I think there are merits to both limping and raising. If the table is playing really loose and we expect 3way+ pots if we raise then we're better off limping because we'll price ourselves out of set mining and most flops will be extremely difficult to play in that scenario. The fact that the loose guy is on your direct left makes me think this pot will often get another caller or 2 more often than not. The flip side to this is that I like a raise if the table is weak passive and a big raise here will take the pot down pre or will get it heads up more often than not.

As played I would put monkey's range on something like AJs, AQ+, 99+ and think folding and stacking off are both fine.

I think everyone on here gives these spew monkeys way too much credit in general as far as their range goes. Every time I post a hand, everyone just automatically assumes the most obvious ranges for these guys. But they are rarely accurate. When dealing with these spew monkeys, literally ATC is their range...period. The stuff I see at showdown blows my mind most times. It would be awesome if these ranges were realistic for these lower levels, but we are literally walking through a minefield of ATC. This makes it frustrating trying to do the balancing act between playing the way you are supposed to and just sometimes trusting your gut.

Great point, i totally agree and especially in this situation. Damn monkey shows 109off for a rivered straight that lucky **** lol

The amount of money you are risking relative to the size of your bankroll.

If we limp for $6, we are risking less than 1% of your roll (based on you bringing $750 to the casino) and will only proceed to risk our stack if we flop a set. If we flop a set, then our equity should be north of 65% and in many cases on the turn can be as high as 90%

If we raise $50, we are committing to a line in which we have to put at risk and/or shove $200 which is 28% of your $750 roll. Our equity with this line if called will be 50% or less. (even though X% of the time, V's fold and you take down the pot).

So basically, one line risks 1% of your roll
-- with this line, if you stack off you will be doing so as a 65% - 90% favorite

the other line risks 28% of your roll.
-- with this line, if you stack off you will be doing so as a 50% or less dog .

Exactly the explanation that i was looking for. Thanks for taking the time. As soon as my pms are available to me (not sure how to access them), i'd like to ask you a few more questions that are a little off topic but still pertain to my issue.

This is what u should tell dad op...originally posted by king niche

we are glamourous underachievres who chase beavers and big pots and we tip the dealer a chip and the waitress the dick because thats what lifes about..we arent here in the forrest like squirrels after the berries, we are going for the big nuts..your not a poker god until youve jumped off a diving board in the hills wearing nothing but crocodile shoes while a chick flicks her bean poolside...we dont take our eyes off the prize..ive had it, and im going to get it again!!!

+1 mirrion

i don't mean to pick on you, specifically. but, this type of reasoning is something i read all the time and it isn't logical for a cash game (unless you are playing under-rolled).

do NOT take your time. do NOT wait for a better spot. if the play is +EV, take it. if it's not, pass.

often, this logic error comes in the form of "i'd rather have KJs here instead of KJo"... ok... well, (as my friend says), "since we're playing a wishing game instead of poker, i'd rather have AA here instead of KJo"

most of the reasons people are giving in this thread (and in almost every single thread i ever read) are nearly worthless. as dgi says, overcalling 88 here is profitable. that doesn't mean its the best play. we want to make the MOST profitable decision. not just any old profitable decision.

along those lines, you need to ask "what size squeeze is most profitable?" i hear all the time in this forum, "don't bluff because they don't fold".. well, that's not true. they won't fold for the weak-ass bluff sizes i see all the time as im playing. as my friend says about bluff sizes, "its hard to beat the EV of 100% fold equity"

the variance of a play has nothing to do with the size of your bankroll. the fact that you're risking a higher or lesser percentage of your roll does nothing to change the variance of the play. it may be a deciding factor in which play you want to choose, as i alluded to a couple of posts above.

+1

Not sure what you're trying to explain here... that the variance of one hand is independent of your bankroll... not always true; but given the fact that your bankroll is assumed to be larger than whats at play on the table, then yes that's a pretty straight forward, obvious statement.

What you are obfuscating is the fact the variance relative to your bankroll is one of the most important considerations to take into account when deciding to play any betting game. Which is also a pretty obvious statement.

He's explaining that there is a right and wrong answer for each side of the coin. If you're properly rolled, you should be taking the greatest +EV lines, period, in order to maximize your longterm profits. On the other hand, if you're short rolled, you still want to make +EV decisions, but, you should also be making low variance decisions based on your short roll (ex: committing a large % of your stack preflop regardless of the situation). Either way, making +EV decision will be the optimal way play for long term results.

How is being "properly rolled" determined? By evaluating variance relative to bankroll. Period.

So yes we agree, you should be properly rolled, which means you should keep in mind the variance of the game/play is small relative to your bankroll. When youre shoving your stack for small equity advantage spots, and your stack is a significant fraction of your bankroll, then whether or not you are properly rolled will be left to be seen.

Lol, you're complicating this and getting off topic w/ the bold statement. In this instance, my play was not based on a slight edge in equity. It was based on taking down the pot uncontested a high % of the time. Of course, getting it in here w/ a med pair vs two over cards is a small equity edge, but thats not point. A quote i read earlier in the thread describes this situation well.

"Its hard to beat the EV of 100% fold equity"

Now obv you'll never have 100% FE, but i'm sorry, there are just certain spots in live poker where you are 99% sure everyone will fold their hands based on the information/reads presented.

The only real variable here is the size of one's bankroll and the particular game they're playing. Being predominately TAG or LAG shouldn't have much of an impact on your results regarding variance... unless you're a terribad LAG ofc

Whether they miss the flop is irrelevant since we shove pre-flop. I don't see how the Hero's line takes advantage of the Villain's weakness. Best case we're flipping with him.

If we shove pre-flop it's virtually certain that the Villain plays his hand perfectly.

And obviously everything I say is wrong if Villain 3-bets and calls the shove with 45 off.

I agree with you darn near 100%, and it gets frustrating seeing posts about "pick a better spot." There are some rare situations where this is true though. Imagine a super juicy cash game where somehow you and several whales have all managed to accumulate very deep stacks. The buy-in cap is 100BB. Do you think you should take a 55-45 flip and risk only being able to re-buy for 100BB or wait for one of the several whales to gift you a stack as a 90% favorite?

This. What we are concerned with is risk of ruin. Variance does have a large factor in this though.

Line is fine. Bring 3 BI's though not 2.5