GG, have you ever played PLO?
It´s absolutely impossible to reach your goals of thinning the field and getting 10% eff stacks in pre (at least by opening in an unraised pot).
Still, people raise pre in this game. It´s not Holdem, but it´s still poker. Don´t you think there are other merits to raising than thinning the field and reducing SPR?

I am completely unfamiliar with PLO so I can only plead ignorance on that.

But at one time I was quite familiar with Limit, which is also poker, and there was far more reason to raise preflop in that game than there is in NL, even if the pots go multiway because, unlike NL, (a) we get in a much larger percentage of our stack preflop compared to the final pot and (b) we almost always get to realize our equity by seeing the river.

Not sure if comparing different games of poker is relevant.

GcluelesspokernoobG

The point is that it's pretty much always a good idea to get more money I'm the pot when you're ahead.

But, as always, there are counterarguments for this as well.

Ex. We see an A72r flop in position HU as the aggressor. The limp/caller checks to us. In one situation, we have KK. In another, we have T9s. Clearly we likely have far more hand equity (i.e. are ahead) in the KK case than in the T9s case. Does that mean we should be betting it more often?

There are other examples too, such as when you are sure you are ahead of a Villain's drawing hand, but he won't call a turn bet (cuz he's good enough to know he doesn't have the odds to do so) but will bluff almost always if you weakly check the turn and he whiffs his draw.

Just because we likely have the best hand isn't reason alone for getting more money in the pot; sometimes it is, but sometimes it isn't.

Git'snotalwayssoclearcut,imoG

That's a ridiculous post. You don't bet the KK because doing so doesn't achieve the goal of getting money in while ahead. When we say "get money in", we mean the opponents' money.

That was exactly my point.

Who cares if people raise pre in plo? Can you even prove that's the most +ev way to play preflop in these games where no one folds?

I am assuming this entire limp AA theme that has been going around on this board is a just a massive troll right?


This entire argument is I dont have to play a range because i have to play against the exact 2 cards I know my opponent has...as shown to me after a suck out.

There is no counterargument to getting your chips in the pot when you are ahead.

You raise to 4 bbs preflop and someone calls. I limp, someone raises to 5 bbs I reraise to 15 bbs preflop.

Which one of us has gotten more chips in the middle?

I'm not following your second paragraph at all.

ugh - i typed a longer response and now i lost it.

i dont know who got more chips in the middle. i open 5bb utg/ep and min 1 person calls. i 3b and __% of people fold. I fill in the blank at around 80% in most llsnl games.

gotta be the most bgp has ever posted in a thread. well done team.

lol I'm probably one of the few who has played in a game where it's optimal to limp from ep so I feel like I should post.

cxy: So in other words 20% of the time (- the times he has kings or whatever and preflop would play out the same regardless) my example gets more money in the middle but fine lets take another approach.

You raise to 4bbs utg and get two callers. There's now 8 bbs of villains money in the middle.

But wait you can do better! So now you raise to 3 bbs and get 4 callers. Now there's 12 bbs of villains money in the middle.

But wait you can do even better! So now you raise to 2 bbs and you get 9 callers. There's now 18 bbs in the middle. Obviously the best outcome when you're ahead right?

I swear to god BGP is not my alternate account!

GcluelessalternateaccountnoobG

Right - you going to have to play some poker. Against 8-9 random hands we have 30% and a minefield. Against 3-4 callers with 30% calling ranges we have ~60% equity and a reasonable path and ability to get decent post flop value. Against 1 opener with say 3-5% 3B calling range we have +80% equity and probably fit/fold post flop player.

I could refine this but this is the framework instead of "i limped, guy barreled with 9 high b/c he saw this play on tv and I won the max. If i opened everyone would have just folded" type of analysis.

obviously the alt account is ilcd

From what I've seen of 1/3 NL HH threads, I think overall there is an extreme disconnect in what people think are really good vs really horrible preflop results.

Kinda doubt we're going to come to an agreement on it. My guess is most of us (???) probably end up winning in our own way, so I guess keep attempting to produce whatever you think is a good result.

Ggoodlucktousall,imoG

Is this true?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Whats funny is that I run this toy game by very good players and it always confuses everyone.

You know for a fact you can 5x open and get 4 cold calls.

What do you open AA for?

AQo?

88?

Do all the very good players give totally different answers?

Glol@poker,imoG

Usually they snap say duh 5x to AA. Then i get to AQ or 88 and you can see the ole' ticker start ticking.

I'd be curious what brokenstars response would be. I think it would be very insightful.

I think getting 4+ calls to a 5x open with AA 100x deep is like the nut low result.

GbutI'mnotaverygoodplayer,soobviouslythat'swhyyoun everaskedme,nooffensetakenG

Heh, i mean its not like I've gone out and asked a bunch of wizards this. Its just something I think about alot and I'm curious of people's ideas.

Fwiw, i used to think the best answer was along the lines of "open 6x", but now I'm not so sure

If the result is the same (i.e. very multiway), I don't see how 5x vs 6x makes virtually any difference to us?

GcluelessraisingnoobG

Asking how to open AA without mentioning what position you are and what the table dynamics are is a really pointless exercise. The earlier you are to act the higher chance that someone opens eventually.

Everyone who opens and calls outside of the range for their position is donating free dead money to the pot for your eventual 3!

I'd have to agree with gg here, going more than 3 ways to the flop with AA is the nut low.

Question: is the risk of it limping around higher than the risk of going 4-5 way to the flop after your UTG open?

Theoretically there are optimum open sizes for each hand at a specific depth if you set the conditions as you did (calling frequencies known, number of callers known, raising is not an option).

Breaking down what we know about how hands tend to derive their individual EVs (66 makes money flopping/turning sets), it becomes easier to identify sizing under such conditions. 66, say, would still be an open raise (at 100bb) to a size that maximizes it’s EV when flopping a set without making it too expensive to see a flop in the first place. Limping it might be close, and would certainly satisfy the latter, but you would still lose net value when flopping a set in a $10 pot vs a $50 pot when factoring in the cost you set for yourself to see the flop in the first place.