Should we raise small PPs from the blinds with limpers?

[Jouster777]

This recent uNL post:here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=9639077&page=0) raised this issue and since I'd rather address it in a general sense I'm starting a new thread. I did some calculation in the spreadsheet below. Everything in yellow is an estimate and subject to criticism. I have always just completed in this situation but the calculations suggest we should raise.


http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/4834/image2ix6.jpg
Refinements in estimates or model much appreciated. If you would like to see different numbers used let me know and I'll plug them in and post.

[mvdgaag]

Looks interesting. How have you estimated? Why not make a worse case scenario where all opponents call and have to hit the flop. Even than you have manipulated the pot size for when you hit a set and are far more likely to blow the pot up if you do. I mis this in your EV calculation. The pot will be bigger when you hit a set and that's where most value comes from, the main reason to raise preflop imo. Also you can make a lot of succesfull cbets that will earn at least a part of your preflop investments back. If this weren't possible you'd lose more on investments preflop than a bigger postflop pot will earn you, so I think you should cbet in this case.

Nice work!

[TheRenaissance]

To me this is quite simple.

If I have read that says villain is reasonably likely to fold preflop AND to a cbet the times he decides to continue then, yeah, raise.

If villain is a loose passive callstation, then see a flop cheaply and valuebet him to death when we spike.

If we dont have a read toss a coin, or do whatever feels natural to you.

[Jouster777]

Its hard to dissect someone else's spreadsheet. Thanks for looking at it.[ QUOTE ]
How have you estimated? Even than you have manipulated the pot size for when you hit a set and are far more likely to blow the pot up if you do. I mis this in your EV calculation. The pot will be bigger when you hit a set and that's where most value comes from, the main reason to raise preflop imo. Also you can make a lot of succesfull cbets that will earn at least a part of your preflop investments back. If this weren't possible you'd lose more on investments preflop than a bigger postflop pot will earn you, so I think you should cbet in this case.

[/ QUOTE ]
I tried to make all estimates realistic and incorporate the features you bring up. So if you look at "postflop EV on nonset flop" in the raise category you will see an EV=6 when there is no RR preflop and that EV will come almost entirely from cbetting - if anything it is over-optimistic. This means that with a flop pot size of 11 you can expect to come away with a net profit of 6BB's on average (not including your preflop investment which is now dead money).

If you look at "postflop EV on set flop" this is supposed to represent the EV when you hit and the pot has been "blown up".

TheRenaissance - nothing like a read to guide our action. These numbers were meant to reflect the readless situation. If you consider readless to be a coinflip AND you believe these estimates (big if) then maybe it shouldn't be a coinflip.

[CanYouCallThis]

I don't like raising from the blinds with my pairs, 'cause in my belief on most micrlimits, players who have position are a lot more likely to call a flop CB.

Considering the fact that we will (on most cases) CB the flop, I prefer just checking/completing.

Can't give you any stats on it, but that's the reason I don't like raising with pairs from the blinds. Feel free to prove me otherwise! Like the thread, hope it improves with more actuaul stats from players. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Jouster777]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like raising from the blinds with my pairs, 'cause in my belief on most micrlimits, players who have position are a lot more likely to call a flop CB.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok...I changed it to a situation where our preflop plan = no cbet. Maybe I'm overestimating EV when we hit or something...I'm surprised its still better to raise based on the numbers. http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/3581/image2az2.jpg

[derosnec]

ev on set flop is too high in my opinion. i think back to all those times i've flopped sets on ace high/king high dry boards where the opponent folds. you typically need to flop a set on something medium and coordinated to get any action, like Jd9s3s or 6c7hTh.

[TheRenaissance]

[ QUOTE ]
ev on set flop is too high in my opinion. i think back to all those times i've flopped sets on ace high/king high dry boards where the opponent folds. you typically need to flop a set on something medium and coordinated to get any action, like Jd9s3s or 6c7hTh.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it is ironic really.
You raise preflop with 33 utg, you know for DECEPTION and FOLD EQUITY and METAGAME and whatnot, and lo and behold flop is A73r. LOLZ! I BET HAHAHA HE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT... Hero wins 2.05$.

[Jouster777]

Ok...I've reconfigured to be more conservative. In the following one we are just barely EV+ to call a RR when we limp (-$0.165 vs. -$0.50 for PF fold) and barely EV+ to call a 3-bet (-$4.2 vs -$4.5 for PF fold). If these assumptions don't fly then we need to rethink the whole calling with PP plan.

http://img58.imageshack.us/img58/2300/image2iw1.jpg

I added a column to make it clearer as to what villain must contribute postflop (on average) to get to the target EV numbers.

[derosnec]

there were other threads (i think MSNL) that showed that, unless deep, it's neutral ev at best to continue with a small pp when someone 3bets (because the 8 to 1 or whatever for flopping a set doesn't account for the times for set over set, suckouts, and flushes/straights/counterfeits, e.g., you hold 33 on a 993 flop and a 9 comes on the turn/river).

[LMAO]

[ QUOTE ]
To me this is quite simple.

If I have read that says villain is reasonably likely to fold preflop AND to a cbet the times he decides to continue then, yeah, raise.

If villain is a loose passive callstation, then see a flop cheaply and valuebet him to death when we spike.

If we dont have a read toss a coin, or do whatever feels natural to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

my thoughts also... btw i 3bet all pocket pairs from the blinds, especially vs. LP raises.

[poisonxfree]

I tend not to because the games I've been playing lately are incredibly loose passive, where I expect a raise from the blinds [after more than one limper] to be multiway, and I'm almost never taking it down on the flop. One thing I'd be curious in doing the calculations for, is a half pot sweetener raise from the blinds with no intentions of going further[obv sometimes you will if hu or what not, but in general] unless you flop a set. A friend of mine who plays higher said he likes to do this sometimes, but I haven't tried it yet.

[mvdgaag]

Would calling a raise with a small pp be more EV than raising yourself? It is a lot more likely vilain will continue when you hit a set. But you are losing more preflop, since you cannot pick up the pot on the flop.

[Machavelli]

[ QUOTE ]
it's neutral ev at best to continue with a small pp when someone 3bets because the 8 to 1 or whatever for flopping a set doesn't account for the times for set over set, suckouts, and flushes/straights/counterfeits

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is an important part of the equation being looked over. In the calculations we are assuming every time we set we win which we all know is not true.

[Jouster777]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend not to because the games I've been playing lately are incredibly loose passive, where I expect a raise from the blinds [after more than one limper] to be multiway, and I'm almost never taking it down on the flop. One thing I'd be curious in doing the calculations for, is a half pot sweetener raise from the blinds with no intentions of going further[obv sometimes you will if hu or what not, but in general] unless you flop a set. A friend of mine who plays higher said he likes to do this sometimes, but I haven't tried it yet.

[/ QUOTE ] Here's a shot at a pot sweetener using the more conservative numbers so can't directly compare to original.

http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/4830/image2ac7.jpg

[Jouster777]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's neutral ev at best to continue with a small pp when someone 3bets because the 8 to 1 or whatever for flopping a set doesn't account for the times for set over set, suckouts, and flushes/straights/counterfeits

[/ QUOTE ]


I think this is an important part of the equation being looked over. In the calculations we are assuming every time we set we win which we all know is not true.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its a very important part of the consideration. However, I am effectively incorporating it by setting EV for a calling a PF raise or reraise close to 0. Given full stacks most would consider these solidly EV+ with a PP even after considering the risk of set over set. If we are using the 5/10 rule or something similar:
The complete/call line is for <5% of effective stacks (assuming limper folds)
The raise/call line is for <9% of effective stacks when considering dead money too. This assumes limper folds - Its better than above if limper comes along.

I can continue to cut EV estimates but it still won't change the relatively greater EV for raising preflop in comparison to completing...within a reasonable range of estimates.