Touney Question From Jeff 76

[David Sklansky]

"Early in a tournament with longer blind levels and 100BB effective stacks. You are on the button with TT and it is folded to the CO who limps. Is a raise mandetory here?"

Of course not. Anyone disagree?

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not. Anyone disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

How can anyone disagree wtih "mandEtory"? But since I always like to stir the pot I will answer this with a resounding "it depends". Though little if anything in practice is mandatory in Poker Play the same may not be true in tournament play or it may be. I do believe that one can make a good arguement for raising but I'm not sure that on can make a good arguement for limping. The reason for this is that since you are the button any reason for liming would in fact be part of or at least be nullified by a good arguement for raising. For instance "trapping". Since you are the button a small raise would more than likely be called preflop and because the pot is bigger is more likely to induce a mistake by your opponents on the flop. Rather than belabor this since you never comment on my posts anyway I am going to leave it here. If a raise is not mandatory it is close.

leaponthis

[schroedy]

Phil Gordon uses this example (his hand was 99) in a slightly different context in his book and argues for a limp. The difference is that in his example there were a few more players in the pot.

Phil's reasoning is that, "Sure a raise will safely get the blinds and antes, if any plus the bets of the limpers. But a limp will lay a trap that could pay-off big time." In the actual play of the hand he uses as justification I think he was against AK, AJ and god only knows what else when the flop came AJ9 (with two diamonds, being somehow relevant but I am not going to look it up now) and he more than doubled up early in the tournament and took the chip lead.

Essentially, his point is that early in the tournament, limping with pairs and set-farming then making a big pot is better than raising and taking the safer route to a small pot.

Early in a tournament trapping has more value is the point, I guess.

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that in his example there were a few more players in the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't seriously believe that these two situations are similar. Do you?

leaponthis

[LearnedfromTV]

Not mandatory but usually best.

[LearnedfromTV]

I love how phil gordon's example had someone either openlimping or limping behind w/ AK, and someone else doing the same w/ AJ. And how somehow he wouldn't have doubled up if he had raised.

There is so much bad logic in that paragraph.

[schroedy]

Please explain to me how the presence of more (or fewer) limpers detracts from (or adds to) Gordon's point that it may be better to trap with pocket pairs early, rather than just trying to pick up the small pot.

Gus Hansen makes the same point in some obscure, poorly produced DVD. "I'm not really all that interested in just picking up the blinds at this point."

[leaponthis]

[ QUOTE ]
Please explain to me how the presence of more (or fewer) limpers detracts from (or adds to) Gordon's point that it may be better to trap with pocket pairs early, rather than just trying to pick up the small pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't commenting on Gordon's point. I, in my admittedly sarcastic manner, was asking if you could not see that the two situations were not similar. In Gordon's (poor) example he has more limpers (at least two more) from various positions. This in itself creates a favorable limping situation for small pairs. 9,9 is not much different than 6,6 in this case. Plus the potential for a big pot is much greater the more limpers you have.

In the Sklansky example the only limper is the cut off. A limper less likely to have much of a hand. The pot is relatively small making it less likely someone will be tied on with less than a premium flop. Your raise is not to try and pick up a small pot although that can't be all that bad if you do. I could go on but I'll let others elaborate plus I really need a shower.

leaponthis

[schroedy]

Here are Gordon's own words:

"I remember a hand I played in the $5,000 NLHE Event at the 2002 WSOP. It was still the first level of blinds, $25/$50 and no one had much more or less than the $5,000 in chips we started with. Three players limped into the pot. Seated in late position, I looked down to find 9-9.

I strongly suspected that I had the best hand and that a raise to about $300 could take down the pot. I decided, however, to just call. The small blind completed the bet, the big blind checked and six players saw the flop. AsJs9d.

The blinds checked. Then all hell broke loose when the next player bet $300. The second player called. Another player raised to $1,500 before the action got to me! Of course, having flopped a set of nines, I moved all-in, and I got called by what turned out to be AdJd. I was 78.7% to win and my hand held up. I raked in a $12,000 pot.

Had I raised before the flop, I would have won a paltry $225, barely a ripple to my $5,000 stack. By merely calling I traded my small preflop positive expectation for huge implied odds and, thanks to a little good fortune, became the new chip leader at the table and in the tournament.

When the blinds and antes are small in comparison to my stack size, I try to play my small pocket pairs (22-66) and my medium pocket pairs (77-JJ) as cheaply as possible and against as many opponents as possible. I want to flop a set and have the best possible chance that an opponent will make a good (but second-best) hand. With these pairs, I either win a very big pot or lose a very small pot."

Little Green Book, pp 54-55.

Note that none of this logic depends heavily on the number of players in the pot in front of you. You limp and try to drag the players in behind, hoping they catch 2 pair while you catch your set. It is a line of thinking that parallels Lindgren's "double up or go home" philosophy of getting into races early to accumulate a huge stack. These tournament pros are making theoretically "bad" plays that can result in accumulating a big stack (because they know what to do with that when they have it).

I am not saying I agree with Gordon (or Lindgren), but merely pointing out his (their) argument(s).

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
Here are Gordon's own words:

"I remember a hand I played in the $5,000 NLHE Event at the 2002 WSOP. It was still the first level of blinds, $25/$50 and no one had much more or less than the $5,000 in chips we started with. Three players limped into the pot. Seated in late position, I looked down to find 9-9.

I strongly suspected that I had the best hand and that a raise to about $300 could take down the pot. I decided, however, to just call. The small blind completed the bet, the big blind checked and six players saw the flop. AsJs9d.

The blinds checked. Then all hell broke loose when the next player bet $300. The second player called. Another player raised to $1,500 before the action got to me! Of course, having flopped a set of nines, I moved all-in, and I got called by what turned out to be AdJd. I was 78.7% to win and my hand held up. I raked in a $12,000 pot.

Had I raised before the flop, I would have won a paltry $225, barely a ripple to my $5,000 stack. By merely calling I traded my small preflop positive expectation for huge implied odds and, thanks to a little good fortune, became the new chip leader at the table and in the tournament.

When the blinds and antes are small in comparison to my stack size, I try to play my small pocket pairs (22-66) and my medium pocket pairs (77-JJ) as cheaply as possible and against as many opponents as possible. I want to flop a set and have the best possible chance that an opponent will make a good (but second-best) hand. With these pairs, I either win a very big pot or lose a very small pot."

Little Green Book, pp 54-55.

Note that none of this logic depends heavily on the number of players in the pot in front of you. You limp and try to drag the players in behind, hoping they catch 2 pair while you catch your set. It is a line of thinking that parallels Lindgren's "double up or go home" philosophy of getting into races early to accumulate a huge stack. These tournament pros are making theoretically "bad" plays that can result in accumulating a big stack (because they know what to do with that when they have it).

I am not saying I agree with Gordon (or Lindgren), but merely pointing out his (their) argument(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

Both this

[ QUOTE ]
By merely calling I traded my small preflop positive expectation for huge implied odds and, thanks to a little good fortune, became the new chip leader at the table and in the tournament.


[/ QUOTE ]

and this

[ QUOTE ]
I try to play my small pocket pairs (22-66) and my medium pocket pairs (77-JJ) as cheaply as possible and against as many opponents as possible . I want to flop a set and have the best possible chance that an opponent will make a good (but second-best) hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

depend heavily upon the number of players in the pot.