I mean I sort of think I see what you're getting at. You're saying that your advantage is that the money I'm putting in preflop, at only small advantage, you're putting in after you make the set, at huge advantage. The problem is that it's a relatively small amount of money, so your maximum EV gain is small, and the advantage you get from that is absolutely dwarfed by the advantage I get from being in a raised pot when I flop a set.

Might want to reread some of your posts if you want to call me condescending. Having played longer means little. I've said this before in a non condescending way and I've had it told to me too. It's good advice.



The EV is coming from winning bbs with sets.

This acknowledges that I won't get stacks in more often. The difference is I'm saving a lot of money when I don't and am then handicapped in a multiway pot with a weak holding.


Yes

Either? I don't think it should matter much. We've defined our range a bit more in a raised pot, but I don't think that matters a whole lot.

I gave it some more thought and realized I said something stupid.

Now, if anything, I'm leaning towards it being more profitable in a raised pot as a purely set-mining hand.

That's the point, is that when we flop a set it's miles better being in a raised pot. I feel like the discussion is stuck in an infinite loop:

We make money raising preflop. Maybe, but who cares about that? I'm more focused on flopping sets and stacking donks.
But it's better to be in a raised pot when you do flop a set. But by not raising preflop, I don't lose money when I don't flop a set!
But WE MAKE MONEY RAISING PREFLOP. Like, just on that street considered in isolation! Maybe, but who cares about that? I'm more focused on flopping sets and stacking donks.

Rinse, repeat. I'm yet to see where the downside is supposed to be. It's in vague intimations that we are totally screwed if we don't flop a set, yet when I asked Bluegrass if he expected to make money overall with 99 postflop, he said yes. Don't you want to bump up the pot so the betting is bigger, then?

If I didn't think I could play 99 profitably the answer would be to fold, not to limp.

I expect to make money by raising. I expect to make more money by limping. I don't see how this is that complicated.

I expect to make money by calling a raise with aces preflop. I expect to make more by 3 betting it.

I expect to make money by calling with big draws. Sometimes I expect to make more money by bluffing them.

For this situation I could probably play a lot of hands for a profit. That does not mean that I would raise them all.



You are still under the assumption that you have proved that raising nets you more profit in the long run than limping... but you have not.

Assuming infinite stacks, do you expect to make moar money postflop with 99 if the pot on the flop is larger?

Are we skipping preflop and assuming I don't have to put in any money of my own to make the pot larger? (a scenario where every hand would be more profitable)

If not then no I do not necessarily believe that.

OK. So then it's your position that raising preflop has disadvantages bad enough that they negate the benefit of being in a larger pot postflop? What are those disadvantages?

I'm not going to continue repeating myself. You'll have to reread the thread because they are very clearly stated already.

now we've gone to infinite stacks? how long b4 we ask, If you could get Hitler AIPF 4rollz how light would you stack off?

OK. As far as I can see we would both prefer to have a bigger pot preflop and prefer to have a bigger pot postflop, but I'll let it go.

It was a starting point so I didn't immediately get the objection "Yes but stack depth will be different". You could try to make an argument that having relatively shallower stacks postflop is a problem but I don't think it's going to fly.

As far as your metric of "realizing your % of your preflop equity when you raise" shallower stacks would actually be a good thing.

As far as realizing the maximum profit when seeing a flop in a raised pot with 9s, then infinite stacks might be good (it might not) although it opens up a ton of other factors.

Really though 100-200 bbs, where most llsnl games are played, is the worst amount for bloating the pot with a medium strength hand. Getting stacks in the middle will be easy enough when you flop big (especially on the 100 bb side) in a limped pot, and you won't have a strong enough hand, or big enough stack, to outplay your opponents with a weak hand postflop.

BTW going back to your statement that 9s is a very strong hand in a 5 or 6 way pot: Can you post some example boards where you are excited about getting stacks in with your 9s when you haven't hit a set?

We definitely disagree there. In a limped pot there is going to be like 6BB in the pot. Relatively large size betting with one caller will be like 5BB, 15BB, 35BB, which still leaves like 40BB in your stack. If you overset someone or they happen to make two pair or trips on a board where you also have a set, then fine, but in the more common situation where they make one pair or some random draw, you're miles away from stacking them.

Who said anything about getting stacks in? Boards where 99 is an overpair are generally very good. On a flop like 873 rainbow I expect to be good on the flop about 90% of the time.

"being good" and "frequently makes strong hands" are very different things.


Probably being good on the flop doesn't really matter that much if you can't bet it and expect to get value, unless you plan is to just check it down with everyone and fade the turn and river.


If you raise to 5 and get 5 callers, as we've been talking about, the pot would be 30. Do you usually not want to get stacks in the middle with an SPR of 3-6 when you have a strong hand?

Why would that be bad? I have an advantage over everyone preflop. If we check it down turn and river, I'll realize my preflop equity and win.

If I get 5 callers, my plan postflop isn't going to be hugely different to yours when you limp 99. I'm going to be often checking and mostly losing. If I win the pot 1 in 5 times I'll be making money.

Its so stupid i dismissed it out of hand. I feel like responding makes us all dumber, and honestly this whole crappy thread is filled with cancer ideas and poorly understood concepts, and will only make anyone reading it confused and worse at poker.

to get straight to the point There is literally a term for when you cant realize your full equity due to action on later streets, its called reverse implied odds.

but just for fun, why dont you go ahead and flip AA face up and still realize your equity. You already admitted its not true OOP, because you know its a load of BS.

Also, if your equity statement is correct, then the GTO bots that play against themselves like pokersnowie would get exactly their preflop equity out of their hands which is of course nonsense.

Man, yall really got bgp's goat on this one.

Again, well done.

It's going to be rare that pots are going to be checked down multiway plus we fade all the outs if we happen to be ahead on the flop.

You're not going to play 99 differently on a 864hh flop in an SPR 3 pot than you would an SPR 20 pot?

Overall, I don't think anyone is questioning whether "you'll be making money" if you raise here. The question is whether you'll win more by limping, and BGP has provided some fairly good guesses as to why it might be more EV to overlimp (especially regarding sometimes being up against much stronger ranges than you think preflop and facing 3bets being a disaster). On top of that I would add that playing big bloated small SPR pots multiway with middling hands is extremely tough (our first decision is often a commitment one), and these decisions are pretty easy to get wrong (and these big mistakes are extremely costly and basically the only things worth worrying about in poker as they make every good thing we've done up to that point rather moot if we get in our stack bad, and likewise folding the best hand in a huge pot is just as bad).

GstillthinksthatBGPisnotmyalternateaccount,althoug hnowI'mnotasconvincedG

Although you have given a good argument in limping 99. I read some, skimmed most. And Chris V argument is fatally flawed.

I still don't think you have made case for limping to be more profitable than raising. Although, I 100% agree it makes playing hand super easy. Think I will definitely work it into my game. 99, 88 specifically.

As Chris is missing benefits and theory of limping such a strong hand. You are missing, and ignoring some of benefits of raising the hand.

Just having "G" in your corner. Should tip yourself off to maybe, looking at other side.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Re-reading this thread is bad for anyone's poker game.

It is full of some of worst post, and poker theory I have read.

But it is just like Inquirer. You know reading it is counter productive, but just can't help but to open it up.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

At least they would see your brilliant contributions.

Getting 100bb stacks in the middle in a limped pot isnt easy in a typical 4-5 way limped pot without either multiple flop callers and many times an overbet to some degree on the river.

You are betting 1bb, 5-6-7bb on flop, 18-20bb turn, so you have 50-60 bb pot and 70-75 bb left in your stack. possible yes but not easy imo. An opponent has to call pot, pot, overbet with 2nd best. And if you go with 50-75% pot bets on flop/turn/river and without 8 callers preflop you arent really getting there.

I am not saying it cannot be done but the idea that at 100bb stack depths you are easily getting stacks is not true imo without a decent runout where V runs into 2p on river or similar. 1p isnt stacking off to a river overbet ime. And if table is nitty limping preflop I'm not expecting crazy bet, raise, 3b shove with combo draw on the flop. i'm expecting check/bet/call type of action.

Maybe limping low PP is a good/best strategy in certain situations i just dont think you are easily stacking 100bb with that strategy in those situations. if people will call pot/pot/overbet with TP type hands then yippppiee and go for it.

As far as the big takeaways from this thread imo:

As players to the flop increases, the importance of your preflop equity decreases and the importance of having a hand which will want to go all in on a lot of boards increases. (anyone who has had aces oop to lots of deep players will know this)

This means that you should be raising hands which rate to dominate villains hands often POSTFLOP such as big pairs, AK, AQ, KQs etc.



Due to having more players in the pot, the value of position is decreased and the importance of being able to hit lots of flops hard increases.

Also due to having more players in the pot, having weak or medium showdown value becomes far less important as you are less likely to actualize this equity. Due to this, often medium strength hands turn into speculative hands in multiway pots.


The easier it is to get stacks in postflop means you should be less inclined to raise with speculative hands which only want to get all in on very few flops.

Furthermore by raising you reopen the action which could mean someone behind you with a premium could 3bet you out of the pot, or they could bluff you. This is a disaster when you have a hand that could cooler someone postflop.




It is fine to get "outplayed" and lose some pots where you might have had the best hand if you are winning far more money when you flop a big hand due to villain's overaggression. (this is a different way of outplaying your opponent. Instead of winning the most pots you're winning the most money.)

Your results with a particular hand should be calculated over the long term and not the short term.

Due to the big disparity in LLSNL games around the world it is fine to play hands very differently in similar situations due to drastically different table conditions. You should not confine yourself to rigid rules.