hands to raise from sb and bb

[Scott31 0]

I specifically remember a hand quiz where there are a few limpers in and you pick up :spadesa: :spades10: in the bb....and Sklansky says to raise! So I'm quite certain he'd raise AQo and a lot of the other hands mentioned. Sklansky says that not raising with ATs is probably a bigger mistake than limping in with 2-7o. Just spewing out what I read.Check out page 259 of SSHE hand quiz 5. He says to Raise ATs in the bb with 6 limpers.

get pokertracker. let me know how you do raising AJs from the blinds. I guarantee you will be -EV.

If Sklansky thinks not raising ATs is a terrible play, I'm quite certain he believes raising AJs from the blinds is +EV especially in a multiway pot, which seems to be the opposite of what blaze is saying. Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Sklansky here.

[mjd 0]

...You know, playing better than people in order to win more money, the reason most people play poker

How can that be true when pokertracker says 60% of my opponents are losing money?

[NicksDad1970 0]

In NL game I might raise from the SB with anything, hoping to take the pot down there. At some point if I fold or even if I win show them. Then they know I'm a fish....or am I?If it works once or if you don't lose much on it and show the cards IMO people will give you NO respect when you want NO respect.I'll shut up now

[mrdannyg 274]

i saw an interesting move for all you low-limit limit players. unless you have a real loose table image, people expect a big blind raise to mean AA, KK, QQ or maybe AK. i've seen people who would only do it with AA or KK. so i was watching a guy who did it with mid-pockets from the BB - he also did it with weaker aces, but that seems counter-intuitive.however, with say, 6s through jacks it works well since people expect high pockets. your pre-flop raise won't scare anyone, but the fact that you did it will have two effects.one, it will flush out any slow-players (KK/AA) which is a mid-pockets worst nightmare.more importantly, unless someone hits off the flop, they'll have to fold. you're a lot less likely to get people calling to make their trips or two pair or calling with overcards if there's a good chance you have high pockets. it doesn't work if overused, but on the rare occasion you get mid-pockets in the big blind, i'd try out this strategy - it seems to work well. again though, i'd only recommend it for low-limit fixed limit games.good luck,daniel

[justblaze 0]

I was more or less refering to you being hippocritical, however:i am. find me an instance where i posited theories by notable poker authors as pure fact.I already did, You talked about me not understanding expectation thoery,   "if you are trying to tell me that limping with JJ has a negative expectation, you need to figure out what the theory of expectation means. you're arguing that it is LESS +EV, not -EV "and went on to say:if limit, then its often -EV to raise with anything less than AA,KK, or AK.you're obviosly not understanding expectation thoery by checking with QQ...  You're not raising to thin the field, you're raising to make other bad players pay more for their mistakes, by playing ace-rag and king-rag....  You know, playing better than people in order to win more money, the reason most people play poker

actually i made the second statement before the first. While raising as a value bet on your equity edge may be +EV for that particular street, this bet will get most players into a world of trouble on the flop. hence, the -EV. I didnt say you didnt have an understanding of expectation, i said your statement was contradictory, and the likely reason was that you were just paraphrasing sklansky, albeit somewhat poorly.

[justblaze 0]

I specifically remember a hand quiz where there are a few limpers in and you pick up  :spadesa:  :spades10: in the bb....and Sklansky says to raise!  So I'm quite certain he'd raise AQo and a lot of the other hands mentioned.  Sklansky says that not raising with ATs is probably a bigger mistake than limping in with 2-7o.  Just spewing out what I read.Check out page 259 of SSHE hand quiz 5.  He says to Raise ATs in the bb with 6 limpers.

get pokertracker. let me know how you do raising AJs from the blinds. I guarantee you will be -EV.

If Sklansky thinks not raising ATs is a terrible play, I'm quite certain he believes raising AJs from the blinds is +EV especially in a multiway pot, which seems to be the opposite of what blaze is saying. Yeah, I'm gonna have to go with Sklansky here.

he's assuming impeccable postflop play. that is a bold assumption.

[justblaze 0]

Once again, I have a feeling that you are not understanding me.  QQ, whether it be a small pair or not, in an unraised pot this hand should always be raised.  As far as my winrate goes, I believe that at this level with the quality of the opponents and the fact that there is no rake, that a winrate of 8BB/100 is sustainable.  Taking the rake out of the situation makes it sustainable.  I do believe that I am a winning player, and if you think that 10BB/100 is not a winning player, then something is wrong.As far as my SB stats, I can't give you that information at the moment because I am at work and my poker tracker is at home.  I will be able to look at it and get back to you on that.I feel as though my point of view is correct.  If your postflop skills are adequate and you know when you are beat, then you should be able to raise these hands and it be +EV.   (Remember, only in loose, passive games)

always is a dangerous statement. I could build, quite easily, a situation where QQ is -EV against 7 hands that are likely to limp, given specific player profiles. its not likely, but not impossible. 8bb/100 is probably not sustainable. If you can sustain this winrate at any level, you should be playing 15-30. ill even stake you. i didnt say you werent a winning player. i merely pointed out that your cryptic proof was rubbish. Classifying a game as "loose passive" is dangerous. it is more apt to describe such a game as 'a game with numerous loose passive players'. throw 2 tricky players into the mix, limping from LP, and you've got to start to wonder what theyve got.

[Royal_Tour 0]

ok instead of quoting everyones posts ill respond to some in this one:Raising out of the small blind is often a big mistake... With hands like QQ, JJ, TT you want to thin the field.my point exactly. these hands dont play particularily well multiway. your equity edge is overcome by the loss of deception and the fact that any draw now has good odds to chase when you raise with hands like these from the blinds. Also, the flop play becomes tricky. what if theres one over? do you bet? if you get raised do you fold? easier to check/fold when you havent invested anything.  poker is not cut and dry its not black and white poker is GREYactually, in limit poker decisions are often black and white. the only real variables are math. there is usually a decision with optimal expectation.  but with 3-4 limpers, in a loose game, I am going to raise with QQ, JJ, AQ, AK, AJs.get pokertracker. let me know how you do raising AJs from the blinds. I guarantee you will be -EV.  And if you're not raising QQ out of the blinds, then something is terribly wrongIm going to disagree there. In europe, they call QQ a 'small pair'. there is a reason.  I am a lowly .05/.10 player that only wins at 10BB/100 over 10k hands.Correct me if im wrong, but this sentence is meant to imply that you are a winning player. That win rate is unsustainable at any limit, and your sample size is statistically insignificant with regards to determining winrate. nice try, though.  stick to your own advicei am. find me an instance where i posited theories by notable poker authors as pure fact.

Once again, I have a feeling that you are not understanding me. QQ, whether it be a small pair or not, in an unraised pot this hand should always be raised. As far as my winrate goes, I believe that at this level with the quality of the opponents and the fact that there is no rake, that a winrate of 8BB/100 is sustainable. Taking the rake out of the situation makes it sustainable. I do believe that I am a winning player, and if you think that 10BB/100 is not a winning player, then something is wrong.As far as my SB stats, I can't give you that information at the moment because I am at work and my poker tracker is at home. I will be able to look at it and get back to you on that.I feel as though my point of view is correct. If your postflop skills are adequate and you know when you are beat, then you should be able to raise these hands and it be +EV. (Remember, only in loose, passive games)

Who exactly do u plan on milking more money from in limit with QQ pre flop?????.... a bad flop would probably put you ina spot to bet. since you've already invested more chips..

[Scott31 0]

I could build, quite easily, a situation where QQ is -EV against 7 hands that are likely to limp, given specific player profiles. its not likely, but not impossible.

Ummm, pretty near impossible. Considering you're 1-7.5 to hit your set of Queens and the fact that you only need to win 1-8 for it to be profitable in your situation, I'd say your statement is off....sorry. Just by the odds of you hitting your set alone, you are +EV on this hand let alone the times that your big pair holds up. You might want to rethink that one.

he's assuming impeccable postflop play. that is a bold assumption.

Striving for impeccable play is why we post on a forum and read books in the first place. So shouldn't we try for solid play overall? You don't get any better by just ignoring the techniques of the pros in any game or sport. I see Tiger Wood's golf swing and try to imitate it. Am I successful? Hell no. But it doesn't mean I'm not improving by trying. Plus, the title of this book is Small Stakes Hold 'em. If he didn't think this play was effective at this level, I'm sure he'd leave this play for another book, say Hold 'em For Advanced Players. :-)

[PT0077 0]

always is a dangerous statement. I could build, quite easily, a situation where QQ is -EV against 7 hands that are likely to limp, given specific player profiles. its not likely, but not impossible.  8bb/100 is probably not sustainable. If you can sustain this winrate at any level, you should be playing 15-30. ill even stake you.  i didnt say you werent a winning player. i merely pointed out that your cryptic proof was rubbish.  Classifying a game as "loose passive" is dangerous. it is more apt to describe such a game as 'a game with numerous loose passive players'. throw 2 tricky players into the mix, limping from LP, and you've got to start to wonder what theyve got.

You are talking about situations, I am talking about the long run. As far as the win rate conversation, I don't believe for one second that I could even presume to play 15/30 WITH the proper BR. I'm talking about a game that has no rake and is, in most cases Poor when I am talking about the level I am at currently. I am in the process of moving to .25/.50 and I have only played 220 hands at that level. I am looking for a 1-2BB/100 winrate at that level. Everything that is said as far as strategy goes will always be condition specific. The feel of the table and the reads that you have always make a huge difference in a way a hand should be played. If have have someone that I know plays tricky already in the pot, I will probably just call when they have limped. I have never said that I always raise these hands (with the exception of AA, KK, QQ, and AKs, I will have to make a judgement call), but what I have said is that if the table is generally passive and or loose, I'm gonna pop it for a raise because I see value in AJ, AQ and KQ, especially suited. Just as I always enter hands from EP with a raise with them, I will continue to force the action. I believe that it is never wrong to force the action when you have the best hand. If you see that you have 4-6 limpers, especially at micro-limits, you can almost guaruntee that your hand is going to be ahead 8 out of 10 times with AJ, AQ, JJ and QQ. If your hand holds up 2 out of the 8 times that it is ahead, then you have made a +EV play.So, Blaze, I guess we will continue to disagree, but that's what this game is about, and that's what these forums are about. At least we can share these points of view without the stupid comments that you get from other posters at this site. I'm gonna head home and play some because after talking all day, I gotta play.

[Smasharoo 0]

8bb/100 is probably not sustainableIt's not, but 5 is. Of course if you can beat it for 5....etc.Allthough someday I'm going to figure out a way to 24 table Party .50/1 and stop playing 3/6Anyway, in an unraised pot I raise ATs, AJ-AK, KQ, AA-JJ out of the blinds for value. If there's a button limp and no one else is in I'll raise any two much of the time from the SB to get it heads up and outplay anyone weak enough to limp in on the button there most of the time./shrug.

[justblaze 0]

I could build, quite easily, a situation where QQ is -EV against 7 hands that are likely to limp, given specific player profiles. its not likely, but not impossible.

Ummm, pretty near impossible. Considering you're 1-7.5 to hit your set of Queens and the fact that you only need to win 1-8 for it to be profitable in your situation, I'd say your statement is off....sorry. Just by the odds of you hitting your set alone, you are +EV on this hand let alone the times that your big pair holds up. You might want to rethink that one.

he's assuming impeccable postflop play. that is a bold assumption.

Striving for impeccable play is why we post on a forum and read books in the first place. So shouldn't we try for solid play overall? You don't get any better by just ignoring the techniques of the pros in any game or sport. I see Tiger Wood's golf swing and try to imitate it. Am I successful? Hell no. But it doesn't mean I'm not improving by trying. Plus, the title of this book is Small Stakes Hold 'em. If he didn't think this play was effective at this level, I'm sure he'd leave this play for another book, say Hold 'em For Advanced Players. :-)

I will bet you your entire roll i could construct a hypothetical situation where QQ was -EV against 7 other hands, and could justify players limping with those hands given certain profiles. Also, striving for good play is one thing, but accepting that high variance raises should probably not be attempted until a certain level of postflop play which is probably beyond the ability of those for whom this advice is directed (specifically, low limit players) is likely a better approach. walk before you run.

[Smasharoo 0]

I will bet you your entire roll i could construct a hypothetical situation where QQ was -EV against 7 other hands, and could justify players limping with those hands given certain profiles. I will bet you any amount that I can guranantee that if you aren't raising QQ in the BB after 7 limpers you're leaving a ludicrous amount of money on the table and ignoring a massive pot equity advantage 99% of the time.I hope whoever is advocating not raising or three-betting or CAPPING QQ in the BB with 7 in is just smoking a bad batcj of crack and isn't serious.

[SabaAba 0]

Interesting discussion here, BUT ..In the sb or bb, you MUST raise with ANY pocket pair as long as there have been 4 limpers or 3 limpers and you know the bb defends every blind to a raise. The reason being is that you have about 20% chance of hitting your set. If you raise and get 4 callers, which you will if they have all limped in since in limit poker, almost all players who have limped preflop will call another bet. You have now got the odds of hitting your set. If your PP happens to be higher than any flopped card, then you should lead out betting, otherwise check and call/fold depending on the number of people in.In fact, in a full ring game, I will never raise with AK in sb or bb (with 4 or more limpers) but I will with 22. The thing is AK is a drawing hand and usually when there are 4 or more in the hand, you need to hit two pair or a str8 to win the hand, it's very hard for you to win the hand even if you hit your A or K.But's that's my style, play your own.Good Luck either way.

[Smasharoo 0]

In the sb or bb, you MUST raise with ANY pocket pair as long as there have been 4 limpers or 3 limpers and you know the bb defends every blind to a raise. The reason being is that you have about 20% chance of hitting your set.If you call to the river chasing it.You're 1 in 8 to flop it.How can you people possibly get things so fundementally wrong?The rest of your post is so fundementally flawed it makes me wonder how you have any money left at all....

[SabaAba 0]

In the sb or bb, you MUST raise with ANY pocket pair as long as there have been 4 limpers or 3 limpers and you know the bb defends every blind to a raise. The reason being is that you have about 20% chance of hitting your set.If you call to the river chasing it.You're 1 in 8 to flop it.How can you people possibly get things so fundementally wrong?The rest of your post is so fundementally flawed it makes me wonder how you have any money left at all....

Whoops, hit 4 instead of 7, my bad. I believe people were talking about 7 limpers in and not raising QQ. I meant raise any pair with 7 limpers in. Thanks for pointing out that mistake, and I still don't like raising with AK and 7 limpers, it's very likely that at least 2 of your A or K are out in someone elses hand.

[Smasharoo 0]

Thanks for pointing out that mistake, and I still don't like raising with AK and 7 limpers, it's very likely that at least 2 of your A or K are out in someone elses hand.No, it's not anymore likely than if it's folded to you in the BB.Raise it there, it's beyond foolish not to.

[Awful 0]

Also, striving for good play is one thing, but accepting that high variance raises should probably not be attempted until a certain level of postflop play which is probably beyond the ability of those for whom this advice is directed (specifically, low limit players) is likely a better approach. walk before you run.

Justblaze, I think this is an incorrect statement on several levels regarding beginners in hold'em.1. The safe approach creates what will become bad habits. If you don't raise QQ out of the blinds now, you might not do it later2. You won't learn how to play in that situation until you've created it for yourself. You need to be in marginal situations and struggle with them to drive home proper play. More expensive, yes, but more valuable to someone who will take their holdem seriously.3. Preflop, you're picking up a LOT of long-run bets when you have a clear edge. If you're starting in Hold'em, it's important to push those defined edges because of your lack of success in more marginal situations. Not only is leaving this on the table harmful to learning as I said in the first 2 points, but it quickly undermines the profitability of the player because he is forsaking a terrific situation that he knows he can play well to create subsequent uncertainty. Also, QQ is an overpair often enough that firing the courtesy bet on the flop is a +EV play before you even look at the flop.Other hands, I would restrict my raising due to future position, but QQ has an edge preflop, does well on enough flops, and is almost always defined enough to be a BB raise IMHO.

[Smasharoo 0]

Other hands, I would restrict my raising due to future positionGrossly overthinking pre-flop play in a game with 7 *limpers*.The upside to raising pre-flop there massively outweighs any positional or deception advantage later in the hand.It's not close.

[Scott31 0]

I hope whoever is advocating not raising or three-betting or CAPPING QQ in the BB with 7 in is just smoking a bad batcj of crack and isn't serious.

Well, the poster you're referring to is named JustBlaze, so it's entirely possible. Once you go crack, you never go back. :-)

I will bet you your entire roll i could construct a hypothetical situation where QQ was -EV against 7 other hands, and could justify players limping with those hands given certain profiles.

Ok, go for it. This I'd like to see. Construct a realistic situation where there are 7 limpers in a pot with hands that they wouldn't normally raise with and show me how it's -EV to play my QQ in the blinds for a raise. Give me all of the other 7 hands and the suits of QQ. Good luck.

[cdddc75 0]

I hope whoever is advocating not raising or three-betting or CAPPING QQ in the BB with 7 in is just smoking a bad batcj of crack and isn't serious.

Well, the poster you're referring to is named JustBlaze, so it's entirely possible. Once you go crack, you never go back. :-)

I will bet you your entire roll i could construct a hypothetical situation where QQ was -EV against 7 other hands, and could justify players limping with those hands given certain profiles.

Ok, go for it. This I'd like to see. Construct a realistic situation where there are 7 limpers in a pot with hands that they wouldn't normally raise with and show me how it's -EV to play my QQ in the blinds for a raise. Give me all of the other 7 hands and the suits of QQ. Good luck.

I would have agreed with you Scott, but I actually think I may have cooked up a scenario where raising QQ winds up as -EV (assuming the other 7 all call, of course):Holdem Hi: 376992 enumerated boardscards win %win lose %lose tie %tie EVQs Qd 33539 8.90 340046 90.20 3407 0.90 0.0934h 3h 49128 13.03 327820 86.96 44 0.01 0.130Ks Ts 51896 13.77 325052 86.22 44 0.01 0.1386c 5c 64733 17.17 312215 82.82 44 0.01 0.1728d 7d 61940 16.43 315008 83.56 44 0.01 0.1642s 2d 46716 12.39 330232 87.60 44 0.01 0.124As 9h 38483 10.21 338465 89.78 44 0.01 0.102Qc Jh 27150 7.20 346435 91.89 3407 0.90 0.076Link with better formatting:http://twodimes.net/h/?z=862457Having concocted that scenario, QQ here is an automatic raise for me.

[Scott31 0]

Also, striving for good play is one thing, but accepting that high variance raises should probably not be attempted until a certain level of postflop play which is probably beyond the ability of those for whom this advice is directed (specifically, low limit players) is likely a better approach. walk before you run.

You've kind of changed your argument here Blaze. First you started off that AJs raising in the blinds was -EV. I disagree, but ok. Now you're saying that raising ATs is ok, but only if you're good enough to know what do with it on the flop. With that logic, DN should raise every hand he gets (you know, those REALLY high variance hands) because he knows what to do with it better than his opponents on the flop. An extreme example, yes, but I hope it gets across the point. Yes, Daniel has nutbarred before and won(quite a feat at his levels), but I bet there were many, many hands that had little or no chance to win and he took a hit on them. Ahh, hell with this. Stop being weak/tight in the blinds with premium hands and you'll make more money. I think that should do it.

[Smasharoo 0]

Hi. Stop thinking pre-flop win showdown perctnages tell you anything usefull in terms of limit Holdem plays.They don't.22 is a favorite heads up against AK, but AK will make a lot more money heads up against 22 than vice versa.The fact that your opponents get to bet raise or most importantly fold during the hand sometimes matters a little.

[Awful 0]

I will bet you your entire roll i could construct a hypothetical situation where QQ was -EV against 7 other hands, and could justify players limping with those hands given certain profiles.

Ok, go for it. This I'd like to see. Construct a realistic situation where there are 7 limpers in a pot with hands that they wouldn't normally raise with and show me how it's -EV to play my QQ in the blinds for a raise. Give me all of the other 7 hands and the suits of QQ. Good luck.

I can come up with one pretty damn easy.Player 1 holds AsAcPlayer 2 holds QdJdPlayer 3 holds QhThYou hold QsQcPlayers 4-7 are already insignificant; with random hands, you have <0.5% pot equity.Player 1 slowplays A's or fails to raise them because "he'll only beat 9 random hands 28.78% of the time" or whatever reasoning people have used on this forum 39473875 times. It's been mentioned so much and happens so often it isn't a big stretch to say someone limped aces. Seriously.

[Smasharoo 0]

with hands that they wouldn't normally raise with

I can come up with one pretty damn easy.Player 1 holds AsAc  

Yeah, apparently not.