An AQ hand inspired from SS2

[AdamL]

Curious what you guys think. Both plays are worth questioning imo.

You have A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

5 players limp and you call on the Button. SB folds BB checks.

Flop is T-6-7 rainbow.

Somebody bets, say MP1 after two checks. Hero folds. Doesn't matter if there was a caller between the bet or not.

Comments?

[SoftcoreRevolt]

SS2 tells you to limp this PF? Raise.

[AdamL]

It does, specifically if "6 players limp in".

But I think that the advice, if it is wrong, is not obviously so. It requires some thought and analysis.

[caggin]

I think I can see why you'd want to limp this preflop. Offsuit hands don't do as well in multiway pots so your edge preflop is small. By limping, you're giving up this small edge in exchange for a potentially bigger edge post flop. If you hit the flop, your top pair will likely be good but vulnerable. You'd like the opportunity to knock out some opponents with a raise. If you had raised pf, it would probably be checked to you and the pot would be large enough to make it correct for weak draws to call. Furthermore, if you miss the flop, you can fold more easily. With 6 opponents, it's unlikely that your hand will be best if you miss the flop, and the chances are high that you'd be dominated. In the example hand, you almost certainly don't have the best hand and you'd be drawing to a weak top pair while some others are probably drawing to a straight. You've got at best 3 outs in an 8 BB pot. Looks like it's time to fold.

Just my thought. I don't think I'd actually play like that though in reality. I think I tend to auto bet/raise AQ, which is probably wrong...

[Kumubou]

I will take a stabby stab stab. What is the guven table texture? (With five limpers you would have to figure loose; a table full of TAGs limping like that would be scary, if a bit odd.)

AQo is the kind of hand that is a monstar heads-up but loses much of its value as more people enter the pot, as it has little other than big card value (which it has lots of). You probably have the best hand here, but your equity edge is not garguantan here, and will drastically change depending on the texture of the flop. Raising here will almost certainly bloat the pot and make it correct for even marginal draws (gutshots, combo backdoor straight/flush draws, etc.) to continue on.

On the flop, you have lots of fun trying to deal with reverse implied odds (of roughly 900,000 to 500). At least your pair cards do not give anyone straights, (although the Q does give some hands a straight redraw). You may be reverse dominated. You may be way behind a set already. Someone could have some random-ass two pair. Considering the number of the people in the pot, someone hit something on this board. You are drawing to a rough guess of 4 outs -- two overcards that in and of themselves do not make the board terribly scary, but there is the likelihood of a made hand already pwning you, or at least one of the cards you hold. I think three outs is too tight (maybe not, with this many people involved) but giving the full six is too much, and anything less the pot is too small to continue on.

Not to say I agree with the moves (the flop play goes out the window if you raise pre-flop), but I think I see the reasoning... I think.

-K

[SoftcoreRevolt]

I really don't think it is that close. We exploit our edge post flop and concede that in doing so we create a very draw happy pot if we hit. If we hit, then we are a favorite but a vunerable one, So be it. When we hit, we profit from being drawing even with the correct odds. At low limits people will be only slightly less likely to draw with a pot half the size, so we might as well exploit our edge while we have it, and enjoy the profit post flop. In the long run we come out ahead by making the pot larger.

While in theory we want to make people make unprofitable calls by having incorrect pot odds, when given the choice of a player who will make the call if the pot is 6 SB or 12 SB, I would rather give them correct odds in a 12 SB pot than incorrect odds in a 6 BB pot. They may not make a mistake, but we will win far more often than they will, so the larger pot is advantageous.

[AdamL]

Even if you just limp preflop, the pot is still large enough for anybody to chase two-pair on the flop. Correctly so, odds speaking, perhaps not so correct taking other things into account.

To me, it doesn't suggest Jennifer Harman is making an argument about preventing your opponents from having the 7-1 they need to chase two-pair. They have it, regardless. She does mention that "furthermore, by raising preflop (...) you induce your opponents to take long-shot draws against you." But this is only after mentioning that, simply, "the more players in the pot, the more likely that someone will make two pair, trips," etc.

To me, the issue is not about equity or giving odds one way or the other. It is summed up as "limp in cheap, and hope to flop something solid."

That means that 2/3 of the time, at least, you will not like your hand on the flop. It means you won't be seeing a turn. That throws equity off considerably.

It also means that the few times you do flop "something solid", you will want it protected as much as possible. Being able to raise the flop, for example, rather than have it checked to your virtually automatically, as many players will do.

Those things, not keeping the pot small or having a small equity edge, are the strongest motivators for not raising preflop. And for that, they make sense. It is not a trivial mistake, and Jennifer Harman isn't a bad player.

The concept is worth expanding on, I think. The evaluation preflop of what your situation will look like postflop should be a strong motivator for your raise vs. call decisions. Pushing equity all the time often fails to take into account reverse implied odds, as well as the frequent (at very loose games especially) times you won't even see a turn for 1 SB.

For that it's worth...

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter if there was a caller between the bet or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters. If there are no callers in between then you can raise. The pot is big enough to stay. Putting an extra SB can improve your chances for the pot. Even calling is way better than folding.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't matter if there was a caller between the bet or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It matters. If there are no callers in between then you can raise. The pot is big enough to stay. Putting an extra SB can improve your chances for the pot. Even calling is way better than folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the book, which is what we're examining, it doesn't matter. She says "you would be foolish to call any bets on the flop."

Whether raising can improve your chances is beside the point at the moment, because she wants us folding. Why does she want us folding is the question, as well as why does she want us limping?

Raising may be a perfectly acceptable play here, but she doesn't think so, or fails to say anything about it. That is the key.

[kapw7]

I can understand the concept, I think. But this particular flop is not draw heavy, no big cards and so you can exclude or fear less flush draws, 2 pairs and OESD. Of course the biggest trouble is that when an ace falls you can lose to A6 or something. But I think that this flop is still playable and you can expect a lot of players to miss the flop.