Marginal Hand #4 Playing a passive table

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

Remember these are bad players. Not some 10/20 game somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pocket pairs are very easy limps in this sort of game, but comparing the way that a hand like 22 plays out OOP to the way J8s plays out OOP is ridiculous.

You seem to undervalue position in every hand you've posted so far.

Rob

[topspin]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Small pocket pairs are much easier to play postflop than this hand -- fit or fold gives you great implied odds into a big field. With this hand, you don't know how many ppl will come in, and you're out of position for the rest of the hand. Not a problem if you flop the flush, but more often you'll make bottom pair, 2nd pair, or similar that's going to be a bear to play out.

I guess I'm tighter than a few of the earlier posters; I chuck this without a second thought. (At least they had to think [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img])

[Firefly]

Yes, they are bad, but they still get cards (whoever quoted this earlier in the thread is right)
Just because they are bad doesn't mean you can completely outplay everyone on the flop. You can't feel really good without a club flop, as your J is weak. I'm just not convinced that this is an +EV situation. Give me the button or the CO, and i'm here in a second.
And i'd limp any small/medium pocket pairs from anywhere at this table. Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to undervalue position in every hand you've posted so far.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table. These guys play badly and I want to give them a chance to play badly against me.

When I get on an agressive table (which I don't really like) I will play much tighter up front.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
That's because I don't think position is nearly as important on a weak passive table.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is something you may want to consider reviewing. Position is the most important aspect in this game, regardless of the game's texture.

That said, I understand your desire to play hands like this, and this is a good choice for a hand that is right on the cusp here. But would you play T7s? T8s?

Your hand is good multiway but in any game -- even a passive game -- is helped MUCH by the benefit of position.

3 limpers limp behind you, SB completes, BB checks. 7 to the flop for 7SB. Flop comes J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. SB checks, BB checks, UTG bets. Now what's the right play here?

Rob

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part do you disagree with? Any PP is generally profitable when the flop is seen 5-ways or more; at 4-ways it depends on game texture. When you flop a set, on the average, your equity will be around 75% -- sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Rob

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, here's a question for all the people who fold here (which is everybody I guess lol). Do you limp in with 22 on this table? 33? 44 55? Let me know.

Remember these are bad players. Not some 10/20 game somewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I would limp with any pocket pair UTG at this level. Of course, my position isn't going to matter postflop I have a PP; either I make my set or I'm gone.

A hand like J8s is the kind of hand where you strongly prefer to have position.

[grjr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part do you disagree with? Any PP is generally profitable when the flop is seen 5-ways or more; at 4-ways it depends on game texture. When you flop a set, on the average, your equity will be around 75% -- sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree if he's saying that pocket pairs of 55 and lower are highly EV if you get 3 or 4 callers. Not only are they not highly EV they are not +EV at all with 3 or 4 callers. Surely you know this, Rob? (and don't call me shirley)

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Pocket pairs are highly EV when you get 3 or 4 callers, because when you flop a set you're best probally 65-70% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

If you're including pocket pairs 55 and lower in this statement then I disagree completely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which part do you disagree with? Any PP is generally profitable when the flop is seen 5-ways or more; at 4-ways it depends on game texture. When you flop a set, on the average, your equity will be around 75% -- sometimes higher, sometimes lower.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree if he's saying that pocket pairs of 55 and lower are highly EV if you get 3 or 4 callers. Not only are they not highly EV they are not +EV at all with 3 or 4 callers. Surely you know this, Rob? (and don't call me shirley)

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on what you mean by "3 or 4" callers. If you mean you limp, one other person limps, the SB completes, and the BB checks, then generally they won't be profitable (if the game is passive).

OTOH, if you mean 3 or 4 callers as in you limp, 3 other players limp, the SB completes, and the BB checks, your hand will generally be profitable, moreso when any of the players have a tendency toward postflop aggression (which again helps a hand like 33 and not a hand like J8s). The fact that you're getting 5:1 on a call in such a situation dictates you'll need to make up around 3SB's postflop when you hit your set for your limp to be profitable, and even in the most passive games, it's hard not to make up that small of a deficit.

I think you're overvaluing suited cards and undervaluing pocket pairs, but it could be that we're just arguing semantics. It's rare that I find a situation where pocket pairs aren't profitable limps, but I can find many situations where suited two gappers aren't.

Rob