Button with rags

[Mhoram]

9 handed No limit.

What are the circumstances you like to try to play a hand from the button with rags?

Obviously, if it's folded around to you, you can make a standard steal the blinds raise. What if someone has entered the pot?

72o on the button. Would you be willing to call or raise with the intention to steal preflop or on the flop..

If one player had limped into the pot?
If two players had limped into the pot?
If one player had raised preflop?
If one player had raised and another called preflop?

Assume the blinds are not defenders, only get involved with a legit hand.

Do you decide case by case or are there some preset standards you have here?

I find myself lately looking for a reason to get involved from the button, regardless of my cards, some general advice on when and when not to do so would be helpful.

[Mike]

You have to be confident from observing past behavior what the players in the hand will do when facing agression from you. If you raise and they will likely reraise, you may as well throw some extra chips in the pot before the action gets to you and then fold on your turn to act.

[Bigka79]

i think this comes back to the old when should i limp with aces question. the simple answer...never. well close to neer there was a thread around here one time that said if all circumstances were correct to limp with aces you would be doing it like one in every 20k hands. that was for limit though although i dont see why you would wanna play these hands from the button.

by looking to get involved we play too many hands, make too many mistakes lose too much money - that not fun

[veggies]

In a cash game I don't think stealing the blinds with rags is worth it just because you have the button. The blinds are too small relative to your stack to really need to steal. Why bother getting involved with a hand that if called will only cost you money?

[SplawnDarts]

Personally, my answer is "never"

A general principle of poker is that you always need one of two things:

1) Multiple ways to win, possibly of somewhat low probability

or

2) One way to win that comes in a high percentage of the time.

This is the thinking behind the semi-bluff, suited connectors, playing to scoop in split games, playing smooth hands that can draw or stand pat in late position in KCL etc. It's a big theme of poker.

So when you raise on the button, you need either 1) or 2). I see two basic ways that can win - either you bluff everone out of the hand before the flop or on the flop, or else you hit something and win at showdown. It's possible a 3rd barrel on the turn might work, but I wouldn't really advocate that.

By raising 72o your violating the general principle above since it satisfied neither 1) nor 2) - there's essentially no chance of winning at showdown, so you're purely playing the bluff. And the bluff doesn't come in often enough to qualify for 2).

Moral of the story is that I wait for at least a bit of value in the hole before I make that play. 76o or maybe even 75o, sure. AXs, hell yeah. K7o? Sure. But not 72o.

[Mhoram]

I was thinking in terms of tournament play where the blinds were large enough to be worth stealing but not so large that you would be on a one and done steal. With an M of say, 20, you could make a play on the pot preflop (even just a min raise or call to set it up) and have plenty left behind to do something on the flop.

I figured i'd leave it open to interpretation, tournament or cash games, though I already figured it wasn't worth it in a cash game.

How does this relate to the advice to bluff only with your worst hands? Afterall, if i'm considering this i'm not going to showdown regardless.

Weak player in middle position limps. Folded to you on the button, you make a 3xbb raise with rags to setup a steal on the flop if you like it. One or both blinds fold. Rainbow disconnected flop with an ace or king, MP player checks to you, you bet 1/2 pot and take it down if he missed. If not you've lost, what, six BB?

If you start calculating his likelyhood of having something.. 33% to make a pair with unpaired hole cards. Minimal chance of having a pocket pair bigger than tens with no preflop raise or reraise.Likelyhood of pocket pairs sixes and lower folding to overcards. Certain small percentages for him being suited and matching the suits of a two suit board..etc etc.. And if he raises into you or you don't like the texture of the flop you check it down and fold. This is the scenario i'm thinking of, any new thoughts?

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]

How does this relate to the advice to bluff only with your worst hands? Afterall, if i'm considering this i'm not going to showdown regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this advice come from? Because I'm pretty sure it's dead wrong. I can't think of any bluff that wouldn't benefit from outs, which suggests that your bluffing range should be made up of things you could call for value with, and things that you don't quite have the odds to bet or call for value with, but that have some value nonetheless.

That would be the exact opposite of your "worst" hands I think.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How does this relate to the advice to bluff only with your worst hands? Afterall, if i'm considering this i'm not going to showdown regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this advice come from? Because I'm pretty sure it's dead wrong. I can't think of any bluff that wouldn't benefit from outs, which suggests that your bluffing range should be made up of things you could call for value with, and things that you don't quite have the odds to bet or call for value with, but that have some value nonetheless.

That would be the exact opposite of your "worst" hands I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky (ToP and maybe NLHE:TAP) I believe, and I think Dan Harrington briefly touched on this as well. It's worded a little differently than OP has it.

[SplawnDarts]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How does this relate to the advice to bluff only with your worst hands? Afterall, if i'm considering this i'm not going to showdown regardless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where did this advice come from? Because I'm pretty sure it's dead wrong. I can't think of any bluff that wouldn't benefit from outs, which suggests that your bluffing range should be made up of things you could call for value with, and things that you don't quite have the odds to bet or call for value with, but that have some value nonetheless.

That would be the exact opposite of your "worst" hands I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky I believe, and I think Dan Harrington touched on this as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, any thoughts on what the hell they're thinking?

I can see a potentially difficult choice between drawing and semi-bluffing a hand if the bluff has equity about equal to its cost. But if you're going to select any of your bluffs from the range of hands you would otherwise fold, I would think you would use the strongest part of that range rather than the weakest.

For example, I can't see any advantage to bluffing a board miss in holdem with KQo, and then folding the same board with AQo (also a miss) in otherwise identical circumstances just because KQo was weaker.

Maybe I'm mis-understanding the issue here.

[Gonso]

IIRC, this is more of a preflop concept. After limper or two you'd probably call with T9s rather than bluff with it, since T9s plays better. Harringotn made reference about a hand being "too good" to bluff with for similar reasons.

I'm fuzzy with the specifics since I've been reading 7CS4AP and non-HE stuff lately, and I'm kind of sleepy. If someone else doesn't pop up with the locations of this stuff I'll find them later on.