is it really important?

[jstill]

kiddcheckers you should raise this preflop in cash games vs full stacks (or 3/4 stacks) for sure even OOP. I cant speak much to .05/.1 from actual experience as NL50 is the lowest Ive played online but the theory holds up the same.

also the argument about since they limped they dont love their hand and wont stack off, and either they are stacking off so c betting will be unprofitable or they arent stacking off often so we do have a profitable c bet, so then logically raising to build the pot to stack them doesnt make sense is COMPLETELY FLAWED, thats pretty much undeniable and better thinkers/explainers than myself have reiterated this point time and time again, so ditch that kinda train of thought.

Those occurences arent mutually exclusive, depending on the villains/tables they are simply differing distributions of occurences (between how often they call down vs the raiser on various boards or fold to a bet). Bad players are bad and stack off with pairs they make with hands they limp thats what makes them bad, and yes your raising becuz u want to build the pot to make them more liable to stack off (since theres more of an overlay for their TP hands, and flopping a set vs full stacks in an unraised pot is basically a crap pot) and also a larger pot ie more incentive for them to bluff when u have it. Also just becuz we expect them to stack off occasionally or even often (and its easier to do it in a raised pot since then you can bet pot 3 streets to get it all in whereas in an unraised pot to get it all in they ll have to raise at some point and should be less likely to get it all in due to relative stack sizes with weaker hands TP ect), doesn't mean we dont have fold equity. We'll still have more than enough fold equity (even preflop to fold out a limper or both) we re its worth getting the dead money and then on most boards even in very loose games we ll have an easily profitable c bet HU or 3 ways as they ll fold the flop >50% of the time on most boards (you can not c bet some mid coordinated flops ect).

The jist of what Im saying is that all that matters is the EV of playing this hand to a limp vs raising will be greater when raising vs 2 limpers no matter if they are tight or loose (assuming relatively fullish stacks, greater than half stacks or so), the reason for this is somewhat stated above and below this paragraph and its something most players think/ advocate on this forum including the better NL players posters (far better than myself) and Ive picked it up (and found it to be true myself from experience).

also try not to sound authoratative in your posts, Its kind of offputting when people do that esp when they may not be correct (ie its not cut and dry and they dont know 100% for sure ie its not a pot odds problem or obvious decision)and are new to the forum (ie the line "This is a check" without the slight doubt a raise could be better and the line "thats just me I like money" could be interpreted as condescending).

I hope you don't think I'm being rude to you, thats not my intent, many players check here with small pairs (I do when one limper is very short), but I think generally its less EV than raising, again there are a million posts on this kinda thing including the NL forum stickies. Again Im far from expert and I'm mostly regirgatating what Ive picked up along the way, but this situation is pretty common and in most players opinions raising here is standard, and the idea that if you're expecting them not to fold when you hit (ie they are loose), then you cant expect a c bet to be profitable is without a doubt a flawed line of thought, its a pretty common misconception though ( that its either one way or the other ie mutually exclusive ). Just felt compelled to clarify/ rebuttal that point.

[eMbAh]

[ QUOTE ]
Your argument is so incredibly flawed it's ridiculous and you're wondering if I'm serious!?

[/ QUOTE ]

?

[RobMcB]

Come on guys, this is NL10. The fish (or fishes) with TPGK are going to get it allin, raised preflop or not vs. our 333.
1)Limp in
2)Hit set
3)3/4pot flop and turn, push if raised
4)push river
5)profit

Also,
[ QUOTE ]
also the argument about since they limped they dont love their hand and wont stack off, and either they are stacking off so c betting will be unprofitable or they arent stacking off often so we do have a profitable c bet, so then logically raising to build the pot to stack them doesnt make sense is COMPLETELY FLAWED, thats pretty much undeniable

[/ QUOTE ]

Que?

[jstill]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think this play is worth it in a cash game. It just can't be plusev and screw game theory here.

Pumping the pot for a set doesn't make sense to me, as 1/8 you get a set and 7/8 you're oop w/ a board full of overs.



You're raising for oop set value here? Then expecting limpers to have a have a hand they don't love enough to raise with but will stack off with?



And if you're expecting them not to fold when you hit, then you can't expect a c-bet to help.



[/ QUOTE ]

I was basically just arguing against all these points

in the first paragraph game theory ie what is more EV raising or calling is what determines what to do so that statement is kinda oxymoronic, thats just me being a nit about the definition of game theory tho..

Anyways, the 3rd statement is just odd, as they should be more likely to stack off in a raised pot than unraised for sure, and bad players stack off with hands they limp all the time so that was a mute point I think and how often they dont stack off is an arguement to raise to pick up dead money preflop and take initiative to be able to c bet profitably on most flops, so it kind of contradicted itself.

the final statement was mainly what I was trying to discredit, the thought that raising to get people to stack off lighter and for value/ to get initiative fold equity are incompatible is simply incorrect, they are not mutually exclusive and raising provides value in both those functions simultaneously, it doesnt have to be just one or the other depending on the opponent. Most opponents will fold to the pfr on most boards often enough to make c betting profitable no matter how light they stack off simply becuz of how often the flop misses both of us completely and initiative means we get those pots. This ties into his 2nd statment in which he oversimplifies it to us flopping a set 1/8 times and winning as much as when we limp (slightly untrue but I wont argue at these stacks) and more importantly oversimplifying to just losing additional money the other 7 of 8 times. He's not taking into account how many flops we can c bet profitably (most all HU or 3 ways), so how often we win a now preflop raised pot on the flop (most of the time, far more often than when we call and flop a set and get paid) and any times we take it down preflop or thin the field so a c bet is even more likely to be profitable.

[El_Hombre_Grande]

The point to the move is simply that it is easier to stack an opponent when the pot is raised pre-flop. That is all.

Claiming this move either is or is not +EV without some knowledge of the players around him is not worthwhile.

Some people don't like to let you "steal" a raised pot. Thus they will stack off lighter (pot odds + stupidity) in a raised pot. Against an opponent that has the top pair flaw, I miniraise all pocket pairs.

It is -EV against opponents who will not stack off with top pair.

It is positive EV against those who will.

[jstill]

[ QUOTE ]

It is -EV against opponents who will not stack off with top pair.

It is positive EV against those who will.

[/ QUOTE ]

arghhh, this is what Ive been trying to say you cant claim (or the opposite) the whole time, its not just proper to raise this preflop vs certain types of opponents, its better to raise these small pairs vs almost everyone (aside from arguably shorter stacks or players who will stack off equally likely (ie with the same range of hands) in unraised pots vs raised pots and pot sized bets (or larger) vs 3/4 pot bets on 3 streets and who peel/ never fold enough post flop for c betting to be profitable on the majority of flops).

The majority of the EV increase from raising besides the point of pot building is simply in all the times we pick it up preflop or on the flop (this is really atleast as important to the EV increase of playing the hand for a raise vs a limp as pot building to stack donks or good players when we make sets, probably moreso truthfully).....

so just to play devils advocate, you say raise vs looser players call vs better players; looser players our c bets wont work as well and they might stack off as easily in an unraised pot and vs larger sized bets on each street since they are bad, so those counter the thoughts of raising vs them to some degree.

And on the flip side really the players who wont go broke with top pair theres still just as much of a reason to build the pot (to make it more likely they will and with more ease on our part aka they wont have to raise and calldown a reraise and we wont have to overbet which may be fine vs fish so an argument for limping vs them) but at the same time against those players (decent ones) raising preflop we probably take it down on the flop or preflop much more often assuming bad players call flop bets with a wider range (which maybe can't always be assumed but you get my overall point). So theres another paradox/ conflicting sentiment to this all.

really I thinks its +EV in both cases (vs decent and donkish limpers depending on how donkish and stack sizes) but if you want to say its good vs weak players and bad vs good players there are plenty of arguments against doing it vs bad players and for doing it vs good players and vice versa; that much should be obvious. But people oversimplify this all and ignore the fact much of the value comes from picking up dead money and winning a raised pot on the flop HU or 3 way with a cbet as it does from any other factor pushing for a raise (and how often we pick it up preflop or on the flop is generally so much EV, plus the times we flop sets it should out-weight most of the arguments for limping ie how often we dont flop sets and players being bad/good). Not to mention the value of having a wider raising range, and people picking up on that/ thinking youre lag/ or an overaggro idiot or stealer, and calling down lighter postflop (I'll leave the metagame aspect of this out of the argument and view it from a vacuum and raising is still preferential in my mind with the few exceptions I noted).

I have little empirical evidence to back up my contentions though and I'm repeating myself at this point so Im not writing anymore in this thread.... someone else please chime in