As I said to hhyftdr - yes an explanation would be grand! Why do we need to raise or fold? Surely we want to be seeing as many flops as possible against players that are just really loose/passive. There is no way that limping on the BTN can not be +ev compared to folding.
One of the reasons we raise in poker is to take the initiative - but initiative means buggar all against the villains we are playing against here. Another is to build the pot with strong hands so we can get our stacks in if we flop well. As seen here - not a problem with the SPR, we will get stacks in anyway. Or we can raise to induce shoves from worse - not going to happen here. I mean we are raise/folding AQ otb ffs! With a 16bb stack.
If wr are raise folding its because hes only raising us a tiny fraction of all the times that we raise. So 95% of the time we wont be raise folding.
25% of the time he's folding, 5% he's clicking back and 70% of tbe time we get to play in position against a passive player who will probably allow us to realise our high card equity when we both miss and pay us off when we both hit. We can play pretty perfectly against him here. Also id argue that with a hand like AQo we want low SPR as we want to get it in profitably with top pair. Doesnt that suit low SPRs?.
I dont think we can play as perfectly against his range if we limp. We wont ever limp fold AQo here and we are probably going to be calling when behind or dominated a bunch of the time without ever knowing if he's raised us because we've limped or because he is uberstrong.
With AQ we do want a lower SPR but I think I replied earlier on that point in that the SPR is low enough already. In a cash game with deep stacks I would never limp with AQ OTB vs these villains because lowering SPR is beneficial in that we can get stacks in post-flop much more easily. Here - not a problem. We can profitably get it in with TP just as much when we limp as when we raise. Although villain may get it in wider in a raised pot - he also might pay us off with hands he would have folded pre to a raise.
If villain is really as passive as described then he isn't raising pf with anything that AQ dominates so in theory if we were to limp we can limp/f in the same way we are raise/folding to a min-3bet here. And I think post flop we can realise our equity just as much as in a limped pot.
Inviting SB along when we limp is one good reason to raise here BUT that being said I think Hero said the whole table was pretty passive. So we probably still get to realise our equity a bunch even if we do invite SB along - and if SB is a loose calling station as well then we might get to stack him instead post flop when we both flop top pair.
I dunno it's probably pretty close. Raising might be more +ev but it's definitely going to be higher variance and against bad villains I try and reduce variance as much as possible. Personally I think we can play almost 50% of hands in this situation OTB with it being +ev. Not only +ev but also low variance due to passive nature of villains. But if we're raising all the time villains (even relatively passive ones) may well shove lighter than otherwise they would. So we end up having to raise/fold some stuff that had we limped we could much more easily realise our equity.
Open jamming 16BB's is just way too much. Obv can't be too bad with our holding but anything weaker and it probably becomes bad. I think folding is fine.. Also your thinking is somewhat backward... you say table is extremely passive and thus the reason for you not "aggro'ing up".... this type of table is perfect for playing aggressive since you easily know where you are in pots and won't be faced with tough decisions. Posted by F_Ivanovic
I like your thinking and reasoning mate, on balance i still think raising does much better than limping but you always get us to quesion why we follow conventional wisdom, keep it up its really helpful.
One other question, on page one you said having a high SPR works better for us, why is that. I dont get it.
Ivan; I respect your game, and think you're one of, if not the best, cash players on the site at the stakes you play.
But I cannot fathom why open limping AQ on the button into a weak, passive villain on the BB will ever be the correct tournament play. I genuinely cannot comprehend the logic behind it. Are we trying to trap him with A high? Are we folding to a lead on an 8 high flop? Look for a cheap showdown on a raggy board?
It's not often raise/folding AQ on the button with 16bb will appear to be the correct play, but if villain wants to play his cards face up, then great.
@ gazza: I said that initially thinking villains were tight pre-flop
@ Teddy: By high SPR I don't mean really high - it needs to be low enough to get stacks in post flop if we choose. It works better for us though in general because we have a post flop edge. In this hand for instance we only want to get stacks in post-flop when we hit an A or Q. We might c-bet some really dry flops for value/protection.
@hh: thanks. I know your a v.good tournament player so respect your opinion wrt tournament hands! Like Teddy said though I like to challenge convential wisdom a lot and do think we can do so here. I know it' not often raise/folding AQ onthe BTN is correct and in the same way it's not often limping AQ is correct. Can I ask how you are playing the hand then - are you min-r pre?
Now flop comes 6T2... do we c-bet, if so, how big a c-bet and why? If called we surely have to then give up unless we hit since villain is just not going to fold. Suddenly we're down to 11-12bb. (depending on your c-bet size) Had we limped we would not feel obliged to c-bet although could still take a 1bb stab on a dry board. And 15bb is still playable. I mean there's no doubt raising is +ev it's just going to be higher variance than limping since sometimes we'll pick up an extra couple of BB's but other times we'll end up losing enough to give us a stack size where we can now only shove/fold. To answer some of your other questions - yes, we can fold to a lead on an 8 high flop. For the same reason we are raise/folding pre. And we can look for showdown on a lot of runouts and happily realise our equity - we can do the same when we raise pre-flop but it just costs us an extra BB. This is why we wouldn't limp AQ vs good players because we are much less likely to realise our equity by doing so.
The main thing we're looking at is getting villains stack. And I maintain that will be possible whether we limp or raise with AQ. If it comes A high and they have an A they will pay us off and same thing if it comes Q high and they have a Q.
I posted this on another forum as well but the general conensus there was limping was bad and that shoving was the best play. I think some of them didn't read the part about no ante's though. I mean shoving - yes, it's good to pick up the 1.5bb uncontested. And if villain calls with any Ax and a lot of Qx then we will often have v.good equity vs their calling range. But even so it will only be 60% on avg I think. Which means 4/10 times we will go out of the tournament against a villain we know we can play perfectly post flop against. Also even though balance may not be important I really don't want to be shoving very wide OTB. But do I really want to be folding stuff like JhTh OTB just because shoving won't be profitable? Not really.
15-25bb deep I think constructing a BTN limping range even against most villains can be a good play. Partly because people don't know how to react to limps with this stack size. I mean what do you do if I limp OTB and you're in the BB with A9 and 17bb's? Do you shove? Seems a big amount to shove. Do you raise/fold? What happens when you raise and get a nasty flop - now you're OOP and have tricky decisions to make. So because of this lots of players will just check and see a flop. So now we get to play IP with a SPR behind us still of a decent size. And BB will no doubt find it tough not to make mistakes.
Raising though gives them a much easier decision with a 17bb stack size. They shove or they fold/sometimes see a flop (with hands that flop well - JT/QJ/KJ/KT) and some slow plays like AA/KK. And our positional advantage of the BTN becomes obsolete.
I've just skimmed over this really and I didn't want to post on it because I thought I'd end up in a big debate with F_Ivanovic...
However, if we min-raise pre-flop and there's a station in the blinds, yes we're putting an extra big blind in when we know we're going to be called, against someone who won't fold any better hands than ours to a c-bet post-flop. When he puts more money in pre-flop with a worse hand than ours pre-flop, though, we are making profit in the long run.
When we limp, he doesn't put that extra blind in when we're ahead. That means we make less profit in the long run.
So the solution to playing a 16BB stack in position wouldn't appear to be limping to give him the chance to avoid making a decision that gains us value. The solution would appear to be to raise pre-flop and check flops we've missed or don't have good equity on, since we can only fold out weaker hands than ours. A lot of the time we still have the best hand but can't bluff or value bet.
If we limp, we might still be able to stack the villain if we both hit but the rest of the time we're missing extra pre-flop value. We're not both going to hit the board that often, but that will happen no less often when we're raising than when we're limping.
So if we think he's that big a station and doesn't fold when he's hit, as well as only betting when he hits big, we have an easy raise pre-flop and check when we miss or on bad boards. If we're not fussed about limping and giving up 1BB when we miss, then why not raise and give up 2BB the times we miss but also win an extra big blind on the occasions we hit and the villain misses, or when we both miss?
Not able to do the limping but have tried out the min raising mixed results to date but does appear to provide another string for the bow nice one ivan always nice to see someone wiling to take on the concensus with a well argued alternative
Going to keep this reply really short (for once) and so I don't end up in a big debate with you Borin I think I mentioned somewhere that raising pre is slightly more +ev from a theretical stand point. If we were playing cash with the same BB's I would without a question raise it up (probably make it somewhere between 2.5 and 3x though) - however, this is a tournament and so survival (especially when up against weaker players) is more important than taking a ever so slightly more +ev line. Tournaments are high variance by nature so reducing variance where possible is always a good idea.
Having said all this I think the SB does play a somewhat crucial role. If he's very likely to limp but also very likely to fold to a raise then I think raising is better. If he's limping with much the same range as calling a 2x min-r then I think limping is better.
Comments
However, if we min-raise pre-flop and there's a station in the blinds, yes we're putting an extra big blind in when we know we're going to be called, against someone who won't fold any better hands than ours to a c-bet post-flop. When he puts more money in pre-flop with a worse hand than ours pre-flop, though, we are making profit in the long run.
When we limp, he doesn't put that extra blind in when we're ahead. That means we make less profit in the long run.
So the solution to playing a 16BB stack in position wouldn't appear to be limping to give him the chance to avoid making a decision that gains us value. The solution would appear to be to raise pre-flop and check flops we've missed or don't have good equity on, since we can only fold out weaker hands than ours. A lot of the time we still have the best hand but can't bluff or value bet.
If we limp, we might still be able to stack the villain if we both hit but the rest of the time we're missing extra pre-flop value. We're not both going to hit the board that often, but that will happen no less often when we're raising than when we're limping.
So if we think he's that big a station and doesn't fold when he's hit, as well as only betting when he hits big, we have an easy raise pre-flop and check when we miss or on bad boards. If we're not fussed about limping and giving up 1BB when we miss, then why not raise and give up 2BB the times we miss but also win an extra big blind on the occasions we hit and the villain misses, or when we both miss?
but have tried out the min raising
mixed results to date but does appear to provide another string for the bow
nice one ivan
always nice to see someone wiling to take on the concensus
with a well argued alternative