Quasi-Awesome Preflop Question

[elindauer]

pretty clear limp IMO. When my opponents' main mistake is that they are too loose, I want to play small pots against them, not big, especially when I hold seven-high. Looseness is punished most severely in small pots.

If I limp in, then I can basically play fit-or-fold, which is a really easy way to play and highly profitable against the players described. When I raise, I have to try to out-guess them, as I semibluff and bluff off chips trying to make loose players fold. While a good player can certainly show a profit this way, I don't think you win as much as you can by limping.

Note particularly that if these players have any image of me, it's going to be that I am a lag. Bloating the pot with no hand hoping to make them lay down later feels pretty ill-conceived.

As for mixing it up... mixing up your play against two guys who have been desribed as not even noticing what you've been doing is quite a stretch. Take the +EV play. Save the mix ups for the tough games.

Finally, dominating hands in the blinds really don't concern me. I'll easily get away from a second best hand in a small pot should the tough player show aggression, and it's really the straight and flush type hands that will be my bread and butter with this setup.

-eric

[BryanC]

I'm realy surprised at how many people are saying this is a raise, i personaly cant see past limping for the reasons stated earlier but for all the people who say they wanna raise some amount of the time to 'mix it up' im interested to know approx. what percentage of the time are we raising here ?

[vmacosta]

The problem with raising a huge range here is that if the blinds are really good then they won't be folding very often at all and you will be getting 3-bet much more than you'd like.

That said, I think I raise 98s+ here so this hand is obviously somewhat close.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
for all the people who say they wanna raise some amount of the time to 'mix it up' im interested to know approx. what percentage of the time are we raising here ?

[/ QUOTE ]

As the first guy to offer the "mix it up" policy, I'd say I would raise this maybe 10-15% of the time. That's why I voted limp in the poll.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm realy surprised at how many people are saying this is a raise, i personaly cant see past limping for the reasons stated earlier but for all the people who say they wanna raise some amount of the time to 'mix it up' im interested to know approx. what percentage of the time are we raising here ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Raising is more fun than calling and standard limit holdem is boring. I think thats why so many people want to raise here.

No matter how expert some people get in this game, the most important variable in any poker decision will still usually be their own two cards and this hand is not an exception, but nobody wants to hear this banal advice. They wanna raise cuz raising is cool.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
for all the people who say they wanna raise some amount of the time to 'mix it up' im interested to know approx. what percentage of the time are we raising here ?

[/ QUOTE ]

As the first guy to offer the "mix it up" policy, I'd say I would raise this maybe 10-15% of the time. That's why I voted limp in the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you feel you need to raise, this seems like excellent advice on the % you should raise.

-eric

[andyfox]

Said Josh: "If you have any postflop ability at all, this is a raise. If you just sit and wait until you make your hand, even on the button, you should probably muck, or maybe limp."

Said Clark: "I just like dead money and position on retards in raised pots."

Said Josh: "Me too. Note that this means our cards don't matter!"

I don't think any of us here "just" sit and wait until we make our hand. But limit poker in its mid-stakes variety, is very much a sitting and waiting game. To use a Sklansky analogy, if we shoot 78 there are a lot of guys who shoot higher just waiting to give us their money. If we try to make an eagle by going over the water when a birdie, or even a par (ands sometimes a bogey) will get the job done, we might end up in the water often enough to screw things up. Even Tiger tees off with a 5-iron when prudent to do so.

So methinks you go to far, although methinks you had tongue in cheek to at least some degree and were engaging in hyperbole, at least to some degree, as well. It is still true today, as it was many years ago when Mason wrote it, that our opponents wouldn't fold as much if they knew how often we were betting with hands they wouldn't bet with. But it is also true that the reason why we win is that we lose less money on the hands we lose than poorer players and win more money on the hands we win.

I've always felt that 2+2ers in general didn't give enough consideration to the value of eliminating opponents whenever possible. Clark puts it succinctly here: dead money, just you and two players who play worse than you, you with position on them, what could be finer? That's probably why I was a charter member of the preflop raise-or-fold camp. And I'm in the raise camp on this hand. But none of this means that our cards don't matter. What could be finer? You with A-A.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Said Josh: "If you have any postflop ability at all, this is a raise. If you just sit and wait until you make your hand, even on the button, you should probably muck, or maybe limp."

Said Clark: "I just like dead money and position on retards in raised pots."

Said Josh: "Me too. Note that this means our cards don't matter!"

I don't think any of us here "just" sit and wait until we make our hand. But limit poker in its mid-stakes variety, is very much a sitting and waiting game. To use a Sklansky analogy, if we shoot 78 there are a lot of guys who shoot higher just waiting to give us their money. If we try to make an eagle by going over the water when a birdie, or even a par (ands sometimes a bogey) will get the job done, we might end up in the water often enough to screw things up. Even Tiger tees off with a 5-iron when prudent to do so.

So methinks you go to far, although methinks you had tongue in cheek to at least some degree and were engaging in hyperbole, at least to some degree, as well. It is still true today, as it was many years ago when Mason wrote it, that our opponents wouldn't fold as much if they knew how often we were betting with hands they wouldn't bet with. But it is also true that the reason why we win is that we lose less money on the hands we lose than poorer players and win more money on the hands we win.

I've always felt that 2+2ers in general didn't give enough consideration to the value of eliminating opponents whenever possible. Clark puts it succinctly here: dead money, just you and two players who play worse than you, you with position on them, what could be finer? That's probably why I was a charter member of the preflop raise-or-fold camp. And I'm in the raise camp on this hand. But none of this means that our cards don't matter. What could be finer? You with A-A.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great post Andy. I was following you right up until the conclusion which seems to contradict the rest.