This is a good point for wanting to play big pots (cuz you're right, our poor opponents certainly should make more mistakes in these cases than we will).

Maybe I'm too nitty, but I like playing big pots when I feel like I'm an obvious overwhelming favourite.

That attitude definitely reduces variance, but I think it leaves a little EV on the table as well, which we could earn by pushing smaller edges.

GG, I'm going to take a slightly different perspective on this than NS is doing.

Let me ask you this: let's say that instead of $110 and $200, the 2 limpers' stacks were $18 and $33. Would you limp then? Or would you just fold?

The reason I'm asking this is because from a mathematical perspective, limping when the stacks are $18 and $33 is the same as making this size raise when the stacks are $110 and $200. (Obviously it differs in playing dynamics, though.)

In my opinion, if you would do anything but fold with the shorter stacks, you should raise with the bigger stacks. And if you would fold with the shorter stacks, then you should limp or fold with the bigger stacks.

If the 2 fish have $18 and $33 I'm probably not in this hand because I'm at the front desk asking for a table change.

This is such a drawy board against 2 fishy players. The first guy who donked a pot sized bet has shown a tendency to slow play big hands, the 2nd fish didn't raise on a super drawy board here her hand looks like a draw/mid pair/ top pair... Very rarely do I feel comfortable playing for stacks with a pair of 9s King kicker but I think this is the 1 time I'm willing too. I comfortably put it a raise here and expect to take a ride on the variance express.

Not exactly sure what you're getting at Vern, but I'd probably be folding preflop against lol small size stacks. I doubt K9s is very much of a favourite over anything and we're playing one street poker (then again, I'm not a pokerstove whiz, so maybe K9s is crushing, but it doesn't feel like that to me). ETA: Actually, I guess K9s is > random fish crap. Still, blech.

fwiw I don't think this proves what you want it to. While agreeing that limping>folding in the shortstack hypothetical means that raising>folding in the actual hand (because, as you said, raising in the actual hand is equivalent to limping in the shorty hypothetical), it does nothing to prove that raising>limping in the actual hand, because the shorty hypothetical does not offer an option that would create the SPR of limping in the actual hand.

This is exactly the point I was making: that we have a small edge with K9s, and if we don't raise preflop in this hand, we should be aware that we're passing up on a small edge. But maybe we don't want to exploit this edge for some reason. That's the only point I was making.

I certainly agree that I am not proving that raising > limping in the actual hand. But I am saying that if limping > folding in the shortstack version, then raising > limping in the actual hand. What I said above doesn't entirely prove it, I agree with that, but I still think it's true. The reason is, beyond what I've already said, that if we limp and take a flop, all the times we're willing to stack off with the higher SPR will still happen if we had raised, but by raising we can win a bigger pot those times we flop a hand that we're not crazy about (like a one pair hand when no one makes anything better).

GG, personally I'm not great at playing in limped pots like this. The other point of raising this in position, and again otf is meta game. If called, win or lose,I think It's important to show this hand down. Our hand looks like AA and we flip up K9, this allows decent regs who don't realize I'm playing this way because of the fish to think I'm playing like a maniac. It also allows your bluffs to work more because we bet/raise for value thinly in spots like this.

Playing tag like this is obviously higher variance, but if you know the majority of their range it is profitable. You'll be surprised how big of pots you can win with relatively weak hands.

This is a great point.

Also @brojay I really don't think the metagame concerns are that important at this level. At higher stakes with more observant opponents that might be a good reason to raise, but I don't think it's a great one here.

Yes, it may be profitable in this situation against those limpers but the pot is SMALL and we make $5 while betting $15 with a dominated hand. If that's the case and we really need the $5 then we can use 72 and make the same play. And once we see how great 72 works as well as K9 or AA then why not use ATC so the entire deck is ours. What's the difference if raising those limpers becomes profitable then the cards don't matter. ..., we can play 100% against some limpers ..., lol, lol..., Is that so?

AK

If you really want to design a meta game/image then I suggest to run a bluff against the biggest stack at your table. Let him call you and show the hand before mucking. He raises and you re-raise with J4o and if he 4! you muck face up or if he calls, you check the turn and if he bets you do the same, muck face up. Now, letter on build a hand and 4! him or anybody else and you'll be getting action. In meantime do some 2! UTG and fold to a 3! if you have air, ..., etc. Then drop the nuclear bomb on them the next time you got a hand that can play in a big pot.

Or on the river if you are OOP you bet at the pot and if he mucks you win and if he calls you table your garbage hand of J4 with confidence and conviction that Jack high is the best hand ..., lol, ...lol, If he raises you you muck face up. Always face up !

I can guarantee you that the entire table will give you action and try to come after you with suboptimal hands. Definitely you'll be getting action on your AA, KK, QQ and AK and on almost all the nuts and sets in the very near future of couple hours.



AK

There is no meta game in 1/2...

You can do some obvious stuffs like slowplaying top pairs, but there is no one to setup in these games...

Yes, you're correct. But if couple dudes have big stacks you can fool them the way I explained above in my post. If you want action on your big hands you can manufacture "image" and get all the action you need. We don't need the real meta game but just an "image" for the night or for the next couple hours. Make sure some dudes have big stacks. You can call then or bluff them with air and table your hand face up. After some time call the clock on the big stack just to mess his nerves. He will come after you and that's the biggest mistake he can make. Or call the clock first and then try to bluff him when he's got a hand and he's looking to hammer you. This way you verify if "calling the clock" had the effect you want. Now, you will get lots of action from him and this is what you're looking for. Soon, an empty seat will be created and it will not be yours ---lol,...lol,...

AK

I don't disagree with GG, as always he makes and brings a good point. Limping vs. calling is probably close and either still seem profitable. I disagree that there's not meta-game at 1-2. If I run a huge bluff, or play a combo draw fast there are a few regs in my games that will try to remember that and call me down way lighter than they do others.

When a fishy reg raises to $12 and I shove for $180 and he looks me up with a (no good) AJ, that's meta game, because as he puts it "I can never have a big hand there". Now given I don't do this often it's meta game, definitely there at 1-2.

Let me rephrase it, it's "hardly" there.

I would concentrate on making exploitable plays to maximize profit than to worry about meta game.

Level? Lmao