Quasi-Awesome Preflop Question

[Joe Tall]

In this situation, as I interpret the description, I probably raise. There are times I call. There are very rare times I fold (usually a look-left tell).

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, as I interpret the description, I probably raise. There are times I call. There are very rare times I fold (usually a look-left tell).

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think raising here is terrible no matter how many respectable posters disagree with me. BTW Joe, I recently saw your videos. Keep up the good work. Very nice site.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, as I interpret the description, I probably raise. There are times I call. There are very rare times I fold (usually a look-left tell).

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think raising here is terrible no matter how many respectable posters disagree with me. BTW Joe, I recently saw your videos. Keep up the good work. Very nice site.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. If Joe advocates raising, even if only slightly, it's a pretty easy raise.

Position with dead money and initiative against retards is a pretty sweet spot to be.

Certainly better than position against lots of players, including two good ones with no dead money and no initiative with a hand that easy for them to read because it's exactly what we are "supposed to" have.

I really don't know that one needs to go any further than that in order to know what the right play is.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, as I interpret the description, I probably raise. There are times I call. There are very rare times I fold (usually a look-left tell).

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think raising here is terrible no matter how many respectable posters disagree with me. BTW Joe, I recently saw your videos. Keep up the good work. Very nice site.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. If Joe advocates raising, even if only slightly, it's a pretty easy raise.

Position with dead money and initiative against retards is a pretty sweet spot to be.

Certainly better than position against lots of players, including two good ones with no dead money and no initiative with a hand that easy for them to read because it's exactly what we are "supposed to" have.

I really don't know that one needs to go any further than that in order to know what the right play is.

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I dont see it, and I never will.

[Josh W]

I don't want to put words in peoples mouths, but it surely looks to me like this question is divided amongst lines that have nothing to do with this hand. Those who think about poker, playing the players, and not just playing the cards, advocate raising. Those who think that only the cards matter advocate limping.

In this hand, a very solid 2+2er was in the SB and I was on the button. I limped, and afterwards I asked him about it. He thought limping was correct, and I still thinking raising is...but we both say it's close.

ILOVEPOKER929...I really hoping that you are using a lousy form of hyperbole when you say that
[ QUOTE ]

Turning a profitable situation into an unprofitable one is not my idea of good poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that putting in 2 (or 3 or 4 or 182) bets preflop with an average hand (this hand is probably about the avg. limping hand that the two limpers would have), on the button, against two HORRIBLE postflop players is unprofitable, you are way wrong. In fact, if it's not profitable for your postflop abilities, you are definitely better off just mucking it preflop. Seriously and sincerely.

The way that I figure it is....if it's simply showdown poker (i.e. no postflop play), and it's me and the two limpers, I'll win about 30-35% of the time. If it's me, the two limpers, and the two blinds, I'll win about 20-25% of the time. These are simple, rough guesstimates.

Given that the limpers are both uberpassive, I won't be bluffed, and I'll have every opportunity to make my hand. Moreover, since I have position, I have a ton of postflop stealing/bluffing equity. Yes, they are very loose, but they are 40-80 players. They won't call with J9 on an A83 flop (though they will take one off with 44).

Meh, it's becoming more and more clear to me. If you have any postflop ability at all, this is a raise. If you just sit and wait until you make your hand, even on the button, you should probably muck, or maybe limp.

Josh

[Clarkmeister]

Josh,

I just like dead money and position on retards in raised pots.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
Josh,

I just like dead money and position on retards in raised pots.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Note that this means our cards don't matter!

[andyfox]

Said Josh: "If you have any postflop ability at all, this is a raise. If you just sit and wait until you make your hand, even on the button, you should probably muck, or maybe limp."

Said Clark: "I just like dead money and position on retards in raised pots."

Said Josh: "Me too. Note that this means our cards don't matter!"

I don't think any of us here "just" sit and wait until we make our hand. But limit poker in its mid-stakes variety, is very much a sitting and waiting game. To use a Sklansky analogy, if we shoot 78 there are a lot of guys who shoot higher just waiting to give us their money. If we try to make an eagle by going over the water when a birdie, or even a par (ands sometimes a bogey) will get the job done, we might end up in the water often enough to screw things up. Even Tiger tees off with a 5-iron when prudent to do so.

So methinks you go to far, although methinks you had tongue in cheek to at least some degree and were engaging in hyperbole, at least to some degree, as well. It is still true today, as it was many years ago when Mason wrote it, that our opponents wouldn't fold as much if they knew how often we were betting with hands they wouldn't bet with. But it is also true that the reason why we win is that we lose less money on the hands we lose than poorer players and win more money on the hands we win.

I've always felt that 2+2ers in general didn't give enough consideration to the value of eliminating opponents whenever possible. Clark puts it succinctly here: dead money, just you and two players who play worse than you, you with position on them, what could be finer? That's probably why I was a charter member of the preflop raise-or-fold camp. And I'm in the raise camp on this hand. But none of this means that our cards don't matter. What could be finer? You with A-A.

[Bad Lobster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I still think raising here is terrible no matter how many respectable posters disagree with me...

[/ QUOTE ]

Position with dead money and initiative against retards is a pretty sweet spot to be.

Certainly better than position against lots of players, including two good ones with no dead money and no initiative with a hand that easy for them to read because it's exactly what we are "supposed to" have.

I really don't know that one needs to go any further than that in order to know what the right play is.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, the right play would be to usually call in that situation but occasionally raise to keep the opponents guessing...I don't think you have to do it too often.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In this situation, as I interpret the description, I probably raise. There are times I call. There are very rare times I fold (usually a look-left tell).

[/ QUOTE ]

I still think raising here is terrible no matter how many respectable posters disagree with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not terrible. It's not bad. It's higher variance, true that. But it is certainly something you need to consider. Look at the spot we are in, it couldn't be more perfect. As you can see here, it's not the first time this has been brought up.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW Joe, I recently saw your videos. Keep up the good work. Very nice site.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you very much, we work hard to put out a quality product. I appreciate the feedback!