Jump to content

Preflop Raising At Loose Cheap Tables


Recommended Posts

I've started reading a bit about limit lately, mainly because I'm getting a bit bored with NLHE and I've started branching out into mixed games. I also think that when it comes to cash games limit is much more suited to my temperament, since I'm not a gambler at heart.Anyway, I just read two articles on the topic of preflop raising at loose cheap tables which gave completely opposite advice. One article said it's better to never raise preflop, for two main reasons: (1) only raising strong hands gives away too much information; (2) if you raise more widely, it will encourage others to raise which can make it too expensive to play speculative hands. The other article said to always raise big hands (big pairs, big Aces, and big suited cards) because those hands have an equity edge over random hands so over the long run you want to get as much money in PF with them. He used JJ as an example, with 19% equity against 9 random hands (a 9% equity edge over the 10% equity of an average hand at a 10-handed table). Raising therefore means that you'll make more money in the long run, even though you'll win fewer pots.But there's something that doesn't sit well with me about the raising argument. Wouldn't it imply that you should also raise with any other hand that has an equity edge over random hands, which would include a much, much wider range of hands? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I've started reading a bit about limit lately, mainly because I'm getting a bit bored with NLHE and I've started branching out into mixed games. I also think that when it comes to cash games limit is much more suited to my temperament, since I'm not a gambler at heart.Anyway, I just read two articles on the topic of preflop raising at loose cheap tables which gave completely opposite advice. One article said it's better to never raise preflop, for two main reasons: (1) only raising strong hands gives away too much information; (2) if you raise more widely, it will encourage others to raise which can make it too expensive to play speculative hands. The other article said to always raise big hands (big pairs, big Aces, and big suited cards) because those hands have an equity edge over random hands so over the long run you want to get as much money in PF with them. He used JJ as an example, with 19% equity against 9 random hands (a 9% equity edge over the 10% equity of an average hand at a 10-handed table). Raising therefore means that you'll make more money in the long run, even though you'll win fewer pots.But there's something that doesn't sit well with me about the raising argument. Wouldn't it imply that you should also raise with any other hand that has an equity edge over random hands, which would include a much, much wider range of hands? Or am I misunderstanding the argument?
Loose cheap tables = the relevance of the bold part is zero.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay but what about my main question? If the rationale for raising JJ is that it has an equity edge over 9 random hands, wouldn't it also make sense to raise any hand with an equity edge? Like 44 or 96s?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay but what about my main question? If the rationale for raising JJ is that it has an equity edge over 9 random hands, wouldn't it also make sense to raise any hand with an equity edge? Like 44 or 96s?
Sorta. The rationale for raising JJ is solid. The rest depends on more factors than just hot and cold equity.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay but what about my main question? If the rationale for raising JJ is that it has an equity edge over 9 random hands, wouldn't it also make sense to raise any hand with an equity edge? Like 44 or 96s?
Don't take that too far.I don't think 96s has much of an edge. Run some PokerEV calculations - but don't put everyone on a random hand. Even if we assume players are playing 40-60% of their hands, 96s is behind.
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the author of the article was using JJ against 9 random hands to illustrate why raising with JJ PF is a value raise. Wouldn't you have to apply the same logic for all hands, or is his reasoning faulty (even though he comes to the right conclusion)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the whole story, but consider:

12,331,198  games	91.953 secs   134,103  games/secBoard: Dead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	10.179%	  09.87% 	00.31% 		   1217350 		38247.53   { 44 }Hand 1: 	09.979%	  08.94% 	01.04% 		   1102812 	   128125.53   { random }Hand 2: 	09.975%	  08.94% 	01.04% 		   1102584 	   127842.37   { random }Hand 3: 	09.970%	  08.93% 	01.04% 		   1101782 	   128031.37   { random }Hand 4: 	09.989%	  08.95% 	01.04% 		   1103671 	   128490.37   { random }Hand 5: 	09.988%	  08.96% 	01.04% 		   1104399 	   127687.70   { random }Hand 6: 	09.974%	  08.94% 	01.04% 		   1102514 	   127834.37   { random }Hand 7: 	09.980%	  08.95% 	01.04% 		   1103310 	   127820.12   { random }Hand 8: 	09.980%	  08.94% 	01.04% 		   1103018 	   128027.37   { random }Hand 9: 	09.988%	  08.95% 	01.04% 		   1104122 	   127999.28   { random }------  17,014,330  games   110.875 secs   153,455  games/secBoard: Dead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	11.049%	  09.96% 	01.08% 		   1695422 	   184514.08   { 96s }Hand 1: 	09.886%	  08.87% 	01.01% 		   1509929 	   172064.50   { random }Hand 2: 	09.885%	  08.87% 	01.01% 		   1509511 	   172425.83   { random }Hand 3: 	09.892%	  08.88% 	01.01% 		   1510419 	   172582.08   { random }Hand 4: 	09.873%	  08.86% 	01.01% 		   1507719 	   172099.58   { random }Hand 5: 	09.884%	  08.87% 	01.02% 		   1508936 	   172775.67   { random }Hand 6: 	09.885%	  08.87% 	01.01% 		   1509766 	   172048.83   { random }Hand 7: 	09.874%	  08.86% 	01.01% 		   1507599 	   172412.00   { random }Hand 8: 	09.883%	  08.87% 	01.01% 		   1509431 	   172198.25   { random }Hand 9: 	09.889%	  08.88% 	01.01% 		   1510674 	   171973.67   { random }

Link to post
Share on other sites
30,128,807  games	24.922 secs	 1,208,924  games/secBoard: Dead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	33.275%	  32.94% 	00.34% 		   9924316 	   101350.50   { 96s }Hand 1: 	66.725%	  66.39% 	00.34% 		  20002306 	   101350.50   { 55+, ATs+, KQs, ATo+, KQo }------  73,503,358  games	61.594 secs	 1,193,352  games/secBoard: Dead:  	equity 	win 	tie 		  pots won 	pots tied	Hand 0: 	60.453%	  58.98% 	01.47% 		  43352801 	  1082585.00   { JJ }Hand 1: 	39.547%	  38.07% 	01.47% 		  27985748 	  1082589.00   { 55+, ATs+, KQs, ATo+, KQo }

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure it helps that JJ has potential to win at showdown UI, whereas with 96s, we're really just banking on the first 3 cards connecting with us.
the thing about raising with hands like 96s and 44 is you want to be on the button and you want a bunch of limpers. im not sure if 96s is good enough though.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think that when it comes to cash games limit is much more suited to my temperament, since I'm not a gambler at heart.
It's my opinion that LHE is actually much more of a gamblers' game than NLH. It can seem like a less scary game because there's never one time you have to put everything in, but I feel like NLH is about as boring and ungambly as poker gets, and these big-odd, 6-way, draw-to-the-nuts-or-fold-type LHE games are pretty up there on the scale.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure it helps that JJ has potential to win at showdown UI, whereas with 96s, we're really just banking on the first 3 cards connecting with us.
Sure, this all makes perfect sense - I'm obviously confused as to why the author of the article chose to illustrate his point the way he did. Instead of using 9 random hands he should have used a more reasonable matchup based on the play at low limit tables.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It's my opinion that LHE is actually much more of a gamblers' game than NLH. It can seem like a less scary game because there's never one time you have to put everything in, but I feel like NLH is about as boring and ungambly as poker gets, and these big-odd, 6-way, draw-to-the-nuts-or-fold-type LHE games are pretty up there on the scale.
I guess we have different ideas of what gambling is. I'm a risk-averse type of person so I don't like putting large amounts of my money on the line. That's why I'm much more comfortable playing tourney NLHE, where the risk is limited, than cash NLHE. In LHE you may end up with more challenging situations than in NLHE, but your risk is still limited.The other thing I don't like about cash NLHE is that bad players who are aggressive and have a gambler's mentality (and who either have a lot of money or play like it's no object) can overpower people who have a good grasp of the fundamentals but don't have the same aggressive, play-like-money-is-no-object attitude. This is precisely why I struggle at my Friday night home game - I know I have a much better grasp of poker than the guys I play with and I know I have the ability to outplay them, but because I'm more concerned about my budget I tend to play too tight and cautious and I get pushed around. Unfortunately I can't convince them to play tourney style.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you fully grasp how much more nutty the swings can be in LHE, also. LHE is a game where you're going to feel like you have no control at all a lot of the time. It's going to drive anyone risk-averse completely bonkers. You're also quickly going to have to learn that putting in money with little chance of winning is OK. You may like it better, but it's not because limited betting increments make it a predictable game. The reason it's a softer game is because it's so gambley. Maybe we have different ideas of "gambley," which is likely since we invented the word, but if you start putting in a few thousands hands/week, be prepared for swings like you haven't felt before.

The other thing I don't like about cash NLHE is that bad players who are aggressive and have a gambler's mentality (and who either have a lot of money or play like it's no object) can overpower people who have a good grasp of the fundamentals but don't have the same aggressive, play-like-money-is-no-object attitude. This is precisely why I struggle at my Friday night home game - I know I have a much better grasp of poker than the guys I play with and I know I have the ability to outplay them, but because I'm more concerned about my budget I tend to play too tight and cautious and I get pushed around. Unfortunately I can't convince them to play tourney style.
I think the problem is just that you don't have the bankroll to play with them properly.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you fully grasp how much more nutty the swings can be in LHE, also. LHE is a game where you're going to feel like you have no control at all a lot of the time. It's going to drive anyone risk-averse completely bonkers. You're also quickly going to have to learn that putting in money with little chance of winning is OK. You may like it better, but it's not because limited betting increments make it a predictable game. The reason it's a softer game is because it's so gambley. Maybe we have different ideas of "gambley," which is likely since we invented the word, but if you start putting in a few thousands hands/week, be prepared for swings like you haven't felt before.
It's distinctly possible I have no idea what I'm talking about since I haven't actually started playing LHE yet - I'm just going based on my impression of the game.
I think the problem is just that you don't have the bankroll to play with them properly.
That's precisely the problem. Lower bankroll = cautious, nitty play.One of the things that's gotten me thinking about LHE lately is that I'm going to Vegas in a month and I won't have a huge bankroll for that trip either. I've been wondering if it might be smarter for me to play LHE rather than NLHE while I'm there.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pretty sure it helps that JJ has potential to win at showdown UI, whereas with 96s, we're really just banking on the first 3 cards connecting with us.
I don't think that's why. AK doesn't have much potential to win at showdown unimproved, but it can still win more than its share multiway or heads-up against hands that will call a raise.
Link to post
Share on other sites
That's precisely the problem. Lower bankroll = cautious, nitty play.
The trick then should be talking them into playing lower, so you feel OK blowing like 5+ buy-ins in a night. If you can't, play someplace else, until you can afford to play in their over-aggressive, juicy game.
One of the things that's gotten me thinking about LHE lately is that I'm going to Vegas in a month and I won't have a huge bankroll for that trip either. I've been wondering if it might be smarter for me to play LHE rather than NLHE while I'm there.
It's close, but I think one's same bankroll is probably capable of earning a little more per hand with LHE than with NLH. Plus, LHE games are generally softer (though I really only play online, so I'm the last person to ask about the game texture in Vegas). But it's probably going to take you more than a month to learn LHE well enough that it's a better choice.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that's why. AK doesn't have much potential to win at showdown unimproved, but it can still win more than its share multiway or heads-up against hands that will call a raise.
How about AK flopping a single pair wins a lot more UI than 96 flopping a single pair?
Link to post
Share on other sites
How about AK flopping a single pair wins a lot more UI than 96 flopping a single pair?
lostaments. What?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you fully grasp how much more nutty the swings can be in LHE, also. LHE is a game where you're going to feel like you have no control at all a lot of the time. It's going to drive anyone risk-averse completely bonkers.
I just now hit 10,000 hands after switching back to LHE 6 max the past 2 1/2 weeks. Granted it's not full ring but what you said hit the nail on the head. For me right now it's ALL about tilt control and making sure I don't become a calling station (also a sign of tilt for me). The basic strategy at .25/.50 6 max seems pretty straight forward to me but the game can be soooooo much torture until you give up your emotional investment in the ridiculous beats. Right now I can handle the first 50 beats in a 4 hour session just fine but I'm still working on the other 150. :)I attached my 5 tabled session from last night. I'm pretty sure I didn't tilt and basically played the same style throughout but the swings were crazy.

post-4766-1221746977_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you fully grasp how much more nutty the swings can be in LHE, also. LHE is a game where you're going to feel like you have no control at all a lot of the time. It's going to drive anyone risk-averse completely bonkers. You're also quickly going to have to learn that putting in money with little chance of winning is OK. You may like it better, but it's not because limited betting increments make it a predictable game. The reason it's a softer game is because it's so gambley. Maybe we have different ideas of "gambley," which is likely since we invented the word, but if you start putting in a few thousands hands/week, be prepared for swings like you haven't felt before. I think the problem is just that you don't have the bankroll to play with them properly.
you mean there are games that don't make you fee like this sometimes?
Link to post
Share on other sites
The trick then should be talking them into playing lower, so you feel OK blowing like 5+ buy-ins in a night.
No chance of that. These guys have actually been playing together for about 10 years. I played with them in the early days when we were in university together and the stakes were lower, but bowed out when the stakes got higher and I couldn't afford it. I've just recently re-joined the game. I can afford to play the stakes they play, but with my level of financial responsibility (2 kids and a new house) I don't feel good about losing $100 or $125 on a Friday night of poker.I've actually been trying to introduce some other games that would give me an edge based on my experience. I tried 2-7 TD, which hasn't really caught on, and I may try Razz next. Taking them out of their comfort zone may be an effective strategy.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No chance of that. These guys have actually been playing together for about 10 years. I played with them in the early days when we were in university together and the stakes were lower, but bowed out when the stakes got higher and I couldn't afford it. I've just recently re-joined the game. I can afford to play the stakes they play, but with my level of financial responsibility (2 kids and a new house) I don't feel good about losing $100 or $125 on a Friday night of poker.I've actually been trying to introduce some other games that would give me an edge based on my experience. I tried 2-7 TD, which hasn't really caught on, and I may try Razz next. Taking them out of their comfort zone may be an effective strategy.
the solution for this is to have a wad of cash tucked aside that is only for poker. this way it doesn't matter if you take a loss it has nothing to do with the money you use for your day to day finances.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...