Why you should bet the flop with a set

[mixchange]

Sometimes I betray my own instincts and experience, and this is what I get:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Hero ($104.90)
MP ($50.95)
CO ($28.55)
Button ($67.45)
SB ($97.15)
BB ($19.95)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 4, 4.
Hero raises to $3, 3 folds, SB calls $2.50, 1 fold.

Flop: ($7) 4, A, K (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

Turn: ($7) 7 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $4, SB calls $4.

River: ($15) Q (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $11, SB calls $11.

Final Pot: $37

SB has As Kd (two pair, aces and kings).
Hero has 4c 4s (three of a kind, fours).
Outcome: Hero wins $37.


He probably would have felted had I started the betting on the flop. We were "slowplaying each other". The turn killed a lot of potential action with the flush out.

This flop was a must bet, and it probably cost me at least $50

[JJDAMAN]

yup.

[|~|ypermegachi]

checking this flop is criminal given the flush draw that's out there....

[mixchange]

I agree, I played this hand absolutely terribly. Sometimes I end up cracking and slowplaying after the last 5-6 sets I've hit have just gotten folds to my normal 'cbet'.

gotta stay disciplined for stuff like this

the mantra has to be, either he's got a good hand or he doesn't... such as:

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $1.00 BB (6 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

SB ($100)
BB ($93.85)
Hero ($93.15)
MP ($104.70)
CO ($100)
Button ($74.40)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 8, 8.
Hero calls $1, MP calls $1, 3 folds, BB checks.

Flop: ($3.50) 5, 8, 2 (3 players)
BB bets $4, Hero raises to $10, MP calls $10, BB calls $6.

Turn: ($33.50) T (3 players)
BB bets $10, Hero raises to $30, MP raises to $93.7, BB calls $72.85 (All-In), Hero calls $52.15 (All-In).

River: ($292.20) 5 (3 players, 2 all-in)

Final Pot: $292.20

Results in white below:
BB has Tc 8c (two pair, tens and eights).
Hero has 8h 8d (full house, eights full of fives).
MP has 2c 2d (full house, twos full of fives).
Outcome: Hero wins $279.95. MP wins $12.24.

and yeah, my lazy ass needs to top up more often

[|~|ypermegachi]

topping up woulda added 3.4ptbb/100 to your winrate lol

[bigspenda73]

um raise 88 PF what are you doing openlimping a hand that strong in 6max

[mixchange]

Did you see how I scored an extra $93 here from big blind? Also, if I raise it to $4 (my normal raise) many players will fold 22 here, and it's possible I just picked up the blinds instead of tripling up.

I like raising pp's folded to me on button or SB, but we make our big money with PPs when our set hits and someone else's hand is also good. Folding out other people prevents them from stacking off.

I hear it all the time I should raise a pair of 8s in early position, but it what it seems to do is fold out marginal hands that might luckbox 2p and hands like AK, AQs, 1010+ will 3bet me and suddenly the pot is huge and it costs more to setmine. I find I'd prefer to see flops cheaper and have more potential people seeing the flop so if I luckbox there is someone else willing to stack off.

[swiggidy]

If you're playing with terrible players who stack of with top 2 in limped pots, maybe.

Set over set almost never happens, that was luck.

[griffey24]

Did you see how I scored an extra $93 here from big blind? Also, if I raise it to $4 (my normal raise) many players will fold 22 here, and it's possible I just picked up the blinds instead of tripling up.

Your logic is flawed here. You don't think 22 is gonna call a raise in this spot preflop? I thikn 22 is definitely calling a raise. Unless these guys are somehow super nits. You might fold out 108, but thats fine, you want it heads up with 88 anyway.

The odds of three strong hands on this kind of board are very unlikely. The other 90% of the time you raise, you will own the guy with 22's and take it down. you're validating your preflop play based on the action you got, that you don't think woulda happened if you raised. Don't be results oriented!

[mixchange]

If you're playing with terrible players who stack of with top 2 in limped pots, maybe.

Set over set almost never happens, that was luck.

I appreciate your explanation of it being "luck", that was very insightful.

The set over set part wasn't the point. BB called with 8 10 which he is likely to fold OOP to a raise. We got $95 more.

and yes, the people I play with allll the time at 100nl will stack off with top 2, or even bottom 2. Maybe you play some kickass fools at 200/400nl but I have extremely diligent table selection where I am constantly table hopping looking to play pots with people who donate, not regs.

Your logic is flawed here. You don't think 22 is gonna call a raise in this spot preflop? I thikn 22 is definitely calling a raise. Unless these guys are somehow super nits. You might fold out 108, but thats fine, you want it heads up with 88 anyway.

The odds of three strong hands on this kind of board are very unlikely. The other 90% of the time you raise, you will own the guy with 22's and take it down. you're validating your preflop play based on the action you got, that you don't think woulda happened if you raised. Don't be results oriented!

** Edit** Just found this old quote from Poker Romance:
"i actually fold low pockets in early position. utg i think ill fold 66-22. and ill only start playing all of them in midposition.
ill raise pockets when in mid to late position if there have been no raises. 77 and 88 i might raise in early position and 99+ i will always raise in ep. " http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...116&highlight=

I understand that the odds of 3 strong hands on a board are unlikely. Often, even 2 strong hands on a board that ppl are willing to felt is unlikely as well, as in the top hand of AK top 2 vs. set.

Some people *will* dump 22, shockingly enough. I'm not saying he would, but some peolpe will dump them (silly, I know). Let's put the 22 PF call aside for a moment, I don't really care about that part.

What I am saying is that I don't want to fold people out. I am focusing on the big pots with sets, not the small/medium small pots where I throw a cbet out and 22 folds or calls flop and folds turn. I want full stacks. More people in pot PF, more likely I get their stack. And yes, people DO stack off in limped pots, I see it frequently. You may counter with that raising PF begins building the pot, but if people have a killer hand that initial pot building doesn't mean much -- they will raise, re-raise, etc. and soon the 3-4xbb raise PF has become insignificant.

I've tried the "general forum consensus" on how to play PPs, and I simply disagree. Maybe it's my diligent table selection that allows me to find some serious donks to let my strategy work, I don't know. But I have tried the "general consensus" for thousands of hands at a time, and I found it to be less profitable.

I wonder if anyone here has tried my strategy, or are we all just going along with "generally accepted knowledge"? (not trying to offend anyone or boast, just an honest question)

I limp pps UTG and in MP. Depending on the table and PP, I may raise in the CO. I almost always do raise on the button, as I raise so much on the button it would be odd if I did not. The idea is with PPs to try to play with as many players in the pot as possible, so that someone else has a hand they would be willing to felt too. I want to emphasize the limping in UTG and MP more than anything else, I understand some people would never consider limping in the CO with pp.

It would be interesting for us to compare PT stats on PPs.

[IowaSkinsFan]

words of advice for mixchange.
1. Everyone in this thread is correct at least in the fact that you played the hands you posted badly, in more than one way.
2. When you have a hand that you want to play for stacks its good to just default to nearly potting every street until you learn otherwise (although 80% of hands (at least) you're going to take this line if you want to play for stacks)
3. limping pp's in ep is fine, although when you learn how to play better you're going to want to raise them.
4. At these stakes not raising or reraising at least 3x in any raise situation is criminal 99.9% of the time.

[mixchange]

Iowa:

responding to 1)
Hand 1 was an intentional posting of how not to play a set. I don't consider that part of my "philosophy" on PPs, it went against how I like to play them.

Hand 2 I played fantastically, this represents my set philosophy perfectly. What was played badly?

2) potting every street is silly. sounds like a way to tell everyone to fold and miss value, especially if they can "catch up" a bit by hitting 2p on turn or river. I prefer 2/3 pot. Hand 1 was stupid, hand 2 betting was great.

3) You are missing my point. I claim more $$ by limping. I can play pps in a HU pot just fine, its not that I am "bad" at playing that way, I just considering raising with low/mid pps in early position to provide me with less overall profit.

4) I think 2.5x re-raising is fine, I mix it up with 3x. If my 2.5x is called once, I move to 3x.

I have learned a loooooooot on FTR, I just disagree about limping in EP with pp. Maybe to thinking reg's at 400NL this line is soooo obvious, but with diligent table selection at 100NL this line is hugely profitable. I seek out weak players/tables, I love a table full of half and 2/3 stacks

[|~|ypermegachi]

mixchange, back up your words and post stats for these thousands of hands that you claim made you more money. it should be pretty simple to see with the filters on and with a PFR near 0%.

it also works both ways. if you limp, you're gonna let that dude with 75s limp after you, and they're gonna hit some straight the same time you hit a set the same time someone hits a lower set....so i wouldn't rely just on that for limping preflop.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Iowa:

responding to 1)
Hand 1 was an intentional posting of how not to play a set. I don't consider that part of my "philosophy" on PPs, it went against how I like to play them.

I know

Hand 2 I played fantastically, this represents my set philosophy
perfectly. What was played badly?

raise more on the flop, more than 3x, and raising less especially in this situation is not fine.

2) potting every street is silly. sounds like a way to tell everyone to fold and miss value (NO), especially if they can "catch up" a bit by hitting 2p on turn or river. I prefer 2/3 pot (Fine but 3/4ths is better in most situations). Hand 1 was stupid, hand 2 betting was great.

3) You are missing my point. I claim more $$ by limping. I can play pps in a HU pot just fine, its not that I am "bad" at playing that way, I just considering raising with low/mid pps in early position to provide me with less overall profit.
If you feel like you can play pp's in HU pot fine than you should be raising them.

4) I think 2.5x re-raising is fine, I mix it up with 3x. If my 2.5x is called once, I move to 3x.
No

I have learned a loooooooot on FTR, I just disagree about limping in EP with pp. Maybe to thinking reg's at 400NL this line is soooo obvious, but with diligent table selection at 100NL this line is hugely profitable. I seek out weak players/tables, I love a table full of half and 2/3 stacks

I think your point here is more than valid, people dont realize that you're only limping pp's and will still stack off to you. People don't realize how much pp's lose value versus half stacks and non full stacks.

However, truthfully I'm not going to argue with you in this thread, I just came here to give my points.

[mixchange]

mixchange, back up your words and post stats for these thousands of hands that you claim made you more money. it should be pretty simple to see with the filters on and with a PFR near 0%.

it also works both ways. if you limp, you're gonna let that dude with 75s limp after you, and they're gonna hit some straight the same time you hit a set the same time someone hits a lower set....so i wouldn't rely just on that for limping preflop.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...116&highlight=

I did a whole thread on this in January, back when I wasn't nearly as good. I disagree with some of my own advice, but the general strategy is there.

anyway, my stat there is
2.31 BB/hand with just the lowest 8 PPs

Now here's me doing the way suggested in this thread, but with all the pairs, so you'd think the number would be much higher:
http://nothingleftmusic.com/nlpublic/poker/ftr3.jpg (lower right hand corner) 1.47/bb hand

I wish I had a bigger sample size, but I lost any PT stuff prior to june, just have what I posted in that thread from the past.


I'd love to see others stats.


Iowa, I am always just discussing, not "arguing" with people. I am geniunely trying to discuss and transmit ideas back and forth, I'm certainly not entrentched in my position and I have learned tons on FTR. I just haven't been given any evidence in this thread or through my playing to warrant using the style advocated by others.

If you feel like you can play pp's in HU pot fine than you should be raising them.

I've listed a bunch of specific reasons why I intentionally don't want a HU pot, I consider PPs to lose TONS of value in HU pots, unless you like to win lots of small pots. I am gunning for the big pots, so I'm happy to lose some small pots now and then because so many people are in the pot.

[|~|ypermegachi]

raising: you included all 13 PPs.
limping: you only included 8 PPs.

i don't see how excluding TT-AA increased your winrate...weird...

[mixchange]

yeah i know, im sorry, I am not at home with the PT stats, I can do a better job of that when I get home, but it will go down for the raising once 10-AA is excluded

its not that excluding them increased, I am showing two different whole sets of data -- one era where I was limping, another where I was tending to raise. The raising era included TT-AA so you'd think it would be significantly higher

the sample size isnt all that great, but it illustrates my general perspective.

[|~|ypermegachi]

hmmm, i see now. excluding the upper pairs in the limping sample actually proves your point more, since including them should increase the winrate, but the limping winrate is already much higher than your raising sample which includes the upper pairs.

this is interesting...i'm actually losing when filtered for 22-99 raised first in (-0.31ptbb/100 over 150 pairs).

[bigspenda73]

it's b/c you're cbetting them too much

[Ash256]

Did you see how I scored an extra $93 here from big blind? Also, if I raise it to $4 (my normal raise) many players will fold 22 here, and it's possible I just picked up the blinds instead of tripling up.

The other day i limped 72o and nit a 772 flop and stacked someone who had A7.

Did you see how I made an extra $99? Had I not limped it I wouldn't have stacked A7!

Raise, c-bet, ship it... $$$

[IowaSkinsFan]

I've listed a bunch of specific reasons why I intentionally don't want a HU pot,

Yes, a bunch of reasons that aren't strong enough to tell you not to raise pp's preflop if you feel like you play them well postflop.

[mixchange]

Did you see how I scored an extra $93 here from big blind? Also, if I raise it to $4 (my normal raise) many players will fold 22 here, and it's possible I just picked up the blinds instead of tripling up.

The other day i limped 72o and nit a 772 flop and stacked someone who had A7.

Did you see how I made an extra $99? Had I not limped it I wouldn't have stacked A7!

Raise, c-bet, ship it... $$$

maybe you could contribute something? I appreciate Iowa's efforts who disagrees but you are just being rude, IMO

This is an important topic to me. I win more with my strategy than the one suggested -- many regs are suggesting I can make more playing it their way, and I am curious for more details.

Spenda seems to think a lot of it is that then I play the PPs when raising, I'm cbetting too much... But isn't that the point of raising PPs, that HU you are ahead 2/3 of the time? Wouldn't you want to almost always cbet, unless the board is obviously bad for us like 2 or more broadway cards?

Hyper is potentially seeing some basis for my strategy looking at his empirical results.

Can some of those who disagree and play around 100NL post their PP stats? That would be awesome!

[|~|ypermegachi]

it's b/c you're cbetting them too much

bah, hard to get the filter to work...guess i'll just have to add up the 1st action after PFR:

bet: 44/150
raised: 1/150
called: 2/150
checked: 22/150
folded: 4/150
no flop: 77/150

[bigspenda73]

Mix I was referring to Hyper, I have no idea how you play.

[Ash256]

Did you see how I scored an extra $93 here from big blind? Also, if I raise it to $4 (my normal raise) many players will fold 22 here, and it's possible I just picked up the blinds instead of tripling up.

The other day i limped 72o and nit a 772 flop and stacked someone who had A7.

Did you see how I made an extra $99? Had I not limped it I wouldn't have stacked A7!

Raise, c-bet, ship it... $$$

maybe you could contribute something? I appreciate Iowa's efforts who disagrees but you are just being rude, IMO

I'm contributing. I'm saying that citing one hand as a reference for a strategy is bollocks.

My opinions on your strategy:

- It's ok against people who don't have a fold button (Who don't come along very often, even though they exist)
- I personally find c/folding flops painful
- Your hand is stupidly obvious to the regs
- Having raised pre, you're still getting marginal set odds vs. a threebettor with a premium, but after the customary flop betting it's really difficult for them to get away
- It comes in handy to know what they have so you can customise your bet sizes in order to extract value - I feel that getting an idea of their range (where a PFR helps) and using different techniques to gain value is better than blindly throwing out PSBs on the turn and the river hoping they've got something, although I can't be sure.
- As hyper said in another thread, not many players float, so c-bets = money!

[bigspenda73]

it's b/c you're cbetting them too much

bah, hard to get the filter to work...guess i'll just have to add up the 1st action after PFR:

bet: 44/150
raised: 1/150
called: 2/150
checked: 22/150
folded: 4/150
no flop: 77/150

So you're cbetting 60% of the time with all pairs? I'll have to check what I do when I get home from work.

[LimpinAintEZ]

Did you see how I scored an extra $93 here from big blind? Also, if I raise it to $4 (my normal raise) many players will fold 22 here, and it's possible I just picked up the blinds instead of tripling up.

I like raising pp's folded to me on button or SB, but we make our big money with PPs when our set hits and someone else's hand is also good. Folding out other people prevents them from stacking off.

I hear it all the time I should raise a pair of 8s in early position, but it what it seems to do is fold out marginal hands that might luckbox 2p and hands like AK, AQs, 1010+ will 3bet me and suddenly the pot is huge and it costs more to setmine. I find I'd prefer to see flops cheaper and have more potential people seeing the flop so if I luckbox there is someone else willing to stack off.

i do have to agree with this 100% - are we getting called by 10,8 if we raise here preflop? I think villain was a tad bit donkish to stack off here with 2pair, BUT it does happen this way all the time - And the 400NL guys might certainly know better than to not stack off with 2pr, but to the 100NL (and me at 50NL) players are stacking off with 2 pair here QUITE often...I also think your raise flop, raise turn line looks like your trying to push him off his draw, and this makes him believe he's definitely good with 2pair (like if you limped 99 or QJs) - many players will push 2 pair here on the turn when the flush doesn't hit trying to "protect" their hand....villain just doesn't understand what kinda trouble he is in on this hand -

[LimpinAintEZ]

1 thing about raising preflop with the 88 here is that it may get villain to call a "reasonable" flop bet when he hits his Top Pair (putting you on AK or overpair) - Then when he turns his 2 pair there it is unlikely he puts you on 88 for the set - so he loses his stack because he won't put you on 88 and a flopped set -

i guess that the bottom line maybe that villain has to have some kind of hand in order for you to get paid anyway, so we should be betting?

im finding that i need to slowplay my sets myself, in order to get paid - And I play laggy anyway and bet most times its checked to me - so its not like opponents should be thinking that im a NIT and only bet the nuts -

good discussion though - I am trying to fine tune my set play - I usually limp them and only raise them in LP -

[griffey24]

** Edit** Just found this old quote from Poker Romance:
"i actually fold low pockets in early position. utg i think ill fold 66-22. and ill only start playing all of them in midposition.
ill raise pockets when in mid to late position if there have been no raises. 77 and 88 i might raise in early position and 99+ i will always raise in ep. "

mixchange, I've never seen this quote before, but from the sounds of him talking about midposition and such, I think he's talking about full ring. Which makes a big difference!

[SmackinYaUp]

We need more PT stats to back it up, but here's what I suspect a large database of winners' stats will prove:

That open limping pocket pairs is less profitable than raising them. The reasons being you will lose more money by giving up value than you will by hitting cheap sets. What I mean is by raising, narrowing the field, and c-betting you are going to make more money than by limping and then check-folding unless the flop is just right. Most of the time you will miss and the rest of the time you still might not get paid off.

Limping behind with small pocket pairs is a different story and I limp behind with small PPs all the time.

Sure the weaker players will call you more and it can be hard to tell where you're at but you might as well get more money in preflop while youre A) ahead and B) have the momentum which puts the pressure on them, whether or not the fish realize it.

If PT numbers prove otherwise, I'm fair game for re evaluating my position.

[|~|ypermegachi]

i'm certainly not a good candidate for a "good player" as i have many leaks in my game. i open-raise all pairs in every position, mainly for reasons already stated and because it hides what hand i have. my sample size is really small too, but this is going to make me pay more attention to my small PPs and how i play with them postflop.

[mixchange]

I'm contributing. I'm saying that citing one hand as a reference for a strategy is bollocks.

Give me a little credit! You think I played one hand and based my whole PP strategy off of that? I can dig up some more HH's if you want of limped pots where SB completions and other limpers that would have folded stacked to me. I also made a long detailed strategy post about it in January which I have linked in this thread.

Have you ever even *tried* this strategy at 100nl?

My opinions on your strategy:

- It's ok against people who don't have a fold button (Who don't come along very often, even though they exist)

This is just silly.

- I personally find c/folding flops painful
- Your hand is stupidly obvious to the regs

Not much money is made by playing pots with good, hand reading regs. I avoid tables full of good regs. I can spot a lot of them now at 100nl and I definitely play them a little different. But unknowns and stacks less than full I assume are stupid.

Regs are human too -- if they flop top 2 are often felting to my sets...

I also occasionally limp some other hands like sc's or suited aces to mix it up.

Griffey -- yeah the Pokerromance quote I said it was in January, but I should have mentioned that was when he played either 25 or 50nl, now I think he's at least at 100NL and is much better, I doubt its still his strategy. Sorry PR for not making that clearer.

Smacking -- I agree there is a big difference between limping small PPs and medium pps. Right now I'm limping 88 and below, but I can see the line blurring at 77 and 88. I find 77 and 88 too hard to play post flop and I find better value in strictly set mining. Where do you draw your line on limping pps?

[Ash256]

I'm contributing. I'm saying that citing one hand as a reference for a strategy is bollocks.

Give me a little credit! You think I played one hand and based my whole PP strategy off of that? I can dig up some more HH's if you want of limped pots where SB completions and other limpers that would have folded stacked to me. I also made a long detailed strategy post about it in January which I have linked in this thread.

Have you ever even *tried* this strategy at 100nl?

My opinions on your strategy:

- It's ok against people who don't have a fold button (Who don't come along very often, even though they exist)

This is just silly.

- I personally find c/folding flops painful
- Your hand is stupidly obvious to the regs

Not much money is made by playing pots with good, hand reading regs. I avoid tables full of good regs. I can spot a lot of them now at 100nl and I definitely play them a little different. But unknowns and stacks less than full I assume are stupid.

Regs are human too -- if they flop top 2 are often felting to my sets...

I also occasionally limp some other hands like sc's or suited aces to mix it up.

Sigh..

Don't take offence or get stressed at what I say, I might come across as an asshat but that's just how I discuss poker. I see no point in beating around the bush.

"Give me a little credit! You think I played one hand and based my whole PP strategy off of that?"

No, which is why I said citing, not basing.

"Have you ever even *tried* this strategy at 100nl?"

No, I might try it, but it still feels against my morals as an aggressive player.

Aight, what I meant by players who don't have a fold button was calling stations.

"Not much money is made by playing pots with good, hand reading regs. I avoid tables full of good regs. "

A lot of money can be made if you can beat the good, hand reading regs. Maybe it's just that we both have a different strategy - I aim to stack the fish, whilst avoiding big pots against the regs without a good hand (Although sometimes a big semi-bluff is necessary). I'd like to be beating the regs pretty hard within 3-4 months as well - I don't see any point in avoiding them, because there's going to be more and more of them from now on from what I can see.

I still think the cbets = money theory stands to be honest, although I'm open to debate.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

This post is so long and has so many different arguements i just couldn't read all of it.

I want to make a point about the first hand...

There's a very logical way of explaining why you want to c-bet that flop. It has to do with many many things, but i'm going emphasize hand ranges and pot control for now.

As people pointed out, with your big hands you want to build a pot. You want to get it big enough so you can get as much money as possible from the opponent. This is "pot control" because you are controlling the pot by building it to the large size you want it to be. If you check behind the flop, you miss one of 3 streets that you had to build the pot. That's bad.

More importantly is your opponents hand. I'd say that your opponent probably calls a c-bet here with any Ace, a few good K's, a flush draw, and maybe QJ or some inside draw. If you bet, he will put money in when he's behind therefore making you money. If you check, you're letting him get a free card, and with some of his hands, that free card is going to give him the best hand. With a lot of his hands, that free card will do nothing and therefore checking behind the flop or betting it won't make a difference. With something like an Ax, Kx, he has a small chance to improve by checking behind. However, as i pointed out, if you bet the flop, Ax and Kx would be calling and get to the turn anyways. With a draw, he'd also get to the turn anyways.

So what's the point in checking? Well, in this case, nothing at all. There are different situations where checking behind your set may be better. An example of this may be you're opponent is an aggressive spewtard or he will call huge overbets if he has a piece of the board and you want him to get that piece.

So that's my two cents. About the PP thing, all i'll say is this. 88 has a lot more than just set value, and by limping it your essentially just playing it for set value.

[IowaSkinsFan]

lol Max the banter of this thread is whether limping pp's at his stakes is more profitable than raising.

[Kagey]

If you're limping in early position, what are you balancing this with? If it's the only thing, isn't this easily exploitable?
I always raise PPs from any position, more because I don't want to give information and to disguise my big hands.
However I wonder at lower stakes how many people actually notice.
It puts me in mind of another post where someone said always flat calling on the SB with pps is so obvious that it's difficult to get paid.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

lol Max the banter of this thread is whether limping pp's at his stakes is more profitable than raising.

oh, haha.

Well did what i write add anything or was it already said?

[LimpinAintEZ]

lol Max the banter of this thread is whether limping pp's at his stakes is more profitable than raising.

oh, haha.

Well did what i write add anything or was it already said?

i don't know - your post was too long so i didn't bother to read it



actually it was very clarifying...and valid -especially the example of pot building in hand 1 -

[griffey24]

lol Max the banter of this thread is whether limping pp's at his stakes is more profitable than raising.

oh, haha.

Well did what i write add anything or was it already said?

I think your post was well written massimo, and definitely made it very clear as to why we should bet a set in this spot.

morale of the story: when lots of worse hands are going to call, bet!!

[Numbr2intheWorld]

i don't know - your post was too long so i didn't bother to read it

lol

[SmackinYaUp]

Smacking -- I agree there is a big difference between limping small PPs and medium pps. Right now I'm limping 88 and below, but I can see the line blurring at 77 and 88. I find 77 and 88 too hard to play post flop and I find better value in strictly set mining. Where do you draw your line on limping pps?

Mix, I didn't mean to get into the difference between small and medium PPs. What I meant by open limping was being the first one in the pot with a pair. What I meant by limping behind was simply limping behind someone who has already limped in as well.

If you meant which PPs do I raise behind limpers, then that just depends. Something I actually need to think about more. I def. raise TT+, and from 99 down it depends on my position and the number of limpers in front. The fewer limpers and the closer to the button I am, the more hands I will raise behind limpers with.

If I am UTG at a normal table, I raise 22+. I just got PT turned back on at a new site and after 1200 hands my stats are so nitty. Real quick, real basic info - I open raise all PPs 22-AA from all positions. Limp behind with 88 and less for now. I raise AJs, AQ+ from utg, limp AJo and lower behind limpers, and open up my raising range the closer I get to the button. This seems like a pretty healthy hand range but it ends up with me running at 16/12. People make fun of that. So if I didn't raise all PPs from all positions, what would I raise? I wouldn't want to start raising KJ and KTo from UTG in place of 22.

I'm not sure why I wrote that last paragraph, but I guess it goes to show that you want to keep some sort of range for raising pf.

And last side note - I'm not saying anyone is guilty of this, but just in case: if you always count on nobody paying attention to your utg pocket pair limps, its going to be harder to adjust as you move up and people do start paying attention to that stuff.

[mixchange]

lol Mass, I thought Hand 1 kinda spoke for itself, thats why this thread is called "why you should bet the flop with a set" -- I basically played a set as bad as you can and missed massive value and exposed my hand to being beat cheaply.

Then I balanced it with hand #2, which to me is a great example of how I like to play PPs/Sets.

----------

Smack quotes:

Mix, I didn't mean to get into the difference between small and medium PPs. What I meant by open limping was being the first one in the pot with a pair. What I meant by limping behind was simply limping behind someone who has already limped in as well.

I know what that means, I just misread it.

OK, interesting point... now:

- Who hear uses Smackin's strategy of not open limping PPs, but being willing to limp behind someone who has already limped?

I'm not sure why I wrote that last paragraph, but I guess it goes to show that you want to keep some sort of range for raising pf.

Oh, it was useful to put in context. I run 24/15 lately so limping is a bit more part of my game, mixed between some sc's, sets, occasional suited ace for variety if I'm playing with the same people for a long time

And last side note - I'm not saying anyone is guilty of this, but just in case: if you always count on nobody paying attention to your utg pocket pair limps, its going to be harder to adjust as you move up and people do start paying attention to that stuff.

I dunno if you got to read all my words in this thread, but I'm definitely mindful that good regs can start picking off setmining, and that moving up in limits I may have to eventually change to more your style. But at 100NL and down I've just found loads of extra value by limping the PPs and allowing more people to see the flop and stack off. I'm sure at higher limits there are better players and much less stacking off with mediocre hands if they suspect something.

[|~|ypermegachi]

i open-raise all pairs.
over-limp most smaller pairs.
i start raising around 66-77

[Pelion]

If you're limping in early position, what are you balancing this with? If it's the only thing, isn't this easily exploitable?

Being exploitable isnt a mistake. Allowing yourself to be exploited is a mistake but in the vast majority of cases noone is actively trying to exploit you so it just doesnt matter. You play an exploitable game that takes advantage of the fishes mistakes as much as possible and if someone comes along and tries to exploit you, you adjust (If they are taking more from you than you are from the fish).

[bigspenda73]

wait, being exploitable and allowing yourself to be exploited aren't the same thing?

I think you meant being exploitable is different from being exploited.

[Pelion]

wait, being exploitable and allowing yourself to be exploited aren't the same thing?

No they aren't. You can sit there and be exploitable all night and if no-one is exploiting you you arent allowing them to get away with anything. If someone trys to exploit you then you notice and you adapt. You don't allow yourself to be exploited. Its just arguing over words though really. Its pretty obvious what I mean.

[bigspenda73]

I LOVE LAMP

[mixchange]

Ash: Try limping them situationally -- if you have a bunch of half stack donks to your left, see the flop cheaply and let them make the 2nd best hand and stack them. If you've got a bunch of regs, raise it as they won't be as stupid. Situational limping might actually be a strategy that would improve both of us. I might be limping a bit too often (e.g. into decent full stacked players) while you may be missing some value limping into half stack donks who stack off with 2nd best hands.


I don't avoid playing with regs at my table, but I do try to select the most profitable tables. I consider table selection to be an integral, somewhat skillful part of online poker. You need to be observant of the table, the stack sizes, and the seat you are going to be in. While I'm not avoiding regs when at the table, I do try to avoid having too many of them at my table.

When I go to 200NL I will probably have to shift gears, but it's profitable for now.

Kagey: I will sometimes limp AJ or A10s for variety, but I really think a lot of people aren't paying attention to a lot of my limp/folds until I stack someone at the table. I actually think your hand is better disguised if everyone limps than if you limp and then call a big raise.