Loose Passive Limit Games-What's a winning strategy?

[TripleH68]

[ QUOTE ]
If I check it through and the turn card is harmless, say a 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Then I can make a better decision about my hand. If there is a late bet, I can raise and give the other draws bad odds to call. If it's checked to me, at least I am giving them 6-1 instead 13-1 or better. Plus I may win more when my hand holds up, because they may not believe I have top pair.

Does this theory hold any water?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the game is as passive as you say, how can you be sure anyone will bet the turn?

IMO you will be leaving too much money on the table trying to make plays like these.

[Ace-Ex]

Read Small Stakes Holdem. The answers you seek are in there. Ed Miller has already figured all of these things out and put them down on paper! It's a minor miracle.

It sounds like games I've played in. The players don't have a deep understanding of the game. I think you'll drive yourself nuts trying to figure out their thought processes because they almost don't exist. To me they seem to play on instinct.

My observation of this type of game is that it's frequently made up of regulars. You didn't mention it, but was there a lot of talking among them, like they were familiar with each other? I don't think they have a way to set up a home game so they go to a card room.

[UATrewqaz]

Yes this theory does hold water, see HPFAP the loose games chapter.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
Good advice shown here about not raising pre-flop with small EV cards (he even suggests potentially folding hands like AJ that don’t play well multi-way.)

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing to note is that this is talking about games with halfway decent players. In a game with bad players you should basically never fold AJ (or fail to raise AQ for that matter) unless someone raises before it gets to you.

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, raising with good drawing hands in late position is always fun (like pocket pairs, suited connectors, Axs.) This way, you’re getting paid a lot when you hit your draw, and calling players can’t beat you if you make your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is talking about games with halfway decent players. The reason you raise these drawing hands is because your opponents are aware of pot odds but don't apply them correctly; in other words, they know an 8-bet pot is different from a 4-bet pot, but they play the 8-bet pot as though it were a 14-bet pot, so you get way more action than you deserve when you do hit your set or two pair or whatever. In games where the players are awful this raise is pointless unless you have an equity edge and HPFAP does say as much.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, if the game is terribly loose-passive and I can’t tell if callers have draws or second pairs, I sometimes check down the river if any remotely scary card comes (completes a gutshot, pairs the board, maybe even runner-runner flush cards, etc.) Don’t overvalue top pair/top kicker against these types of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

This advice is the exact opposite of correct play. If your opponents are loose-passive, they are not checkraising often and they are going to showdown with 2nd or 3rd pair regardless of the number of players in. In these types of games you can bet TPTK, get four or five callers and still have your hand be good.

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, this is talking about games with halfway decent players. The reason you raise these drawing hands is because your opponents are aware of pot odds but don't apply them correctly; in other words, they know an 8-bet pot is different from a 4-bet pot, but they play the 8-bet pot as though it were a 14-bet pot, so you get way more action than you deserve when you do hit your set or two pair or whatever. In games where the players are awful this raise is pointless unless you have an equity edge and HPFAP does say as much.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact I want to go even farther, though I can't quite decide if I'm correct or not here... if you didn't have an equity edge (we have to assume we're PRECISELY breakeven, and that the players will play PRECISELY the same regardless of your raise/the pot size), wouldn't it actually be a MISTAKE to make this raise, since anybody who's not drawing dead after the flop will be making somewhat less of a mistake by trying to run you down?

Anyway, although it's already been touched on, people seem to always have some major misconceptions about when to bet. I swear it's that damned Sklansky on Razz hand example. People read that and think "Well, he'll call anyway on his draw, so I'm not going to raise yet," which is, at best, a painfully incorrect application of the concept. Here's the simplest way I can put it:

Even if your opponents will not be making a mistake by calling, betting/raising is your most profitable option if you have an equity edge.

This is obvious in NL situations (Say you have AA on a Js 6c 2c 7x flop. Your opponent is like me when I'm drunk, and he flips the Tc 5c face up. The pot is $5k, and you somehow have $1k left in your stack. He checks to you. He's a moron if he folds here getting 6:1 if you push, but could you ever imagine checking here without causing thousands of poker players the world over to spontaneously feel like they just got kicked in the naughty bits?

This post probably sounds pissed off, but trust me when I say that it's directed to nobody in particular. If this post causes ONE less "Well, don't worry about not betting the turn, he would've called and hit his 2 outer anyway" post on the internet, then I feel I've just done a major service to the poker world.

[ QUOTE ]
Having said that, if the game is terribly loose-passive and I can’t tell if callers have draws or second pairs, I sometimes check down the river if any remotely scary card comes (completes a gutshot, pairs the board, maybe even runner-runner flush cards, etc.) Don’t overvalue top pair/top kicker against these types of opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This advice is the exact opposite of correct play. If your opponents are loose-passive, they are not checkraising often and they are going to showdown with 2nd or 3rd pair regardless of the number of players in. In these types of games you can bet TPTK, get four or five callers and still have your hand be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I should risk an extra BB with TPTK hoping that none of these LP players hit a freak two pair or whatever and may want to raise / checkraise me? It's bad enough getting rivered without paying extra for it. Maybe I'm just too mentally scarred by having that happen to me over and over and over.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
So I should risk an extra BB with TPTK hoping that none of these LP players hit a freak two pair or whatever and may want to raise / checkraise me?

[/ QUOTE ]

One, I specifically said if they really are calling stations they don't checkraise much. Two, yes, you should risk that bet if you are going to get called in several places by worse hands.

Think about it, you said yourself you can't bluff them. Why can't you bluff them? Because they call river bets with bottom pair, underpairs, sometimes ace high or even less. With that in mind, you can often bet TPTK or overpairs into four players, get called by ALL of them, and still win the showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
It's bad enough getting rivered without paying extra for it. Maybe I'm just too mentally scarred by having that happen to me over and over and over.

[/ QUOTE ]

Luckily for me I'm able to carry fond memories of betting unimproved AA in a seven handed pot, being called by EVERYONE and taking down the pot. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

Even if you will lose more than half the time betting can be correct. If you bet into five people, and get called by all of them, and your hand is only good 30% of the time, your river bet was still profitable. Do you see why?

EDIT: One final point, many calling stations will bet mediocre to good hands but almost never raise them. Against these players betting is necessary from early positions because you don't get a bet from them when they have middle pair, but they still gain a bet from you when they bet bottom two pair and you call.