Are you saying that in your opinion the raise doesn't show a profit?.

If we are making mistakes postflop, they are happening regardless of having the 4 extra bets in there so I don't know why you bring that up. We assume we play at least as well as others postflop, if not then we also need to work on that.

The whole low frequency argument is exaggerated because the same concept applies in the small blind or any position, or when we have JJ or good Ax hands, or when we are playing 4 or 5 handed, or when only the button and sb limp, and now your frequency is once every couple of hours in a loose passive game.

Not raising in that situation is indicative of a player not understanding some basics about the game, and the player is most likely making other similar mistakes, so studying to plug that leak will benefit other aspects of his game.

How can it be irresponsible to suggest it?, or is this just another Vegas vs. Rest of the world pissing contest?

Yeah leo is right on here.

And definitely lead the river as played. I would bet/3-bet/call.

But it is. Stove your equity against the limpers' ranges. (You may even keep JJ and/or QQ for one or two of them.) Report back.

Those words were, indeed, mine. They may be laughable, but they're not irresponsible.

And one last thing, I don't deserve any such reputation.

No need to report "back". As I said in my most recent post:

36%+ versus four random hands, and high 20s to low 30s for all assortments of "reasonable" hands (and well under 20% for all assortments that include a higher pocket pair).

As such, against random hands my $3 pre-flop raise earns me approximately $2, in return for which I voluntarily subject myself to a much rougher trip through the rest of the hand.

In regard to aggression: Controlled > Reckless

Meanwhile, I disagree with your claim that your reputation is undeserved - though far less than I did before this debate began. That said, no fool are you.

However, I remain uncertain as to whether or not the same can be said of this guy . . .

Yes I am. I'm also saying that ending a sentence with a question mark and a period is equally unprofitable.

Do you not understand why a larger pot (especially one that's larger because WE raised) is typically the last thing you want when playing a hand like TT (or AKo, for that matter) out of position ?

TT survives a lot of flops intact, by which I mean it's rarely left crippled by the flop. However, it rarely flops a monster, and often flops "weak" (i.e., it often has to contend with one or more overcards and/or a board that's at least moderately wet), in which case you're much better off with a small pot since it tends to make opponents' actions more readable. On the other hand, when it does flop good (e.g., an overpair to a fairly dry board), or when it flops huge (a set), the $2 in lost pre-flop equity can almost always be regained post-flop via options that are frequently unavailable to a pre-flop raisor.

Every worthwhile LHE text makes this point, as do many books on poker theory (Poker Essays does an excellent job of driving home this concept, though I can't recall whether it was in volume I, II, or III).

By the way, the "worthwhile" texts to which I'm referring are, for the most part, published by (and sold on) this site, which leads me to wonder how you could possibly have not read them.

Please consider cutting your losses at this point as opposed to causing me to "report back" with titles and page numbers.


- C


P.S. A "pissing contest between Vegas and the rest of the world ?"

Really ?

And how, pray tell, did I know you aren't from Vegas, or for that matter, that you're not my next door neighbor ?

Chasqui
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: location ,location.
Posts: 811

Well, I'll give you one thing: you may be wrong, but you're not in doubt.

I guess how to play this hand depends on reads. For instance...

- would villain not bet the all spade flop with trips?
- would villain turn a full house but not raise?
- would villain river a flush and put in 4 or 5 bets on the river on a paired board?
- would villain not raise a big pocket pair preflop?
- is villain's read of hero that hero would hit his hand on the river yet not bet it and go for the check raise?
- is villains read of hero that hero would not raise a big pocket pair preflop?

The number of mistakes you see at 3/6 is astounding, sometimes even in one hand. Trying to navigate that is the challenge of playing 3/6.

Why is this not a normal game?

Okay I havent figured out how to edit quotes but if a bigger pot is the last thing you want with TT OOP, what is the smallest PP you DO want a bigger pot with?

Iow, change HEro's hand to JJ. Or QQ. Or KK. Or AA. When does your advice change and why?

First a small clarification; it's Villain's hand we're discussing, not Hero's.

Though pre-flop play is largely formulaic it can't be approached in the same manner as Blackjack, which seems to pretty much be what you're trying to do. Any attempt to memorize exactly what to do in every possible situation (i.e., to create a “basic strategy” chart) is doomed to fail simply because there are WAY too many situations. The hand we're currently debating is a perfect example:

1. What position are the three limpers in ? Are they UTG, UTG+!, and UTG+2 ? Are they MP, cutoff, and button ? Or are they somewhere in between ?

2. What are their respective calling ranges preflop ? (Even 3-6 players have ranges, though most tend to be somewhat wide :-)

3. How well do they play postflop ?

Can you even imagine trying to memorize what to do from each of the ten positions, with every one of the 169 distinct hands versus not only every number of callers, but every possible arrangement (i.e., question #1) of those callers while also factoring in the tendencies (i.e., questions # 2 & 3) of those callers ?

And let's not forget when there's been a raise; we'll need a separate “chart” for this.

And we'll need two more charts for when there's been a late position blind posted – one for when there's been a raise and one for when there hasn't.

Oops, wait; we'll also need a few more – two for when it's a big AND [dead] small late blind (one for when there's been a raise and one for when there hasn't), and two for when it's just a big (one for when there's been a raise and one for when there hasn't).

Ah, f**k. We'll also need charts for each of the possible positions in which the late blind can be posted. (Technically it can be posted UTG, and when the bad beat J/P gets high enough you will see this happen).

And how about when there's a straddle ? That'll be two more charts.

Are you staring to get the picture ? (If not, we can move onto charts which take into account the various rake structures, i.e., 10% max X, 10% max Y, 10% max Z. And then there are games with a button charge. Sarcasm notwithstanding, these do have some effect on which hands can be played, especially in shorthanded pots).

For 99.99% of the population memorizing charts won't work. (And if you're among the .01% who is up to this task you're SO wasting your time at 3-6, or any other poker game. The intelligence community needs you, and will pay you quite generously).

You can, however, memorize CONCEPTS, and if you select a manageable number thereof (which requires you to tolerate a small amount of imprecision), your preflop play will be frighteningly efficient.

Meanwhile, please forgive my rudeness. You didn't ask about concepts. You asked a direct question about which PPs I'd raise from the BB versus four limpers, three to my left plus the SB. And here I am rambling on about concepts. You have my deepest apology.

Versus three limpers to your right plus an active SB (all of whose preflop calling ranges and postflop skill levels are unknown to me since the OP made no mention of them):

Raise AA > 99% of the time. A good way to randomize this would be to not raise with red Aces within an hour after having ordered a beverage from the cocktail waitress (unless the waitress is a man, which I guess would make HIM a waitER) on even numbered days when facing a dealer whose first name contains an odd number of letters.

Raise KK almost as often. Use all the randomizing criteria for AA but ignore the number of letters in the dealer's first name.

Raise QQ a little less often. Use all the randomizing criteria for KK but ignore whether or not it's an even or odd numbered day.

Raise JJ quite a bit less often. Use all the randomizing criteria for QQ but ignore the suits of the Jacks.

Raise TT even less often. Only raise black Tens, and only do this when the last pot was won by a straight or better.

Raise 99 even less often. Only raise red Nines when the first card you look at is the 9h.

Raise 88 and 77 even less often than 99. Only raise when when they're red, you look at the diamond first, and TNT is showing a Law & Order episode in which Jill Hennesy doesn't look so hot she makes you wanna rummage through her trash on the off chance she may have thrown away a pair of panties.

Raise 66 and 55 with great infrequency. Raise these only if they're red, you look at the diamond first, and you had a threesome within the past forty-eight hours with two females whose first names both end in a consonant. (By the way, stay away from Heather/Elizabeth combinations. This has nothing to do with poker; it's just that for some reason one of the two always ends up getting attached – usually the “Heather”).

Raise 44, 33, and 22 only on the rarest of occasions. Raise these smallest pairs only when Bill O'Reilly has said something within the past twenty-four hours that's neither inaccurate, malicious, or self-serving.

If randomizing your play isn't a concern (either because your opponents are even so brain dead they make the typical 3-6 nitwit look like a Rhodes Scholar, or because you just can't be bothered), when facing three limpers to your right plus an active SB (all of whose preflop calling ranges and postflop skill levels are unknown to me since the OP made no mention of them):

Raise AA, KK, and QQ.

Do as you wish with JJ.

Do not raise TT or lower.


By the way, as you probably knew, if you're playing double-deck Blackjack with L.V. Strip rules and you have a two-card hard 15 versus a dealer's 10, hitting is the [marginally] better play. However, if you have a three card 15 that's composed of three 5s, or two 6s and a 3, the correct play is to stand. It's also correct to stand on any four-card 15 that includes at least three cards from 3-6 (e.g., 3 3 3 6, 4 2 4 5, etc). The reason I mention this is that if you play as many hours of blackjack as you do of poker (and for similar amounts of money), this information regarding how to handle hard 15 will be of roughly the same value as knowing not to raise TT in the aforementioned situation. In other words, I never said raising TT was an atrocious play. What I said was that even if someone could prove that raising WAS the correct play (which seems unlikely since it isn't), the idea that not doing so is a “very significant” leak is laughable. Errors that occur extremely infrequently, and cost almost nothing when they do occur, cannot, by definition, constitute a “very significant” leak.

Question to those who've posted in disagreement:

When you've been soundly thrashed on this issue (which, though you haven't quite figured out, you already have been), what's next:

The fast and loose manner in which I employ semi-colons ?

I mean, though punctuational improprieties seem a little trivial (doubly so on a site where everyday words are commonly misspelled), at least you'd be fighting a battle you might actually win since I do tend to abuse semi-colons

- C

1. You need to raise TT (and way worse IMO) to punish the ding dongs limping with 23s,56o,A3o, q9o, etc.

2. With the high rake I think the only chance to make money is to artificially make the game play bigger than it is by lagging it up like crazy, especially pf.

3. Even though you will not be in bb with exactly TT and limpets that often your decision impacts other hands. Even a drooler will probably notice that you are only raising big pps in this spot and adjust accordingly.

No worries, you are the only one who has brought up irrelevant punctuation remarks. We are all familiar with people using ad hominem fallacies in their arguments.

That all sounds good but it's mostly hand waving. Lots of the old poker books have views like that for some tough spots, erring on the side of making a hand "easier to play", but there are many spots were the books were missing value. Poker has changed quite a bit in the last 15 years, not only hands people are limping with, but we can now quantify some spots a bit better.

Here is the analysis that supports the pf raise:

The stoves with TT against decapitated ranges give us around 40% equity against 3 limpers (who limp 36-40% of hands including JJ, KQ)

Flop textures:


After the flop:

TT is still a FAVORITE on ALL flops that don't have TWO overcards or an A. Specifically, still between a 28%-32% favorite with only a K, Q or J on board.

TT is around a 33-39% favorite on all flops that have undercards, and still a 29-37% favorite if all come the same suit. The lower end is on the cases when a low straight flops.

On flops with a low card paired TT is 40-50% to win it with another small card and still a 31-35% favorite if the other card is a Q,J; dropping only to a 30% favorite if it's a K, and only not a favorite against the Ace (as stated above).

If we flop an open ender or a gutshot we are 35-50% to win it, the low end is when overcards are present.

If we flop a set we are 70-85% on a non straight or flush flop, and "dropping" to 45-50% for the worst straight/flush/overcards board.

QED

The obscure reference was from another thread not too long ago where a person from Vegas was using a derisive tone similar to yours, nothing else was implied.

Chasqui - thanks for the rigorous analysis. I like it. I prefer that over long rambling hand-waving arguments. In fact, I think I'll play around with Stove to check a few more situations.

I have 3 limpers, which I assigned the top 40% of hands EXCEPT AA, KK, QQ, AKs, and AKs (making an assumption those hand would be raised - although that doesn't always happen at 3/6). Then I starting giving the 4th player pocket pairs to see how much equity he has. Here are my results (at least 10 million Monte Carlo simulation for each):

AA: 64%
KK: 56%
QQ: 50%
JJ: 44%
TT: 39%
99: 35%
88: 31%
77: 29%
66: 28%
55: 26.43%
44: 24.92% and now we have less equity than our other 3 opponents.

Interesting - I would have guessed a few spots higher.

Actually, I was more interested in how you'd decide that JJ is the borderline vs. QQ or TT or 99 if it weren't for Pokerstove, but I think your given explanation renders that question moot.

I haven't played blackjack at all since 2007, and have not varied my bet with the count since 2005 or so (although I did take a strategically timed bathroom break in 2007). The last time I expected to win more money at blackjack than at poker was probably 2003.

I'll let you know after the sound thrashing, which, if you haven't quite figured out, hasn't yet occurred. But I'll stay tuned because I do enjoy a well-written yarn. (Hell, I don't even mind the semicolons... or the "Do you still beat your wife?" kinda questions.)

You're not kin to Poker Bob, are ya?