HUSNG Assertion: You should never limp.

[Nichomacheo]

Collin, say you limp with your 72 and your opponent minraises. Now, again, you're getting 3:1 with 72 and you're in position, so you have to call according to that logic. But look what happened: you've now invested 1.5bb with 72.

What now?

[shyturtle27]

Yeah, I know. I should have said "never folding on the button".

[Collin Moshman]

dboy, I agree that short-stacked is a different scenario, and with 5-10 BB I would generally play raise/fold OTB. Sorry if I didn't make that distinction in my original post.

Nihcomacheo, you pose the question:

[ QUOTE ]
Collin, say you limp with your 72 and your opponent minraises. Now, again, you're getting 3:1 with 72 and you're in position, so you have to call according to that logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you would absolutely call. Each decision is independent of prior decisions, of course, so you would still definitely call getting 3:1 with position. This may not be the ideal situation, nor is it when your opponent makes a conventional attack of ~4 BB against your button limp and forces you off the hand. But if you're able to re-adjust to your opponent's adjustment of raising more often OOP, I still think you're getting the best of it getting to play every button. Meanwhile, if your opponent is routinely min-raising your button limps, this would be a particularly weak adjustment because he is simply adding pot-sweeteners OOP. And unless he has an overpair, your hand is no worse than a 70-30 dog. Since your immediate odds are better than that AND you have position throughout the hand, you should be doing just fine in those less common min-raise scenarios.

- Collin

[jay_shark]

Collin , you aren't necessarily getting 3:1 pot odds on the button with your weakest hands . When you factor in all the raises , or even all the times when you will be forced to fold , you are actually costing yourself money to be playing junk in position .

You should almost always raise or fold on the button , but I've played against many opponents by simply limping all hands I would have raised with against others .If your opponent is likely to attack your limps with aggression , then it's my belief that limping otb can be superior to raising , to set up traps postflop .

[daveT]

The issue I have with you logic Collin is that you are not going to get paid properly with 72 off to be properly. What kind of flop are you expecting?

It would have to be a flop that would not only make your opponent call, but be willing to stack off with whatever random hand he has, I think. What do you do exactly, on a flop such a 753? Your opponent bets. Are they betting with middle pair, a draw, a better 7?

What if the flop is say 974 with a possible flush draw. You bet and your opponent calls? Does he have AK, two pair, a nine, an over that he didn't want to raise with, a better 7, or an actual flush draw. What if he really only has 46 but wants to make a play once that flush gets there?

Everything works great in math-land, but the problem with HU is that you need to be able to envision the entire situation before you can make a judgement about the value of your hand.

[Borknagar]

[ QUOTE ]
The issue I have with you logic Collin is that you are not going to get paid properly with 72 off to be properly. What kind of flop are you expecting?

It would have to be a flop that would not only make your opponent call, but be willing to stack off with whatever random hand he has, I think. What do you do exactly, on a flop such a 753? Your opponent bets. Are they betting with middle pair, a draw, a better 7?

What if the flop is say 974 with a possible flush draw. You bet and your opponent calls? Does he have AK, two pair, a nine, an over that he didn't want to raise with, a better 7, or an actual flush draw. What if he really only has 46 but wants to make a play once that flush gets there?

Everything works great in math-land, but the problem with HU is that you need to be able to envision the entire situation before you can make a judgement about the value of your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all good questions, but you do realise that you have to ask these questions with EVERY hand you play right? Not just for 72o.

[xSCWx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The issue I have with you logic Collin is that you are not going to get paid properly with 72 off to be properly. What kind of flop are you expecting?

It would have to be a flop that would not only make your opponent call, but be willing to stack off with whatever random hand he has, I think. What do you do exactly, on a flop such a 753? Your opponent bets. Are they betting with middle pair, a draw, a better 7?

What if the flop is say 974 with a possible flush draw. You bet and your opponent calls? Does he have AK, two pair, a nine, an over that he didn't want to raise with, a better 7, or an actual flush draw. What if he really only has 46 but wants to make a play once that flush gets there?

Everything works great in math-land, but the problem with HU is that you need to be able to envision the entire situation before you can make a judgement about the value of your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are all good questions, but you do realise that you have to ask these questions with EVERY hand you play right? Not just for 72o.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue with 72o (and similar hands) is that there isn't really any normal flop you can confidently get paid on. With no possible straights or flush draws you are playing purely on pairs, and unless you hit 2 pair or better there isn't anything that you can confidently be putting your money in with.

[daveT]

Yes, Bork, that was my entire point. We even have to figure out how to gain the maximum from Aces. I think that if you are going to consider a hand like 72o, you should raise with it, because that at least adds FE.