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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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