500NL LIVE: KK UTG+1

[GiantBuddha]

Results?

[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
Cross post:

Here is what I'm saying. SPR simply combines all of the preflop action into one and that can be deceiving. We need to think deeper than that.

Think of each individual action before the flop and how we are profiting from them individually. (Like I said, SPR simply combines all of them)

We limp UTG. We are going to do this with a lot of hands in a game of this nature. Another player limps. The button raises with what is probably a fairly wide range. This is +EV for him.

We reraise. Why are we reraising? Because we have the better hand and we want to put more money into the pot. But we fail to raise enough to limit juicy implied odds for the button to call our raise. So he calls profitably. He's made two profitable plays against us.

If the preflop action had just been one play, it would be different. If we raise to 10bb and the button calls, he is doing so unprofitably.

Do you see how my second example is way, way different from the first example? Yet they have the same SPR? Hmmm.... Think about that for a bit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this except for I disagree that is is +EV for our villain to raise a wide range in this case. We hold KK.

[Renton]

limp reraise is fine if the game is loose aggro and terrible.

if the players are even a little competent then the limp rereraise sucks. The only way in a game against decent players that you could make limpreraising work is if you were autolimpreraising KK/AA/22/33 and the occasional JQs or something.

However, if your objective is to be a good tricky tight aggressive player with a wide preflop range, then limpreraising preflop is terrible almost always.

[1p0kerboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with this except for I disagree that is is +EV for our villain to raise a wide range in this case. We hold KK.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

We're not always going to hold KK here. He's playing against our range, not against our hand.

[BotOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't think the marketing tagline of ANY 2+2 book is "We'll make you mediocre".

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually that is a bit unfortunate. I was looking for some books to help me in the smallest online NL games when I started, but there isn't that much available. Read Super System II and pushing draws wasn't that profitable for me at NL5 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Unfortunately I can't comment on PNL as I've just ordered it, but I'm very eager to read it.

P.S. I heard that the "For Advanced Players" books were first going to be called something like "for professionals" but they thought that most people don't think of themselves as pro's, but anyone going to buy those books will think they are "Advanced". Is there any truth to this?

[ActionStan]

Renton,

I'm curious as to why you think there is no place for this in anyone's game. You say it with such certainty, I would like to know your reasoning (not a troll, really am interested in your reasoning). Is the qualification the tight-tricky part.

The limp/reraise has been part of big pair play for a long time and some pretty tough big bet players have had it as part of their game for a long time. It wasn't new when Doyle wrote Super System and you still see some fine player employ it, especially when stacks start getting deep.

[MadMike]

I think there is a semantic misconception about SPR's and honestly I'm not sure the book authors are helping clear it up much.

The real point of optimum SPR for top-pair/overpair hands isn't to set up a situation where you blindly stack off no matter what (which is what people on this forum seem to read 'make commitment decisions easier' as meaning) but rather to set up a situation where someone with a weaker made hand will stack off to YOU because you made a decision for them NOT commit very difficult.

In the hand example, the point of the reraise is to get opponents to call with hands that would flop a weaker made hand, with a pot size that makes it hard for them to get away postflop. 'Juicing' the pot with the small re-raise creates a tough situation on the flop for MP1 and or Button if they would call/call and raise/call with AQ,KQ,QJ, or even QT because they have to either fold TPGK to the flop bet from KK or play for stacks- since a call of the flop bet essentially pot commits them.

I think Pokerb0y is correct that you're giving the button very good implied odds to continue with low pocket pairs- so the overall evaluation depends ENTIRELY on MP1's and Buttons range here. Does the greater potential for a weaker made hand stacking off to you with your pot manipulation outweigh the risk of a letting pp's in with odds that make setmining profitable?

IF MP1 would limp/call a small reraise and the button would raise/call the small reraise with a range like: any PP, any suited broadway, AJo+, KJo+, QJo+, 98s+ AND MP1 and the button would fold preflop to a larger raise with most of the range that would make a weaker hand than KK on the flop AND the game is such that MP1 and/or the button cannot lay down top pair on the flop THEN the play in the example is more profitable than a bigger reraise preflop.

I think the above If/And/Then statement is probably true for 500NL live- but absolutely false for most internet games of NL100 or above without a stellar read.

Overall the idea is to take the risk of giving good implied odds to setmine in order to set up a pot-size/stack size situation where a TPGK hand will stackoff to an overpair. Obviously table dynamics are important, and the raising/calling ranges are critical for the play in the example to be more profitable than just open-raising normally.

[Guruman]

ok, I'm new to this thread and only halfway through the book, but I don't get how this this line of thought meshes with the actual play of the hand:

[ QUOTE ]
the math was explained but got cut from PNL1. max effective odds vs. lrr are 10-to-1. you're 7.5-to-1 to hit a set or better. if > 1/3 of the time you hit you only get the continuation bet of say $100 instead of the full $450 then you're getting under 8-to-1 on your money effective odds wise. this sidesteps a couple cases like what happens on ace-high flops when lrr has kings - that is, it assumes set farmer doesn't take a big share of those pots, but remember when you fire on an ace-high flop and opponent has it you lose money so those balance a bit. so set farmer doesn't extract appreciably from the AA/KK/AK player.

[/ QUOTE ]

This would make sense if the plan was to bet/fold, but it's not. It's to bet/shove.

It also seem odd that you're using the presence of an A as a mechanism for avoiding paying off sets. That seems counterproductive.

What am I missing?

[Renton]

[ QUOTE ]
Renton,

I'm curious as to why you think there is no place for this in anyone's game. You say it with such certainty, I would like to know your reasoning (not a troll, really am interested in your reasoning). Is the qualification the tight-tricky part.

The limp/reraise has been part of big pair play for a long time and some pretty tough big bet players have had it as part of their game for a long time. It wasn't new when Doyle wrote Super System and you still see some fine player employ it, especially when stacks start getting deep.

[/ QUOTE ]

i should clarify what i said a little.

If there is a lot of open limping in your game, then yes you need to mix in limp reraising.

However, if there is a lot of open limping in your game, then you have already lost. Open limping is pretty much totally unoptimal poker.

What limpreraising AA/KK also screws up is your range preflop. It weakens your early position raising range, therefore allowing good players to call or 3bet your raises lightly and push you around on the flop.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if there is a lot of open limping in your game, then you have already lost. Open limping is pretty much totally unoptimal poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said this to explain what you said....but this needs to be explained. I really disagree. I think that makes perfect sense in limit poker, but not in NL. We're not playing for the blinds here.