6-Max UTG Raising ranges

[Big_Jim]

SCs are really f-ing tough to play OOP.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all this, though I open with SC's 100% of the time until I get a feel for the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do the opposite. Why would you want to be playing seven high OOP against total unknowns? I play very tight until I have a basic read on everyone. That also gives them time to peg me as a tight player, at which point I can open things up a little.

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]

I just remembered you play at FT so I think our comments should be along the same line here, since FT plays way different from Party. Like I said in my post I never LRR. Do you find you can get away with limping low pockets and scs UTG in the 2/4 games there? When the 5/10 is juicy I feel like I can get away with it but when it's playing medium I would never dream of open limping against those nits. And when it's tough... well... I play in the 2/4 games with you [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

I don't think you should group SC's and SPP's in the same category, really. SPP's are wayyyyy easier/ more straightforward to play in this situation. I think limping SC's in EP is bad and I generally won't do it, as it becomes difficult to play vs raiser OOP in bloated pot and its much harder to pick up the small pots when you don't have initiative. Pocket pairs on the other hand, very simple. You hit or you don't (of course sometimes you may find it profitable to make a play at a certain flop, or flop something nice like an OESD and figure to have good FE, etc), and when you do, you have several options, especially vs. the common overaggresive players I described in my previous post.

[EverettKings]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with all this, though I open with SC's 100% of the time until I get a feel for the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do the opposite. Why would you want to be playing seven high OOP against total unknowns? I play very tight until I have a basic read on everyone. That also gives them time to peg me as a tight player, at which point I can open things up a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I'm a total unknown too, and they will assume my raises have credit until proven otherwise.

[TheBeloved]

are you guys calling raises with the same hands ? and also what are you reraising ?

[AJFenix]

[ QUOTE ]
are you guys calling raises with the same hands ? and also what are you reraising ?

[/ QUOTE ]

This thread is only about UTG standards. I think most people are generally going to call one raise and fold to a normal sized raise-reraise (not min-min) if they are limping. I don't think MSNL 2+2'ers are limp-reraising hardly ever in these games, either.

[mperich]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise PF, Normal Conditions:
AK-AJ
AKs-A7s
22+
KQ
KQs-KJs
Other suted broadways: Some percentage of the time, otherwise folding.
SCs: Some percentage of the time (smaller than it used to be) otherwise folding.

Something like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This fits me pretty much exactly.

-Mike

[TheBeloved]

yeah my bad. I'll start separate thread.

[edge]

[ QUOTE ]
{0, 0, 1} for everything

22+
A8s+
ATo+
KQo/KQs

add in a few times i randomly raise stuff like T9s, 75s, 85s, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

This plus all suited Broadways.

[Megenoita]

The only thing I don't understand in most people's raising standards is that everyone seems to raise 22+. I don't really understand the advantage of 22-66 over JTs/QJs. You say it's hard to play OOP, but how would you play 22? A problem I foresee with raising 22 UTG is that most low flops where you're probably good, players would think you have missed, and if they donk or c/r, don't you have to release?