@Sabr the only difference in your game and my game is the buyin. You still have to deal with not everyone being 100bbs. Which is how llsnl works.

No, no, no.

Take two good players, say, me and SABR, and give us both 22 UTG. Both of us are going to be able to make a profit the one in 8 times we flop a set, and both of us are going to be smart enough to check/fold when we get 4 callers and the flop comes down 89T

Where SABR is going to make more money than me is in the middle ground--We raise, we get called by the button and the BB, and the flop comes down K84r, we c-bet and get called. On average, SABR is going to do a better job than me in deciding who and when to double barrel. he'll have a c-bet success rate of say, 48%, and mine will be 41%, and he'll be making a slight profit on his doubles, and I'll be taking a small loss, and the net result will be that he plays 22 for a small profit, and I play it for a small loss.

http://tommyangelo.com/articles/reciprocality/

Funny I come back in here and see this. Literally just wrote about this in my PG&C thread

Same argument I had in the UTG hand debate.

And you don't see how this is a huge difference?

In your games no one can buy in for more than $300. When you play a small pair, often times there isn't enough money you can win to offset your loses.

Change it to a $500 buy-in and things change. And obviously I have to deal with the fact that not everyone will have $500. If there are what I call "shoving stacks" in my game then I have to adjust and open tighter. You really don't think good players can adjust to table conditions?

It's you that's saying stuff like "set-mining is always bad" and other such inflexible nonsense.

fold KQ,KJ prolly AJ

EP raises to $20, two guys in MP call, you're on the button with 44. Everyone has at least $500. One of the guys in MP is a fish. What's your play?

My point is, you're pretty much calling to try to hit a set there. End of story.

Then don't speak in absolutes?

ITT, there's a lot of hidden assumptions in many of the posts that can cause casual readers to lose a lot of money because they don't know when the post applies.

I realize people are knocking "static" truisms, but there are some that stand the test of time. For me, the biggest is that poker consists of a trinity: Cards, Position and Skill. While it is possible to have such a skill advantage that you can overcome the other two, as mpethy put it a long while ago: Your biggest leak is that you're playing too low.

For the vast majority of players and situations, from anywhere to 1/2 to the nosebleeds, you want to have 2 of the 3 in your favor if you want to win at a table. Any time you play relatively weak cards UTG (say like 33), you've surrendered one advantage. People's calling range beats your hand. So you've surrendered another advantage. For most players, that means losing.

If you want to "LAG it up" I strongly suggest reading Split's COTW.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...ng-lag-657784/

IMO, if a player is looking to add one additional hand to their range, the first place to look to add it is on the button. The UTG isn't the place to add it. In fact, most players would be better off if they tightened their UTG range, not opened it up.

So we're raising preflop with small pocket pairs in position to play a 5 way flop so that we sometimes gain a free card in order to hit a 22:1 shot? So I guess I should be raising K9o for similar reasons just in case I hit a QJ/QT/JT flop and thus purchase a freecard for my gutshot (which will hit twice as much on the turn as my 2-outer)? (ha, that sounds a bit snarky, didn't mean to be)

ETA: I'm sure game conditions will dictate what a better play is. If we're in a typical 5way to a raised flop no-fold'em game, then I think raising small pocket pairs is lighting money on fire. But if your game is different, then I could see how raising is perhaps better. And, as has been stated elsewhere, raising a wider range of hands will definitely open up cases where you'll get paid off more on your good hands due to gambooley/action image. So I guess it isn't always cut/dry.

I'm not sure if I would classify small pp as a "weak" hand.

There's different types of weak I guess. There's weak hands that mostly improve to weak hands postflop (say K5o), but pocket pairs are weak preflop hands that improve to very strong hands postflop when they improve.

utg-88+, AK, AQs if table is tough

for weaker tables I'd include AJ, KQs utg and limp/raise 22-77 maybe 50/50.
also maybe open the occasional suited connector or suited ace.

Table dependent.

We agree here. I was thinking more of in a situation where an unimproved hand is quite unlikely to be a winner at showdown. There's certainly a level below where even an improved hand is unlikely to be a winner at showdown MW.

No, and neither SABR nor I are saying that. What we are saying is that you WILL improve on the turn 4% of the time or so the way we are recommending you play, and that improving on the turn is one of several factors that contribute to the profitability of playing the small pocket pairs as the aggressor.

What SABR said is that he usually raises limpers in position rather than limping behind them. There are several things going for him when he does this:

1. He will thin the field at least some, most of the time.
2. Doing so allows him to rep the premiums.
3. He has built a bigger pot for when he coolers somebody who also makes a pretty strong hand when he flops a set.
4. he retains initiative so that he can do as he said--check back and take a free card on bad boards to c-bet.

In the post of mine that SABR quoted, I quoted his list of a typical 8 plays with small pockets and started my post with "also..." SABR had made it clear that you should expect to win one every now and again unimproved, and i was elaborating his flop discussion by talking about the fact that we can't forget that sometimes we'll improve on the turn or the river. And the math on improving is such that, against a typical weak/passive field, you can c-bet expecting to realize most of the 8% chance you have to improve by the river.

It should have been clear from the context of what he and I were saying that the ability to occasionally improve on the turn is just one factor in why it is certainly possible to play the small pockets for a raise, whether IP or OOP. Neither of us was suggesting that it is the only, or even a primary reason, to raise with those hands.

^^ Yeah that's a really good summary.

When I raise a small PP I go in with the understanding that most of the time I'm going to take a small loss. It's a pre-flop semi-bluff where you usually lose, but occasionally win a big pot, and also try to steal some small pots along the way to keep you afloat.

Playing with sets is also not a gimmie. Most average regs (and nits even more so) will often play a set too strongly so they don't get drawn out on. I've seen nits make massive overbets with sets on wet boards and then flip their cards up and say "here, this is what I have, go ahead and call if you want." My silent reaction is to LOL in my head and say "wow what a ******, so you want him to fold all the hands you absolutely crush just so he doesn't chase his flush, which he might not have, well played."

I consider value-betting to be the strongest part of my game. I know when to underrep certain hands to induce action from worse hands and keep dominated holdings in the hand. A lot of players are too eager to immediately push their stack in the middle when they flop a set, and that is sometimes wrong.

I get what you're saying overall M, but for the most part, I disagree with these 4 reasons.

1) We have a small pocket pair, which can simply be played for awesome setmining implied odds. We don't want to thin the field. We want everyone, plus the dealer, plus a few people on the rail, to come into the pot. Hand basically plays itself postflop. I understand the thinning the field, getting it HU, cbetting, taking it down, etc. can be profitable, but I just don't think it is nearly as profitable (nor as easy to play, which is not to be overlooked) as setmining, so we're kinda wasting the potential of this hand with a field thinning raise, IMO. And if it doesn't thin the field, then we might as well have limped it and kept our implied odds huge (cuz now we're setmining anyways if we're going 5ways to the flop).

2) Game conditions obviously dictate this, but I'm not sure why I want to "rep a premium" when my opponent will typically have no clue as to what I'm attempting to rep, he has a pair, and he's going to call at least a couple of streets with it, cuz a pair is a hard to make. Sure, we can cbet some flops and take it down, but most of the time he we actually probably take it down with the best hand when our opponent missed.

3) Dependent on stack sizes. In a typical 100 BB game, it's going to take just one postflop raise to play for stacks in a limped pot, and that's going to be super easy to do if we're in position (and super easy to do in "cooler" situations). Admittedly, it'll be more difficult to play for stacks OOP, or in a deeper stack game.

4) Again, not convinced that raising is worth the effort of *perhaps* getting a free card to our 2outer. Especially if the pot is going to end up multiway.

My guess is that the biggest benefit is just for meta game / image purposes, in that opponents will have a hard time putting us on a hand, think we're aggro FOS a lot more than typical players, and might call down our other made monster hands easier / pay off thin value bets. But I'd much rather do the occasional raise from LP with a piece of junk hand rather than waste it on a solid gold money making opportunity that is the setmining pocket pair.

GbutIcouldbewrongG

A set is a very strong hand, but it isn't an automatic win. Most flops will not be super dry like K-8-2r. Bottom set on a coordinated flop is a very profitable situation on average, but you'd prefer an SPR that is not too big, because the larger the SPR, the more you need the nuts theoretically, to get stacks in. So it plays better if the pot is already a little bloated. When you have 44 and the pot is 8-way limped and the flop is 4-6-7, you have a good hand, but the pot is only 8 BB, so your SPR is 12.5, and the blinds may have gotten a free look with 85o or 53o. If you had raised, the SPR would be smaller, the field would be smaller, and you'd be less likely to lose to a straight. And it's easier to get stacks in.

Repping a premium allows you to often fold out better made hands, like second pair, when you can't beat it. However, you may get called by draws, which won't win unless they hit. This is where you need good hand-reading skills.

Yes, but people still don't commit as easily when there's nothing in the pot. In a limped pot you can get stacks in, but you said it yourself: you need to at least RAISE on the flop, and then bet the turn AND the river. That's a lot of opportunities for villian to fold a weaker hand. In a raised pot this is not the case. You force people to commit their stack much more easily if they want to continue.

It makes a difference. Instead of getting 3 cards to hit a set, you get 4 cards. Percentage-wise it's significant.

This is a big reason too.

When you have a junk hand you are bluffing with little equity. When you have a pair you have a chance to hit a very strong hand much more often, than with junk like K6o or whatever you had in mind.

One of these^ statements is incorrect. The increased ability to check back the flop on bad c-betting boards is just a fringe benefit; a little bit of extra equity.

I AGREE with you that the increased ability to check back bad c-betting boards is not sufficient justification for raising small pocket pairs.

But the list of reasons is additive: we thin the field + we build a pot + we gain initiative + we can rep premiums = Definitely worth the effort of raising.

I like to raise my small pocket pairs to like 3bbs or 2.5bbs...or even 2bbs after many limpers.

As a player with a super loose/aggro image the positional problem is compounded enormously. Villains rarely fold to my preflop raises or my c-bets. For that reason I always fold AJ from UTG and will fold AQ at certain tables as well. I'm never calling a raise from the blinds with AQ type of hand (raise/fold). I can limp pocket pairs from early position if I expect most of the time it will be limped around.

I guess this is the price I pay for showing big bluffs and winning big pots with mediocre hole cards. However, I would like to live vicariously through all of you that can profitably play hands like this from early position.

You can't play AQ profitable because people call you too much?

Yeah, I'll often get multiple callers and with AQ I'd rather just have 1 or 2 callers, especially if I'm playing out of position. BTW, I normally do play AQ, it's just certain tables that i do not. AJ I practically never play UTG 9-handed. Whether I can play these hands profitably is unknown but it seems marginal at best. I think it's more ev+ for me to play any 2 cards in position than to play AJo from UTG.

To me, all the hands work together like a puzzle. If I'm playing uber snug and someone raises in early position and gets multiple callers then I can re-raise from the blinds with any 2 cards and take down a substantial pot where villain will throw away AK, where as if I'm on a heater and have just won a bunch with mediocre holdings it makes it difficult to 3-bet from blinds with AQ because villains will play back at me and I will get in a very marginal flip (or dominated). Same goes for UTG, if I raise from UTG in this situation and then someone raises me I'm in a very tough spot and once again could be flipping which is either ev- or just marginally ev+ but when I play poker at this level in position it is like printing money at times.

(btw, please don't say I don't raise enough...I'm already at the very upper end of the spectrum in regards to raise amounts).

I get multiple callers most time I raise, so I raise AQ...

+1

I raise it most of the time as well. Perhaps you missed that point.

Yea, I got focused on the getting too much action to raise a strong hand. I would raise AJ too at tables where I'm getting called a lot...because AJ > call a lot ranges.

From an equity standpoint, sure you are generally ahead but I firmly believe that position dominates dominance. Sure, we we flop top pair this is pretty straightforward to play (albeit, an ace can get us in trouble). However, if we miss the flop, then what? In position I can control the betting, but out of position I often have to check (because most don't believe me) in a multiway pot and then someone in position can take it down (perhaps they have a pair, or a draw, or are good enough that they can bet with nothing against weakness).