I feel bad for people who are going to listen to anyone who confidently declares that such and such play is best in a vacuum. The best course of action is always going to depend on your cards, your stack, image, position, skill-set, table dynamics, villains' styles, skill-set and stack sizes. Any action needs to have a solid justification and a plan to make money. We don't want to open limp the hand, but limping along is totally standard. You're at a table full of limp-folders? Great, raise it up all day. But you want mistakes? Keep raising 22-66 at a passive table and keep getting called in multiple spots. Keep double barreling away on and see how profitable that's gonna be. I'll save you the work: you're not going to be "not as profitable", you're downright going to be setting money on fire.

And to be perfectly clear, when I said I like raising better, it was meant in a vacuum and when the dynamics make it a good play ldo.

no. not even close.

agreed

Limping is fine. You seem to be the only one who thinks that 33 is an auto-raise here.

We have to fold unless the raiser is megadeep ... which is why I don't mind limping small pairs.

What's worse? Paying $20 to see a flop with 33 or paying $25 to see a flop with 33 and getting reraised, therefore not being able to see the flop?

I want my opponent to have AA or KK when I get 33 so when I flop a set, I get paid off handsomely.

It isn't like the raise is going to thin the field. Already proven that it won't.

fist pump shove

thats strange. when we don't hit our set we "can c-bet or 2 barrel" and villains will fold and let us take it down, but when we hit our set villains will call down and give us stacks..?

btw, in the hand - go all in. not even close.

Lucky you are truely a God. When you miss and c-bet, everyone folds. When you spike that big beautiful set, everyone else has aces kings and can't get there chips in fast enough.

How convenient you fail to mention how much variance there is in your lag game.

So lets take this hand and say you raise pf. How do you even know both these callers are along for the ride?

Or that they will jam post flop opp?

Or lets say they have aces or KK, and you have lagged them to death already so when you raise pf, they come back over you all in. Do you stack off with your 3 3?

Your wall of text explanation started out pretty good, but you just pissed it all away when you start talking about table image.

Lucky, I get what you’re saying, but (and I mean this helpfully) you sound like someone who’s taken some logical components he’s heard/ read and applied them inappropriately or without balance to practical realities.

Firstly, not to be pedantic, but, in your example, calling the initial 20 is a “mistake”.
I think you mean that it’s an “error”- but it’s not even that.
By your example, it’s a speculative investment which, you contend, will, over the longer term, be more profitable than initially forgoing the initial “opportunity”.

Now, that’s fine- in fact, from time to time, I will raise small pp’s myself, too, for the reasons you give. Ultimately, we’re turning our hand into a bluff.
I doubt anybody’s questioning the veracity of the that logic chain except to point out that, at 1-2 where everybody seems to station too much, your conclusion that doing so is more profitable than setmining only is not proven and possibly not correct.

You note that this is an “advanced play” (I’m not sure it’s that advanced, frankly, given I do it) but the overwhelming majority of 1-2 players are nowhere near advanced.

Therefore, you’re going to be called down by J-T on a J-high board too often, in my experience, to make your line profitable as a standard/ default line (unless you’re gangsta enough to be regularly shoving turns with 3-high?).

This is because, to pick up on one of your other points, there is absolutely no way in any of the 1-2 games I play that a raise narrows callers’ rangers down to As, Ks and some Qs only- I think you can throw in J8+, T7ss+, all suited connectors, lots of unsuited connectors, all pps and lots of favourite/ lucky or “live” hands.

Also, we sure don't want to be thinning the field when we're setmining?

Fwiw, in some spots, I will raise my small/ medium pp’s- from different positions, against different villains and for different reasons.
But, my default is to go with the flow and try to hit a set. I’m not sure this is the best way, but it feels intuitively like it most often is and, importantly, there is an overbearing weight of experienced and skilled opinion which says that this is the best thing to do. Given I’m not a super-billionaire-pokers-genius-monster crushing every high-stakes pro/ gambler out there, I’m happy to accept the helpful advice offered.

So, in summary, I don’t think OP made a mistake (or error) pre-flop at all. He could have played it differently but I haven’t seen any conclusive evidence to suggest different would have been better.
I also don’t think limping limits OP’s options in this hand (or generally in this spot)- I mean, we could get into a whole discussion about the OP’s limp/call range in LP versus his raising range- but the fundamental beauty of flopping sets is that it’s super-difficult for villains to put you on a set ever- especially if played passively.

V2 didn't really make an impression on you due to his lack of action?
Then he called a $250 shove from V1.
V2 most likely has two clubs, going for a flush draw and a pair also.
It doesn't matter what the clubs are as if v2 is really on a flush draw probability wise I would say v2 would make flush draw.
I would fold the trip 3s as the board is too dry to make a full house to counter a possible flush.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyAceFour View Post
First mistake:

Limping pre-flop
No it's not.

This is a moot point as there is no right or wrong answer as every poker player has there own preferences.

33 on CO, one position before the button.
Tricky and dangerous to play in the CO position.
I would raise to get info from the button and the blinds and see what happens at the flop.

!!!!!YIPPEEEEEE KAI YAY!!!!!!
Got the connected flush draw correct!!!!
Shocked V2 was holding 65 clubs, but makes sense.

I see it relatively often.
Ergo, it is not rare.

Also, who is "we"? The Venerable Tryst of Magical Pokerists?
The Society for the Advancement of Advanced Poker Advancers?
And, given you "tend" to call those plays advanced, what else does your secret coven call it?

The point I was trying to make to you with my "wall of text" is that you have a fundamental (and saddening) lack of basic comprehension. You listen but you don't hear etc- probably to do with the same cause that is responsible for the garbled beauty quoted above.


You are, of course, welcome.

However, I was more concerned with countering your holier-than-thou-I-read-some-level-1-poker-theory-and-am-now-a-cheerleader-boning-pro "strategy guide".

It was (and remains), in the round, ill-considered and flawed but defensible. No more. It certainly isn't the "right" view (implying the counter-views are not also right or better, just so that you are clear).

Just what is it that makes you think that you've found the holy grail and that everyone else is a limited dinosaur?

I mean, it's clear from your writing and demonstrated comprehension level that you're not particularly bright (not to say you're stupid, just no more than average), so I doubt you've gone through life with everyone telling you that you're God's gift to MENSA.

You're in a low-stakes strategy forum, so I imagine you're not owning established pro's and chinese billionaires in Macau.

So, how is it that you've found a poker strategy that is so super-duper-successful even if others aren't using it habitually?

actually Lucky, you said limping is a mistake in your first post ITT.

look, you come off like a bit of a douche because your language is confrontational and far more definitive than your logic. But as Poe points out, none of us are here because we know everything, we're here to learn by arguing, disagreeing and countering.

back to the subject at hand, you mentioned in your last post that you do this (I assume meaning raising a limper in LP with a small PP) on 25-50 online.

funnily enough, that's the level I play (6 max) and I would raise or fold in Cut Off online with 33 too. But live is a different game to online, where a raise takes down the pot without a flop more than 50% of the time.

In other threads recently, you've taken very strong raise/fold positions too. It's OK to see cheap flops IP live ad to call with High IO hands IP. I think it's more profitable. IMHO people need to adjust to live from online. MY VPIP in 6 max is about 15/13. IN live I'd be about 25/15

I think this decision is marginal as I've already argued, but my default position is to overlimp vs raise unless I think the conditions are right and we can't tell this from the OP

On the whole I concur and second LuckyAceFour game plan as it makes perfect sense to play 33 like that in CO POSITION.

33 set mining in CO POSITION, one needs to thin out the players to protect their 33 and possible trip 3s; that is just plain common sense!!!!

I agree and concur of making that mistake as LuckyAceFour stated.

Beting size; dependent on the players playing style and preferences aka no right or wrong betting sizes generally speaking.

If I was in CO POSITION with 33 raise I would expect a call and so would most other people in that same position.

Isolating vs not isolating with small pairs? Depends on position and how much info one has got, in this case of 33 set mining in CO, would roll with the punches and adapt accordingly as isolating 33 from CO is like trying to make a lightening bolt go the way you want which equates to less than 10% chance.