Is Matt Flynn and company wrong here? WARNING 1-2NL PREFLOP

[winningfish]

Table so wild that everyone at the table raises 10xBB PF?? I'd like to see that.

[imozyslow]

[ QUOTE ]
Table so wild that everyone at the table raises 10xBB PF?? I'd like to see that.

[/ QUOTE ]

play live

[rbenuck4]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are the qualifiers from the text: It's a wild $1-$2 live game, the "standard" opening raise is $20, and effective stacks are $400. You are perceived as very loose and willing to gamble. You estimate your relatively tight opponent's range as AA-TT, AK-AJ, ATs, KQs, and possibly KJs and weaker suited big cards.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, given those assumptions, I think this is a fold. As you stated in your text, your equity against his hand range is about 50%. Also in your text you state very clearly that OOP you should usually lean towards folding "Out of position = out of action". We have invested 1BB in this pot so far, why invest another 9BB or more with a raise OOP with a hand that has 50% equity.

In the hand, Matt suggests we raise to $40 ($20 more to the raiser). He brings up an interesting concept that he expands upon later in the text very well about stack to pot ratios and making the pots the correct size so its easy to get it all in if the flop is favorable. It's a concept that I sort of intuitively knew but never actually looked at the math behind it. Anyway, I don't think this is a good situation for it.

If we do flop a hand that we are willing to get it all in with, our equity against his range goes down. If the flop comes Ace rag rag, its going to be tough to get all in if he has 1010-KK, and its not a certainty that we get it in versus AJ or A10s. Much more likely we are looking at AK, a split with AQ, and unfortunately sometimes AA. If the flop is Q high, again its tough to get 1010-JJ to commit, and most of the hands we are getting it in against we are behind (by a lot I might add). So this all leans me towards folding preflop because I hate playing this hand OOP.

I love games where the "standard" raise preflop is really large. I do NOT fall into the trap of going along with the table as far as calling those raises. I tighten up tremendously when it comes to calling those raises (Gap concept). However, when I make the raises, I also go for the 10x BB raise but I do it with hands that are FAR ahead of my opponents range when they call. This means that I might fold a couple rounds in a row (losing 3BB) but then if I get even one caller when I make a 10x BB raise, my equity against that caller more than makes up for me tightening up preflop.

[Sunny Mehta]

Hi rbenuck4,

Good comments, and thanks for the post. However, I think a few of the key points of analysis have been left out in this thread, so let me elaborate a little.

The real "key" in this hand is your opponent's specific tendencies. Namely, he doesn't bluff much, he plays predictively preflop and postflop, he is passive, and he overvalues big card hands like AdTd, KsJs, etc. (BTW, I absolutely think these tendencies are very common of players in live $1-$2 games.)

This is the exact type of player against whom making a play like a min-reraise preflop is perfect. He will basically give away his hand. If he reraises you, you know you are up against the portion of his range that has you in bad shape. If he doesn't, you know you are in good shape. Also, reraising does set up a good SPR (as you mentioned) and also gives you initiative - utilizing fold equity postflop is effective against this type of opponent.

Against a different opponent in a different game with different tendencies, how you'd play this hand might completely differ.

Another poster asked about this hand in a different thread, so I thought I'd paste his question along with my response:


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have a question about the AQ hand on p.131.

According to SPR min-reraising maximizes your ev postflop when called, so you min-reraise. Given the range assigned to villain do we want him to call? If not how do we know that minraising, which has zero fold equity preflop, is better than for example making a 3x reraise which has some fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]


you want him to call because we're assuming that he re-re-raises with the hands that dominate you, so if he flat calls it means that he has a hand which you have very good pot equity against, as well as initiative and fold equity on the flop....

making a bigger re-raise is certainly an option (and probably the more "accepted" line - along with calling) and will yield more PREFLOP fold equity, but you are essentially turning your hand into a bluff because he's only calling with hands that crush you.....

so then it becomes a comparison of the EV of winning the immediate preflop pot vs. the EV of thickening the preflop pot and playing out the hand postflop....it's a complicated calculation because of the large decision tree branches of possible ranges of flops with possible ranges of his hands with possible actions by both of you....

but the point of the example is just to show an alternate way of dealing with a hand like this by using REM creatively....sometimes rather than playing your hand preflop to "take the pot down right now", you can make more money by playing postflop poker.....

[/ QUOTE ]

[Janis N.]

I haven't read the book yet, but is it mostly going to be about playing against morons like the one described?

[MatthewRyan]

i like my odds with AQs vs 1-2 live morons, especially a straightforward nit.

[ipokeder]

ya robot nits are pretty tough to beat

[ipokeder]

i need matt flynn to write books for me so that i can beat nits by minraising them preflop with ace queen suited

[MatthewRyan]

Matt - is there any situation at a say a 3/6 online game where it would be good to miniraise a CO/button opener?

[rbenuck4]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi rbenuck4,

Good comments, and thanks for the post. However, I think a few of the key points of analysis have been left out in this thread, so let me elaborate a little.

The real "key" in this hand is your opponent's specific tendencies. Namely, he doesn't bluff much, he plays predictively preflop and postflop, he is passive, and he overvalues big card hands like AdTd, KsJs, etc. (BTW, I absolutely think these tendencies are very common of players in live $1-$2 games.)

This is the exact type of player against whom making a play like a min-reraise preflop is perfect. He will basically give away his hand. If he reraises you, you know you are up against the portion of his range that has you in bad shape. If he doesn't, you know you are in good shape. Also, reraising does set up a good SPR (as you mentioned) and also gives you initiative - utilizing fold equity postflop is effective against this type of opponent.



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that minraising makes the hand easy to play from that point on, in that if you are raised, you know to go away, and if he calls, you have a good SPR to get it all in with favorable flops. I still feel however, that risking 20BB to set up this play is too much. Fancy play syndrome is not the right term for what this is, but its close to what I am trying to get at. You are making a very sophisticated play but it costs waaaaay too much.

Let's assume for sake of argument, that he 4 bets with QQ+ and AK, and we fold in those instances (if he had QQ then theoretically we are making a mistake by folding but that's besides the point). We just lost 20BB that way. He calls the extra $20 the other times.

We miss the flop 2/3 of the time, and even if we continuation bet, you say he overvalues hands like A10s and KJs so many of those times he will call or raise the flop and we are done.

Of the 1/3 of the time we do hit the flop, the only hands we are getting any more money from him are AJ and A10 when we hit an Ace and KQ or QJ when we hit a Q. Those situations are very few since there will be only two aces or two queens left respectively.

Overall, I think we are putting way too much money at risk OOP when we can just fold and wait for a better spot and better position. BTW, what do you do with the AQs on the button in this situation?