|
|
#11
06-17-2007, 05:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
[ QUOTE ]
Limping small pairs shorthanded in early position is bad because of one simple reason - most of the time nobody will have a big hand or make a huge hand on the flop. The person who shows the most aggression is the person who wins the money in these situations. [/ QUOTE ] This is irrelavent when people don't need a hand in order to put their stacks in. ie Donkey committing with any piece of the flop / LAG abusing the hell out of position over multiple streets. Even a good TAG who's floating the turn in position fairly often throws a pretty large spanner in the works. 
|
|
#12
06-17-2007, 05:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Limping small pairs shorthanded in early position is bad because of one simple reason - most of the time nobody will have a big hand or make a huge hand on the flop. The person who shows the most aggression is the person who wins the money in these situations. [/ QUOTE ] This is irrelavent when people don't need a hand in order to put their stacks in. ie Donkey committing with any piece of the flop / LAG abusing the hell out of position over multiple streets. Even a good TAG who's floating the turn in position fairly often throws a pretty large spanner in the works. [/ QUOTE ] Your comment doesn't make much sense. First off, players do need a hand to put their stacks in. And most any hand is going to be better than a small pair, unless you're only talking about when you hit a set. And if you are only talking about when you hit a set, then you're sorely mistaken to believe you constantly get paid off for whole stacks with sets in unraised pots.
|
|
#13
06-17-2007, 05:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
[ QUOTE ]
Your comment doesn't make much sense. First off, players do need a hand to put their stacks in. And most any hand is going to be better than a small pair, unless you're only talking about when you hit a set. [/ QUOTE ] Which players are you referring to here? See, there's this thing in poker called bluffing, maybe you've heard of it? And there's LOADS of players who just looooove to do it when they have this other poker thing-bob, called position. Also there's many players who think a "hand" constitutes not merely a pair, but also any overs / draw as well. [ QUOTE ] And if you are only talking about when you hit a set, then you're sorely mistaken to believe you constantly get paid off for whole stacks with sets in unraised pots. [/ QUOTE ] Since when do you need a stack on average to make >= 8.5 times youir initial investment?
|
|
#16
06-17-2007, 06:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
[ QUOTE ]
A note about oversets, why not just tighten up in early position and only play a bit higher pp's only. [/ QUOTE ] This seems very bad... Oversets happens there is nothing effective to do about it
|
|
#17
06-17-2007, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
Im just speaking out loud and how is it very bad. Oversets do happen yes, but you can fold 22 in ep its not a sin. Im just talking about how we can possibly defend against oversets creativly thinking and the only thing that I can think of is when utg, or ep why not just fold the very low pocket pairs (im not saying usually just talking out loud).
|
|
#19
06-17-2007, 06:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
does anyone fold 22-55 UTG in 6-max?
|
|
#20
06-17-2007, 06:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL SH> Small pairs in early position
[ QUOTE ]
....because raising low pocket pairs from EP is massively profitable on their own and also increases the value of your big pocket pairs in early position. [/ QUOTE ] lol at raising low pocket pairs from EP is massively profitable, it's probebly profitably but absolutly not massivly. Care to show me a large PT sample?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
