Cold calling with AJs and KQs

[Hyperrrprank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If AJs and KQs are good multiway then why wouldn't we just call rather than r/r and squelch action behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even suggesting that a r/r is a good option. I'm saying it's a clear fold in most small stakes online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, I think you would have gotten a very different response if you'd specified that you were talking about small or micro online games. Many of us responding play live, where the play is much looser and much less aggressive.

If those are the games you're talking about, I'm unclear why you are trying to use Ed Miller's SSHE book. It is written for live play and makes no claim about being a guide to online games.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If AJs and KQs are good multiway then why wouldn't we just call rather than r/r and squelch action behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even suggesting that a r/r is a good option. I'm saying it's a clear fold in most small stakes online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, I think you would have gotten a very different response if you'd specified that you were talking about small or micro online games. Many of us responding play live, where the play is much looser and much less aggressive.

If those are the games you're talking about, I'm unclear why you are trying to use Ed Miller's SSHE book. It is written for live play and makes no claim about being a guide to online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the differences are so huge, Two Plus Two needs to do a better job differentiating them, both in their book titles and in their forum names. The book is named Small Stakes, this forum is Small Stakes. It's all the same company. What gives?

[Hyperrrprank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If AJs and KQs are good multiway then why wouldn't we just call rather than r/r and squelch action behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even suggesting that a r/r is a good option. I'm saying it's a clear fold in most small stakes online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Alex, I think you would have gotten a very different response if you'd specified that you were talking about small or micro online games. Many of us responding play live, where the play is much looser and much less aggressive.

If those are the games you're talking about, I'm unclear why you are trying to use Ed Miller's SSHE book. It is written for live play and makes no claim about being a guide to online games.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the differences are so huge, Two Plus Two needs to do a better job differentiating them, both in their book titles and in their forum names. The book is named Small Stakes, this forum is Small Stakes. It's all the same company. What gives?

[/ QUOTE ]

This forum is pretty good at dealing with both live and online play, provided people know which you're talking about so they can adjust their assumptions about the table texture. Live players also will defer to online players in responses if you note that you're talking about an online game.

I'm less sure if SSHE applies or not, I realize I may have spoken too soon. I just assumed that the average game described in SSHE isn't happening as frequently online with the stories and posts I've been reading. My guess is that when the book was written the differences weren't so pronounced, but I've only got one side of the story myself.

Anyone with experience in both online and live care to speak up? Does SSHE apply to online games?

[TheCount212]

I only play live, but reading this forum it seems that you're exactly right re: the applicability of SSHE, Hyper.

[leo doc]

To the extent the SSHE provides good, sound generic poker advice, it would apply to both live and on-line games. However, the on-line environment, above the micros, has become much tougher and aggresive. Those aren't the games that SSHE was written for. One other thing to keep in mind, don't use SSHE for short-handed on-line games. I "got the t-shirt" trying that a couple of years ago.

[Yepitis]

The post says "in a tight game". You have to think about all the hands he might raise with, not just the ones we can beat.

Reverse domination sucks with hands like AJs & KQs assuming we don't hit our flush, but if we do then we want as many people in the hand as possible. So I can't see three betting this because if there are callers and we get no part of the flush we are in trouble.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is going to call two bets cold they will call 3 bets cold, and you will have position on the UTG raiser. Raise it unless you know something about UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope you play like that vs my UTG raises

[SNOWBALL]

a lot of UTG raisers in your games have a tighter range than this:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

376,706,880 games 0.031 secs 12,151,834,838 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 33.161% 30.42% 02.74% 114607800 10313768.00 { KQs }
Hand 1: 66.839% 64.10% 02.74% 241471544 10313768.00 { TT+, AJs+, KQs, AQo+ }

That should be pretty close to your default assumptions. If they are loose raisers, then adjust. If you know nothing about them, don't just say "well maybe he is a loose raiser he could have KTo. I need to take a chance, b/c this could be profitable"
That's totally the wrong way to think about gambling in general. It's a frame of mind that people have when they place a big bet on a basketball game because of a rumor they heard from a dubious source.

Let's give UTG raiser a stupidly loose range (top 20%)


1,595,867,328 games 0.005 secs 319,173,465,600 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 51.647% 49.19% 02.46% 785035824 39189388.00 { KQs }
Hand 1: 48.353% 45.90% 02.46% 732452728 39189388.00 { 66+, A4s+, K7s+, Q9s+, J9s+, T9s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

You see how loose his range has to be before we become even a SLIGHT favorite? Also, remember that when we hit our hand and get action, it's often not going to be the kind of action we want, because we could easily be dominated and drawing to 3 outs or less.

[Mitke]

As stated here, the reasoning between the for the cold-call with AJs, KQs is that there will be enough people to enter the pot behind you.

How many would you need in the pot is a key question here (I don't know the number, somebody could calculate that, please?)- and the probability of that happening is dependent on the table texture and how many are still left to act behind you. Naturally, the UTG's raising standards also affect the decision.

The typical online full ring I play (2/4 - 3/6, Ongame, Party, Stars and Prima) rarely has a flop-% much over 30%. In those games cold/calling is probably a mistake. Fold unless there's X LP's behind that could lure in the blind(s) as well.

[egocidal]

thats probably the best explanation I've seen on 2p2 of a point I didn't understand. Nice.