I thought this was supposed to be a good flop...

[sethypooh21]

Regarding the thought of keeping the pot small to maximize villains mistakes - they open (and over) limped. That was their mistake, now we want to 'punish' them by cleverly 'inducing' fractional equity mistakes on the flop? I understand the argument, I just find it hard to imagine a scenario where just completing PF causes someone to make an error big enough post flop to compensate for the equity we sacrificed FROM EACH LIMPER to make it worthwhile.

I can see arguments for not raising if the limpers are tightish/passivish whose open limping ranges have us in bad shape, or something along those lines. But how often does this happen?

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]
But you cannot be serious when you´re saying there is no difference between being in position or OOP in the OP.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I AM NOT!

Of course beeing OOP sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF. You stated earlier in this thread that the original poster faced the same problem regardless of he was in position or OOP. That is clearly wrong IMO


[ QUOTE ]

BUT WHY DOES IT SUCK MORE IN A 8 SB POT THAN IN A 5 SB POT?

You still havent presented convincing evidence that the negative effects of being OOP is magnified by raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you like me think that playing 99 OOP against this line up costs more than the potential EV we have preflop why would you put more money in preflop just to give it away postflop.
Sure if you intend to bet and/or call down one or two players on K86 two suited boards then being OOP doesn´t make any difference for raising or calling preflop. But I intend to check/fold many many boards and play very passively.
And I would only put in more money on favorable boards and/or when the bets comes from one late position player.

If you raise preflop you must really bet the K86 two suited board on flop and when you get a caller or two you must probably bet a blank turn again or check/call or check/fold.
You see you really don´t have a clue.And the majority of boards will give you that problem. Spewing away 0.3-0.6 sb could be an easy thing to do.
Playing mostly fit or fold (just betting,raising/calling flop when it is favorable to you) will only make you pay 0.5 sb and you´re getting excellent odds.Raising preflop and not hitting a 9 can and will cost you a lot unless you´re able to check/fold a lot of times.And I know I can´t do that.

Besides i stated earlier in this thread that our preflop equity was between 30-40% giving us 0.2-0.6Sb EV with a raise.
Both you and Mvoss said that the equity was 40% and I took your word for it.However I felt that the equity edge was too big.So I stoved both 99 and 77. 99 had about 33.5% equity and 77 30.5%(I didn´t stove it completey I stopped when the figures started to stabilize).

That means that 99 has 0.34 SB of EV and 77 0.22 SB EV if we raise.

It is funny how some people think that 99 is an easy raise here while 77 isn´t.

If our raise would give us a little more folding equity than against this line up then I would raise preflop without hesitating.

Seriously every good poster thinks I´m wrong about this and almost everything else that goes against common 2+2 knowledge. So it is nothing wrong with you Oink it is me.Maybe we should stop seeing each other

By the way a big portion of my new wealth from playing no limit are put in a nice envelope.That envelope is on its way to a slightly overweighted dane soccerfan living in sweden. I think that boy is thinking about seeing a soccergame but I don´t know for sure.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
WTF. You stated earlier in this thread that the original poster faced the same problem regardless of he was in position or OOP. That is clearly wrong IMO


[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding me. We agree on this.


[ QUOTE ]
If you raise preflop you must really bet the K86 suited board on flop and when you get a caller or two you must probably bet a blank turn again or check/call or check/fold.
You see you really don´t have a clue.And the majority of boards will give you that problem. Spewing away 0.3-0.6 sb could be an easy thing to do.
Playing mostly fit or fold (just betting,raising/calling flop when it is favorable to you) will only make you pay 0.5 sb and you´re getting excellent odds.Raising preflop and not hitting a 9 can and will cost you a lot unless you´re able to check/fold a lot of times.And I know I can´t do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is somewhat good stuff IMO, but

[ QUOTE ]
Spewing away 0.3-0.6 sb could be an easy thing to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speculative and I strongly disagree. Its still poker. Its not like you are never gonna c/f just because the pot is 9 or 10 SB in stead of 5.

[ QUOTE ]
And I know I can´t do that.


[/ QUOTE ]

The solution to this is not altering your preflop play but to get better at postflop.

I think you are making a good point but I disagree that the extra bets in the pot will have me spew away all that sweet value I squeeze out of villains preflop. Unfortunately I cant present a formal proof of this [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]


About the preflop eq. I stoved it as well and got 40% eq. I guess it depends on the ranges used. I thought I was fairly conservative.


Oh and I dont think you are wrong. I know so [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]

The solution to this is not altering your preflop play but to get better at postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly is.But I think it takes an expert player to play this hand profitably so I would recommend a tight passive play for me and OP in this spot

[ QUOTE ]

I think you are making a good point but I disagree that the extra bets in the pot will have me spew away all that sweet value I squeeze out of villains preflop. Unfortunately I cant present a formal proof of this [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well wrongly going to showdown with 99 on a single overcard board can cost you almost 5SB for example.
Raising is IMO setting you up for a different kind of play the rest of the hand than calling does.





[ QUOTE ]

About the preflop eq. I stoved it as well and got 40% eq. I guess it depends on the ranges used. I thought I was fairly conservative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I had them on:

60% range
50% range
30% range

It must be buttons range where we differ then.

[NinaWilliams]

This hand really isnt that hard to play postflop. Just c/f the [censored] ones and bet the good ones.

[steelbase]

A lot of good replies and discussion so far. I'll give my thoughts on the hand.

First, I think preflop is standard and an easy raise. I might complete if these players are the type to passively open limp JTo or QJ... but both UTG and MP were very capable of having Q3o or some such trash. 88 is borderline and I'd probably lean towards completing, because I do agree being OOP has a cost and the difference in preflop raise value from 99 to 88 I think would make it -EV.

Another thing is that the players were playing very predictable/straightforward such as calling with draws/ middle pairs and raising top pair. They would usually wait for the turn with better than top pair. On the flop if button folds or calls I have a very easy 3-bet and the hand pretty much plays itself out.

Besides hitting a 9, I would have actually preferred to see an Axx flop as I'm fairly confident neither UTG nor MP have an ace. This would allow me to take the pot down on the flop or get it HU and prevent them peeling a live 6 outer.

I actually considered c/r'ing the flop as I figured someone would bet on this board and then I can try to shut out UTG and get it HU. MP bets button raises and I c/3-bet. This would be more expensive when I'm behind, but would make the hand easier to play by retaking initiative and defining button's hand better.

[rzk]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a little fact from game theory - in multi street two-person games with multiple raises possible the value of position is negligible. not that it's relevant to the current scenario...

[/ QUOTE ]

Cool. Do you have a proof? Or a reference to a proof? Or just an informal argument?

Is it in Mathematics of Poker somewhere I overlooked?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, I really hope I didn't write that.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

i was pretty sure it's in the book, somewhere in the section on multiple-raise games and/or multiple-street games. unfortunately, i don't own the book so can't check. i remember being surprised when i read it at first but after thinking about it i convinced myself that it could be true.

but of course when one of the authors disavows this claim i have to assume i got it mixed up somehow. if i see the book in a bookstore i'll double check. in any case, if i'm mistaken and the value of position is not negligible i bet it's really not as obvious as most people here think. just try to properly prove/disprove it and you'll see why.

[mvoss]

[ QUOTE ]
Both you and Mvoss said that the equity was 40% and I took your word for it.However I felt that the equity edge was too big.So I stoved both 99 and 77. 99 had about 33.5% equity and 77 30.5%(I didn´t stove it completey I stopped when the figures started to stabilize).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're going to quote me on anything you better do it [censored] right! I never said 40%, I said 38% and I was very conservative with my ranges. I've done this with a bunch of different ranges and anything below 36% pretty much means you've used ranges for villains that are so far out that this discussion becomes meaningless. I tried to get out of this thread as I see your points and respect your opinion, but basically disagree with you on how this hand will play postflop.

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both you and Mvoss said that the equity was 40% and I took your word for it.However I felt that the equity edge was too big.So I stoved both 99 and 77. 99 had about 33.5% equity and 77 30.5%(I didn´t stove it completey I stopped when the figures started to stabilize).

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're going to quote me on anything you better do it [censored] right! I never said 40%, I said 38% and I was very conservative with my ranges. I've done this with a bunch of different ranges and anything below 36% pretty much means you've used ranges for villains that are so far out that this discussion becomes meaningless. I tried to get out of this thread as I see your points and respect your opinion, but basically disagree with you on how this hand will play postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough.It is bad to quote someone wrong.

About the hand ranges:

UTG is 65/13/.5= 60% handrange
MP is 55/30/1 = 50% handrange
Btn is 23/8.5/1= 30% handrange .Because he is more likely to limp in with suited hands that are not as many combos as hands like K7o

Those hand ranges can not be ranges that are not meaningful.

Our differences must be due to Pokerstove.We are obviously doing the wrong thing if we don´t allow Pokerstove to finish the calculations. My Pokerstove has now run several million hands (over 1 hour) and has not yet completed 1% of all hands.
The equity for 99 is at the moment 32.95%

I have put in 99 as player 2 in the hand distribution.If I on the other hand put 99 as player 3 in the hand distribution and runs Pokerstove for an hour then 99 has 39% equity. Obviously Pokerstove have an order in the calculations that may show those differences. So finishing the calculations is a must if we would like to come up with the correct equity.
But instinctively 38% of the equity for 99 fourhanded feels like a way to big equity since Pokerstove is showing equity until the showdown.I would expect AA to have something about 38-40%.

Also remember that our EV will decrease if BB calls the raise which means that we are real lucky that BB in this particular hand had 72o or a giant hole in his head.

About the ability of playing 99 OOP against this lineup. I maintain my opinion that everone except the top 10% players will lose money that are substantial if they are going into the flop with the initiative on a non-favorable flop.
Maybe I´m wrong. So be it. And I agree with you in that we disagree.

Edit: Forget the comment about AA.It is probably way off.

[Apanage]

You can forget my whole hand range post. Since I haven´t taken away some of their raising hands.I´m embaressed but sometimes I get a little bit carried away.

Edit: Seems like I´m landing in the interval of 36-38% Equity(depending on what raising range you should give the erratic 55/33 player)and using the Monte Carlo method (is that one reliable?).