Possibly dumb question about preflop equity and potsize manipulation.

Entity · #1 10-16-2005, 12:27 AM

This hand did not actually take place. It is a hypothetical question. Any resemblance of any characters from this story to any people in real life is purely incidental.

Live fishy 8/16 game. jason_t limps UTG. He's been playing very tight. You're 90% sure that means he has AA and is hoping to limp-reraise (ignore the practicality of this read, it's a theory question and I'm just taking a shot at the fact that jason is clearly a nit who spends too much time in school and not enough time playing poker).

5 loose limpers limp to you. The blinds are very loose and play badly postflop.

You're on the Button. What hands are you raising?

#2 10-16-2005, 12:38 AM

Any pocket pair?

newhizzle · #3 10-16-2005, 12:46 AM

i see my original reply was deleted, this one probly will be too, but i think it was a legitimate question, most TAGs who play correctly only LRR when there are certain table characteristics that give them a reason to, i dont think you are 90% confident that he has AA, and i dont think Jason_T is that predictable

i also understand that this is a math problem and that you said to ignore the practicaltiy of this read, but either way i dont think there was any good reason to delete my post when you called Jason a nit in the OP, so i will ask it again:

do nits LRR?

Entity · #4 10-16-2005, 12:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
i see my original reply was deleted, this one probly will be too, but i think it was a legitimate question, most TAGs who play correctly only LRR when there are certain table characteristics that give them a reason to, i dont think you are 90% confident that he has AA, and i dont think Jason_T is that predictable

i also understand that this is a math problem and that you said to ignore the practicaltiy of this read, but either way i dont think there was any good reason to delete my post when you called Jason a nit in the OP, so i will ask it again:

do nits LRR?

[/ QUOTE ]

I deleted your original question because you were being retarded. This question is a hypothetical. It didn't actually happen. It doesn't need to for the question to be interesting. Sorry that I didn't make that clear enough in the post.

The fact that jason isn't a nit, I thought, might have made that clear. I don't know if you actually know that, but it's pretty certain that if you know jason you know I'm just joking around. I should probably stop that type of joking though before it spreads into some sort of reputation for him.

I apologize if your original question was meant to be an honest question.

Rob

newhizzle · #5 10-16-2005, 01:02 AM

its all good

i dont know the answer to the question, im sure someone with pokerstove can some up with something tho

Entity · #6 10-16-2005, 01:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
its all good

i dont know the answer to the question, im sure someone with pokerstove can some up with something tho

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is the question isn't all about equity. Equity has a lot to do with it but it's also about how large pots play out postflop. I think having absolute position and good relative position comes into play as well. I dunno, though. It's interesting at the least, maybe?

newhizzle · #7 10-16-2005, 01:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
its all good

i dont know the answer to the question, im sure someone with pokerstove can some up with something tho

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the point is the question isn't all about equity. Equity has a lot to do with it but it's also about how large pots play out postflop. I think having absolute position and good relative position comes into play as well. I dunno, though. It's interesting at the least, maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]

well in that case i think your raising a lot of suited hands and hoping to crack some aces and put a nit on tilt

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that jason isn't a nit, I thought, might have made that clear. I don't know if you actually know that, but it's pretty certain that if you know jason you know I'm just joking around. I should probably stop that type of joking though before it spreads into some sort of reputation for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

like i said, i dont think jason is that predictible, i was simply making a joke, just like you, i dont know him at all, so maybe i should stop doing that

Entity · #8 10-16-2005, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]

well in that case i think your raising a lot of suited hands and hoping to crack some aces and put a nit on tilt

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting UTG on tilt has nothing to do with it. Bah. I'm going to leave this thread and see if it evolves into something interesting. I think that some suited hands would be a good raise here, but I'm not sure exactly of what. I think pocket pairs would be a good raise too, but I'm not sure how low we could go.

The same question goes for suited connectors. Is JTs going to be better for me than 87s here?

It's just an idle, possibly dumb, question.

Rob

Borodog · #9 10-16-2005, 01:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Any pocket pair?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a bad raise for value here. If you could guarantee 9 to the flop, getting 8:1 on your money, with it only 7.5:1 against flopping the set, you still cut your implied odds more than in half (because Jason will LRR).

Shillx · #10 10-16-2005, 01:16 AM

I wouldn't raise anything as very few hands have much current value here. If everyone is on random cards, then hands like JTs - 87s can be raised for value. Against more reasonable ranges these hands lose equity since the top of the deck is getting played more then the bottom. Small pairs begin to gain more equity as you cut down on the ranges and run well hot and cold, but if you can't see all 5 cards then it probably makes it -EV to raise um up. If you can't see 4 cards by raising then it really makes it -EV to raise now (the aces are going to the river so you can flop a set and still lose but you have to sometimes give up a 5% or 10% chance of outdrawing the aces by folding). If making a raise here put you all-in then yes I would raise low pairs for value.