|
|
#32
10-14-2005, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so you are saying I am giving something up if when I limp UTG, my opponents can put me on a range of hands that includes every possible poker hand except for two? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Whenever your opponent can rule out certain hands with certainty that gives them an advantage. If you never limp with AA or KK UTG, and your opponents spot that, if you limp-reraise UTG, your opponents will know that they can push (rereraise) with just about any hand and you are going to fold, no? I'll see if I can find that anecdote in Super System. Can anyone else recall the one I'm thinking of? It's a long time since I read it. 
|
|
#33
10-15-2005, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OK, so you are saying I am giving something up if when I limp UTG, my opponents can put me on a range of hands that includes every possible poker hand except for two? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. Whenever your opponent can rule out certain hands with certainty that gives them an advantage. If you never limp with AA or KK UTG, and your opponents spot that, if you limp-reraise UTG, your opponents will know that they can push (rereraise) with just about any hand and you are going to fold, no? I'll see if I can find that anecdote in Super System. Can anyone else recall the one I'm thinking of? It's a long time since I read it. [/ QUOTE ] OK, so I should be limping AA/KK to protect from huge re-bluff moves when I have limp-re-raised the field. Uh, yeah, I'm worried about that hmmmmmm, pretty much not at all. Perhaps you're playing every day with The Matador and Eddie Towne. I can understand your concerns in that case.
|
|
#34
10-16-2005, 02:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
OK, so I should be limping AA/KK to protect from huge re-bluff moves when I have limp-re-raised the field. [/ QUOTE ] I only gave that as one example. I could have given others. The point I'm making is that against decent opponents you have to mix it up sometimes. If you NEVER limp with AA KK UTG that enables them to rule out those hands when you limp, which in certain pots, in certain situations is going to give them an edge - maybe only a small one, but a small edge is better than no edge at all. I also think that you are missing out if you're not limp-raising UTG with AA and KK on an aggressive table. Out of interest, what is your BB/100 with AA and KK? I can't find that anecdote in Super System btw, (although I do note that Brunson is a big advocate of limping when first to act with AA/KK). Maybe it was in another book. Can anyone else recall the example I'm thinking of?
|
|
#35
10-16-2005, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
I can't find that anecdote in Super System btw, (although I do note that Brunson is a big advocate of limping when first to act with AA/KK). Maybe it was in another book. Can anyone else recall the example I'm thinking of? [/ QUOTE ] I can think of one where player A raises in EP, Player B calls, flop comes Jxx, Player A keeps betting, Player B calls him down, Player A has AJ and Player B has QQ. Player B says he knows Player A never raises AA/KK in EP so he was pretty sure his queens were good despite the strength shown by his opponent postflop.
|
|
#36
10-16-2005, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
Its in Harrington on Holdem Volume 1. He says something along the lines of 'they know when you raise you might have AA but they definaly know when you call you don't have AA and thats too valuble a piece of info to give away.'
I agree with El D though. I can't believe you lose an edge by allowing opponents to know you don't have the top hand when you limp UTG.
|
|
#37
10-16-2005, 11:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
in certain situations is going to give them an edge - maybe only a small one, but a small edge is better than no edge at all. [/ QUOTE ] How much do I give up the times I limp w/ AA and they beat me w/ ragged two pair? Please quantify how much I lose in those situations v. how much I gain by your "zero information leak" strategy. [ QUOTE ] I also think that you are missing out if you're not limp-raising UTG with AA and KK on an aggressive table. [/ QUOTE ] Limp-raising UTG w/ AA and KK is often a complete joke at aggressive tables. You take down your little pots pre-flop. I'll open-raise, get-reraised, and stack 99 on the flop. [ QUOTE ] Out of interest, what is your BB/100 with AA and KK? [/ QUOTE ] WTF, I dunno. I try to win at least $5,000 every time I have AA and KK, how many BB/100 is that? [ QUOTE ] Maybe it was in another book. [/ QUOTE ] <yawn>
|
|
#38
10-21-2005, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Out of interest, what is your BB/100 with AA and KK? [/ QUOTE ] WTF, I dunno. I try to win at least $5,000 every time I have AA and KK, how many BB/100 is that? [/ QUOTE ] Maybe you should invest $50 in Poker Tracker.
|
|
#39
10-21-2005, 02:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
Really, how often do you see someone re-raise the flop puting 1/3 of their stack in, and then fold?
<raising hand> I think you lose a lot if you just assume they can't. I have to know they can't before I'll just arbitrarily push in with the nuts. If they can, I wanna figure out how best to make money on the hand. Whenever your opponent can rule out certain hands with certainty that gives them an advantage. I can understand this, but you also have to be playing in games where your opponents see you all the time. Maybe some of you guys do, and in such a case I'd strongly suggest a rare limp EP with AA (maybe KK, but I'm less inclined to do that) to mix it up. But if you're not seeing your opponents REGULARLY, then it's not worth it. Let's say you'll limp AA 5% of the time from the first three positions. You get them 1/220 hands, you have three positions to play them for. Correct me if my math's wrong, but that's basically saying you're gonna limp in those spots once out of every 1,450 hands you're dealt in those positions. And if there's an average of nine players at your table, that's saying you limp AA once out of every 4,400 hands. Are you sitting with enough opponents that will see you play 4,400 hands and see you limp your AA such that it improves the value you get from simply raising with them that one time? i.e. Does the value you lose from the occasional opponent that has seen several thousand hands from you and knows you won't limp AA in EP outweigh the value you lose limping AA? I don't see it unless you're basically playing with the same guys all the time, AND that all of them are deep thinkers/strong players. - C -
|
|
#40
10-21-2005, 02:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: just a matter of preference
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Out of interest, what is your BB/100 with AA and KK? [/ QUOTE ] WTF, I dunno. I try to win at least $5,000 every time I have AA and KK, how many BB/100 is that? [/ QUOTE ] Maybe you should invest $50 in Poker Tracker. [/ QUOTE ] "Don't some of you guys ever wonder why there are so many players out there who are beating 30-60 thru 200-400 for more than you could, without knowing the satistical minutae that you do. Granted that is no big deal for the time being when you can play five 15-30 games online against morons. But still don't you wonder?"
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
