Questioning my assumptions - Pair + NFD vs LAG

[wslee00]

you have very little FE here. He just put in half his stack w/ that flop raise.

But w/ all the dead money in there, I think you have to go all-in. You're about a 45/55 dog against his range:

Board: 5h Jc 9c
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 54.5960 % 54.60% 00.00% { JJ+ }
Hand 2: 45.4040 % 45.40% 00.00% { Ac5c }

[mattnxtc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God I'm sick of preflop nits. Limping UTG with this hand is a small mistake if it's a mistake at all. Calling the big raise OOP is pretty bad though, you need to fold there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cbloom,

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] - Since there is frequently at least ONE raise on a 6-max table, and since you're limping with the intention of folding to the (almost) inevitable raise, wouldn't limping be -EV here, then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Check NLHETAP Concept number whatever, "limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely."

[/ QUOTE ]

limping in can be good if you can be outside of a normals guys raising range. If a tag raises you and your holding a hand like a5...ur almost always way behind. but if you have a hand like 67s then maybe you can call a small raise knowing your hand is almost always out of his raising range

[wslee00]

[ QUOTE ]

limping in can be good if you can be outside of a normals guys raising range. If a tag raises you and your holding a hand like a5...ur almost always way behind. but if you have a hand like 67s then maybe you can call a small raise knowing your hand is almost always out of his raising range

[/ QUOTE ]
ha - not out of my raising range

[Dan Bitel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As it is, you can't just call here, you don't have odds to spike a turn card. You need to see both cards, so I guess you should just shove.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the ONE point I haven't considered in my ponderings. And I agree, I really need to see both cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

also, you might well not get paid off even if you hit on the turn as a lot of your outs are scary for villain

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
God I'm sick of preflop nits.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Is there some deluge of preflop nittish advice around here that I'm missing? I don't read every thread.

2. The poster you're ripping is absolutely right in this case.

3. Falling back on NLHTAP isn't a good default response to anything.

I often raise preflop in this spot, but not when some LAGish opponents are very likely to raise. I'll fold it in that case. Limp/calling is not part of the equation, and that's a fair point to make, cbloom.

Kyrie: If villain is between LAG and maniac, get your money in the the middle with the most equity possible, which is now. You're ahead quite often here, and the move, while having little FE against a player of this description, might have just enough to fold out other hands that are currently beating you.

[Roadstar]

Is that the part he uses the 88 as an example to open limp with a medium stack?

Something to the effect that it negates the possibility of villains playing perfect poker by reraising strong with QQ+, eliminating 88's set value?

[ QUOTE ]


Check NLHETAP Concept number whatever, "limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely."

[/ QUOTE ]

[epdaws]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the part he uses the 88 as an example to open limp with a medium stack?

Something to the effect that it negates the possibility of villains playing perfect poker by reraising strong with QQ+, eliminating 88's set value?

[ QUOTE ]


Check NLHETAP Concept number whatever, "limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks Roadstar. If we're going to fall back on NLHTAP, I prefer to use specific counsel offered in the book as opposed to broad generalizations.

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
Is that the part he uses the 88 as an example to open limp with a medium stack?

Something to the effect that it negates the possibility of villains playing perfect poker by reraising strong with QQ+, eliminating 88's set value?

[ QUOTE ]


Check NLHETAP Concept number whatever, "limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely."

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there's a concept in the Concepts part of the book called "Limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely".

[Roadstar]

Hm I'm prob not at that part yet - what is the takeaway there? (something like building a big pot with a good drawing hand?)

Although a PP and A suited is very different IMO, first its harder to flop a flush, second its much more obvious than a set.

Please enlighten me [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]


No, there's a concept in the Concepts part of the book called "Limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely".

[/ QUOTE ]

[kitaristi0]

[ QUOTE ]
Hm I'm prob not at that part yet - what is the takeaway there? (something like building a big pot with a good drawing hand?)

Although a PP and A suited is very different IMO, first its harder to flop a flush, second its much more obvious than a set.

Please enlighten me [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]


No, there's a concept in the Concepts part of the book called "Limping in can be correct even if you think a raise is likely".

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Concept 23 page 260.