| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 8:17pm Post subject: Limping not raising early on in sngs to get a stack
|
 |
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
with k7 suited j7 suited whatever.
Opinions Comments Hate.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 8:28pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Season VII
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 2912
WPP: 104
Location: HotLanta
|
|
If you really want to open your pre-flop range early in the tourney I don't think K7 or J7 suited are hands that you want to limp with. You are better off with connectors, suited connectors (even one off connectors if you REALLY want to open it up), but you really need to remember why you are playing them.
Actually I have been contemplating the same thing so it will be interesting to hear what others have to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 8:30pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
| GatorJH wrote: | If you really want to open your pre-flop range early in the tourney I don't think K7 or J7 suited are hands that you want to limp with. You are better off with connectors, suited connectors (even one off connectors if you REALLY want to open it up), but you really need to remember why you are playing them.
Actually I have been contemplating the same thing so it will be interesting to hear what others have to say. |
Limping early its not that great these guys are donks, just seems tighter lately. Maybe advice is out there more?
Colder weather? Helping these people actually think thats all I can think of.
But whatever. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 8:50pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3462
WPP: 153
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
|
FWIW, Kxs and Axs play nearly the same postflop in my book.
I think it's reasonable on the first level or two to take a flop with a wide range of "potential" hands if you're in position in an unraised pot with a couple of other limpers. I'm generally looking for two-pair+ to keep going post-flop. I'm not semi-bluffing early, and I'm not calling more than a minbet to draw. And just to throw the math side in: you're flopping two-pair+ around 5% of the time. So when you hit, you need to make 20x the cost of limping to make this break-even. If you think you can reasonably do that, then limp on! If you drop more than a couple hundred chips, it's probably time to tighten up and conserve the rest of your chips as artillery. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 9:00pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Season VII
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 2912
WPP: 104
Location: HotLanta
|
|
| JeffreyGB wrote: | FWIW, Kxs and Axs play nearly the same postflop in my book.
And just to throw the math side in: you're flopping two-pair+ around 5% of the time. So when you hit, you need to make 20x the cost of limping to make this break-even. If you think you can reasonably do that, then limp on! |
That is an interesting point and may be why a hand like K7, J7 is better in this spot as your hand will be VERY diguised when you do flop 2 pair or better which would make it easier to get 2ox against a hand like TPTK.
With that said as Jeffrey said I think the conditions need to be perfect for this to be worthwile in a SNG where the blinds go up quicker than in a MTT. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 9:02pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
| JeffreyGB wrote: | FWIW, Kxs and Axs play nearly the same postflop in my book.
I think it's reasonable on the first level or two to take a flop with a wide range of "potential" hands if you're in position in an unraised pot with a couple of other limpers. I'm generally looking for two-pair+ to keep going post-flop. I'm not semi-bluffing early, and I'm not calling more than a minbet to draw. And just to throw the math side in: you're flopping two-pair+ around 5% of the time. So when you hit, you need to make 20x the cost of limping to make this break-even. If you think you can reasonably do that, then limp on! If you drop more than a couple hundred chips, it's probably time to tighten up and conserve the rest of your chips as artillery. |
Right on just like hitting a set!!! about 4% on flop.
But anyways, thats exactly right and if you do hit 2 pair you get paid in these low buy ins, limp on a-x suited, k-x suited, if you notice your burning too much early on tighten up a few sngs.
Dont make it a habit.Change it up a littl.e |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 9:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
Seat 1: shcoc46 ($2,990 in chips)
Seat 2: cpierce1979 ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 3: FastEd16 ($1,700 in chips)
Seat 5: pkrjnky_to ($1,470 in chips)
Seat 6: RIPJohnGotti [JS,KS] ($1,470 in chips)
Seat 7: old64 ($1,500 in chips)
Seat 8: Jester Tim ($1,380 in chips)
Seat 9: mjm1113 ($1,460 in chips)
Seat 10: viggyt ($1,530 in chips)
ANTES/BLINDS
mjm1113 posts blind ($10), viggyt posts blind ($20).
PRE-FLOP
shcoc46 calls $20, cpierce1979 folds, FastEd16 folds, pkrjnky_to calls $20, RIPJohnGotti bets $150, old64 folds, Jester Tim folds, mjm1113 folds, viggyt folds, shcoc46 calls $130, pkrjnky_to calls $130.
FLOP [board cards KC,4D,JH ]
shcoc46 bets $300, pkrjnky_to folds, RIPJohnGotti bets $1,320 and is all-in, shcoc46 calls $1,020.
TURN [board cards KC,4D,JH,KH ]
RIVER [board cards KC,4D,JH,KH,7H ]
SHOWDOWN
RIPJohnGotti shows [ JS,KS ]
shcoc46 shows [ QD,KD ]
RIPJohnGotti wins $3,120.
Im not advocating raising with JK suited early on it just shows you that you can profit off these hands sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 9:07pm Post subject:
|
|
|
midstakes donk
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 2965
WPP: 43
Location: flattin ur 4bets, makin u tilt
|
|
Yeah, I only flop a set around 4% of the time these days  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 9:09pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3462
WPP: 153
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: |
Right on just like hitting a set!!! about 4% on flop.
|
Just FYI in case you were serious...you're about 12% to flop a set with a pocket pair. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 9:12pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
| JeffreyGB wrote: | | ripjohngotti wrote: |
Right on just like hitting a set!!! about 4% on flop.
|
Just FYI in case you were serious...you're about 12% to flop a set with a pocket pair. |
I was. You dont want to hear my theorum why  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 10:01pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Full House
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Posts: 1120
WPP: 128
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | | JeffreyGB wrote: | | ripjohngotti wrote: |
Right on just like hitting a set!!! about 4% on flop.
|
Just FYI in case you were serious...you're about 12% to flop a set with a pocket pair. |
I was. You dont want to hear my theorum why |
It's not, and you have been corrected before.
Please dont post incorrect stats like that.
It could cost a new player money. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 5:46am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 598
WPP: 175
Location: Dundee - Scotland
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | | I was. You dont want to hear my theorum why |
seriously, I would like to hear your theorem.
your 15/2 to hit trips on the flop. That, as stated before, is 12% (11.76%) to be exact. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 11:58am Post subject:
|
|
|
Season I
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 2360
WPP: 74
Location: Dallas, TX
|
|
There is only one possible theorem to support such a statement:
The cards are not being dealt randomly.
i.e: omgwtf RIGGEED!!!11 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 12:29pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 271
WPP: 159
Location: Sweden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 12:55pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 598
WPP: 175
Location: Dundee - Scotland
|
|
he wont...he never responds once he gets corrected!! Its to be expected with this joker though.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 12:57pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
But anways 52/47 x 2 =2.01
2.01, 2,01, 2.01 = about 6. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 12:59pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 3544
WPP: 106
Location: Collecting $eV
|
|
| GatorJH wrote: | | JeffreyGB wrote: | | And just to throw the math side in: you're flopping two-pair+ around 5% of the time. So when you hit, you need to make 20x the cost of limping to make this break-even. If you think you can reasonably do that, then limp on! |
That is an interesting point and may be why a hand like K7, J7 is better in this spot as your hand will be VERY diguised when you do flop 2 pair or better which would make it easier to get 2ox against a hand like TPTK.
With that said as Jeffrey said I think the conditions need to be perfect for this to be worthwile in a SNG where the blinds go up quicker than in a MTT. | Maybe this is part of the "ideal situation" but if you get raised pre-flop and have to ditch your hand then 20x won't cut it either.
If it gets raised 1 in 3 times, now you're paying 1.5BB to see the flop and need to make 1.5 * 20 = 30 BB to break even.
If it's raised 1 in 5, you're paying 1.25 so you need 25BB
Also, you need to average 20x (or 25x or 30x). So you really need to win more because often enough you won't get paid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 1:07pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 3544
WPP: 106
Location: Collecting $eV
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | But anways 52/47 x 2 =2.01
2.01, 2,01, 2.01 = about 6. | Now you're making up your own maths? You are truly amazing
I couldn't find his theory post, but here's a good one...
Pocket Pair Problems |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 1:25pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 598
WPP: 175
Location: Dundee - Scotland
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | But anways 52/47 x 2 =2.01
2.01, 2,01, 2.01 = about 6. |
please explain... to me, thats just numbers... whats what?
man your a fool!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 1:26pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 1:51pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3462
WPP: 153
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
|
| swiggidy wrote: | Maybe this is part of the "ideal situation" but if you get raised pre-flop and have to ditch your hand then 20x won't cut it either.
If it gets raised 1 in 3 times, now you're paying 1.5BB to see the flop and need to make 1.5 * 20 = 30 BB to break even.
If it's raised 1 in 5, you're paying 1.25 so you need 25BB
Also, you need to average 20x (or 25x or 30x). So you really need to win more because often enough you won't get paid. |
This is why I specified you want to be in position with limpers for this to be a consideration. Having multiple limpers makes it much more likely someone will pay you off a bit, plus it makes the pot that much larger (also making payoff more likely as it's a lower amount relative to the pot).
You're right in that it should be noted that this is a bad idea at a table where the blinds are likely to raise a limped field without a massive hand. In a lot of cases, they won't, however, as they'll figure they won't get anyone off anything. At an aggressive table, this type of limp is bad for the reraise reason. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 1:58pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3462
WPP: 153
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | But anways 52/47 x 2 =2.01
2.01, 2,01, 2.01 = about 6. |
What exactly do you think 52/47 represents?
Here's the real math behind it:
1 - (48/50 * 47/49 * 46/48) = 1 - 0.8824 = 0.1176 = 11.76% (as stated above).
The 48/50, 47/49, and 46/48 represent individual probabilities for not getting either of your two outs on the first, second, and third card (respectively) of the flop. So multiplying them together gives you the probability that you won't hit them on the flop as a whole. Since we want to know the probability of hitting, we subtract the probability of not hitting from 1.
Note: 11.76% is actually the chance of flopping a set or better. A very small part of that is flopping quads. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 2:00pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 3544
WPP: 106
Location: Collecting $eV
|
|
| ^^^ you're trying too hard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 2:40pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 598
WPP: 175
Location: Dundee - Scotland
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | | Yeah im a fool..Okay. |
you've proved it in the past...
anyway, please explain sum you posted a few posts back... or was it just made up? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 3:04pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3462
WPP: 153
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
|
| swiggidy wrote: | | ^^^ you're trying too hard |
That wasn't posted as much for RJG's benefit as for the benefit of other readers. I figure that some people (a) might want to see how the calcuations are actually performed and (b) if they don't know which is which, they might want to see the reasons that 12% is correct [that is, this gives new players more reason to accept the truth than "well, that's what everyone seems to agree on, so I guess it's correct"] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 3:08pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3037
WPP: 95
|
|
| Random_Hero wrote: | | ripjohngotti wrote: | | Yeah im a fool..Okay. |
you've proved it in the past...
anyway, please explain sum you posted a few posts back... or was it just made up? |
Don't look now, but there are a crowd of people acting coy behind you. Why don't you join us? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 6:41pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Season I
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 2360
WPP: 74
Location: Dallas, TX
|
|
| ripjohngotti wrote: | But anways 52/47 x 2 =2.01
2.01, 2,01, 2.01 = about 6. |
I think it's official: RJG is and always has been nothing but a troll. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 6:46pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Season I
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 2360
WPP: 74
Location: Dallas, TX
|
|
| swiggidy wrote: | | ripjohngotti wrote: | But anways 52/47 x 2 =2.01
2.01, 2,01, 2.01 = about 6. | Now you're making up your own maths? You are truly amazing
I couldn't find his theory post, but here's a good one...
Pocket Pair Problems |
Nice link, swig. Fave line: "In ring yeah ill call raises with [pocket pairs] and raise with em if there 7 above, but 2 and below limp and call small raises"
So there are pairs below 2 now? I can't believe we fell for this crap for so long. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 7:02pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 1507
WPP: 134
Location: moral high ground
|
|
| JeffreyGB wrote: | FWIW, Kxs and Axs play nearly the same postflop in my book.
I think it's reasonable on the first level or two to take a flop with a wide range of "potential" hands if you're in position in an unraised pot with a couple of other limpers. I'm generally looking for two-pair+ to keep going post-flop. I'm not semi-bluffing early, and I'm not calling more than a minbet to draw. And just to throw the math side in: you're flopping two-pair+ around 5% of the time. So when you hit, you need to make 20x the cost of limping to make this break-even. If you think you can reasonably do that, then limp on! If you drop more than a couple hundred chips, it's probably time to tighten up and conserve the rest of your chips as artillery. |
I'm beginning to worship just about everything JGB says.
In reviewing my HH this week I've come across a major preflop leak in my game - limping with weak hands in the blinds. Either calling from the SB with a weak drawing hand, or calling a minraise from the BB with a weak drawing hand. You just can't afford to do it.
Say you're in the SB with Axs and there is one limper. Fold. 2 limpers? fold. 3 or more limpers? Consider the call, if the BB is not aggressive preflop. It is simply not worth it calling in the SB when 95% of the time you are going to see a worthless flop and are OOP. Limping behind early in the game with 2 or 3 other limpers already in, maybe. But definitely not in the blinds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 7:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
| FlyingSaucy wrote: | | JeffreyGB wrote: | FWIW, Kxs and Axs play nearly the same postflop in my book.
I think it's reasonable on the first level or two to take a flop with a wide range of "potential" hands if you're in position in an unraised pot with a couple of other limpers. I'm generally looking for two-pair+ to keep going post-flop. I'm not semi-bluffing early, and I'm not calling more than a minbet to draw. And just to throw the math side in: you're flopping two-pair+ around 5% of the time. So when you hit, you need to make 20x the cost of limping to make this break-even. If you think you can reasonably do that, then limp on! If you drop more than a couple hundred chips, it's probably time to tighten up and conserve the rest of your chips as artillery. |
I'm beginning to worship just about everything JGB says.
In reviewing my HH this week I've come across a major preflop leak in my game - limping with weak hands in the blinds. Either calling from the SB with a weak drawing hand, or calling a minraise from the BB with a weak drawing hand. You just can't afford to do it.
Say you're in the SB with Axs and there is one limper. Fold. 2 limpers? fold. 3 or more limpers? Consider the call, if the BB is not aggressive preflop. It is simply not worth it calling in the SB when 95% of the time you are going to see a worthless flop and are OOP. Limping behind early in the game with 2 or 3 other limpers already in, maybe. But definitely not in the blinds. |
Right well 1/3 x u will hit your hand on the flop(pair it) so ...Its like Ive got to choose how im feeling and if I want to play it more so then other factors.
freakin luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 11:06pm Post subject:
|
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3462
WPP: 153
Location: Ellicott City, MD
|
|
| FlyingSaucy wrote: |
I'm beginning to worship just about everything JGB says.
|
Thanks, FS. That comment made my day.
That said, I make mistakes too. Hell, in the live MTT I played this weekend, I made two big ones that I'm still kicking myself over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed, 27 Sep 2006, 4:35am Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 598
WPP: 175
Location: Dundee - Scotland
|
|
ripjohn, you've still not told us how you worked out that sum?
completely ignored it. So, it is safe to say, it was a load of bullsh*t!!
good job!!  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 4:19pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 393
WPP: 45
|
|
| Limping early on with these trash hands is just bleeding chips that can be put to better use later on. As has been said, we're probably going to need 2 pair or better to continue on the flop and even then we may well get burned. Stay out of trouble early on, bin the trash hands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 4:57pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Season I
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 2360
WPP: 74
Location: Dallas, TX
|
|
| Hey Atlas. Welcome. You might want to skip the ripjohngotti threads. Long story |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat, 30 Sep 2006, 7:25pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Flush
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 393
WPP: 45
|
|
Thanks. I'm beginning to see that already...
If this guy is such a pain in the ass troll, why hasn;t he been banned? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Full Tilt Poker FTOPS XIV - Event 8 $240+$16 NLH Knockout
