Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Poker Theory

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 12-14-2005, 07:56 PM
I am fish I am fish is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

[ QUOTE ]
I think what you meant to say is,

"If 5 players have limped behind you raising A2s is close to a no-brainer".

Small pairs, suited connectors and suited Aces are excellent late position raises when several opponents have already limped in. [ QUOTE ]
Yeah way to destroy your implied odds on the exact hands that need those odds to be playable.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Ohnonotthat is saying is that although it appears that you would be destroying your implied odds by putting in an extra bet preflop, that you are in fact helping your implied odds. By investing an extra small bet preflop, you are encouraging everyone to stay in the hand in the later streets since the pot will be bigger. Usually when you make a hand with a small pair, suited connector, Axs, it will be a very strong hand. Therefore, it doesn't really hurt you when you have people sticking around since you will typically have to make the hand you are drawing to to win.

I will now quote from Hold'em Poker for Advanced players...

[ QUOTE ]
One of the nice things about raising with suited cards before the flop (especially the ace suited), is that when you flop a flush, or for that matter a four-flush, you welcome all bottom pairs calling. They may be right to call, but it doesn't hurt you. They may be making money by calling on the flop because there are other people involved. But they are not taking money from you. They are making you money

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, one of the reasons to raise with these flush cards is because if you flop the draw, by making the pot bigger, people now play hands that can't win against your hand if you hit it. (This is also why if there are many players in, it is right to raise with small pairs on the button.

[/ QUOTE ]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:13 PM
BradleyT BradleyT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 512
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

fish,

Pages 53, 67, 70 and 71 of SSHE disagrees with that advice.


Anyway, I digress. ohnonotthat is a class act as obvious by his reply.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-14-2005, 09:30 PM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default That is

precisely what "ohnonotthat" was saying. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It backfires against great players since they won't fall for it; it backfires against horrible players because it's simply not necessary - they need no [additional] inducement to pursue all the way to the river (although even nitwits are more inclined to chase dreams if the pot is large).

*

Note to Bradley T. - Ponder the words of Abraham Lincoln . . .

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt". [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-14-2005, 11:03 PM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

As I no longer play small stakes I neglected to purchase this work. (Shame on me - I should have bought it anyway and am, as we speak, rectifiying this error).

I have a proposal for you.

If you would be so kind as to quote from the pages you mention as refuting my claims, I will post an impressively contrite apology for having offended.

I'll even sweeten the deal.



If you can quote a passage which states that raising from the button with A-2/s, a suited connector, or small pair, after four or more limpers have entered the pot is a BAD play I will purchase for you any book in the 2+2 collection and sign it "to the finest player I know . . ."

The gauntlet has been tossed down; what say you, man ?

- P.S. I have already acknowledged that it is not a great play against extremely weak competition; I need to know where it says it's a BAD play.

*

Sincerely,

"Ohnonotthat", a/k/a "Chris", a/k/a "a class act"
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-14-2005, 11:26 PM
PseudoPserious PseudoPserious is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 151
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

I'll do it. I've got SSHE open due to another thread.

[ QUOTE ]
p. 53 [referring to speculative hands like small pocket pairs and suited, connected hands] "These hands, especially the weak ones, need to see the flop cheaply. Since they often miss, they lose money with every extra bet that goes in before the flop."

[/ QUOTE ]
(...and thus voluntarily putting in extra money by raising is a bad thing.)

I don't see anything relevant on p. 67.

[ QUOTE ]
p. 70 [discussing suited aces] "From late position, consider raising with A9s or A8s after limpers if your opponents are loose."

[/ QUOTE ]
(...which implies that raising with a weaker suited ace is a bad play.)

I don't see anything relevant on p. 71

----

To quote a relevant passage from HPFAP, p. 173-4, which discusses raising with hands like Axs and little pairs.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, one of the reasons to raise with these flush cards is because if you flop the draw, by your making the pot bigger, people now play hands that can't win against your handif you hit it...however, if they are tough you should just call, and if they are terrible, you should again just call. When the other players are terrible, there is no reason to make this raise in order to attract their call on the flop because they will stay in anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of you seem to be in violent agreement. Raising costs a little EV with Axs. That's okay because against a certain class of opponents, it'll make them make mistakes later. Other classes of opponents will make those mistakes without the raise, so it's a bad thing to raise. Why are we arguing?

PP
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 12-15-2005, 09:49 AM
BradleyT BradleyT is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 512
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

In addition:

Could be page #'s (I have the first edition of the book)

p. 67 Small Pairs (22 - 66)
[ QUOTE ]
You would like to see the flop cheaply, for one or at most, two bets

[/ QUOTE ]

p. 72 (not 71) suited connectors
[ QUOTE ]
you also need to be able to see the flop for one bet. WIth a few exceptions, you cannot overcome your preflop disadvantage if you must pay two or more bets to see the flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Nowhere does it state A2-A7s, small pairs, small connectors are raising hands.

ohnonotme,

I don't need your book offer, I already have 18 2+2 books. And SSHE is recommended for anyone playing up to $40-$80.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 12-15-2005, 01:08 PM
Benman Benman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 40
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

[ QUOTE ]
If 5 players have limped behind you, then raising with A2s would be a big mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with this, necessarily. If A2s has positive pot equity following 5 limpers (let's assume it does based on the game, your reads, ranges, etc.), then won't it continue to have positive pot equity for two bets instead of one?

Now, if you didn't think the hand had positive pot equity, but might have favorable implied odds due to your position, then raising might not be ideal.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-15-2005, 07:37 PM
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

A question: if playing 4 or more tables, amidst the almost constant change of players (many of whom have no footprint in either one's notes or in PT), how can these caveats--applying as they do to extremely confined and particular circumstances--be realistically applied? And if they cannot be realistically applied (and as I pose the question, it is obvious I harbor suspicions that they cannot), how can the recommendations that they support be implemented without risk to a bankroll?

The advice to play Axs, amidst other similar plays suggested in SSHE and HEFAP, is accompanied with warnings about the minimal edge such actions offer, under the best of circumstances. If one cannot, except under much less than ordinary circumstances, expect a positive result to said tactics, why bother with them at all?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 12-15-2005, 09:20 PM
Benman Benman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 40
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

If you passed on every hand that only has marginally positive expectation, you'd be a very tight player. I wouldn't give you much action on your good hands, thus reducing the expectation on those.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 12-16-2005, 02:06 AM
ohnonotthat ohnonotthat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Jersey - near A.C.
Posts: 511
Default Re: Pre-flop Theory Question

Three reasons -

1. Poker is [occasionally] still played in cardrooms.

2. You may have no read/notes on your online foes but that does not mean they have none on you.

3. These marginal hands are alot less marginal than the author suggests (author" refers to my assumption that these statements come from SSHE) especially once the holder of these hands gains in ability.

We are born knowing how to play AA profitably and we learn quickly how to do so with KK; Ax/s and the like require skills that are acquired as me grow; the author may or may not have taken this into account - I'm guessing that if he did he minimalized its significance.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.