Weakly played overpair

[DPK99]

If you had JJ-AA, would you have bet preflop? If so, then why?

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but it's not 72o, and it's not even close to that.

[/ QUOTE ]Agreed. I fired of a hasty reponse just trying to make a point. I meant to imply that in my last post, but I guess I didn't. Either way, I conceed [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

And my point was that we aren't going to get to showdown very often with this hand, which makes it play much the same as 72o. But the few times we ARE able to get to showdown it's nice to have the high pair as opposed to 7 high.

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, it's probably thin either way. I just think this is a spot where you're better off trying to win a small pot than trying to force a big one and risk usually losing a small one.

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think we're trying to "force" a big one by limping. I think we're just taking a shot that is available to us, full well knowing that it might not work out. I agree that it's a thin decision either way, and sometimes I'll raise and other times I won't.

But I'm much more inclied to raise K9s or QJo here than TT simply because TT has a much better chance of taking down a big multi-way pot.

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't we just call it a 50/50 raise/limp and agree to disagree? You've at least convinced me it's not an automatic raise preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]DONE!

[XHitman014]

I don't understand why we wouldn't raise.We have the best hand (probably) and we have position. Why give someone else a chance to beat us and not charge them for the chance? Plus, by not raising, we are losing the opportunity to build a big pot in the case we flop a set. Limping occasionally may be a nice weapon, especially if one of the blinds fires a raise and we can call in position, but giving hands like K9o good odds to beat us seems counterproductive to me.

[mayesie]

I hate limping w/ TT in this spot, for the following reasons:

- Effectively, it gives the blinds a free chance to out-flop you.

- It gives you no information on the villain's possible holdings. A raise should narrow-down the vilain's range, at least a little.

- You're almost certain to have the best hand, along with position. Raising enables you to better push these edges.

- A small pot reduces the chance that you’ll get someone else’s stack, when you hit your set.

The argument that you're turning your hand into 72o by raising, doesn’t seem right. Based on position alone, the villain is almost never coming over the top. You’re simply giving up too much by not raising, while making it more difficult to play after the flop.

If there are multiple limpers, and I’m in one of the Blind Positions, then limping here is very reasonable.

If you think you’re beaten on the turn, the villain must have exactly 88, 33, A4, or AA-JJ (AA-JJ seems very unlikely). I don’t blame you for folding the turn, but I think raising before the flop would’ve made it easier to play this hand.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why we wouldn't raise.

[/ QUOTE ]We don't raise if we think allowing the blinds in cheaply will pay off more in the long run when we flop a set than playing TT as a high pair against a single opponent. Playing TT as a high pair means we'll be playing for a small pot that we will win more often; playing for set value means we'll win a big pot less often.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, by not raising, we are losing the opportunity to build a big pot in the case we flop a set.

[/ QUOTE ]This depends on what the blinds do. If they fold to our raise then we end up with the same sized pot when we hit our set, but less of a chance of getting paid off.

[ QUOTE ]
giving hands like K9o good odds to beat us seems counterproductive to me.

[/ QUOTE ]We are giving hands like K9o good odds to win the pot, but not a lot of our chips since we'll not be investing a ton in just a single pair. We are playing Deepstack NL- the point is not to win pots, it is to win chips.

Once again, I think it's a thin decision between limping and raising; both are valid and should be considered.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
Effectively, it gives the blinds a free chance to out-flop you.

[/ QUOTE ]Yes, and most of the time we'll lose a small fraction of our stack when this happens. Other times we'll lose a bit more, but we'll almost never stack off.

[ QUOTE ]
- It gives you no information on the villain's possible holdings. A raise should narrow-down the vilain's range, at least a little.

[/ QUOTE ]If we are playing for set value, villian's range isn't hugly important.

[ QUOTE ]
- You're almost certain to have the best hand, along with position. Raising enables you to better push these edges.

[/ QUOTE ]The pot is tiny and worth very little, so therefore protecting our stake in it isn't really that important. The REAL chips are in the stacks of our opponents, and TT is hand that can extract those chips better when it hits a set ESPECIALLY when we have a set in position.

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that you're turning your hand into 72o by raising, doesn’t seem right. Based on position alone, the villain is almost never coming over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]Position is what makes 72o play like TT in many (but not all) situations. My 72o examples was a bit dumb and I retract it, but the point I was trying to make still stands: there are a TON of hands we can raise here profitably but that will rarely win big pots. TT can make the kind of hand that will pay off big, so I'm more inclined to play it that way.

[ QUOTE ]
I think raising before the flop would’ve made it easier to play this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]We aren't looking for the easiest way to play the hand, nor even the way that will win the pot most often. We are looking for the way that will be the most profitable, and I think this could be a situation where encouraging a multiway pot could be more proiftable in the long run than raising.

[XHitman014]

I understand what you're saying. This may come down to a difference in playing styles. I would prefer to win many small pots in the early stages of the tourney versus going for the homeruns. I also like to camoflauge my raises so that I get called with my solid hands. Raising on the Button looks like a steal attempt to me and will hopefully earn me future bets later in the tourney. Numerically speaking, I may earn more now by calling and playing a multi-way pot. In the long run, however, I like people to know that I like to raise limpers when I have position. If I do this several times, I'm looking to squeeze as much value as possible out of my premium hands later on.

[Fiksdal]

[ QUOTE ]


Out of curiosity, what do you do with JJ in this spot?



[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for quite valuable discussion, Seke. JJ I defineatley raise with. The value of the 99+ pocket pairs increase exponentially, and with for instance JJ you are a lot more likely to flop an overpair, and again your opponents are more likely to flop a top pair kind of hand. Even more valuable with QQ, etc. Pretty obvious.

Jeff, great posts. You expressed a lot of arguments in a very convincing way.


Btw, to people who are reading this, in most online tournaments with more shallow stacks, I would never limp TT in this situation. If I had for instance a stack of t2000, the situation would be quite different. Now, taking down the current pot would be a fine result, so would raising and taking it down on the flop. Also, playing it for set value would have been more marginal, because of stacks there would be a lot less to win when I flop a set. Keep this in mind, and don't consider my advice in this thread when you play online tournaments with shallow stacks.

[mayesie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, and most of the time we'll lose a small fraction of our stack when this happens. Other times we'll lose a bit more, but we'll almost never stack off.

[/ QUOTE ]

An awful lot of things need to go right, to stack one of the blinds when we flop a set. Though I don’t have exact figures, I’m not counting on this happening enough to make limping a better play. In the cases where we’re able to stack one of the blinds, it seems they’d probably be willing to call a small raise to see the flop. If there are 3 or 4 limpers to you (before the flop), I like limping on the button w/ TT a lot more.

[ QUOTE ]
- If we are playing for set value, villian's range isn't hugly important.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I don’t like playing strictly for set value, in this specific situation. I mentioned a situation above, where limping is more attractive.

[ QUOTE ]
We aren't looking for the easiest way to play the hand, nor even the way that will win the pot most often. We are looking for the way that will be the most profitable, and I think this could be a situation where encouraging a multiway pot could be more proiftable in the long run than raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

The profitability of any play is directly tied to the ability to make correct decisions. There’s a lot to be said for playing in a matter that makes future decisions more clear, unless you’re doing it in a way that allows your opponent to play nearly-perfect against you.

Though I don’t fault the Hero for folding the Turn, I’ll venture to say that he’s folding the best hand a decent amount of the time. If the Hero raises before the flop, he makes it a lot more expensive for the villain to check-raise the flop, thus increasing the likelihood he’s not screwing around. I must admit that I probably wouldn’t play a monster in the same manner as the villain, but we don’t have anywhere near enough info to know how the actual villain plays his monsters.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I must admit that I probably wouldn’t play a monster in the same manner as the villain

[/ QUOTE ]If you are villain, what hands do you play this way?