playing PP at medium stakes

Basic (optimal?) strategy at 2-100NL:
Raise TT+ all positions, limp-call 22-99 all positions.
Call reraises with 22-QQ to set; rereraise or call and trap with AA/KK. Raise 77+ when folded too in LP.

What typical changes should one make at medium stakes (200/400/600NL)?

- Never open-limp?
- How about open-folding 22-66 in EP?
- Never call raises HU vs. solid opponents?

Discuss.

Very interesting topic. Lukie and I were discussing this the other day. Here's what I think. 100NL and below I think you just play 22-88 for set value (ABC poker type play), meaning limping and calling raises using the 10x rule as a guideline. Raise 99,TT in late position, and AA-JJ raise in all positions. However, when you get up to 200NL+, I think some adjustments need to be made. The average player is not going to stack off with AA/KK nearly enough times to make the 10x rule +EV IMO. Open limping from EP and calling a raise just seems so transparent, but I'm sort of torn on what to do. I think open-raising with low PP's from EP is probably -EV, and I hate the idea of folding away potentially big implied odds.

If the preflop raiser is solid, I don't hate just dumping 22-88, espeically if you are OOP, simply because you know they're mostly likely not going broke with AA/KK if you set. Also, if their opening range is wide, that means your implied odds are even worse. Say tricky solid villian opens in CO for 4xbb with 98s and you call in the SB with 44. I think CO gets the best of it in the long run. Even if you do flop a set, CO needs an awesome flop to stack off on, and most of those will either be straights, flushes, or big draws. A flop like 984 would be ideal, but that's just wishful thinking.

10x rule as normally used sucks. bad. for lots of reasons.

I normally open TT+ all positions. In MP I'll often open all the pairs, but certainly all the mid and high ones.

Ill open a lot of stuff from LP, with hands like the stronger suited connectors being strongly preferable to a hand like KJo or some other rubbish.

I play very tight, but I don't really have many hard and fast preflop guidelines. I'm also trying to work out the open-limping part of my game on tables that aren't generally loose/passive/fishy.

Just my $0.02...

edit: opening all the pairs from LP seems blatantly obvious to me so I just left that out...

I play 400NL and I still think its profitable to limp/call raises from EP with low pairs. The nice thing is that against full stacks, you are getting 1:20 odds, so you dont have to take as large a % of their stack to be +EV. Conversely, against shorter stacks where you might be getting only 1:10 or 1:8, I still think it works out to be +EV because 1/2 stacked or lower usually means a bad player who will be willing to dump off with tptk or high overpairs.

Acutally, I play JJ and below from EP for the set, usually. Sometimes if the flop comes out all rags and I have say, second PP or PP over the board (like TT or 77 on a 862 board) Ill lead into the PFR to see if hes really got an overpair or just missed high cards.

I open 88+ from mid to late position at hight stakes, THOUGH ONLY against open limpers who I deem to be most probably set camping. (I also raise suited connectors under this philosophy as well). I figure against an open limper, the only hands I want to go to huge showdowns with are hands that will beat low sets.

Similarily, I try not to play for stacks with a low set against a good player showing alot of postflop agression. Using pot control here is key.

Obiviously big pairs AA-QQ lose a bunch of value as stakes increase. I think good play with these is very dependent on your read of your opponents style and general skill level. I try to pick players on the table that I will play for 1/2 stacks with with AA or KK unimproved. Obviously I'm not looking to get this much in against a good player who limp-called my PFR.

Also, one shouldnt forget the power of floating against good players from the c/o or button after calling their raise with a low pp. This can be very profitable against the standard taggs at 1/2 and higher.

I propose we rename the 10x rule to the 25x rule by the way.

Pretty self-explanitory.

Originally Posted by Lukie

I'm also trying to work out the open-limping part of my game on tables that aren't generally loose/passive/fishy.

Don't. It's that simple. Against good players limping 22-55 UTG is -EV.

Re-raise donks who min-raise (particularly if they've been seen making other openers) with impunity when the other players at the table won't get involved against a 3-bet w/o at least AK/QQ+.

Originally Posted by Lukie

I propose we rename the 10x rule to the 25x rule by the way.

Pretty self-explanitory.

Hm. But the set will hit like 1 out of 9 times. So what's so wrong with going for it at 1/10. 1/25 simply means it'll never happen in practice. 1/10 and only if there are enough people in the pot, otherwise you won't get paid off even you hit your set, because you need someone to hit something decent in order to be able to take a huge bite out of their stack.

But I feel I might be missing the point here.

Originally Posted by jackvance

1/25 simply means it'll never happen in practice.

No.

1/25 means it will happen around 4% of the time in practice.


The 10x rule assumes you will be able to get your opponents stack every time you hit a set. That isnt going to happen on most tables. making it a 25x rule would mean you have to get stacks 2.5 times less often to make profitable. Thats much more realistic.

What I mean is, this way you'll only play if you get to add 1/25th of the pot.. thát is not very realistic imho.. It means in a $25 pot your opponent would have to throw a $1 raise because any more and you're out.. so this is what I was referring to that it won't really happen.

Originally Posted by Lukie

I propose we rename the 10x rule to the 25x rule by the way.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Er...please explain. You're assuming knowledge here that I (and I presume some others) don't have. I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Lukie

I propose we rename the 10x rule to the 25x rule by the way.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Er...please explain. You're assuming knowledge here that I (and I presume some others) don't have. I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure.

What Lukie is saying is that it's ridiculous to think that you will get your opponents stack almost everytime you set, so if you follow the 10x rule, you will end up losing money due to all the times you called preflop with a small pair, only to fold to a c-bet.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Don't. It's that simple. Against good players limping 22-55 UTG is -EV.

Can you explain more Fnord? By good players, do you mean something like 2-3 aggressive players that act after you? At 100NL, is your standard just to dump them in EP? What about the example I mentioned in my post, about calling late position raises from the blinds with them. +EV?

ya at 50nl, I never call 4.00 raises heads up with 22-88, especially oop.

Originally Posted by bdawg56kg

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Lukie

I propose we rename the 10x rule to the 25x rule by the way.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Er...please explain. You're assuming knowledge here that I (and I presume some others) don't have. I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure.

What Lukie is saying is that it's ridiculous to think that you will get your opponents stack almost everytime you set, so if you follow the 10x rule, you will end up losing money due to all the times you called preflop with a small pair, only to fold to a c-bet.

Originally Posted by Fnord

Don't. It's that simple. Against good players limping 22-55 UTG is -EV.

Can you explain more Fnord? By good players, do you mean something like 2-3 aggressive players that act after you? At 100NL, is your standard just to dump them in EP? What about the example I mentioned in my post, about calling late position raises from the blinds with them. +EV?

Okay, I'll be plainer: WTF is the 10x rule?

I think the basics are that to call a size x bet, you want your opponent to have a 10x stack and you also have to have him covered. Then if you hit your set and manage to stack them, them you will end up in the positives (10:1 cash odds, about 8:1 odds to hit your set). The problem with this is it's too low. You will only occasionally stack your opponent when you hit your set, often you will just pick up the pot on the flop or turn when you hit. So you want deeper stacks and multiple callers to get involved with small pocket pairs.

Ex. in 50 NL, a standard raise of 4x brings the bet up to $2. If your opponent has $20 behind, you can call this raise w/a small pocket pair hoping to stack him. However, it is better to call this when he has $50 behind (25x the bet) to better cover the times you miss/don't stack when you hit.

Someone set me straight if I'm off here...

you also have to factor in the times where you will steal the pot with well timed bet postflop when you know the preflop raiser missed his hand. I think 25:1 is a little gratuitous. I follow about a 15:1 rule and all my pocket pairs in poker tracker are profitable over 20k hands.

EDIT: this is small stakes though (25NL, 50NL) so ya sure maybe you should increase it for higher stakes.

Don't. It's that simple. Against good players limping 22-55 UTG is -EV.

Against good players, or a generally solid table, I agree. If the table is really horrible, ie normal pot is like a 7 way limped pot and plays like a low stakes PLO game, you might see me limping A2s utg...

Re-raise donks who min-raise (particularly if they've been seen making other openers) with impunity when the other players at the table won't get involved against a 3-bet w/o at least AK/QQ+.

Heh, yeah... often times I'll take pretty much anything that was in my range there to begin with and just pot it, and they seem to always fold...

What Lukie is saying is that it's ridiculous to think that you will get your opponents stack almost everytime you set, so if you follow the 10x rule, you will end up losing money due to all the times you called preflop with a small pair, only to fold to a c-bet.

basically.

let's also not forget about the times where we lose massive pots when we flop a set, whether it be to a stronger made hand or just get drawn out on.

Also say you get it AI with a set against a big draw, and further say you are a 3:1 favorite. Many ppl have the mistake of assuming that the entire pot should be theirs which just isn't true. Only 75% of it is...

Originally Posted by Warpe

Originally Posted by Lukie

I propose we rename the 10x rule to the 25x rule by the way.

Pretty self-explanatory.

Er...please explain. You're assuming knowledge here that I (and I presume some others) don't have. I think I know what you mean but I'm not sure.

first of all there shouldn't be any RULE about how much of your stack you can call off in order to hit a set. If it's headsup, and you will stack the guy every time, 10x seems good. After that, there's so many factors and there's so much judgement involved.

but you dont' always win with a set.
and you certainly don't always stack the other guy with a set.

Therefore, 10x rule no good...

Okay, I'll be plainer: WTF is the 10x rule?

10x rule as normally used is just saying, essentially, you can call off 1/10 of effective stacks hoping to hit a set, and people think this is profitable. I think that's absurd.

and Lukie wins the four consecutive posts award!!!!!!!!!


That is all.

Originally Posted by Renton

ya at 50nl, I never call 4.00 raises heads up with 22-88, especially oop.

Are you serious? You are losing a TON of value here. I dont have Poker tracker, but I dont need it to tell me that I am still making a ton of money limp calling raises with low pocket pairs from EP at $400NL. And if its working there, then certainly it should work at $50NL.

I said $4.00 raises. Hence, only having max implied odds of about 12:1

I limp/call raises with pocket pairs like crazy. At the stakes I play this is responsible for at least 50% of my money.

Originally Posted by underminedsk

Originally Posted by Renton

ya at 50nl, I never call 4.00 raises heads up with 22-88, especially oop.

Are you serious? You are losing a TON of value here. I dont have Poker tracker, but I dont need it to tell me that I am still making a ton of money limp calling raises with low pocket pairs from EP at $400NL. And if its working there, then certainly it should work at $50NL.

This would be the equivalent of a $32 raise at NL400.....

two things id like to ask
1. full ring or 6 max? Surely in 6 max we can raise anyway on occasion even in crap position to mix up our play.
2. I agree that any player who is reasonable will note that a player who limps into the pot especially in ep and then wants to play a big pot is more often than not gona recognise tp is no good, even top two pair.
Thus can the same arguement be used? Can we open half our pps in ep for weak raises or some crap other than limping?

On other notes. If our limping in ep is noticeable then how often should we be playing back at tp type hnds anyway, even without a set. Just running a set-like line making sure we cant be called?
How much action are we giving at other times to induce mistakes form other hands anyway?
just ideas id like to throw down, although i accept at full ring these can be more difficult to acheive.

Originally Posted by underminedsk

Originally Posted by Renton

ya at 50nl, I never call 4.00 raises heads up with 22-88, especially oop.

Are you serious? You are losing a TON of value here. I dont have Poker tracker, but I dont need it to tell me that I am still making a ton of money limp calling raises with low pocket pairs from EP at $400NL. And if its working there, then certainly it should work at $50NL.

Where do you play? Limp-calling a 4BB raise out of position seems -EV where I play.. (Prima 400NL)

Especially if it gets me HU versus the PFR.

So maybe it's better to just fold 22-66 in EP (maybe raise 20% of the time for Shania ).

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

On other notes. If our limping in ep is noticeable then how often should we be playing back at tp type hnds anyway, even without a set. Just running a set-like line making sure we cant be called?

Good point. I sometimes do this as a semi-bluff. Maybe should this be used more against certain opps..

A bit off-topic, but.. (assuming tough opposition)
- Is it optimal to play only 77+/AQ+ from EP? Should the range be wider/narrower?
- Is it ever correct to open-limp any hand from any position (in terms of hand value, not in terms of meta-game purposes such as deception and 'mixing it up')?

Some random thoughts.. There seems to be a framework/model missing to give a good answer to these questions

Limping PPs from anywhere is probably incorrect at small stakes and higher now. I don't see how the 10x rule is incorrect since the only time you will ever need to count the mobnies is when you're 3bet (which at small stakes means a high likelyhood of 3bettor stacking off), and when against an initial raise it means it's against a shortie who will often stack off with an underpair.

The issue, I believe, is that 10x may just be incorrect math due to how often villian will hit 8-35% equity and stack you.

And instead of starting a new thread, what kind of numbers/situations do you typically require to call with SCs?

good bump. I also want to hear about numbers for sc's. I usually want 25x for atleast 1 villain and multiple callers is ideal obv.

Against an average not awful opp. i will play SCs if we both have 20x but i will only play them IP. i never limp SCs and will only raise them in LP or call a raise IP. Seems to be working out as slightly profitable for me but i've only recently started incorporating them into my game. Against someone who i feel i can read fairly well (i.e. will fold to semi-bluffs/can't fold TPTK), i may call with less than 20x but again only with position.

Currently for me, calling with SCs has a lot to do with villian's ability to value bet or make bad calls. So much easier postflop UI or when hit marginally against a small bettor or station.

I never call with less than 15x, but I honestly have no clue how the math works out.

it depends if ur willing to go broke occasionally if u dont flop a set also...

So nobody knows the odds relating to SCs?

Let's assume villian has aces every time he raises. What kind of odds do you need to call with SCs? I have no clue what the math is or how to do it because I'm stupid, but I'm sure some of you guys can figure it out easily.

the 10:1 rule is a very good starting block for playing PPs against raises. It's not correct often, but it's necessary knowledge to begin to figure out what is correct. Currently, it seems to me that standards for SCs have not been established in this forum. The benefits of knowing the standard would be large. Something as simple as, "Ooh, I'm getting 13:1 to call his raise. Even if he stacks off 100% of the time I am not getting the odds to draw to a flush/straight/2p/trips/straightflush draw/pairflush draw or what have you. I fold."

Dont call a reraise with 22.

10x rule as normally used is just saying, essentially, you can call off 1/10 of effective stacks hoping to hit a set, and people think this is profitable

How can that be profitable ???
O.K so eight times in a row you call off a tenth of your stack with a small pocket pair and miss the flop. You do the same again with pocket 3's and finally flop your set, you bet out and your opponent folds. So youve lost a seventh of your stack...wp.

Originally Posted by Geanosssss

10x rule as normally used is just saying, essentially, you can call off 1/10 of effective stacks hoping to hit a set, and people think this is profitable

How can that be profitable ???
O.K so eight times in a row you call off a tenth of your stack with a small pocket pair and miss the flop. You do the same again with pocket 3's and finally flop your set, you bet out and your opponent folds. So youve lost a seventh of your stack...wp.

That's why the opponent's style is relevant. We're looking to stack bad players. And if you can lead out any garbage flop and take down a pot, why aren't you doing this with more hands than just a set?

If my opponent had aces everytime and i didnt know what i had i would call with any PP being given 8 to 1 (tho this would be close to neutral EV)

Originally Posted by sauce123

If my opponent had aces everytime and i didnt know what i had i would call with any PP being given 8 to 1 (tho this would be close to neutral EV)

Do you have a standard like this for SCs?

SC implied odds:
well, "connectors" anyway

http://www.pokerstove.com/analysis/unsuited.php

I found the article pretty enlightening, in terms of just how great the "implied odds" of certain trash hands need to be in order to play them. Note: his connector / gapper hands are all 8 high or worse.

I still need time to digest the article

Originally Posted by bigslikk

SC implied odds:
well, "connectors" anyway

http://www.pokerstove.com/analysis/unsuited.php

I found the article pretty enlightening, in terms of just how great the "implied odds" of certain trash hands need to be in order to play them. Note: his connector / gapper hands are all 8 high or worse.

I still need time to digest the article

That article is for limit play if I'm correct.

The thing with implied odds for SC's is that a lot of factors come into play wether you actually do have the implied odds you think you have. Most importantly;
- How well can you play draws.
- How likely is you opponent to stack off.

As an indication; most players are even with SC's or small winners. Yes SC's can win big pots, but they cost a lot to get to that one big pot too, so in the end they're not big winners.

PP's flop a big hand or not. Therefor the 15x rule is pretty static, as long as your opponent is likely to pay your sets off reasonably, it's a good rule.
SC's flop a lot of draws, not made hands. Draws cost a lot and you have to make up for the the few times you actually hit, or can outplay your opponent.

You'll flop a OESD or better 1 out of 4 times. That seems a lot, but keep in mind that there are a lot of not-made hands in there. Therefor getting at least 20x implied odds seems reasonably, as a minimum.

As a rule, I think you should lean towards 25x to make some money, and thats already a full buyin with a 4BB PFR. Therefor calling a single raise with a SC and 100BB stacks is marginal at best and a lot of people are better of waiting for spots to be the PFR themselves.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

So nobody knows the odds relating to SCs?

There are a few really old posts (I think 2004) wherein I and a few others worked out odds of hitting various hands. The summary is that with suited connectors, you're going to hit 2 pair or better about 5% of the time.

Adding in some off-the-cuff approximation: when you hit that, I'd estimate a little less than 10% of the time, he wins even though you flopped 2 pair+ (ie he makes a set to beat your two pair, or he makes a boat to beat your flush/underboat).

We could also add in the 5-ish% of the time that you're going to make a big draw to come near an equity-tie on the flop, but the times you lose here are a wash against the times you win, so they don't really affect much in spots where you know you have to suck out and have minimal postflop FE.

In the end, I think your hit-the-flop equity works out to remain around 5% when all other factors are balanced.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Originally Posted by sauce123

If my opponent had aces everytime and i didnt know what i had i would call with any PP being given 8 to 1 (tho this would be close to neutral EV)

Do you have a standard like this for SCs?

20 to 1 would be close to neutral EV.

Thank you, Jeff.

I have seen the 20:1 number put up for SCs before. I thought it was accurate until coming across what seemed to be good players playing them for less. So I wasn't sure. It seems your analysis is correct.

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Thank you, Jeff.

I have seen the 20:1 number put up for SCs before. I thought it was accurate until coming across what seemed to be good players playing them for less. So I wasn't sure. It seems your analysis is correct.

There are a number of reasons they could be playable beyond implied odds. If your opp 3-bets light, for instance, or much more if you are 3-betting light with them. They are going to hit some sort of a draw pretty often (which in a post 3-bet pot could be enough extra equity to let you make some moves that make your opp fold).

The same is true of Axs, only to some degree moreso, as you can also catch an A to beat half the hands in most 3-bet ranges.

There are too many variables to calculate the implied odds needed for SC's.

For sethunting it is possible because you hit a made hand or not. Take into consideration you loose some of those made hands, and that's it.

But the thing with SC's (and Axs) is that you flop a lot of draws and it's more or less impossible to calculate wether those draws are winners or not.
There has been numerous threads about implied odds of SC's on the internet, but there's isn't a definite answer.

Just take into consideration that even the best players are only marginal winners with SC's. Just make them your play along hands and help balancing your other hands;
- Call when you are up against a nit with a range of AQ+
- Call when there are 2+ people in the pot
- Reraise against loose openers
- Sqeeuze some
- Fold some
- etc.