Live 3/6 blinds question, apologies if super standard, just need a check up.

I have found myself in this situation a lot recently:
I'm in SB or BB, and there are 5+ limpers in the pot by the time it gets to me. I've got some mid/low PP or mid/low suited connectors. I have started raising some of these hands for value to build a 12+ SB pot for those times when I hit. Those times I miss, I don't seem to have any trouble c/f, so I'm not getting crazy with these hands. I am not worried about getting 3! when I do this.

For my pocket pairs, I tend to get cold feet about raising at 88 and lower. Am I cutting it off to high here? In a 6-way pot, does it make sense to raise down to 22?

For suited connectors below the broadway cards, I tend to raise down to 65s. I tend to not raise with suited 2-gappers. Too tight? Is 97s, 64s, etc in a raising range here?

It all depends on what they're raising. If they only raise monsters then I'm fine raising 99+, A9s+, AJ+, KJs+, QJs. If they raise more then I'll raise more when they limp because their ranges are weaker(less good hands in their limping ranges. In this case I might go as low as 66+, A2s+, AT+, K9s+, KQ, QTs+, J9s+, T9s, 98s. If they're really wild(but don't limp reraise) then I'll raise even more K8s+ KJ+, Q9s+, T8s+, 97s+. Think about your discount from the big blind. The money you've put in is not yours, so when you raise a six way pot you're investing one twelfth of the money. If you were all in you could do this with even more hands and show a profit(but not neccessarily as much as checking.)

But I like to raise a lot, and I get paid off often because of this. If you don't have this image then you might be better off taking a passive approach with the suited connectors and offsuit broadways.

Postflop action matters a lot also. If they raise and reraise a lot postflop then you get better implied odds when you hit, but your draws will cost more. You'll be forced to fold more, especially because you're so far oop so you don't get to realize as much of your equity. If they're really passive you can raise a lot without worrying about facing two or three bets as much postflop, more flops and turns will check through, and you'll get free showdowns with weak pairs that you would have to fold in a more aggressive game.

*G*

Depends a bit on just how wide ranges of limpers are. If these characters are all vpip between 40-100% with low pfr, then you can raise pretty wide. If, otoh, their pf stats are a bit more moderate and it's just a fluke that there are so many limpers, must be a bit more cautious. I'll assume the former (very loose-passive game) is closer to the truth in 3/6 live. And if I'm assuming correct, I think you're pretty close to optimal.

As a general rule I'm not crazy about the idea of raising small pp's in the scenarios you describe (numerous thread discussions on the topic). We label small pp's as "good multiway hands", and I feel like some people take that as justification to indiscriminately raisy-daisy multiway without really thinking. Yeah, you pump it into stove: a baby pp against five or six weak ranges is going to have a little more than its fair share of equity. But I feel the obv (that stove assumes you see the river) cannot be stressed enough.

Suppose you raise 33 pf, go 6- or 7-way to flop and the board is a K-9-4 rb. How far are you do you're willing to continue? Just an example to illustrate there will be hundreds of dry boards you won't be able to proceed to river with, to say nothing of all the potential coordinated or even semi-coordinated or high-card boards you'll have to bail on the flop (or rarely turn) with baby pp's. By raising pf you might occasionally give yourself sufficient odds to see a turn, but rarely enough to see the river UI.

Basically I think the notion of a "value raise" with baby pp's multiway might be a bit of a myth, as it essentially requires hitting a set to win, but you're only gonna get to see 60-80% of the board most times (essentially only realizing 60-80% of your equity).

In short, I'm fine with what you're doing with pp's (maybe I raise 88).

sc's I think are a safer raise, as you know immediately on the flop whether you have a hand or a draw, and by raising pf you might make it OK for you to peel the flop for one with just some bd draws. In other words, you realize closer to your full pf hot-cold equity with sc`s. The flops you`re mostly folding are the ones where it was VERY obvious you don`t have a chance (e.g. you raise 65 and the flop is 9TJ).

Depending on just how loose ranges are, you could raise down to even 54s and probably 97s, imo. Not doing so is at worst a tiny error, though.

btw--I`m sure it goes without saying, but you need not at all feel obligated to cbet the flop in these scenarios.

This recent thread is good as it goes into blind play.

Some differing of opinions. Bottom line is if you play well enough post flop, raising vs. calling is close for hands <66.

I tend to raise most any PP with 5+ limpers from blinds. I play with a lot of the same people though, so I'm willing to risk slight immediate value for metagame purposes.

I think you're much more likely to realize your full equity (or close to it) in position, rather than OOP.

65s is way too light to me.

This is an important point. I maybe indicated getting a little too frisky with sc's in my prior post.

Great points to think about, thanks. The other thread is a great discussion and I' not sure why I forgot about it.

Captain your point about position is well taken. I wasn't considering position when I thought about these hands, I was only thinking about things from an equity perspective playing out of the blinds (especially the BB) in a big MW pot.

If you were posting in the CO, CaptainR's point works as well. Now you want the pot juiced and so close decisions get pushed to jamming up the pot. I'm still not sure that 65s is good enough. However, position helps a ton and you may be near that 0EV jam. You should also consider how the image this stuff creates works with your playing style.

If someone is winning money, then they are taking it from the rest of the table. Players in position recieve better implied odds than those out of position. They can also make better decisions because they get more information. They're winning money from you when you're out of position.

What if you had a lag to your left and you held a hand that could make a huge hand like a set in the big blind in a 7 way pot? You know this guy loves to go after big pots(like he should). The rest of the table isn't buying the lag's bs, so you expect a lot of calls if he raises after the flop. I'd raise 22 here.

In a game without an aggressive player it might not be worth it to raise 22 in the big blind. If nobody's raising your bets your implied odds are much lower. So it's not just position but position relative to the action you expect.

I'd rather take 6:0 odds than 12:1 odds.

Flopping a set is 8.5:1 against. The 5:1 rule of thumb for pairs takes into account implied odds, since sets are sneaky. Like if EP raises and two people coldcall, you can coldcall expecting one of the blinds to come along and get you 5:1 with position on the likely flop bettor, expecting to get the other 3.5 BB in implied odds.

However, when you raise OOP, you lose the sneakiness. Raise 22 on a 752r flop, and you might only get a calldown from A7 because they put you on an overpair. Plus, with small pairs, you run into the rare but costly scenario of set-over-set.

The same thing basically holds for suited connectors. Take the free flop rather than try to pump it up.

22 with 5 to the flop? You're pretty much dead meat if you don't flop a set. I'd want to put as little into the pot as possible because I'm folding without a flopped set or oesd.