Some Limit matters
Mar. 4th, 2006 01:05 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksWhat would be your view of this hand?
A typical $2-$4 game on Party, Sunday morning US time: No reads on players except where indicated.
You get A♥ 7♥ in MP2
UTG (conservative possibly weak-tight) limps. UTG+1 folds. MP1 limps. You limp. Button (loose-passive) limps. Small blind (slightly aggressive, dangerous) raises. Big blind calls (always defends blind). UTG calls. MP1 calls. You call. Button calls. Pot = $24.
Flop comes J♥, 6♣, 4♥
Small blind bets out, big blind folds, UTG calls, MP1 calls. You raise. Button folds. SB three-bets. UTG calls, MP1 calls. You call. $48 in pot.
Turn brings J♠. Small Blind bets out. UTG raises. MP1 folds. $60 in pot. What do you do? And what question are you asking at the moment?
There is nothing unusual about this situation. I must have seen variants of it posted many times on 2+2. And, as is often the case, it's the wrong question. However, question it remains, so let's answer it. You call. Even though you might be drawing dead or you might make your hand and still lose, you are getting sufficient odds to make the call correct. SB might be KK or AA. UTG is probably something like JQs, JKs or AJ off. If you make your flush (22%) you are probably 80% to win it. So you are getting 7.5 to 1 about a 6 to 1 shot.
But, like I say, it's the wrong question. The question that you should be asking is, what was I doing, limping with A7s in MP2 in the first place? This kind of limp is probably the most typical and the biggest leak that I see amongst $2-$4 players, and with good reason. Because this hand was not a $2-$4 hand on Party. It is actually on page 150 of Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold'em. And he makes no adverse comment about the limp pre-flop.
Now, Ed is a good player. Why does he make no comment?
Because he is talking about games like $2-$4 in the Flamingo some afternoons — slot machine Hold'em, where people put in $2 pre-flop with anything. There are very few raises pre-flop (except by you, when you want to build a pot). I remember playing in one of these games a couple of years ago and after a couple of hours when I had ritually been dumping stuff like 87s UTG, I realized that I could safely call with these cards, because no-one else was going to raise.
But, ask this question. If you know there is going to be a raise behind you, do you limp with A7s in this position? I certainly don't. So, push the question further. What does the likelihood of a raise have to be before A7s becomes a fold? 10%? 20%? 50%? That's a tougher question, and one which I haven't really thought about too much. In the games that I play online, this hand is a fold. I have other things to think about.
+++++++++++
Here's a hand where my newly adopted "take risks and build pots" strategy paid off nicely, but I still think I might have misplayed it at the end.
$3/$6 Texas Hold'em
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1 (BB): bigred23111 ( $31 )
Seat 2: Birks ( $249.50 )
Seat 3: lxzhypt ( $172 )
Seat 4: kitty75222 ( $159.51 )
Seat 5: DuffHombre ( $150 )
Seat 6: Bolibompa123 ( $175 )
Seat 7: jy_yang ( $167 )
Seat 8: hansekhagen ( $190 )
Seat 9 (Button): maxmilian21 ( $137.50 )
Seat 10 (SB): gravedigger ( $179 )
Dealt to Birks [ Q♦ Q♣ ]
Birks raises [$6].
jy_yang (very loose, 83% of pots, 14% raises) calls [$6].
bigred23111 (no info) calls [$3].
$19 in the pot.
Flop [ 2♦, Q♥, 9♥ ]
bigred23111 checks.
Birks checks.
jy_yang checks.
My instinct is to bet here unless the flop is something like Q92 rainbow. Part of this is based on the fact that I always bet out in this kind of situation. Therefore a check must indicate a set of Queens, right? But this is late Friday. These guys aren’t paying attention. As far as they are concerned, a check might be weakness from a conservative player. I half expect jy_yang to bet with anything. If he does, I’ll pull the trigger on the flop rather than wait for the turn and risk giving a free card.
Turn [ 6♦ ]
Two diamonds, two hearts. I might well get some action here that is very anti-percentage for the opponents.
bigred23111 bets [$6].
Even better
Birks raises [$12].
jy_yang folds.
bigred23111 calls [$6].
River [ K♥ ]
bigred23111 bets [$6].
Birks calls [$6].
bigred23111 shows [ 6♡, K♠ ] two pairs, kings and sixes.
Birks shows [ Q◊, Q♡ ] three of a kind, queens.
Birks wins $52.50 from the main pot with three of a kind, queens.
The question is, should I value raise the river? I want to be better than 60% to put in the raise and be confident that I am going to be called (the raise is valueless if opponent has a missed flush draw and no pair, for example). I suppose that the question is, therefore, what kind of hands can opponent have that he will call with that lose. What hands that he will call with and win. And what hands that he will three-bet with (let’s ignore the three-bet bluff for the moment)? This is a real toughie and is not an easy one to work out quickly when you are three-tabling, so I erred on the side of conservatism. Part of my reasoning was that I thought that his bet on the turn was a bet on a draw. The third heart might have completed that draw. But he is more likely to have two diamonds than two hearts, because he checked the flop. I’m still not certain whether the value raise is right or wrong here, but perhaps I should start erring on the side of gambling, rather than caution.
A typical $2-$4 game on Party, Sunday morning US time: No reads on players except where indicated.
You get A♥ 7♥ in MP2
UTG (conservative possibly weak-tight) limps. UTG+1 folds. MP1 limps. You limp. Button (loose-passive) limps. Small blind (slightly aggressive, dangerous) raises. Big blind calls (always defends blind). UTG calls. MP1 calls. You call. Button calls. Pot = $24.
Flop comes J♥, 6♣, 4♥
Small blind bets out, big blind folds, UTG calls, MP1 calls. You raise. Button folds. SB three-bets. UTG calls, MP1 calls. You call. $48 in pot.
Turn brings J♠. Small Blind bets out. UTG raises. MP1 folds. $60 in pot. What do you do? And what question are you asking at the moment?
There is nothing unusual about this situation. I must have seen variants of it posted many times on 2+2. And, as is often the case, it's the wrong question. However, question it remains, so let's answer it. You call. Even though you might be drawing dead or you might make your hand and still lose, you are getting sufficient odds to make the call correct. SB might be KK or AA. UTG is probably something like JQs, JKs or AJ off. If you make your flush (22%) you are probably 80% to win it. So you are getting 7.5 to 1 about a 6 to 1 shot.
But, like I say, it's the wrong question. The question that you should be asking is, what was I doing, limping with A7s in MP2 in the first place? This kind of limp is probably the most typical and the biggest leak that I see amongst $2-$4 players, and with good reason. Because this hand was not a $2-$4 hand on Party. It is actually on page 150 of Ed Miller's Small Stakes Hold'em. And he makes no adverse comment about the limp pre-flop.
Now, Ed is a good player. Why does he make no comment?
Because he is talking about games like $2-$4 in the Flamingo some afternoons — slot machine Hold'em, where people put in $2 pre-flop with anything. There are very few raises pre-flop (except by you, when you want to build a pot). I remember playing in one of these games a couple of years ago and after a couple of hours when I had ritually been dumping stuff like 87s UTG, I realized that I could safely call with these cards, because no-one else was going to raise.
But, ask this question. If you know there is going to be a raise behind you, do you limp with A7s in this position? I certainly don't. So, push the question further. What does the likelihood of a raise have to be before A7s becomes a fold? 10%? 20%? 50%? That's a tougher question, and one which I haven't really thought about too much. In the games that I play online, this hand is a fold. I have other things to think about.
+++++++++++
Here's a hand where my newly adopted "take risks and build pots" strategy paid off nicely, but I still think I might have misplayed it at the end.
$3/$6 Texas Hold'em
Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1 (BB): bigred23111 ( $31 )
Seat 2: Birks ( $249.50 )
Seat 3: lxzhypt ( $172 )
Seat 4: kitty75222 ( $159.51 )
Seat 5: DuffHombre ( $150 )
Seat 6: Bolibompa123 ( $175 )
Seat 7: jy_yang ( $167 )
Seat 8: hansekhagen ( $190 )
Seat 9 (Button): maxmilian21 ( $137.50 )
Seat 10 (SB): gravedigger ( $179 )
Dealt to Birks [ Q♦ Q♣ ]
Birks raises [$6].
jy_yang (very loose, 83% of pots, 14% raises) calls [$6].
bigred23111 (no info) calls [$3].
$19 in the pot.
Flop [ 2♦, Q♥, 9♥ ]
bigred23111 checks.
Birks checks.
jy_yang checks.
My instinct is to bet here unless the flop is something like Q92 rainbow. Part of this is based on the fact that I always bet out in this kind of situation. Therefore a check must indicate a set of Queens, right? But this is late Friday. These guys aren’t paying attention. As far as they are concerned, a check might be weakness from a conservative player. I half expect jy_yang to bet with anything. If he does, I’ll pull the trigger on the flop rather than wait for the turn and risk giving a free card.
Turn [ 6♦ ]
Two diamonds, two hearts. I might well get some action here that is very anti-percentage for the opponents.
bigred23111 bets [$6].
Even better
Birks raises [$12].
jy_yang folds.
bigred23111 calls [$6].
River [ K♥ ]
bigred23111 bets [$6].
Birks calls [$6].
bigred23111 shows [ 6♡, K♠ ] two pairs, kings and sixes.
Birks shows [ Q◊, Q♡ ] three of a kind, queens.
Birks wins $52.50 from the main pot with three of a kind, queens.
The question is, should I value raise the river? I want to be better than 60% to put in the raise and be confident that I am going to be called (the raise is valueless if opponent has a missed flush draw and no pair, for example). I suppose that the question is, therefore, what kind of hands can opponent have that he will call with that lose. What hands that he will call with and win. And what hands that he will three-bet with (let’s ignore the three-bet bluff for the moment)? This is a real toughie and is not an easy one to work out quickly when you are three-tabling, so I erred on the side of conservatism. Part of my reasoning was that I thought that his bet on the turn was a bet on a draw. The third heart might have completed that draw. But he is more likely to have two diamonds than two hearts, because he checked the flop. I’m still not certain whether the value raise is right or wrong here, but perhaps I should start erring on the side of gambling, rather than caution.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-04 05:00 pm (UTC)In QQ hand the King on the river completes the straightdraw too. These kind of value raises are very player dependant. Aginst unknown I probably just call here too, but my riverplay isn't world class :(
aksu
no subject
Date: 2006-03-04 07:41 pm (UTC)And, just out of curiosity, do you limp if you know that you are going to be raised? That was my major query really. As I said in my piece, limping is fine if you know that you are not going to be raised. So, assuming that you don't like the limp if you know that you are going to be raised, at what level of probability does the limp become wrong? Or are you happy with the limp even if a raise comes in behind you? This really strikes me as odd, as you seem to be playing only for a flush or trip sevens on the flop.
I am genuinely curious here (see my reply to Simon) because it just isn't a way that I play or that I could feel comfortable with playing.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 01:11 am (UTC)So simulations show that A7s is a dog against good hands. Also if I somehow knew that there will be a raise behind me I would fold. Fortunately those things have not much to do with our decision in a real game.
In real game A7s could very well be the best hand after two limpers.
Also a fan of Ax suited....
Date: 2006-03-04 05:56 pm (UTC)I think there is a good reason not to play Ax suited, and that is when you can't trust yourself to play it correctly post flop. You seem to be only concerned with the 10cents it may be costing preflop, either in terms of direct -EV or with the possibility of a raise behind. However, I think as long as you can not get carried away when an ace flops the play is still overall +EV at $2/4 on Party (not that I have done anything like the hours you have at that level to verify, but from what I have seen, most starting hands can be +EV!) I'm sure you fit in to this disciplined category and don't go handing away money to better aces than you, so limp on in and funk for the flush.
There is also the possibility (it just happened to me at $10/20 not 10 minutes ago) that when your flush is good, someone gets way out of line with a worse flush or even a straight or trips. It does happen. And when it does, that gives you a fair bank of -10cents to speculate with future Ax suited's.
SG.
Re: Also a fan of Ax suited....
Date: 2006-03-04 07:30 pm (UTC)Now, (and this is why I mentioned this hand), this leads us straight to the situation where I am not building pots, but looking for heads up situations and then to take the pots down without a showdown through sheer agression.
I don't win many big multi-way showdowns, but I win an awful lot of small uncontested pots that I probably don't have a right to. The thing is, I might be winning a lot of small uncontested pots that I have every right to, where I should be building the pot and looking to win a big contested pot.
Limit is known as "death by a thousand cuts", and to say that one big win compensates for a lot of small minus EVs does not cover the point that it does not necessarily compensate for them in the long run. it may well do (it's an area that I am looking at), but it isn't a given, so to speak.
And I still hate the limp :-)
Re: Also a fan of Ax suited....
Date: 2006-03-05 12:21 pm (UTC)For me, I don't like raising because you are driving out players that probably aren't harmful to you that would otherwise sweeten the pot for you and give you all the odds you need. If you know you are getting 3 or 4 players coming with you, no problems having to throw in extra bets here, you are getting your price.
Now I am all for betting draws and rasing on the come when I think I can win pots there and then, as you say that is the 1000 cuts way of winning at these levels. However, this isn't one of those situations. If you play the hand, you aren't going to take it down uncontested here - not in a million years. You are going to have to hit your flush and win a big pot with multi-customers, period.
Re: Also a fan of Ax suited....
Date: 2006-03-05 01:23 pm (UTC)The first is Aksu's; he agrees that he would fold if he knew that there would be a raise behind him, while I agreed that a call is correct if you know that there is going to be no raise behind you (see my initial point re very loose-passive games at the Flamingo). Therefore the only point of contention is the probability of the limper with A7s being raised. I put this question in the original post, but no-one addressed it. (BTW Aksu, I ran a Monte Carlo with random cards sitting behind the A7s in this situation and the A7s comes through as 15.25%).
The second point is Simon's and this point, of course, addresses my precise earlier post about building pots vs getting them heads-up and over. I know that I have a tendency to go for the latter and in certain cases I am addressing this (see the play with QQ).
Simon's argument is that "I don't like raising because you are driving out players that aren't harmful to you". And it is here that I think there are two ways of looking at it. Suppose you are MP2 and you limp with A7s. I am sitting on the button with AT off, A9 off, KQ of a different suit, or a number of other hands. If you limp, I am raising. If you raise, because of Gap theory, I am folding. I'm only going to three-bet you with A9 through AJ if I know that you are likely to have something like A7s.
Now, what players are you driving out who are not harmful to you? Ace-small is about it.
OK, A7s is marginal favourite over KQs, but after you limp and he raises you, things look unpleasant. At best (for you) he will be saving a bet. More likely he will be pushing you off a pot that you would have won with Ace-high.
My other principle here is "do what the other guy doesn't want". Both small blind and big blind dislike raises, so I prefer a raise to a limp.
Now, you can't ALWAYS raise, so, sometimes, you have to throw it away.
A lot of this depends on how players tend to act/ are likely to act behind you, and in this manner my point was somewhat empirical. Players limp with hands like this (or small pocket pairs). I raise behind them. Small blind and big blind fold, the two limpers call. Flop comes something innocuous. They check. I bet. One of them calls to see one more card. That's also innocuous. They check, I bet, they fold.
Alternatively, I put in the raise with A7s (although I would rarely do it in as early a position as MP2) and I get a rash of folds behind me. SB and BB fold, original limpers call. And this time they check to me and I bet, usually taking it down on the turn.
So, when Simon writes If you play the hand, you aren't going to take it down uncontested here - not in a million years. You are going to have to hit your flush and win a big pot with multi-customers, period
it just is not true. Let's look at my A8s and A7s in a (recent, $2-$4) 15,000 hand summary:
With A8s I raised 21 times in 44 hands. I folded 15 times and limped 8 times. I won 11 times of the 29 times that I saw a flop, and of those 11 times, four times I won it without a showdown. BTW, I was marginally down with A8s.
With A7s I was slightly more circumspect. of 55 hands I folded 29 times and raised 12 times, limping 14 times. Of the 12 times I won the hand, it was without a showdown five times (and, by way of a curiosity, of the other seven times, none of them was with a flush. Four of the times I won with a pair of Aces). I was up with A7s.
I can only assume that we play in very different games, Simon, because my statistics just don't bear out your experience. Quite often, you are going to take it down unconstested.
Or have they just not caught on to the fact that I am at times a LAG? Or am I focusing on games full of weak-tight players?
PJ
Re: Also a fan of Ax suited....
Date: 2006-03-05 04:36 pm (UTC)"BTW Aksu, I ran a Monte Carlo with random cards sitting behind the A7s in this situation and the A7s comes through as 15.25%"
Hmm, against four random hands I get 26% equity to A7s (using pokerstove), that's nicely over the even price which is 20%. Raising with it is an OK option too as you point out.
aksu
Re: Also a fan of Ax suited....
Date: 2006-03-05 04:53 pm (UTC)In terms of "harmless players" I meant that as anyone that would be drawing to a worse flush or drawing at a straight with multi-way action. You are drawing at your nut flush and if it hits, it is good. If I don't get an extra caller or two behind me, well that's too bad, and I may have to accept that I am marginally out of line from time to time, depending on how the betting goes. I am comfortable with that - in fact a lot of my preflop play is -EV, with the intention of taking advantage of some appalling post flop play elsewhere.
I think you probably are playing against weak-tight players and it should be absolutely harvest time for you, nice game selection!
no subject
Date: 2006-03-04 11:08 pm (UTC)A7s - as AKsu points out, clear flop cap. cc'ing with nuts is my insticnt too, but prlly not at this level and not if aggressive is a thinker. He may have had a bet-fold strategy if he has a pair no suit, else he should have shelved the bet. If not he may have KKs, which he prlly won't lay down fro 2 bets or has a set JJs, or perhaps utg has - in fact he is quite a big candidate with 6s and 4s.
chaos
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 01:30 pm (UTC)I didn't understand the rest of the post Chaos. Your brain is working too fast for your fingers again. Slow down. Explain your thoughts carefully and succinctly. Then I'll be able to work out what those thoughts are. "or pehaps utg has - in fact he is a big candidate with 6s and 4s" could mean a number of things. I can't see how utg can have sixes and fours, though. He would have folded 64 pre-flop (even suited!) and with that holding he wouldn't raise on the turn. He would raise on the flop.
PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 03:55 pm (UTC)pfr prlly have overpair with spade & likely cc 2 bets. If not then may well have a bet-fold strategy anyway, so 1 or 2 bets pas difference.
chaos
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 05:40 pm (UTC)PJ
no subject
Date: 2006-03-05 06:32 pm (UTC)chaos