UTG AQs, limp cuz of bad BB who defends anything?

[Equal]

I had been playing for quite a while in one of the $40-$80 games at Cmmerce when I picked up the AQs under the gun.

In this situation, I had a tight image and most of my opponents were cautious or fearful of my raises, particularly those that came from an upfront position.

However, the big blind was the loosest player at the table, one who defended his blinds religiously, which negated some of the value of raising. For that reason, I chose to limp in with the hand, hoping to get volume, hit the hand, acquire additional bets from players drawing thin or dead, and win a big one.

Is my thinking correct?

[DcifrThs]

absolutely not. raise.

-Barron

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
I had been playing for quite a while in one of the $40-$80 games at Cmmerce when I picked up the AQs under the gun.

In this situation, I had a tight image and most of my opponents were cautious or fearful of my raises, particularly those that came from an upfront position.

However, the big blind was the loosest player at the table, one who defended his blinds religiously, which negated some of the value of raising. For that reason, I chose to limp in with the hand, hoping to get volume, hit the hand, acquire additional bets from players drawing thin or dead, and win a big one.

Is my thinking correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like there's a strong likelihood that a raise will result in your playing it heads up with position against a bad player. That's enough incentive for me. I suppose limp-reraising is an idea, though.

[dingbet]

I like your decision here. Your thinking is correct, in my opinion, especially since the blind is likely to defend. May want to limp-reraise, depending on who raises first.

[flytrap]

Your thinking is way off. With a hand as good as AQs, you aren't just raising to limit the field, you're doing it for value. You'll win far more than 50% of the time against a BB that always defends, so you HAVE to raise here.

[worm33]

dingbet=roy cooke

[ike]

Isn't an idiot autocalling in the BB an argument in favor of not against raising a hand as good as AQs?

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your decision here. Your thinking is correct, in my opinion, especially since the blind is likely to defend. May want to limp-reraise, depending on who raises first.

[/ QUOTE ]

why is the thinking correct...sure you want a ton of people in w/ AQs, and you wont win the blinds, which is an advantage of raising...but the downside is costing yourself a (likely larger) pot when you allow a hdn that would have folded to play correctly and limp for 1 bet when you're basically guaranteed at least a call from the bb.

you seem to have thought about this so is there something im missing?
-Barron

[KdoubleK]

A BB who always defends and is the loosest player on the table doesn't decrease the value of a raise, it increases it. But that's assuming you can get it headsup most of the time. If the BB is LAG and 1 or 2 strong players who play well postflop often float along or even 3-bet you then there could be a strong argument for limping in to make a volume pot cheaply.

[sublime]

In this situation, I had a tight image and most of my opponents were cautious or fearful of my raises, particularly those that came from an upfront position.

ohh man do i love when that happens. A9 starts looking like AK to me [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]