can never accurately predict future action which, in turn, means that you could never accurately factor the 'true' rake - so why take it into account in the first place?

The rake, technically, isn't even taken from the pot until the end of the hand - so in reality it's still a part of the pot until the hand has reached showdown or everyone involved has folded.

damaniac · #10 05-18-2005, 10:15 AM

Let's use an extreme example. Say the rake is 1 bet. The pot currently has 4 bets in it, 1 of which will be removed. Your hand has a 4-1 chance of hitting, let's say you are all in for simplicity's sake. If you don't count the rake, your call has an expectation of 0. If you do factor in the rake, you should fold. Why? Because 1 bet will be removed. By not ever factoring rake, you are essentially adding money to the pot that isn't there. Again, I don't think there are many situations where that matters that much, but mathematically speaking, pretending there is no rake is overinflating the pot, since you are pretending there is more money in the pot than there is/will be should you win it.

As far as factoring how much, well, it depends. At the super loose B&M games, where rake is about $5 in a maxed out pot in a 5/10 game, I just remove the sb from consideration preflop ($2) if there are many people in, and deduct a full small bet in total once we get some substanital action on the flop. I can't be sure that it's ever mattered, but mathematically speaking, it matters.