| Author |
Message |
|
Posted: Mon, 25 Sep 2006, 5:17pm 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, 5:28pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 2243
WPP: 97
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, 5:30pm 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, 5:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3289
WPP: 155
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, 6:00pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 04 Aug 2004
Posts: 2243
WPP: 97
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, 6:02pm 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, 6:06pm 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, 6:07pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 08 Sep 2005
Posts: 1675
WPP: 48
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, 6:09pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3289
WPP: 155
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, 6:12pm 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, 7:01pm 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, 2:46am Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 514
WPP: 182
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, 8:58am Post subject: |
|
|
Season I
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
Posts: 2350
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, 9:29am Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 29 Apr 2006
Posts: 271
WPP: 103
Location: Sweden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 9:55am Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 514
WPP: 182
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, 9:57am 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, 9:59am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 2830
WPP: 109
Location: searching for something...
|
|
| 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, 10:07am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 2830
WPP: 109
Location: searching for something...
|
|
| 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, 10:25am Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 514
WPP: 182
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, 10:26am Post subject: |
|
|
Strike 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2005
Posts: 1191
WPP: 71
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 10:51am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3289
WPP: 155
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, 10:58am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3289
WPP: 155
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, 11:00am Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 2830
WPP: 109
Location: searching for something...
|
|
| ^^^ you're trying too hard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue, 26 Sep 2006, 11:40am Post subject: |
|
|
Flush
Joined: 02 Feb 2006
Posts: 514
WPP: 182
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, 12:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 3289
WPP: 155
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"] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
