[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly in context? No, that thread started with a straddle and (dead) restraddle. The SSHE quote was not about straddles. It was talking about real, meaningful, informative raises and reraises, which indicate stronger than random hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is in context.

The quote directly relates to maniac/wild games where people could be playing anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is absurd. You think the authors of SSHE meant to treat a blind raise and blind reraise, with random hands, the same way as a raise and reraise from loose players? That's not my reading of SSHE. You are the only one I have encountered who thinks SSHE says that.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] In a loose, passive game, raises still show a lot of strength. After a raise from someone who raises 10% of his hands, it doesn't matter whether he limps with 5% or 50% of the other hands.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] In a loose, aggressive game, raises don't show as much strength, but they still show some. If someone raises 30% of the time UTG, they are too aggressive, but you still have to beat a top 30% hand to expect to be ahead.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Blind raises do not show strength. They show stupidity. If you like money, get in there and gamble when you have a hand like KQo which has a huge equity edge over the random hands people are playing, and the barely-better-than-random hands the others are playing because they want to win a monster pot.

SSHE gave such a tight range because it was talking about loose, passive games, where your opponents are contributing a lot of dead money, but somone is indicating that he has a strong hand. Against an opponent whose raising range is looser, SSHE says to loosen up. Just as you shouldn't treat a late position raise the same way as an early position raise, it is ridiculous to interpret a blind raise the same way as a raise from a loose passive player. You have a mental block on this, and it is costing you money. It means your advice here is terrible, and should not be followed by people who like money.

When players are so bad that they are taking the same hand ranges to battle for 4 bets that very loose players normally do for 1, why are you running away? That a lot of money has gone in with weak hands should make the pot more attractive to an advantage gambler, not less. Do you think you are going to get outplayed so much in the monster pots that your preflop equity edge is reversed?

Hot and cold against 6 random hands, AKo wins 23.5%, AQo wins 21.6%, KQo wins 21.0%, and AJo wins 20.1%. Par is 14.3%, so these all have a greater edge than AKo heads up against a random hand. Just as SSHE says, these big pair hands gain value when you add opponents playing trash, though not as much as big pairs or big suited hands do. So, if you would play them in a tight game, you should normally be happier playing them when people play loosely. Instead, you want to play AQo in tight games, and fold it against trash.

Well, I'm getting tired of this. James asked me to post more in this forum, but so far it looks like a waste. I expect to see more people siding with me on something this obvious.

I'm willing to wager $1,000 that a simulation (of real poker, not hot and cold showdown) would show that AQo, KQo, and AJo are all clearly profitable in UTG+2 against 6 random hands in a capped pot, even if you don't give the player with a good hand a postflop skill advantage over the bad players. Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? If not, I win. Good-bye.