For the last few months, this has been a standard play for me. Until recent weeks, I never isolated with my small pocket pairs, as I was making more with them by over limping them than I did isolating with them.

Here's the thing--the TAg will not raise two limpers as light as he raises one, usually. So the hand plays more honestly if both me and UTG call. In these spots I am usually set mining. But if UTG folds (and everyone else, too) then I am going to play my hand as if I hit a set on any reasonable board, and count on the TAg to know that I was set mining and read my aggression as me having hit my set. This is the only time I will ever bluff representing a set; because my preflop play was so easily readable as set mining. In other words, if you were to watch me over limping, you would see me playing "stack-a-donk" HU OOP as if I were hitting my sets 25-35% of the time. On other occasions I will take other lines, but when I limp/call, I contend for the HU pot about 50-60% of the time.

All I can say is this works for me at $50, but not very well. My win rate in spots where I overlimp/call a raise behind me and end up HU with the raiser is .06ptbb/hand--nothing to be excited about, but preferable to folding preflop or folding to the raise behind me. If I had to guess, i would say that i am losing a little contending for the pot so often, but getting paid a little better on my sets by being so active so frequently post flop when I overlimp/called. I dunno.


My strategy with small pockets is evolving based on my table time, getting coaching from Bottomset and my experience rummaging around in other people's databases. For a long time, I was leaking by raising small pockets in early positon. So I started folding them, but always over limping them when UTG limped, and I posted the results I described above.

In recent weeks, I have been experimenting with isolating UTG limpers and open raising again with my small pocket pairs in EP, and I have been doing really well (.16ptbb/hand), so I am now adding 44-66 back into my preflop raising/isolating range from EP.

These changes were just based on my postflop skills, which I think have improved significantly in recent months. YMMV.

I think this post is VERY, VERY important for anyone playing 10nl and under. Perfect add on to Kurt's post. I don't know how, but this just threw it all together in an aha moment for me.

M, do you think maybe it's the ability to let them go/play them well postflop?

Or are you just looking at straight up preflop stats?

QFT.

At the same time, look to your left and you may be handed the BTN as early as MP+1. Last night at a table I had a few 9/3 with ATS of 10% behind me. So I was iso-raising/stealing for 5 spots. It took around 11 orbits before one of them adjusted and unfortunately for him the second time I woke up with hand and was able to stack him fairly easily in a spot he should have gotten away from.

Other times you get tough guys to your left and you can iso raise at all (this is when I change tables).

Sammy, Zeth, mpethy,

Y'all make me want to write another article on the preflop minraise. But I refuse to derail my own CoW.

I did some of the same (maybe giving balance since I'm a much weaker player than Sammy).

I don't open limp much with pairs either. What little I have done is a consistent loser. Overall, raising first or limping behind with TT or less results in about the same overall win. Calling raises is essentially break even.

However, how they win is different. When I hit a set after limping with others, I win about 25% more than when I raise. However, when I raise, even if I don't hit a set, I'm slightly positive vs. losing if I limp.

I'm paid off the least by calling raises. Probably too obvious .

Therefore, I think post flop play has a major role in making someone a winner or a loser with raising vs. limping. Some maybe better at getting an extra bet or two when they hit or stealing away a pot when they miss.

I love what you said about 3 betting people who are isolating a lot, but i hate what you said about using the fold to c-bet stat.

Your factual assertion--that fold to c-bet% on a fish will rarely have converged--is true, but the conclusion you draw is, in my opinion, too conservative.

My thinking on using stats that have not converged is this: they have not converged, but this does not mean they are completely unreliable, and they are, without question, the best information you have.

In other words, you use these stats and acknowledge the fact that they are suspect and may lead you astray. But if you have only seen a player react to 5 c-bets, and he has reacted by folding all 5 times, then this information is far superior to his vpip/pfr when deciding to isolate. Conversely, if he has called all 5 c-bets, it is probably best to forego isolating him lightly until you have some evidence his software has a fold button.

As for using other stats in place of, or in addition to fold to c-bet, of the trinity stats, af is far superior to vpip or pfr when deciding whether to isolate.

Virtually all of the information the HUD gives us is incomplete and will not have converged. But partial info is better than no info, and in my view, a small fold to c-bet sample is the best information you have available to assist you in whether to isolate preflop.

Here is the complete analysis I do on a player who has limped, in the order in which I do it:

High fold to c-bet; if yes, tend to isolate.

Rationale: If he folds to a lot of c-bets, then I prefer that he call the isolation raise, as my average win is simply going to be bigger. If it is not high, then I would prefer he fold to a light iso raise preflop, In which case, I will need for him to have a small gap between his vpip/pfr to consider isolating him.
AF >1.5: if yes, tend to isolate.

Big gap between vpip/pfr:

rationale: this means he will tend to call the iso raise. This is good for me if he folds post flop a lot, but it is bad for me if I am light and he is likely to call. But it's still not bad if he folds to c-bets a lot.

AF >1.5

rationale: This player bets or raises 1.5 times as often as he calls. This is good for me, as post flop I can expect him to donk into me or check raise me if he hits, but check/fold if he misses. This is a tendency, something that is generally true, but not something you can rely on completely. More importantly, an AF <1.5 demonstrates calling station tendencies, and I don't want to isolate light a player who is highly likely to call me down with trash that happens to be better than my trash.

VPIP/PFR is a clearly identifiable player type with a clearly identifiable range:

rationale: I basically don't care what the actual player type is, but i want it to be readily identifiable. So if he is a 10/6, he is a set miner and that is a green light. If he is a 42/12, what i may consider to be a light iso play is probably a value raise, lol. If he is a 15/12, he is set mining or limp/3 betting a monster. Etc., etc. I just want to be able to put him on a predictable range, and see that he plays a predictable post flop game. People who are tough for me to read are people who play like 24/12 or 30/3.

Post flop:

WTSD: I usually don't bother checking this stat until I have c-bet and he calls, because I know most of the time whether I am going to c-bet before i make the iso raise--so i use WTSD to dictate the line I take post flop. If I flop a hand, i want this to be high and i will go for max value. If it is low and i have a hand, I will probably take a more passive line and try to get two streets out of him. Conversely, if I miss and his WTSD is high and he has called my c-bet, then I am usually done. But if it is low, I may keep firing at him.

Turn Fold to c-bet--A high fold to turn c-bet and a low WTSD means I am usually firing again on the turn when i miss. But by the turn i am usually not playing by rote, so there are no hard and fast rules here.

I don't think it is anything easy. When people are paying me for a database analysis, I dig around in their databases a lot and try to figure out exactly what they are doing wrong--so i look at c-betting tendencies, double barreling tendencies and all the stuff you would expect to have an effect. I think I have only once been able to narrow it down--I caught a $25 player whose c-bet % was ridiculously high--he was literally c-betting > 90% of the time with his small pockets and double barreling most of the time, which is pretty insane.

Most of the time it is not that clear and I suspect that what it really is is the player's perceived range and perceived aggression. For example, i play a pretty nitty game and I c-bet on the low end of the scale of acceptability. So I would expect that people tend to treat my EP raises with respect, and assume that any c-bet from me means I have a good hand. If this is true, then raising and c-betting small pockets ought to be profitable for me, and this is turning out to be the case.

If I were a 16/13 with a c-bet in the high 60s or low 70s, I would expect raising in EP with my small pockets to be less profitable than they currently are turning out to be.

Another thing that we never talk about is the perceived skill of the player doing the raising. Regardless of what your image is --TAg, LAg, etc., people will be more likely to make a read on you as "good," or "not good," and play accordingly against you, by, for instance, tending to fold against you in spots they perceive as marginal, such as when you raise in EP and fire a c-bet and they have second pair or whatever.

This is all just supposition, though--I was serious when i said i didn't have a satisfactory explanation for why both strategies are winning and losing strategies in the hands of otherwise winning players.

Too conservative.
Well if it means I dont iso ATC then yes.
But I prefer having holdings which either enable me to stay aggressive or to have suckout value.

If it does go past the flop I prefer to have at least some prospect of winning the hand.
If it means I give up on the odd occasion some iso spots - but then get compensated for having better residual equity in some marginal spots - I think it is a good trade off.


Your stat analysis is very good MP - but I guess it was cautionary hint , on my part not to be too stat reliant.

I agree melikey AF as well as WTSD and W$SD as well.

Did you purposedly bet less than the regular 2+2 4BB+1/limper bet? Why do you do that if you're trying to iso?

I needed the tip on bet sizing, to stop me blindly doing 4+1 99% of the time.

A great read so far, thanks. <goes to finish reading the rest >

I was thinking about this recently. Certainly in cash games there is big support for open raising rather then taking the limp approach but elsewhere there seems to be a lot of resistance to giving up the cheap flop limp strategy, and I was getting curious as to who was feeding this mind set, because it certainly isn't 2p2 lol.

How do you guy's handle iso'ing from the blinds, after a weak player limps in with postion?

Depends on the villain and the position they limped in, but if you have a hand worth ISO'ing from the blinds most people do 4BB+1BB per limper +1BB when OOP.

I'm guessing ranges need adjusting some given we loose positional advantage?

I iso with SC's in position for example, but I don't feel this is all that profitable when OOP, I do it now and then but rarely, more so against villains who love to call pre, but seldom go beyond the flop.

Yeah generally you'll want to be a bit tighter with your ISO raises in the blinds, but it all depends on the villain. If there's a guy who calls a lot pre and folds to cbet 10% I pretty much never ISO without a good hand regardless of my position. People that limp/fold a lot you can ISO a wider range, etc.

See my above link to MyTurn2Raise's SLOB post. He lays out exactly who you should be stealing against from the blinds and what hands you should do it with.

Wow. Many thanks Kurt, great post!

I didn't post anything untill now in all the CotW topics, because I didn't feel I could add anything to the discussion, but I lurk every CotW discussion rentlessly. I just wanted to say that I love the concept: thanks to all the previous OPs and also this OP is great again.

One more example, from a game this afternoon. If I hadn't read this thread, I probably would have used the hand to set mine.
Poker Stars $0.02/$0.05 No Limit Hold'em - 9 players
The Official 2+2 Hand Converter Powered By DeucesCracked.com

UTG: $5.03
UTG+1: $2.95
UTG+2: $1.48
MP1: $6.08
MP2: $2.10
CO: $6.65
Hero (BTN): $9.52
SB: $4.95
BB: $4.00

Pre Flop: ($0.07) Hero is BTN with 6 6
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.05, UTG+2 calls $0.05, MP1 calls $0.05, MP2 calls $0.05, 1 fold, Hero raises to $0.41, 6 folds

Pre Flop: ($0.35) Hero is BTN with 5 5
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $0.25, 1 fold, MP2 calls $0.25, 1 fold, Hero raises to $1.75, 4 folds

Final Pot: $1.10
Hero mucks 5 5
Hero wins $1.10

I remember my thought process on this hand, I believe it was '**** that guy, and **** that guy - BAM!' I raised it an extra BB just 'cause they fold more.

Also... abuse the nits!

Pre Flop: ($0.35) Hero is SB with 9 8
5 folds, BTN raises to $1, Hero raises to $3.25, 2 folds

Final Pot: $2.25
Hero mucks 9 8
Hero wins $2.25

Hand 1, nice. Hand 2, wait for knn next week.

Yeah Hand 2 isn't really ISO raising, I just love to 3bet weak hands and watch them fold

These were all on pot-limit tables. It was the most I could bet.

Very nice post