theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

I've been thinking.

I know the standard preflop raise is 4BB+ 1BB per limper. However, I find that at the stakes that I play (.05/.1, .1, .25), there are so many LP players that will call your raises oop, with garbage, etc. I believe that they would be completely oblivious if you varied your raising amounts from hand to hand. Not only that, they would be no more/less inclined to call if you were to raise an extra BB or so preflop.

With that being said, could it ever be profitable to raise more (5-6 BB) with your premium hands (QQ+, AK), while raising less with more marginal hands, and when you're merely trying to steal blinds in position?

Re: theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

Hi,

I agree with the general idea, I'll try to explain why.

I think there are three main reasons why we raise pre-flop.
1) To cut the field and issolate.
2) To get more money in the pot when we are ahead, and less when we can be behind
3) To have the betting lead and so the agression, so at later streets we have folding equity when we c-bet on a missed flop.

At microstakes, people are as you said willing to call with any hand huge raises. And not only 6 BBs, but much more, even 40BBs with hands like JTs or 97o.

So, point 1 does not work with the "normal 4BB raises", you can not get them to fold K8o.

Point 2 does work perfectly, and as they are willing to call huge raises with marginal hands, there is a EV+ in raising MUCH bigger pre-flop, and betting for value on every street. But, we have to be able to win a showdown.

Point 3 does not work, when we have AK we can not get them to fold Q8 on a Q52 rainbow board, so there is from my point of view -EV in c-betting when the flop is missed.

So I think the strategy must be adjusted according to this. Raise much much more with the top 3 premium hands that can win a showdown AA, KK and QQ. How much? Until you can cut the field to 1 or 2 players at maximum to value bet every single street.

And hands like AK can not play the same way, as they can not value bet every street and do not have folding equity, so if they don't make a hand at a showdown, they will be called by medium pair. So I think limping with them might be ok. Afterall, when we hit the board hard, they will be able to pay anyway.

Regards ...

Re: theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

[ QUOTE ]

And hands like AK can not play the same way, as they can not value bet every street and do not have folding equity, so if they don't make a hand at a showdown, they will be called by medium pair. So I think limping with them might be ok.


[/ QUOTE ]

Limping in with AK sucks. But do you guys agree with the general principle against donks?

Re: theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And hands like AK can not play the same way, as they can not value bet every street and do not have folding equity, so if they don't make a hand at a showdown, they will be called by medium pair. So I think limping with them might be ok.


[/ QUOTE ]

Limping in with AK sucks. But do you guys agree with the general principle against donks?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this has to be taken in context, and the context here is the table. If you don't have folding equity, you can not cut the field, your cbets with AK, AQ, and AJ can be called all the way down to the river with 66 on a T3238 board, how do you extract money from them with AK or AQ, and at the same time do you protect your self from going broke with JJ to the player that is playing T6o on the T62 board?

I think this is consistent with Sklansky's considerations on The Theory of Poker, on loose games the semi-bluffs have EV- because they do not have folding equity, so you have to tight up on your semi-bluffs, and a c-bet with two overcards for me is a form of a semi-bluff. On the other way, I'll be willing to bet strong a combo draw, cause when I hit my magic cards and the semi-bluff turns into a value bet they will be paid big time by top pair weak kicker.

Regards ...

Re: theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

[ QUOTE ]
Limping in with AK sucks. But do you guys agree with the general principle against donks?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. When playing against donks, you restrict semi-bluffs, bluffs, steals and c-bets. Instead, you value bet relentless and for as much as they will call.

When you have AK preflop, it is usually the best hand so you have to value bet, and that means raise. Yes, you will miss the flop a lot and you will have to fold it. But when you do hit the flop, now you'll be against a guy with AT or KJ and your value bets kick in and you will more than make up for all those times you raised and then folded.

You won't win many pots in this game but when you do win a pot, make sure it is a decent size and the best way to start a decent size pot is to raise pf and get callers.

Also keep in mind that in games like this, your hand is actually better than it looks. For example you have TT and the board is K 9 5. You might still be able to value bet here and get calls from a guy with A9 who is drawing slim.

Also keep very good notes on how they play. In my above example where you have TT, villain may check/call or just call with A9 or something similar. If he has a K, he may bet out or raise. He is basically telling you what he has by his play. Be very watchful of this.

Re: theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

I find that Tight Aggressive play cleans up in the Loose Passive type of games you are describing. Straight ABC is all you need. Ratchet it up, and bet as big as the action will allow.

Re: theory about PF play against uNL calling stations
 

I agree on the AK. Raise pf, 3-bet pf.
The value on later streets when you hit is enough to cover the missed flops. If you hit 1/3, you need to make 3x the pf raise on the hand when you hit. That is not too difficult as most of the time in this kind of LP tables your pf raise got called by 2-3 players which almost alone gives the odds even without folding equity.