40-80 AQ hand

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we can fold to a raise on the turn though.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must play online too much. of course we can fold to a raise on the turn. what do you beat? what do you think they're putting you on? any raise is for value - OP does not look like he has one pair here.

[rafiki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think we can fold to a raise on the turn though.

[/ QUOTE ]

you must play online too much. of course we can fold to a raise on the turn. what do you beat? what do you think they're putting you on? any raise is for value - OP does not look like he has one pair here.

[/ QUOTE ]

With that in mind though, there are some thinking players that are going to start picking up on that and will crush you with turn raises on draws and other semi (or full bluffs). I'm not saying you're wrong here. But I think if someone is willing to open themselves up to folding TP TK 100% of the time when raised on the turn, it could end up being a big mistake.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
there are some thinking players that are going to start picking up on that

[/ QUOTE ]

again, too much online play. live players don't think, at least not to the extent to raise a worse hand here.

[ QUOTE ]
if someone is willing to open themselves up to folding TP TK 100% of the time when raised on the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

this would be close to valid if OP had raised preflop and flopped an ace and put in this much action. that way his hand is obviously a TPTK-ish hand. the hand in OP is obviously not, he looks like he has a monster.

[mongidig]

If your opponents are super loose and limping with trash all the time then raising is the theoretical correct play preflop here. However, I ignore those posts from players who use the words "always" and "everytime" when applied to hands like this. There are times when limping can make you more money because you have underrepresented your hand and may get someone to overplay theirs against you.

I sometimes raise here and sometimes limp depending on the situation.

I also believe that the term "lol" should be banned.

[rafiki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there are some thinking players that are going to start picking up on that

[/ QUOTE ]

again, too much online play. live players don't think, at least not to the extent to raise a worse hand here.

[ QUOTE ]
if someone is willing to open themselves up to folding TP TK 100% of the time when raised on the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

this would be close to valid if OP had raised preflop and flopped an ace and put in this much action. that way his hand is obviously a TPTK-ish hand. the hand in OP is obviously not, he looks like he has a monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was talking much more generically then this hand. Also to say "live players don't think" is certainly giving too little credit to some opponents. I'll agree with you that the whole reason I moved up to mid limit was the volume of donks in the live game. But I think a lot of the discussion we have on here has to be focused on how to beat good players, as well as bad. Obviously each hand then has to be adjusted to the read you have on the villain. The only point I'm trying to make is that yes, in live games, people raise the turn with hands you are ahead of. It happens all the time. And there's never a clear cut "fold/call" approach you could take to always being right. Poker would be too easy if there was.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
that's a good point. I can't really figure out the strength of AQ without taking account that we'll go to the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

It means you miss the point of the limp. The point is to make it easier for weak draws to fold on the flop. If you go into an analysis with the assumption that everyone calls till the end you have completely disregarded the point of the play.

In this case the preflop raise eliminates nobody and doubles the size of the pot, when you have good pot equity. To make up for this your opponents need to stay in and beat you half as often as they would have if the pot were bigger and they had better odds to draw. This will happen if you have good opponents who consider pot odds properly when drawing.

Now, suppose you have weak opponents who will stay in and draw anyway, despite the smaller pot. You hope that the negative ev for them calling on the flop with improper odds will be greater than what you gave up preflop by not raising.

That's the theory. How you prove it I'm uncertain. Perhaps you would need to use something like Turbo Texas Holdem with robots programmed to play a certain way.

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
There are times when limping can make you more money because you have underrepresented your hand and may get someone to overplay theirs against you.

I also believe that the term "lol" should be banned.

[/ QUOTE ]

lawl

[rafiki]

[ QUOTE ]

If you go into an analysis with the assumption that everyone calls till the end you have completely disregarded the point of the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I absolutely conceded the correction that those pokerstove numbers did in fact mean nothing given that their meaning could only be interpreted come river showdown time.

I think the point daver makes about poor players being married to a 4-6 outer either way is a valid one. It's one of the only reasons I think his point is correct. At this point I'd like to point out that I also don't currently raise in that spot (I'm still far too passive in a lot of spots). But I think I'm going to start doing it more.

[emerson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you go into an analysis with the assumption that everyone calls till the end you have completely disregarded the point of the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I absolutely conceded the correction that those pokerstove numbers did in fact mean nothing given that their meaning could only be interpreted come river showdown time.

I think the point daver makes about poor players being married to a 4-6 outer either way is a valid one. It's one of the only reasons I think his point is correct. At this point I'd like to point out that I also don't currently raise in that spot (I'm still far too passive in a lot of spots). But I think I'm going to start doing it more.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the bad players will call anyway. While I can't prove it, this much has to be true: if we benifit from the better players folding when they don't have proper pot odds to draw, we must benifit more when inferior players call without the proper odds. This is why that argument cannot make sense. If it made sense then the players who folded properly would be the ones playing poorly. There is not a situation where we fair better because of correct play on the part of the opponent. This violates the fundemental theorem.

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If you go into an analysis with the assumption that everyone calls till the end you have completely disregarded the point of the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I absolutely conceded the correction that those pokerstove numbers did in fact mean nothing given that their meaning could only be interpreted come river showdown time.

I think the point daver makes about poor players being married to a 4-6 outer either way is a valid one. It's one of the only reasons I think his point is correct. At this point I'd like to point out that I also don't currently raise in that spot (I'm still far too passive in a lot of spots). But I think I'm going to start doing it more.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the bad players will call anyway. While I can't prove it, this much has to be true: if we benifit from the better players folding when they don't have proper pot odds to draw, we must benifit more when inferior players call without the proper odds. This is why that argument cannot make sense. If it made sense then the players who folded properly would be the ones playing poorly. There is not a situation where we fair better because of correct play on the part of the opponent. This violates the fundemental theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you want certain hands to fold doesn't mean you don't make money when they call.