Only raising preflop? Never limp?

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Qtip, I'm wondering where your success with limping to allow others in comes from. Is it that they're truly terrible (and that when they have a hand, it might as well be face-up), you're good at reading hands AND getting away from them, or something else/combo therein?

I ask because I find that those players will call a pf raise as often as not, and since I have trouble just saying no to pretty good hands at times, letting LP players or the blinds in for cheap can be disastrous.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more the combination of them folding hands PF to raises, but really sucking postflop. The hands that I like limping in with at that point are pps and like Axs where you can land a really big hand like the set of nut flush. Whereas, if you raised, it often just folds around not giving you a chance to cash in..compared to just winning the blinds. Of course, I'm not saying this is my sop, just that with players that go way too far with weak hands, I think we're better off letting them flop. At NL25, I've seen plenty of players like this. Stats in the upper 20s, that have some PF selection, but will c/c a psb all the way with middle pair, underpair or tpgk or whatever. Instead of raising and getting the blinds only, I think we're a lot better off getting to the point where we can exploit their weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Many people around here don't get this. They are more interested in winning pots than money.

[Jeff76]

The thing is, most players (especially at micro limits) are really BAD at post flop play. I'm not so hot either (I'm getting better though), but there are plenty of players that get married to a high pair and go way to far, even in the face of obvious strength. (And I'm not just talking about AA or KK- I mean calling bets on every street with QJ on a queen high board.

If I'm playing 78s I'd love to be in a hand with A8o, K9s, and J4, even if I have to play OOP. I feel I am good enough with these cards not to invest too much with a second best hand, but able to extract some value from those who will when I make a big hand.

The real question is, when you raise, what are you trying to accomplish?

Are you trying to win the blinds?
Who cares- they are hardly worth anything compared to the money behind.

Are you trying to show aggression so you can win the pot on the flop easily?
Not a bad reason to raise, really, but you have to ask yourself if this is the most profitable line with a hand that is capable of winning a huge pot (as suited connectors and PPs can). At some tables it might be, but at others there might be a lot more value in letting weaker players in cheap.

Are you trying to mix up your game so that your big hands get paid off?
This is a good reason to raise, but only if your opponents are paying attention. Most of them aren't at micro levels.

To build the pot so that when you hit you get paid off big with a big pot hand?
Well, this is good I think, but only if you are going to get callers who will pay you off big and you feel it's likely the hands you want to be up against won't raise you off your hand. If your table is tight enough that a raise with a speculative hand will either win the blinds or end up heads up OOP against a strong hand, then you aren't really setting yourself up with win a big pot.

I think limping can be a fine play at the right tables, as can raising. But I think the key is to think through what you want to happen when you/limp raise, and what weaknesses in your opponents you are trying to exploit.

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to win the blinds?
Who cares- they are hardly worth anything compared to the money behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree with this statement. You should never forget that all poker is is a struggle for the blinds and antes. If it wasn't for the blinds and antes there would be no poker, as there would be no incentive to play less than AA preflop.

You would be the winningest player at any level if you can just steal the blinds 15% of hands at Full Ring.

[Jeff76]

[ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with this statement. You should never forget that all poker is is a struggle for the blinds and antes. If it wasn't for the blinds and antes there would be no poker, as there would be no incentive to play less than AA preflop.

You would be the winningest player at any level if you can just steal the blinds 15% of hands at Full Ring.

[/ QUOTE ]I did not say the blinds are not worth winning- I said they are not worth anything compared to the money behind. That is, if your opponents are prone to make big bet mistakes, while winning the blinds might be profitable, winning the money behind is MORE profitable.

Yes all poker is a war over blinds and antes- but NL in particular is an implied odds game where pots often become so big that the initial blinds are only a fractional part of the amount won or lost.

Perhaps my "who cares" was a bit cavalier- money is money after all. However, too many players focus on PF play, starting hand values, etc., when the whole focus of big bet poker is the big bets that occur on later streets. If you can get those big bets more often by limping (and there are some opponents against whom this is very true) then limping is more profitable than trying to steal blinds.

[myheadhurts]

[ QUOTE ]

Many people around here don't get this. They are more interested in winning pots than money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in maximising my equity. Many people around here don't get this. They are more interested in winning stacks than money.

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with this statement. You should never forget that all poker is is a struggle for the blinds and antes. If it wasn't for the blinds and antes there would be no poker, as there would be no incentive to play less than AA preflop.

You would be the winningest player at any level if you can just steal the blinds 15% of hands at Full Ring.

[/ QUOTE ]I did not say the blinds are not worth winning- I said they are not worth anything compared to the money behind. That is, if your opponents are prone to make big bet mistakes, while winning the blinds might be profitable, winning the money behind is MORE profitable.

Yes all poker is a war over blinds and antes- but NL in particular is an implied odds game where pots often become so big that the initial blinds are only a fractional part of the amount won or lost.

Perhaps my "who cares" was a bit cavalier- money is money after all. However, too many players focus on PF play, starting hand values, etc., when the whole focus of big bet poker is the big bets that occur on later streets. If you can get those big bets more often by limping (and there are some opponents against whom this is very true) then limping is more profitable than trying to steal blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not trying to be arguemenative, and I understand your points, and I do agree to some degree.

The only reason that later streets are so important due to the big bets there is because most players do not understand the struggle for the blinds.

Once other money has been put into the pot, there is a struggle for that money as well. Theoretically there should be no such thing as implied odds, or they shouldn't be nearly as important as they are, but the reason that they have become so important is because people play so bad.

I agree with the other poster that players concentrate on stacking their opponents much more than they should.

[myheadhurts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with this statement. You should never forget that all poker is is a struggle for the blinds and antes. If it wasn't for the blinds and antes there would be no poker, as there would be no incentive to play less than AA preflop.

You would be the winningest player at any level if you can just steal the blinds 15% of hands at Full Ring.

[/ QUOTE ]I did not say the blinds are not worth winning- I said they are not worth anything compared to the money behind. That is, if your opponents are prone to make big bet mistakes, while winning the blinds might be profitable, winning the money behind is MORE profitable.

Yes all poker is a war over blinds and antes- but NL in particular is an implied odds game where pots often become so big that the initial blinds are only a fractional part of the amount won or lost.

Perhaps my "who cares" was a bit cavalier- money is money after all. However, too many players focus on PF play, starting hand values, etc., when the whole focus of big bet poker is the big bets that occur on later streets. If you can get those big bets more often by limping (and there are some opponents against whom this is very true) then limping is more profitable than trying to steal blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Be careful on your wording here - what you say doesn't quite logically follow. I'm sure you didn't mean what you said, but it needs to be said for clarity:

Just getting big bets "more often" isn't enough. You have to get them often enough so that

(a) The extra big bets occur often enough to outweigh the blind steals and c-bet wins (remember blind steals and c-bet wins occurs much more often)

(b) Remember that you are inviting better flushes in. Playing 87s is fine against J4s...unless they are the same suit. If you are going to try to get value against people overplaying TPWK, you risk losing a lot against better flushes.

Do you use pokertracker? Could you post your SC filtered results?

[diebitter]

For Lag play anyway, blind stealing is a major feeder, and mainstay of shortball play. In SuperSystem 2, Dolly Brunson makes this point, though he says it feeds his big hands when he's the underdog (WTF?)


For TAG, I guess the blinds are not that big a deal.

[myheadhurts]

[ QUOTE ]
For TAG, I guess the blinds are not that big a deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree.

The idea behind good TAG play is to be looser than you appear. Hence, you use your image to steal blinds with lesser hands, and you are raising with non-premium hands more often than your opponents think. i.e. you are using your image to steal blinds.

Conversely, the idea behind LAG play is to be tighter than you appear, and you have a big hand more often than your opponent gives credit for.



The point by jhill above is an important one. You are, against good players, playing for the blinds. Sure, against bad players you COULD ignore the blinds and play for the money behind, but thats only because they suck. It is NOT good poker theory against strong players and you will be found out as you move up. It is a weak player vs strong player point though and has nothing to do with TAG vs LAG.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Many people around here don't get this. They are more interested in winning pots than money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested in maximising my equity. Many people around here don't get this. They are more interested in winning stacks than money.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is more of a limit strategy, NL is infact more about winning stacks. In NL it is often correct to forgo some equity early on to stack someone on a later street.