Jump to content


Preflop Raising At Loose Cheap Tables


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 16 September 2008 - 08:41 AM

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?
的ntegrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#2 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 16 September 2008 - 11:21 AM

View Postjmbreslin, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

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.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#3 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 16 September 2008 - 11:32 AM

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?
的ntegrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#4 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 16 September 2008 - 11:42 AM

View Postjmbreslin, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 3:32 PM, said:

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.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#5 Frez

Frez

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 1,042 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sherwood Park, Alberta
  • Favorite Poker Game:HORSE. Home game donkaments

Posted 16 September 2008 - 03:45 PM

View Postjmbreslin, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 1:32 PM, said:

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.
Progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things. (Robert Heinlein).

#6 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 16 September 2008 - 04:46 PM

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)?
的ntegrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#7 David_Nicoson

David_Nicoson

    Official Forum Me

  • Members
  • 4,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Poker<br />Poker<br />Sex<br />Sleep<br />baseball<br />softball<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Axis and Allies and other lesser board games<br />Chess<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker
  • Favorite Poker Game:pot-limit Euchre

Posted 16 September 2008 - 04:55 PM

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 }

QUOTE(bleacherbum3 @ Friday, February 29th, 2008, 3:28 AM) View Post
I'm invincible. Like Super Mario when he gets that star thingy.


#8 David_Nicoson

David_Nicoson

    Official Forum Me

  • Members
  • 4,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Poker<br />Poker<br />Sex<br />Sleep<br />baseball<br />softball<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Axis and Allies and other lesser board games<br />Chess<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker
  • Favorite Poker Game:pot-limit Euchre

Posted 16 September 2008 - 05:06 PM

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 }

QUOTE(bleacherbum3 @ Friday, February 29th, 2008, 3:28 AM) View Post
I'm invincible. Like Super Mario when he gets that star thingy.


#9 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 16 September 2008 - 07:05 PM

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.
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#10 antistuff

antistuff

    monotonously monotonous

  • Members
  • 5,466 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:new york city

Posted 16 September 2008 - 08:44 PM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

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.
QUOTE ( Barry Greenstein)
Successful gamblers are compulsive winners.

#11 Dirtydutch

Dirtydutch

    'Skatez

  • Members
  • 12,839 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 September 2008 - 09:47 PM

View Postjmbreslin, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 8:41 AM, said:

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.

#12 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:35 AM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

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.
的ntegrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#13 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:42 AM

View PostDirtydutch, on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 1:47 AM, said:

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.
的ntegrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#14 Dirtydutch

Dirtydutch

    'Skatez

  • Members
  • 12,839 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:29 PM

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.

View Postjmbreslin, on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 6:42 AM, said:

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.

#15 jmbreslin

jmbreslin

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 4,788 posts
  • Favorite Poker Game:8-Game

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:48 PM

View PostDirtydutch, on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 10:29 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.
的ntegrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching." - Anonymous

#16 BaseJester

BaseJester

    Poker Forum Veteran

  • Members
  • 2,109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Castle
  • Interests:Juggling. Ventriloquism. Story-telling.
  • Favorite Poker Game:The quintain

Posted 17 September 2008 - 06:51 PM

View PostZach6668, on Tuesday, September 16th, 2008, 11:05 PM, said:

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.
If everybody is thinking the same thing, then somebody isn't thinking.
- General George Patton

#17 Dirtydutch

Dirtydutch

    'Skatez

  • Members
  • 12,839 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 September 2008 - 07:09 PM

View Postjmbreslin, on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 6:48 PM, said:

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.

View Postjmbreslin, on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 6:48 PM, said:

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.

#18 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:03 PM

View PostBaseJester, on Wednesday, September 17th, 2008, 10:51 PM, said:

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?
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.

#19 David_Nicoson

David_Nicoson

    Official Forum Me

  • Members
  • 4,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Indianapolis
  • Interests:Poker<br />Poker<br />Sex<br />Sleep<br />baseball<br />softball<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Axis and Allies and other lesser board games<br />Chess<br />Poker<br />Poker<br />Poker
  • Favorite Poker Game:pot-limit Euchre

Posted 17 September 2008 - 08:06 PM

View PostZach6668, on Thursday, September 18th, 2008, 12:03 AM, said:

How about AK flopping a single pair wins a lot more UI than 96 flopping a single pair?
lostaments. What?
QUOTE(bleacherbum3 @ Friday, February 29th, 2008, 3:28 AM) View Post
I'm invincible. Like Super Mario when he gets that star thingy.


#20 Zach6668

Zach6668

    FCHL Champion.

  • Moderators
  • 48,128 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, ON

Posted 17 September 2008 - 09:41 PM

Just throwing shit against a wall, seeing if something sticks. :club:
QUOTE (serge @ Tuesday, May 12th, 2009, 7:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
LETS GO PITTSBURGH
QUOTE (Acid_Knight @ Monday, March 10th, 2008, 4:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Zach is right about pretty much everything.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users