Do we limp low PP (22-55) UTG?

[beavens]

[ QUOTE ]
But can anyone explain why they wont OPENRAISE in 6-max with 22-55?
With small pairs we are looking for a set,
and 222 is almost always equal to 777.

[/ QUOTE ]

utg?

[ticks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But can anyone explain why they wont OPENRAISE in 6-max with 22-55?
With small pairs we are looking for a set,
and 222 is almost always equal to 777.

[/ QUOTE ]

utg?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If you are willing to LIMP with 22 utg, why not just go ahead and raise?
Granted, you could get to see some cheap multiway flops.
But, IMHO, your chance to win many small pots (and a few big ones) is greatly increased if you show some strength from the start.
Why am I wrong?

Edit: I am talking 6-max here

[Hoopster81]

[ QUOTE ]
Why am I wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you are going to be playing a raised pot, out of position, with 3 guaranteed overcards on the flop. 6-max, I will usually raise 77+ (sometimes 66) and limp 22-55 UTG.

[NoOuts12]

For a while I was raising these hands as well as small suited connectors in just about every spot, for the reasons you outlined-- taking it down with a c-bet, or getting action once i've hit. However, i've since rethought this and am now limping the small pocket pairs... here's my rationale

- avoids getting re-raised. I play full tilt and there are a fair amount of people who play with some aggression preflop, and nobody likes getting their 22 reraised the pot OOP.
- as far as disguising your hand goes, at low limits I really think the limp is +EV. When you raise the pot preflop, you're showing aggression. The c-bet with trips is going to fold out a lot of hands that, say you limped and they were the initial raiser, would have felt obliged to bet into you. I really feel like more action is generated when you limp, as a combination of keeping more people in the pot and letting someone else take the lead. I really believe that the amount you take from c-bets is near irrelevant-- where i'm looking to make my money with these hands is stacking people. Also, the continuation bet isn't nearly as good a strategy against multiple opponents with these hands in that it is almost a pure bluff-- you're drawing to only two cards vs. most c-bets with overs, etc you're more legitimately drawing to improve your hand.

thoughts?

[NoOuts12]

anyone with a response?

[ QUOTE ]
For a while I was raising these hands as well as small suited connectors in just about every spot, for the reasons you outlined-- taking it down with a c-bet, or getting action once i've hit. However, i've since rethought this and am now limping the small pocket pairs... here's my rationale

- avoids getting re-raised. I play full tilt and there are a fair amount of people who play with some aggression preflop, and nobody likes getting their 22 reraised the pot OOP.
- as far as disguising your hand goes, at low limits I really think the limp is +EV. When you raise the pot preflop, you're showing aggression. The c-bet with trips is going to fold out a lot of hands that, say you limped and they were the initial raiser, would have felt obliged to bet into you. I really feel like more action is generated when you limp, as a combination of keeping more people in the pot and letting someone else take the lead. I really believe that the amount you take from c-bets is near irrelevant-- where i'm looking to make my money with these hands is stacking people. Also, the continuation bet isn't nearly as good a strategy against multiple opponents with these hands in that it is almost a pure bluff-- you're drawing to only two cards vs. most c-bets with overs, etc you're more legitimately drawing to improve your hand.

thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

right on

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]

- avoids getting re-raised. I play full tilt and there are a fair amount of people who play with some aggression preflop, and nobody likes getting their 22 reraised the pot OOP.


[/ QUOTE ]

I love it, means if it hit my set I'll definetly get paid off, sort of limping-calling a raise with it, except the pot is bigger (btw: most people suck at reraising pf, they usually raise much smaller than they should)

[ QUOTE ]

- as far as disguising your hand goes, at low limits I really think the limp is +EV. When you raise the pot preflop, you're showing aggression. The c-bet with trips is going to fold out a lot of hands that, say you limped and they were the initial raiser, would have felt obliged to bet into you. I really feel like more action is generated when you limp, as a combination of keeping more people in the pot and letting someone else take the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

generally, hands that fold because you were the pf raiser would not have paid you off if it was a limped pot

[ QUOTE ]
I really believe that the amount you take from c-bets is near irrelevant-- where i'm looking to make my money with these hands is stacking people.


[/ QUOTE ]

the amount of money made from raising pf and making a continuation bet is probably the most underrated way of making money in ssnl.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the continuation bet isn't nearly as good a strategy against multiple opponents with these hands in that it is almost a pure bluff-- you're drawing to only two cards vs. most c-bets with overs, etc you're more legitimately drawing to improve your hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's right, but if the table doesn't allow me to play like this I'll change. Since we're talking about defaults here I think in the normal 6max table my raise pf will only be called in one spot, sometimes two, so I'll open raise any pair from any position.

This is a matter of opinion of course, this I how I do it, doesn't mean I think it's the absolute "right thing to do" for everyone.

[teamdonkey]

blah blah implied odds blah blah hit set take stack blah

the simple fact is these hands are only marginally profitable. They will only rarely win you pots at showdown unimproved, and will always be on the losing end of set-over-set situations. Over 60,000 hands i show a whopping +0.14BB/hand with this group, while 66-99 is +0.57BB/hand. I treat these like suited connectors and play them with position.

[Fallen Hero]

[ QUOTE ]
blah blah implied odds blah blah hit set take stack blah

the simple fact is these hands are only marginally profitable. They will only rarely win you pots at showdown unimproved, and will always be on the losing end of set-over-set situations. Over 60,000 hands i show a whopping +0.14BB/hand with this group, while 66-99 is +0.57BB/hand. I treat these like suited connectors and play them with position.

[/ QUOTE ]

I show a lot more proffit from mine if that's usefull at all

[teamdonkey]

if you're suggesting i'd do better with them if i played them more aggressively, you could be right. I just know as a group i make about twice as much per hand with A2s-A9s.