$60 Stars: On Button facing one limper holding wired 6s.

[AMT]

kev, limping and folding preflop i find to be ok here with 25bb on the button (id actually more prefer folding, but hand seems fine overall)


as far as the 35s, ive played about 50 of them and am running like ass so im gonna stick to the 27s solely for a while and not bother with a higher rake game that i suck at....yet. in my experience when i play sets of 15 or so 27s ill have 2 35s among them...if that gives you guage of frequency for their firing-rate... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Hercules]

Fold PF, you wont like any flop without a 6. And playing for set-value is just to expensive.
There`s like always someone who bets or calls and you never know if your 6`s are good.

[Chipchucker5]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont see anything other than calling being very good at all

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like limping here. You're folding to a bet on about 85% of the flops you're going to see (that is if you don't get raised off of the hand from someone behind you PF), and you're not getting near the implied odds that you need from the EP limper because his stack isn't very deep. According to HOH Vol 2, Harrington states that small pairs are not playable for set-flopping-value in the "yellow zone" (which both the hero and villain are in) because even a double up won't make up for all of the small losses one will incur on most of the flops we're going to see.

IMO, folding would be fine, as would taking an agressive approach and isolating the limper with a raise to 350 or so. This raise may take it down right away, and if it doesn't, you have position on him and there's a reasonable chance that he'll fold to a c-bet on the flop.

[sng-sam]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold PF, you wont like any flop without a 6. And playing for set-value is just to expensive.
There`s like always someone who bets or calls and you never know if your 6`s are good.

[/ QUOTE ]

<font color="red"> In my pokertars notes: This player never limps with pocket pairs so you can pretty much discount the possibility that he's flopped a set. </font>

Implied odds? Anyone? Anyone? with 25 big blinds we're not limping here in hopes of floppig a set and stacking someone? please this is not a chip spew with 25BBs

Straight Flushes,

SAM

[Hercules]

in my pokerstars notes: Sng-sam overrates implied odds with a set. He obviously thinks that utg+1 limps with a monster, that will pay him off


[img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Ok, limping in this special situation is not horrible, because of the big stack sizes. Implied odds only exist if there is something to imply on...If he has 9Ts, i guess you wont make much money. Thats why i said implied odds are just overrated.

[Chipchucker5]

[ QUOTE ]
with 25 big blinds we're not limping here in hopes of floppig a set and stacking someone? please this is not a chip spew with 25BBs

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to look at the person's stack that we're hoping to have dumped to us. While we have 25 BB's, he only has about 15 BB's which is not enough to compensate us for all of our small losses we're going to take the vast majority of the time even when we do occasionally stack him.

[Hercules]

chipchucker....its utg+1 not utg.

[Chipchucker5]

Oh dammit. I'm an idiot...sorry guys.

[sng-sam]

hercules:

tell you what we'll agree to disagree. I'll try not to be a prick the next time you post your opinion maybe you could do the same

Straight Flushes,

SAM

[Mike MacIntosh]

I would call in this spot, w/o a read on the UTG+1 limper. This play gives us the least risk, with a very high reward when we hit a big hand.