A cool limit hand

[peterbirks]

Abdul rules!

Just as I was writing about how Abdul’s style wasn’t for me, how I didn’t like the increased volatility it implied, how I didn’t think it worked for the kind of games I played, I go and do this.... By way of explanation, I had won a nice pot the previous hand when raising with 98s and hitting a straight on the turn. So, I thought, let’s try an experiment....

POKERSTARS HOLD'EM LIMIT ($5/$10)
Table 'Pegasus' Seat #2 is the button
Seat 1: Zoltan23 ($150.50 in chips)
Seat 2: slimkim ($514 in chips)
Seat 3: Wrtlprmft ($254 in chips)
Seat 4: Penguin44 ($296 in chips)
Seat 5: Dr Vinkman ($194 in chips)
Seat 6: DrDre_Snoop ($311 in chips)
Seat 7: Birks ($497 in chips)
Seat 8: greenbuds ($7 in chips)
Seat 9: moneytaker83 ($26 in chips)
Seat 10: FrankieC ($361 in chips)
Wrtlprmft: posts small blind $2
Penguin44: posts big blind $5

Dealt to Birks [Td Th]
Dr Vinkman: folds
DrDre_Snoop: folds
Birks: calls $5
greenbuds: calls $5
moneytaker83: folds
FrankieC: folds
Zoltan23: folds
slimkim: raises $5 to $10
Wrtlprmft: folds
Penguin44: folds
Birks: raises $5 to $15
greenbuds: calls $2 and is all-in
slimkim: calls $5

A limp reraise with TT? Well, that’s mixing it up! Abdul recommends this play with as little as 88. I know that the button is quite a loose-aggressive player, and a raise from him on the button looks to me like an attempt to steal the initiative. I hope that the limp-reraise caught him offguard.

*** FLOP *** [Jd 6d 5h]
I can live with this flop.

Birks: bets $5
slimkim: calls $5

*** TURN *** [Jd 6d 5h] [7h]
Betting the turn is almost compulsory. My opponent really should raise or fold here, unless he is on a genuine value-calling draw

Birks: bets $10
slimkim: calls $10

*** RIVER *** [Jd 6d 5h 7h] [7c]
Birks: checks
slimkim: bets $10
Birks: calls $10

Has he got a genuine hand? I can’t really see what he can have. With something like AJ he isn’t strong enough to slowplay me. A pair of sixes or fives in the hole are the only rational holdings I can think of.

*** SHOW DOWN ***
slimkim: shows [3s As] (a pair of Sevens)
Birks: shows [Td Th] (two pair, Tens and Sevens)

Birks collected $64 from side pot
greenbuds: mucks hand
Birks collected $27 from main pot

So, well done Abdul. I reckon that if I raise here pre-flop, I win precisely $7 from the blinds. As it was, I won $51. But it's not a style that I would like to make a habit of!

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Didn't I read a couple of weeks ago that you chose to limp-call with AA because to limp-raise with 'em would be sticking AA in neon lighting above your head? Apparently not.

limp rearaise AA

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Indeed not :-) Actually I think it was Si Galloway who wrote this most recently. Although I did write it a while ago. However, that was referring to a tournament NL game, not a cash limit game!

At the higher levels a limp reraise UTG might mean 87s (I saw that in a 100-200 game five handed...) But at $5-$10 it NORMALLY means a massive hand. Which is why I did something different. I wouldn't limp reraise AA in $5-$10 unless I had somehow established a reputation that I was a complete nutter.

Actually, on Party I seem to be doing a good job of that, and I keep getting called. Which is fine by me. We're into the John Fox virtual circle at the moment, where people call you down with very marginal hands and you beat them with slightly less marginal hands, thus reinforcing your image as a wild player, and winning the pot at the same time!

BTW I just tried a limp reraise early on at Party with 88 and promptly got called down on flop and turn by AJs on a board of A9532 or some such rubbish. But I gave up on the river and did not have to call a bet, so the net cost was probably net minus $32 (and that assumes that the AJs on the button will fold, which is definitely not necessarily the case. If he calls the raise and calls me down, the net minus is a mere five bucks, which is almost cheap in meta game terms).

Re: limp rearaise AA

[(Anonymous)]

Whis is Abdul, does he have a blog? Is he Abdullah on the willhill/betfair ?

Re: limp rearaise AA

[(Anonymous)]

Stating the obvious: If you gonna limp-raise with hands other than AA, then you should always consider limp-rasing with AA.

chaos

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I agree. If I come across any of these players again in the near future and I have AA, I may try a limp-reraise on the grounds that they will remember me having done it with TT. I don't like the idea of doing it with opponents who are a "clean slate", becaue they are likely to read me as having AA.

Who is Abdul? Ahhh, Abdul is our secret. He wrote the runes, many moons ago when the dotcoms were strong and the sterling was weak. His words have been passed down from generation to generation, and are protected by the cognoscenti from the masses, who continue to read and believe the words of the Sklanski.

So, no, he isn't Abdullah on Betfair.

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

It is quite rare that I would worry about having a clean slate, as you put it. You appeared to have had that here, with 10-10, and yet still managed to get horribly paid off with A3. Pete Birks may have a clean slate, but what about A.N.Other?

chaos

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

I've written about a similar area to this (at length) on the Hendon Mob site. Not sure what you mean by "what about AN Other?", Chaos.

This instance above was really an experiment. I had never limp reraised on Party before and I was quite willing to walk away from the hand if the flop came down with two cards higher than a 10. So it's not so much that I had a clean slate "and yet" got paid off, as I had a clean slate and "therefore" got paid off.

I was not worrying about having a clean slate. What I meant was that, since at the level I play a default assumption about a limp reraise is that the guy has a monster, I have to assume that if I limp reraise against strangers, they will put me on AA. In this case, if I limp reraised against people who knew me, they would probably put me on AA. But, in future, if I now limp reraise against people who know me, then they are now less likely to put me on AA. Therefore, the limp reraise with AA is likely to deceive more people who know me than it is people who don't know me. The limp-reraise with TT is likely to deceive more people who don't know me than people who know me. Hence my suggested allocation.

My timing here was basically because I had just been seen to raise with 98s. I hoped that my opponents would read my call as strong. However, there was a LAG on the button, who fulfilled his role and raised. Does the move have a greater positive EV than just raising with the TT? In the games I generally play, I suspect not, but with a number of regular button raisers on filth (see above) there are possibilities. Once again, my post on THM covers the philosophy behind this.

Now, suppose AN Other is known by the other players intimately and has limp reraised in the past. have these plays only been with monsters? Does he never limp with the less huge hands? Clearly he should choose his limp reraise moments with care, and the hands that he should do it with should also be chosen with care.

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

What did surprise me about this post was the reference to Abdul. Of all the things Abdul is known for, and popularised, checkraising with smaller pairs UTG is probably his least known contribution. Nitpicking I know, but this kind of thing was a balancing play for some games. I would have thought he was better known as the pound-pound-pound guy.

gl

bdd

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

‘So it's not so much that I had a clean slate "and yet" got paid off, as I had a clean slate and "therefore" got paid off.’

Clearly, a player who has indicated little deception (assuming that is what you meant by clean slate, particularly limp raising utg) thus far is less likely to get paid off with AA here, than one who has. Yet, despite this your – “AA” – (which, given the clean slate context, is how you can see the 10s here) got paid off. Though of course the 89s rather corrupts the experiment.

My reference to A.N.Other did leave a bit of work. I was merely implying that when we’re at a table, particularly at Party, we are part ourselves and part A.N.Other in our opponents’ eyes, the mix depends on how much our foes pay attention. If either, locally, or long term, our oppo’s view of A.N.Other is one who is capable of limp-raising with out the monsters then reasonable doubt is likely to get you paid-off – if A.N.Other is a reasonable portion of your profile. Hence my somewhat obscure question as to whether or not A.N.Other had a clean sheet’.

Add to that a whole bunch of other ‘irrational’ emot-driven motives for paying off your oppo’ when you know he has AA leads me to feel that limp-calling utg (in limit) with Aces is seldom the most productive way to play them. Except, perhaps, in a pot that is reduced to HU and where some emotional scarring is required.

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

'Nitpicking I know, but this kind of thing was a balancing play for some games'

I wouldn't say it is nitpicking, the overarching strategy is pretty important if you're thinking about limp-raising with 88. I have to admit I'd prefer the play with something like KJs than 88. I would seldom do this with 88, though it's something I'm far from confident I'm right about, or indeed over my preference for say KJs over 88 in this spot. It's not something I feel I've measured intuitively or other wise ~ thought, I feel there is a bit more play in KJs over 88.
The preference probably has something to do with an aversion to buying myself into a spot (by limp-raising) where I feel I have will often have to pay a guy off with 88. Of course, these arew dangerous reasons & are often not about EV.

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

I should caveat the KJs ,or perhaps more preferably QJs, as a play to designed just to throw the spanner in the works. If your limps are getting little respect, as is perhaps the case say with Abdul, then I can see the the preference for 88, it amy often be considered a value bet for some plaers even oop.

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

... chaos x 3

Re: limp rearaise AA, who is Abdul?

[(Anonymous)]

My take on Abdul, and the simplest strategy to implement, was not to limp at all. If I am first in, I raise. 90% of the time I am behind other limpers, I raise.

And then, let the betting commence!

Dave

Re: limp reraise AA, who is Abdul?

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

But that's my normal strategy now, Dave (see my mention of the 98s the hand before). I said I thought I'd try something different ... It just happens to be within the Abdul canon ...:-)

Pete