hand 1 given stack sizes just gotta ship.

hand 2 c/snap call. I'd still fold k/qo utg, but if you're gonna play it then you have to c/snap call the river, especially given your read. Clear case of a player who thinks "weak is strong and strong is weak"

I'd be much more afraid of a 1/2 psb there.

Also just a tip, you should buy in for 1.5 to 2x the max buy in and keep a buy in in your pocket. Being under 100bb is -ev and slowing down the game to have the dealer top you of is -ev as well.

Hand 1 I don't mind calling too much, don't mind shipping either, can't really say what I do here but you don't have much left and probably have decent equity and a bdfd so it's ok to ship. Dunno what folds tho is the problem.

Hand 2 I think I call this(results oriented obv). I mean generally when someone turbo ships like this it's air/nuts but you said he raises so what hands does he call down? The river probably doesn't help him since he pushed so quick cause he would of had to think of how much to value bet at least. But def a tough spot.

Overcalling 65s has to be a leak 65bb deep.
If you have no FE I dont think there is enough dead money to ship it in profitably.
Given PF, Your likely percieved range to shove ( not making sense to shove strong) - perceived relative hand strength of one pair on that board + the presence of the fish who does not like folding. FE <20% imo.

33% EV vs any TP or Second P

KQo - I think limping UTG would have to be a leak.

I would snap call river......particularly given the plan..I think you only lose to two combos of hands most often 56 and A5cc - I would severely discount two pair hands given texture and if you do account for them they add in a ****load more busted FDs.

I would have taken the opposite read bluffs will not be priced cheaply in live games - because that presumes a level of both players having hand reading capabilities and knowing each does. I think he expects people to call if he doesnt shove.
Timing as well insta-ship like online is usually a bluff before they talk themselves out of it....if he binked a turn or river he would have to at least consider bet sizing.

I would have also thought as I bet the turn - what my range for each action is.......

c/f flushing cards
c/c bricks
bet/call K

Sit and tank A and 8s and hate life

I would also note.

You said that you are playing a far nittier game.
7/2 or really tight passive by the sound of it.
Then on the other hand I see some pretty splashey loose passive play in your HHs.

You have suggested the games play like a level or more below online games.
Yet I am getting hints of adjustments in your play that sound technically awful.
I realise that there is a gap or difference in live and online games and some live pros have really insightful posts with regard to not 3betting the fark out of the table to scare off the fish..............but by the sound of it you are still playing 100bb poker and you are playing against loose and tight passive players. Play the game you have learnt - not a completely different game.

Be brutally honest on your review of your PF game.........I suspect you are spewing EV all over the place.

eh, you may have misunderstood something I said.

I am trying to play a looser game than I play online. Online, I am currently playing 16/13-ish.

I have adjusted that to a game that would be 20/12-ish if I were catching cards; but I am running card dead and the result is that i am playing 7/2 or so while trying to play 20/12.

_____________

On the other stuff: I hear you, but I disagree to a certain extent. The main reason we fold KQo in EP online is because we fear a raise from behind us. In many of these live games, that is much less of a concern, and hands like KQo can be profitably limped, as far as I can tell in my small sample. You'll probably go ballistic to hear it, but UTG, UTG+1 and MP1, I am limp/folding a lot of offsuit broadway hands that I would just fold online.

I think it is a solid adjustment, as top pair with these hands is usually good in a limped pot.

The key is to make sure there aren't many aggro players behind you. I normally revert to folding these hands if there are two aggro players behind me.

I'd like to hear from the regs on this. I know I have made a solid profit with this adjustment, but my sample is too small to generalize from.

________________

Regarding the 65s hand: Yeah, preflop was questionable, no doubt about it. Def not going to defend the preflop play. I cringed a little after I made the call--it likely slipped my mind that I was short, lol, because I was in the process of topping off.

Regarding hand 2:

Why are you betting so much on the flop and turn? IME, a 1/2 PSB would do the trick. These villains play fit or fold for the most part.

OMG, I had a mini-rush tonight. No good starting hands, really, but a lot of my speculative calls, light raises, etc. panned out for me and I shipped a $400 winning session.

here was the most interesting hand I played tonight:

I am in the cutoff. I have a $420 stack that was $500 four hands earlier. I lost the $80 or so on a few tough hands--folding TPTK to a shove by a set, stuff like that. Right before this hand was played, most of us at the table were joking about the change in my luck. As I was looking at my hand for this hand, I was saying, "yeah, I guess this is the part of the night where I give it all back to you guys."

BB said: "no reason to wait to play the hands out, just ship a stack over here."

I get dealt 88. There is one limper ahead of me.

I raise to $12, folded to the BB who calls, limper folds.

Flop: (~$25): J 7 5

Read on BB: 150bb stack. He is aggro. A pretty good TAg player who no doubt beats 1/2 live. He takes a lot of non-standard lines, such as donking into the pre flop raiser a lot. Unfortunately, I haven't seen him go to showdown with any of those plays, so I really don't know what range he is donking. But he seems pretty good, maybe mostly self-taught, since he does a lot of stuff like that.

Villain donks into me for $20. At this point I can't narrow his range much at all. I put him on anything with a jack, a flush draw, stuff like that--anything good enough to bet and try and get a fold from missed AK and AQ, a play I see a lot of these guys making with pocket pairs, and weakish made hands.

I call.

Turn (~$65): 3

Villain leads for $35, I make a pot odds call, and now think it is probably the case that I am only ahead of bluffs and spade draws.

River (~$135): 2

Villain bets $40.

Hero....

I was value betting. I had him on mostly flush draws and worse kings and wanted to charge him the max to draw to his 3 or 9 outs. I was betting the max amount I expected him to call.

You nailed this guy perfectly. he definitely was good enough to plan his hands. he just wasn't good enough to plan them well.

If I had read your post before I played him I would have $160 or so I don't happen to have atm.

NH, sir.

If you can limp EP with KQo because you are unlikely to isolated then surely its true that you can open without fear of being 3-bet light?

Digger, I know you meant this for mpethy, so I hope you both don't mind my interjecting. My level of play is beneath both of you but I would like to take a shot at this.

You are correct in that you don't have to worry about being 3-bet light from a later position. At $1/$2 this rarely happens.

But...there is a very good chance that no matter what size you open with you will get at least three or four callers that are playing any kind of unpredictable hands. The blinds will usually join in with any two because in their minds they have the the right pot odds no matter what.

That's why limping in with off suit broadway hands can be considered an ok play. There is a good chance that it will be a family (or close to it) pot. By limping in you get to see a cheap flop that may deliver you a monster that someone like mpethy can really take max advantage of. Because there is also a good chance that someone will donk off with middle or bottom pair. If the flop doesn't work for you, then you fold with saintly patience.

I wanted to comment on this because I've been playing $1/$2 live for about a year and half. But it's only recently that I have been opening up my limping range from ep. I had a really hard to time doing so because I felt like it was "dumbing down" my game that I have been working very hard on improving. (This was a huge psychological thing for me.) Got to say though that it's proving to be an +ep move for the most part.

Mpethy, I had been playing the Venetian pretty regularly but this last week have been trying out the Flamingo. Someplace you might want to consider if you feel like a change.

Edit: whoops I misread a few things here. I think river is a call given pot odds, thinking about shoving too...

The other reason people fold k/qo online is because it's a hand that flops medium strength hands which are often not good in multiway pots, and you'll be playing it oop. This is even more true live when there are often 6,7,8,9 and family pots. I really don't think that limping these hands is a good adjustment. I'd much rather limp a suited connector here, or just not limp at all which is likely best.

The bold part of the quote is the key here. More so at 1/2-3 than 2/5. I mention that, as you have already noted that you are more likely see two pair+ at 2/5, but in limped pots where the action stays calm TPGK can still be a winner. Its just those types of hands happen a lot less at 2/5 than 1/2-3 because of the greater aggression factor.

It comes down to raising/limping ranges for typical sslnl players in LP. Many will raise lessor Kx hands if they are on the loose side and limp when on the tight side when they are in LP, KJ is a very common pair over pair hand for example.

This is also why AT is also a decent limper, as many sslnl players are happy to raise or limp along with weaker Ax hands. The dynamic/tendency here is a little different though, as many players even those on not on the tight side will shutdown without two pair with their Ax hands if they face much heat.

I also do not look at KQ and AT as limp only hands. These on the right table are raising hands, yes even from UTG. If I have the right players I can raise these and take a big pot with TP vs a lessor TP hand. Of course this takes more skill in reading, but it works.

What I look for to change from limping to raising is a dynamic whereby I have one or more players that are slipping their discipline, are in that "OMG I haven't won/had a hand all night!" mode. They are more likely to call lighter than they would have when they first sat down. They are just one nudge from "fcuk it" mode, double up or go home.

Bottom line to your question, yes KQ is a profitable hand to play from EP. Yes you are going to get yourself into trouble from time to time, but with good discipline and decent reading skills you can limit your losses in these situations.

Call, you got this far and are likely ahead here more times than not. It smells like a line of "Hey I need to donk this flop, oh cool I flopped a FD/pair, bet, call, ok keep up the pressure he would have raised a J here but I have to keep it tame because he could be afraid of a bigger J here, bet/call, ok got to bet to win it here, bet...". Followed pretty quickly by "How the hell can you call there! You moron donkey!!!".

Where I get a little nervous here is I have seen this line from a flopped set too from this type of player. I would say somewhere around 60% to 75% of the time this is a FD or pair hand trying to take you off what looks exactly like what you have a PP. If he had a J here I would expect a bigger bet OTT more times than not.

In this situation I am raising the turn more times than not, a min raise is perfect BTW. It costs you very little when you likely have the best hand, FD still calls and checks the the river letting you bet to not show or check behind and show. Sets raise you for a easy fold. A pair of 7s folds most of time, which is the only down side, as 7s will bet the river nearly 100% of the time on a non FD completing river if you just call.

Digger:

Rock Wild and Percula have both pretty much summed up my thinking on limping KQ and similar hands in EP.

I would just add that: I am making this play only at very loose passive tables. This is the key, because a raise behind me under those circumstances is, by definition, a raise by a range against which I should fold KQ. Limping is preferable to raising, because if I raise, most of these players will CALL with the AK and AQ hands that dominate me. 3 betting would generally not occur to them.

This simplifies playing these hands OOP--if it stays a limped pot, TP is usually good. But if I raise and get callers, I always have to suspect that I am betting into AK or AQ.

I learned this lesson basically on day one in the hand where I raised A9s from MP and got called by the button holding AK and value towned myself. I have seen similar stuff happen most days since then.

Sorry - I am failing to see the advantages that you point out.

Some of your logic runs counter to the basic equity architecture of the game.

"if it stays limped pot, TP is usually good"

Which implies that overall ranges will be weaker - which I agree is likely true.

Then you state - I would prefer to limp because - I would prefer to not raise and face 3 or 4 callers.
Well for both to be true

1)Either theur range to overlimp is ~ theircoldcalling range - i.e. you will still have 3 or 4 players in the pot. In that case ranges will still be ~ = in strength but you will have a more compressed SPR so your exposure to RIO odds should be alot less.

2)Or That 3 or 4 callers is in fact small - and if you limp you will get 5 or more players to a flop. And it is unclear whether your PF plan is to limp/call or to limp/fold - which would be one decision point. As well as the perceived benefit of the extra callers in deeper SPR spots would not really apply to KQo.

If it is in fact neither.......I do not see how it makes sense that in a raised pot you always suspect that you are playing AK or AQ and subject to possibility of value-cutting but the field or actions do not alter range strength??

Also - I would be deeply concerned if you were not betting and running into AK, AQ because if you werent (given the table conditions) you would not be betting thinly enough. It seems to me that the argument is : I don't want to open for a raise because there is a chance I run into the top of someone's range.

Having said all of that - I can see the argument if it was specifically related to PPs22-66 that Hey its better to limp with these EP because its hit or miss proposition on the flop - and with various possible actions from players after I don't mind playing 3-6 ways.

But really consider the argument you are saying:

I am willing to sacrifice intiative:
Because I am concerned about AK, AQ calling vs my KQ,KJ and I will perhaps value cutt myself..........but what about all of the other Ks and Qs that in his range that are now be value bet a much larger bet more often.

AK AQ when you hold KQ - is 24 combinations
QJ,QT,Q9,Q8 Alone not including the suited lower Qs in very loose ranges is 48 combinations

Put in however many Kx -

And you are basically sacrificing the EV of valuebetting worse hands that could be upto 5 times as many combos or more for the top of his range. Does not make sense.

Actually pretty suprised we are having this discussion.

I never said this, and you thinking I did is part of the reason for the disagreement we are having here.

I'm not going to fight with you. What I will say is this: you may be right that raising KQo in EP is +EV at a loose passive table. I'll concede this may be correct.

I have no confidence that it is more +EV than limping. To come to tis conclusion I would want to analyze c-bet success rates and that sort of thing. I will certainly concede that raising KQo may very well be more profitable than limping it.

What I will say is that I am reasonably confident that limping it is +EV.

The question gets a lot closer for hands like KJo, QJo, and ATo, all of which I have been selectively limping in EP. For these hands, I am not yet even sure whether limping them is +EV. It feels like it is, but feeling is a loooooooong way from knowing, or even thinking. And, right now, I am mixing up my play, trying different things, experimenting with doing different things in situations I am unfamiliar with because they don't happen in the online game.

I don't pretend to have the best answers all figured out. Part of the reason for the thread is so I can report on what I am doing and hear back from players experienced in these games.

Your theoretical grounding is very solid, and, even when I think I disagree with you, I respect your opinions. But here, we don't disagree to the extent that i think you think we do. WRT limping broadways, my opinion is this: online, it is a leak. Live, I am leaning toward believing it is +EV. I have no opinion yet on whether it is theoretically more or less profitable to raise them. I have no opinion yet on whether I am capable of playing them for more of a profit raising than limping. At this point, I am just happy to have figured out that they can be played for a profit. If I can play them for a small profit limping them while I realize there is bigger profit in raising them, I can live with that. At least I'm not folding the sumbitches at these types of tables anymore!

Poker theory is a good place to start. But the big problem most people have in their game is that they do half of something because they know it is theoretically correct to do so, but **** up the other half, and reduce or eliminate the theoretical profit of the play.

I see this 8 times a day. It is why I am an empiricist, not a theorist. theory is a good starting point, but has only marginal relevance when implemented in the real world by imperfect players with an imperfect understanding of the game. People like me.

I think the point I am making is a large, important theoretical point but not a complex fwiw. And it is something that I know you understand given what I know of our shared poker background here.

I personally think you are over-estimating the necessary adjustments needed between the two environments.


Re: EP KQo

If it is true that you can play it profitably in any given game from EP.
But you believe that limping is more profitable than opening.

I would have thought one of the necessary preconditions for that to be true is that the range of your opponents is changing between their overlimping range and their coldcalling range.

and/Or

That there calling range to flop bets ( obviously less important turn/river bets) range is different in a limped pot to a raised pot.

Otherwise the only difference is the size of the mistakes if the frequency is =.

Do you see that?

Somehow I missed this, but yeah I wasn't wondering whether a living wage could be made(or how much said wage would need to be), but due to the rake whether or not the game was beatable at all.

Good to hear you believe it is though. I'm not familiar enough with the Vegas games to hazard a guess. Even saying whether the games in LA are or not is just that, a guess, but for some reason lately I've felt the LA games at 1/2-3 aren't even beatable.

Good point re: variance. I hadn't really thought of it that way tbh.

Good to see your luck has begun to change. Hopefully that keeps up for a while.

I'm not sure I understand your post. But that has never stopped me before, lol:

1. I agree that you think I am overestimating the necessary adjustments. The reason I know this is what you think is because I have been thinking that you are underestimating them. It's almost like they are different games, to be honest.

2. Opponents' ranges to overlimp are RADICALLY different than their ranges to cold call a raise. I'm not sure what affect this has on your opinions, but it is one of the assumptions from which I am proceeding in experimenting with adjustments.

3. Their calling range of a c-bet in limped pots is RADICALLY different than their calling range in raised pots. I'm not sure what affect that has on your opinions, but it is also one of the assumptions from which I have proceeded.

What is the consensus here? I'd probably just call and re-evaluate on the turn. Is that awful? If I hit, my opponents will still have a hard time putting me on 56 as I am generally percieved as way nittier than I actually am. (Of course, $11 with only one other caller is probably too steep for me to actually be in there with the 56 and barely more than a half stack, but let's pretend I am.) Depending on the turn card and turn action, I still have all available options of calling, folding, and raising. Am I costing myself money by trying to give myself the opportunity to save myself money?

I'm no wizard at poker, but there are plenty of players that are bad enough that I can beat them. However, I get really confused with all of the range speak and the talk along the lines of 'X is the correct play' for the villians fold/shove range, blah blah blah. Some players seem to have more of a mathematical formulaic method of playing than I can possibly understand. I think my game is kind of fuzzy. I make most of my decisions based on a vague sense of winning/not winning/getting okay pot odds to justify attempting to win/I think my opponent might fold here/I really DON'T think my opponent will fold here/etc. I greatly prefer playing live as it is much easier to get these fuzzy signals that I act on. AND it's a lot easier to get a read on how opponents play and how they percieve MY play. Am I just a loon? Also, I abhor variance. Which is primarily why I voted call on the 56.

If 2 and 3 were true - then you would expect far more frequent HU pots. Which in turn should make easier range assignment for v-betting and your c-bet success rate should be high.

So you should be able to get adequate further compensation for collecting non-showdown wins more often the effect of a greater frequency of calls for the smaller amount.

And obviously a premium on non-showdown winnings is true?

yes i don't think we're deep enough to flat there

i am enjoying the discussion between you two. mpethy posts something, and it all seems true, and i'm like "k that's it, i think he won". then digger posts something, and it all seems true too, but it contradicts mpethy's post. so i think "no, digger's right actually". rinse and repeat.