[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
hey guys,

one time i limped utg with 72o, another guy raised, another guy 3bet, and i !capped! because of my slight equity edge, first guy folded, 3bettor called, flop was 777 and i capped all streets and owned his aa so hard! thoughts/comments? anyone want to stove it?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you not raise preflop?

Are you saying OP's post was not interesting? His limp reraise was a mistake, but the post was very thought-provoking to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

here's the thing. it's difficult to quantify things in poker. it's a game of limited information. alot of people completely missed the point on this hand, and i didn't help the situation by trying to defend this from an equity/value-based standpoint. anyone too stupid to understand what's going on here isn't gonna get it and it doesn't do any good for me to try to explain 'cause they don't want to get it.

was this limp/3bet immediately -EV? most likely. but we are literally talking about fractions of a bet in expectation i'm giving up in the short term. this hand is not for those that think they play poker in a vacuum of constant values and unalterable equities.

fact of the matter is, people get so hung up on what amount to educated guesses, they miss the forest for the trees. READ THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD. it sets the precedent for what we're doing here. but dig deeper than, "zomg fun hand no discipline 72o lol". this is a reflection of a complete lack of understanding of what it takes to make the most money possible at a limit above .50/1.00. when you begin playing against opponents that think beyond their current pot odds, their own two cards, and how to hit the raise button, it is necessary to deviate from immediate optimal strategy(believe it or not) to maximize overall expected value. news flash: the online games are tight! so what can we do to change that? tight players don't get action. loose players go broke because of the rake and excessive losses due to playing too many hands. the key to getting paid off in online LHE is giving the illusion of action. this is exactly what i was trying to achieve with this hand. i didn't preplan it, but i saw situation that presented itself and i made a fishy looking play. in reality, however, what this play cost is more than compensated by being called down with Ahigh or bottom pair for the rest of the session. i can just see the "TAGs" at the table clamor to write notes on me, and i adjust for that. i understand that once i do this and show it down, it is essential to adjust to how my opponents will respond to me. so i bluff less but can valuebet more.

this isn't anything new. put away small stakes hold em and blow the dust off the cover of hold em for advanced players. this exact concept is discussed in a couple spots in that book(making it 3bets pf with 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], etc.). what makes you guys think this concept, which obviously had relevance to maximizing profitable play if it was put in a book(which, btw referred to games that are significantly softer than those found in today's online environment) by two of the best poker writers/thinkers ever, has any less bearing on the games in which we play today? plays like this expand your opponent's range because in their eyes your range is wider than it actually is. this means they make mistakes in the future according to the fundamental theorem while also increasing your average equity against them when you are in a pot.

once again, it's my fault to the extent that i tried to defend this play initially. but nonetheless, anyone that can't get their trunk out of their ass long enough to think outside the box isn't necessarily the player i'm trying to reach anyway.