In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : No, the book didn't say it was fine. It said it was OK with QQ+ if a raise behind was fairly likely. I think what is profitable for me, wouldn't work for you because you play at different stakes. It doesn't work for me when I move up, so I am interested in your opinions. Here's an example. First hand of tournament: UTG goes all-in, UTG+1 calls. You are next to act and have 88. I would think about calling here on the basis they might have only 2 overcards between them or less. The play might be dubious for me, but would be terrible for you. Posted by bet72off
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : No, the book didn't say it was fine. It said it was OK with QQ+ if a raise behind was fairly likely. I think what is profitable for me, wouldn't work for you because you play at different stakes. It doesn't work for me when I move up, so I am interested in your opinions. Here's an example. First hand of tournament: UTG goes all-in, UTG+1 calls. You are next to act and have 88. I would think about calling here on the basis they might have only 2 overcards between them or less. The play might be dubious for me, but would be terrible for you. Posted by bet72off
if its first hand in a tournament and UTG AND UTG+1 have all there chips in the middle then its probably the easiest fold you will ever have to make, if you're lucky you will be flipping against one and the other will have you crushed.
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : if its first hand in a tournament and UTG AND UTG+1 have all there chips in the middle then its probably the easiest fold you will ever have to make, if you're lucky you will be flipping against one and the other will have you crushed. Posted by THEROCK573
Well I don't think it's necessarily right to call, but not as wrong for me as it is for you. I have been in this spot and called:neither of my opponents had a pair or an overcard.
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : Well I don't think it's necessarily right to call, but not as wrong for me as it is for you. I have been in this spot and called:neither of my opponents had a pair or an overcard. Posted by bet72off
Think you need to look at the game with a longer perspective. Ok, one time we called and somehow weren't in bad shape. This simply doesn't make it the correct call. It means we were very fortunate on this one occasion to get it in ahead. If it's wrong to call with 88, then it's wrong to call, regardless of whether its me, you, rocky, Julian Thew, whoever, holding the 88. It goes out of the window; a poor call is a poor call, however you wanna try and dress it up. A poor call in a £1 mtt is also a poor call in the £110 super roller.
Obviously the skill level varies massively in poker and depending on the stakes you play. But the fundamentals remain the same. 88 will be in awful shape waaaaaayy more often than in ok shape, in this exact scenario. It seems you're trying to justify certain plays, and have just a single example to back it up.....like I said at the start, look long term and try and do play/moves that will be +EV over time.
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : Think you need to look at the game with a longer perspective. Ok, one time we called and somehow weren't in bad shape. This simply doesn't make it the correct call. It means we were very fortunate on this one occasion to get it in ahead. If it's wrong to call with 88, then it's wrong to call, regardless of whether its me, you, rocky, Julian Thew, whoever, holding the 88. It goes out of the window; a poor call is a poor call, however you wanna try and dress it up. A poor call in a £1 mtt is also a poor call in the £110 super roller. Obviously the skill level varies massively in poker and depending on the stakes you play. But the fundamentals remain the same. 88 will be in awful shape waaaaaayy more often than in ok shape, in this exact scenario. It seems you're trying to justify certain plays, and have just a single example to back it up.....like I said at the start, look long term and try and do play/moves that will be +EV over time. Posted by hhyftrftdr
I think you are way off here. People's ranges are completely different. Calling with 88 here may still be bad, but it's close. JJ here is profitable in the right tourneys. The people pushing often do it with random cards, and the people calling are often calling with Ax. Often you are 50% or better to triple up. This is just not going to be the case in a super roller. There is no one right way to play. It depends on your opponents. It may be possible to play a game that works at any stakes, but it certainly won't be the most profitable.
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : I think you are way off here. People's ranges are completely different. Calling with 88 here may still be bad, but it's close. JJ here is profitable in the right tourneys. The people pushing often do it with random cards, and the people calling are often calling with Ax. Often you are 50% or better to triple up. This is just not going to be the case in a super roller. There is no one right way to play. It depends on your opponents. It may be possible to play a game that works at any stakes, but it certainly won't be the most profitable. Posted by bet72off
A poor call with 88 to two all ins in a £1 MTT is also a poor call with 88 in the exact scenario in a £110 super roller. I don't think JJ is a profitable call long term either.
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : A poor call with 88 to two all ins in a £1 MTT is also a poor call with 88 in the exact scenario in a £110 super roller. I don't think JJ is a profitable call long term either. Posted by hhyftrftdr
Hate to do this but going to disagree with hh + TheRock here. There are some flaws in bet72off's thinking but he's thinking along the right lines. At the low levels, there are people that will aggressively steal with a wide range and then call huge 3-bets. They might have any suited ace, small pairs, suited connectors/1-2gappers and any 2 high cards. We are not (as hh said narrowing down their range to QQ+ and AK/AQ) In that case, our aim is to get as much money in as possible with JJ when we are ahead. We are treating JJ like the nuts because that what is is against these players; with 65-70% equity pre-flop against their range. Also, they are not thinking about our hand or our range - but even if they were and we 'give away our hand strength' so to speak, that doesn't matter if they are putting in 1/3 of their stack pre.
Also ofc different tournaments make a difference in the range we are getting it in with. In a Super Roller it would be a disaster getting it all in pre-flop with 88. In a free-roll or micro stakes tournament where you get some players shipping a super wide range (40%) and others calling with a slightly less wide range (20%) then getting it in with 88 3 way is no longer a disaster. We have 37.36% equity and need 33% to be BE. ofc it's still probably going to be a mistake because there will be better oppertunites to get it in with better ev. And JJ becomes a super easy call where we have close to 50% equity and a chance to treble up. Were it the super roller though and we were against even quite loose (but still fairly tight) ranges of JJ+, AK and QQ+, AK then we only have 25% equity and calling with JJ becomes a massive mistake.
Poker against v good regs is all about being balanced an unexploitable. Against avg-bad regs balance and being unexploitable is still important but exploiting our opponent becomes important too. And against fish it's all about maximally exploiting their bad tendencies and balance becomes a lot less important. Too many regs I find are guilty of not maximising their profit against fish because they take standard lines as opposed to lines which try and exploit their opponent.
Hate to do this but going to disagree with hh + TheRock here. There are some flaws in bet72off's thinking but he's thinking along the right lines. At the low levels, there are people that will aggressively steal with a wide range and then call huge 3-bets. They might have any suited ace, small pairs, suited connectors/1-2gappers and any 2 high cards. We are not (as hh said narrowing down their range to QQ+ and AK/AQ) In that case, our aim is to get as much money in as possible with JJ when we are ahead. We are treating JJ like the nuts because that what is is against these players; with 65-70% equity pre-flop against their range. Also, they are not thinking about our hand or our range - but even if they were and we 'give away our hand strength' so to speak, that doesn't matter if they are putting in 1/3 of their stack pre. Also ofc different tournaments make a difference in the range we are getting it in with. In a Super Roller it would be a disaster getting it all in pre-flop with 88. In a free-roll or micro stakes tournament where you get some players shipping a super wide range (40%) and others calling with a slightly less wide range (20%) then getting it in with 88 3 way is no longer a disaster. We have 37.36% equity and need 33% to be BE. ofc it's still probably going to be a mistake because there will be better oppertunites to get it in with better ev. And JJ becomes a super easy call where we have close to 50% equity and a chance to treble up. Were it the super roller though and we were against even quite loose (but still fairly tight) ranges of JJ+, AK and QQ+, AK then we only have 25% equity and calling with JJ becomes a massive mistake. Poker against v good regs is all about being balanced an unexploitable. Against avg-bad regs balance and being unexploitable is still important but exploiting our opponent becomes important too. And against fish it's all about maximally exploiting their bad tendencies and balance becomes a lot less important. Too many regs I find are guilty of not maximising their profit against fish because they take standard lines as opposed to lines which try and exploit their opponent. Posted by F_Ivanovic
but look at this hand though, its just plain ugly, utg limps and he then limps behind hoping someone will raise, what if they all decide they wanna limp in behind now cos 2 people have done it and u end up going 5 way to the flop, unless hes some post flop genious he wont have a clue were he is unless he flops a set like he did this time, hes lucky 2 people had genuine hands behind. call me old fashioned but doing you're own betting has allways worked just fine for me
In Response to Re: Limping with JJ : but look at this hand though, its just plain ugly, utg limps and he then limps behind hoping someone will raise, what if they all decide they wanna limp in behind now cos 2 people have done it and u end up going 5 way to the flop, unless hes some post flop genious he wont have a clue were he is unless he flops a set like he did this time, hes lucky 2 people had genuine hands behind. call me old fashioned but doing you're own betting has allways worked just fine for me Posted by THEROCK573
Yeah I fully agree that the majority of the time you want to be raising it up pre-flop. His reasoning for limping is kind of vague with some out-dated concepts applied. But if we know it will be raised behind us frequently and also know that when we 3-bet we are going to be called by worse then it becomes a very profitable situation. Sure, it sucks a bit when it gets limped around but it's not a disaster unless we are incapable of letting our hand go post-flop when it's clear we're beat.
Comments
Good luck, run well!
Obviously the skill level varies massively in poker and depending on the stakes you play. But the fundamentals remain the same. 88 will be in awful shape waaaaaayy more often than in ok shape, in this exact scenario. It seems you're trying to justify certain plays, and have just a single example to back it up.....like I said at the start, look long term and try and do play/moves that will be +EV over time.