|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2009 6:50:56 PM PACIFIC |
 Starting hand theory question, TKarrde, 2. May 2003 13:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you knew 100% that there would be no raises pre-flop. What would be your lowest starting hands for EP, MP, and LP? Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... it depends. Just throw some thoughts my way as it has happened a few times. Also, is situatiions like this should I raise more often than I would or play the same. TK | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Starting hand theory question, stdioh, 2. May 2003 14:04 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you knew for sure that there would be no raising would that mean that you also knew that there would be nobody after you with a raisable hand? In general you would be able to play most anything that you could play on the puck in any position. The main factor then would become how many limpers you expect (which would dictate whether you should be fishing around with hands like KXs and 22). Hands like that are fine to play when there is a raise as long as enough players are roped in, but with no raise and no limpers they are pretty worthless. Also, being out of position affects your equity for all hands and thus you would need to still tighten up a little in early position from that effect...but this is all getting rather esoteric - there are a lot of arguments that could be made in direct contradiction with eachother and neither would be "wrong" because they would be making assumptions about the table that could be anything as this is a highly fictional table. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Starting hand theory question, TKarrde, 2. May 2003 14:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Highly fictional? Yes ... to say 100%. But I have played on some tables that there is hardly ever a raise preflop. I can't say why. That is just the way it is. I just want to know how to play those tables if I see them again. I think you said position doesn't matter. Play what you would on the puck anywhere. They you kinda backtracked. I agree that position does still matter but in subsequent rounds you can check and still get the info without paying a dime (in early position). Obviously it does depend on what kind of players you have at the table, how they play, and how many players are in the pot when it gets to you as well as how many players are seeing the flop on average. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Starting hand theory question, stdioh, 5. May 2003 09:08 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, position has equity in it, but if you have sufficient equity from early position then position doesn't matter. In the case of having a tonne of limpers and holding AXs or a small pair then it really doesn't matter what your position is in the sense that you have equity in any position. The reson why you'll fold 22 UTG normally is that if there is a raise then you'll be paying 2 bets to enter and enough people will not have been dragged along to make it worth your while. And if there isn't a raise, there still might not be enough limpers - possibly due to people respecting your UTG limp. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Starting hand theory question, SendMoney, 4. May 2003 00:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If there was minimal threat of a pre-flop raiser and on average 4-6 players were seeing the flop I'd play any pocket pair down to 55, suited connectors as low as 67, any suited ace, suited one gaps down to 7-9, any offsuit cards that can flop a nut straight - any combination of 10 thru A, I'd also play Q9 suited and K9 suited. I'd still stay away from Kx Qx and Jx suited, Ace offsuite with 9 or less, and any weak offsuit connectors and weak 2 and 3 gaps suited cards. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Starting hand theory question, 4 POKER, 4. May 2003 01:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 2. May 2003 13:31 TKarrde wrote: > If you knew 100% that there would be no raises pre-flop. What would be your > lowest starting hands for EP, MP, and LP? > > Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... it depends. Just throw some thoughts my way as > it has happened a few times. Also, is situatiions like this should I raise more > often than I would or play the same. > > TK > I would be limping in more frequently if I knew the pot was never going to be raised, sure, but than why would it even matter what your position was? With a guarantee of no pre-flop raises and a guarantee of 5 players everytime, you wouldn't need to worry about calling with a hand like J-10 UTG, 9-10 suited, or pocket 4-4's.......EVERYONE is on the button! Remember, if you're getting that ideal situation, so is everybody else in the game. If noone is raising than what does it matter if you have 4-4 in EP or LP? You already know that they'll be at least 5 players in giving you nice odds if you flop a set, right? How well do you think your strong hands would hold up if that was the case? You wouldn't have any protection with them pre-flop either and pocket AA's doesn't do as well if there's too many players in before the flop. You asked if you should raise more pre-flop, well I would probably raise more with hands that could withstand one raise pre-flop. If you're holding KQ suited, that hand is playable for one raise, so is AQoff and 10-10, so instead of limping with these hands, raise them; if you're 100% positive that noone else would raise you back.The obvious stronger holdings should always be raised anyway so you would still be raising with those hands, too. I still don't think I'd be raising with small pocket pairs and 5-6 suited though... those types of hands want volume at a cheap price, so to put in a raise just in case you hit it, is not necessary. You'll already be getting the pot odds and those hands HAVE to hit the flop in order to profit from them; if you do too much value raising here, you will be losing too much money and you will also be disregarding the fact that you had this perfect game to play in. Once you make too many raises with weaker holdings, the advantage that you first had by nobody ever raising will now be costing you money instead of getting the great pot odds at a cheap price. 4 POKER | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Starting hand theory question, 4 POKER, 5. May 2003 02:24 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 4. May 2003 01:48 4 POKER wrote: > on 2. May 2003 13:31 TKarrde wrote: > > If you knew 100% that there would be no raises pre-flop. What would be your > > lowest starting hands for EP, MP, and LP? > > > > Yeah, yeah, yeah... I know... it depends. Just throw some thoughts my way as > > it has happened a few times. Also, is situatiions like this should I raise more > > > often than I would or play the same. > > > > TK > > > > I would be limping in more frequently if I knew the pot was never going to be > raised, sure, but than why would it even matter what your position was? With a > guarantee of no pre-flop raises and a guarantee of 5 players everytime, you wouldn't > need to worry about calling with a hand like J-10 UTG, 9-10 suited, or pocket > 4-4's.......EVERYONE is on the button! > Remember, if you're getting that ideal situation, so is everybody else in the game. > If noone is raising than what does it matter if you have > 4-4 in EP or LP? You already know that they'll be at least 5 players in giving you > nice odds if you flop a set, right? > How well do you think your strong hands would hold up if that was the case? You > wouldn't have any protection with them pre-flop either and pocket AA's doesn't do as > well if there's too many players in before the flop. > > You asked if you should raise more pre-flop, well I would probably raise more with > hands that could withstand one raise pre-flop. If you're holding KQ suited, that hand > is playable for one raise, so is AQoff and > 10-10, so instead of limping with these hands, raise them; if you're 100% positive > that noone else would raise you back.The obvious stronger holdings should always be > raised anyway so you would still be raising with those hands, too. I still don't > think I'd be raising with small pocket pairs and 5-6 suited though... those types of > hands want volume at a cheap price, so to put in a raise just in case you hit it, is > not necessary. You'll already be getting the pot odds and those hands HAVE to hit the > flop in order to profit from them; if you do too much value raising here, you will be > losing too much money and you will also be disregarding the fact that you had this > perfect game to play in. Once you make too many raises with weaker holdings, the > advantage that you first had by nobody ever raising will now be costing you money > instead of getting the great pot odds at a cheap price. > > 4 POKER Hey TKarrde, I'm sorry. I read the post wrong. I thought you said there was an average of 4-6 players in pre-flop, but that probably wouldn't change much on my oponion because the average amount of players would probably be right around that number anyway, especially with no pre-flop raises. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|