Should we raise small PPs from the blinds with limpers?

[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.

[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.