Quote:
Originally Posted by OnTheRail15
I don't know what to tell you. It's important.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
wrt to this debate, seems to me you are both right.
OTR is right that it is always terrible when you basically "can't" have a certain type of hand. DougL used to make this point on the low limit boards with respect to people who always raised anything with an ace in it while also having a checking or calling range. He pointed out that one of the most useful pieces of information a player can ever have on you is "she never has an ace here".
On the other hand, it's really easy to take this principle too far. Your UTG range in a standard 9 or 10 handed game really shouldn't have very many 2's in it, even if it means that on a 322 board you never have trips or a boat. And if you don't believe me on this, extrapolate it out-- imagine playing, say, 18-handed limit hold 'em with a 5 bet cap against expert players. In that game what would your UTG raising range be? Whatever it would be, would it contain any hands with a 2 in it?
In other words, at some point, even though it sucks that you are going to have a narrow range on some flops, it is nonetheless correct to have a narrow range.
We all know this, by the way-- it's how we treat 3-bets and 4-bets when a tight player has raised. Nobody looks at a tight UTG raiser who is likely to have AT+ KQs TT+ and says "I need to 3-bet some hands with a 2 in it, because otherwise I will never be able to represent that I have a deuce". It just becomes more important to not play hands that have equity disadvantages than it is to have a wide range.
tldr cliffs: nothing wrong with trying to make sure you can connect with a wide range of hands in many situations, but there are situations where it is wrong (especially in early position full ring or in pots raised by tight players) and in those situations, don't worry about the fact that your opponent may have more information about your hand.