For one example of a concept that might be outdated, let's look at page 31 talking about what to do from middle position (which at a 9-handed table UTG, UTG+1, UTG+2, MP, HJ, CO, BTN, SB BB I'm interpreting is MP and HJ or maybe UTG+2):
1 AA, AKs, KK, QQ, JJ
2 AK, AQs, AJs, KQs, TT
3 AQ, ATs, KJs, QJs, JTs, 99
4 AJ, KQ, KTs, QTs, J9s, T9s, 98s, 88
5 A9s - A2s, KJ, QJ, JT, Q9s, T8s, 97s, 87s, 77, 76s, 66
6 AT, KT, QT, J8s, 86s, 75s, 65s, 55, 54s
The book says you should almost always raise rather than limp (the book says call but let's be honest - it's limping
) when:
1. Nobody else has entered the pot
2. You have a playable hand (groups 1 through 6)
3. There's at least a small chance everyone will fold
The book says that if either 1 or 3 are not the case, throw away the group 6 hands and just call with the weaker hands in groups 1 through 5.
A couple problems I have with that:
- I would expand #3 to include "or you will be able to take down the pot with a flop and/or flop/turn barrel" which is often the case, and a good postflop player can look at the board to assess which boards are most likely to get c-bet folds.
- I can't imagine limping first in with *anything* from UTG+2, MP or HJ unless I'm at the type of table where I'm sure I'll be seeing a unraised 5-way pot if I limp, and then I'm only limping hands that play well in multiway pots but don't play well heads up/3-handed.
- If my limp will either get raised behind me or result in a 3- or 4-way limped pot, I can't imagine ever limping anything - I'm raising, and my raising range is dependent on how likely I am to get 3-bet behind me and how the villains play postflop.
Or maybe I'm just rambling here, who knows.
I guess the point is to ask if this is an example of theory in the book that's outdated.