jts vs jto in mid position

[senate83 0]

Ok so I just finished up reading the limit section in SS/2 by J.Harman. Its awsome and for the amount thats in there, under 100 pages, I think I learned more than I have from reading some full books. It really gave me a full understanding of some of the concepts I didnt fully grasp, such as isolating by 3-betting and some other random concepts. Anyways, in the starting hands part she reccomends raising in mid position if no one has just to pick up the blinds with JT (no specification on suited or not). Is there any argument that calling with JTs would be more profitable than raising with it and vise versa. I would think that you would want more callers with JTs than JTo for obvious reasons.Probably a pointless question but just a random though when I paused and thought about it when it happened playing today.

[wrto4556 0]

I think alot of what she talks about is mid-high limits...not to be aplied in low limits.

[senate83 0]

Yeah It hink she says that in the book but in general I think the theory applies to any limit.

[wrto4556 0]

I doubt it...If you raise in a low limit game, there's no way your picking up the blinds. :-) And you're not going to show the best hand enough with JTo to make a raise profitable.

[senate83 0]

Yeah your def right about not showing a profit because of the number of calls in low-limit. Thanks.

[Spidurman 0]

In a big game, an early raise (out of position) is a sign of extreme strength and is regarded as such. In a low limit game, it means nothing.That's one reason I'm wary about most 2+2 advanced books in loose games - the advice simply isn't designed for that game.

[copernicus 0]

would want more (or less) callers with JTs vs JTo. Second, I only agree with her advice to raise in limited situations.First, since you will make more hands being suited, you don't need quite as many callers to justify playing on an "all in" basis. (Ie no betting after the pre-flop).Second, the hands that will beat the straight will also beat the flush except for lower flushes, an unlikely event, so there is no compelling reason to limit the number of callers for the unsuited hands on that basis.Third, straights tend to be better disguised so they may get more callers later on, which gives somewhat better implied odds and offsets the first advantage for flushes.All in all, I dont think the desired number of opponents is very sensitive to suited/non-suited in this case.Disregarding folding equity, since they are both drawing hands unlikely to win based on high card strength, you want all the callers you can get, and want to limit your investment.What are the folding equity considerations? There are no raises, and possibly no callers to you (not clear from your post, since it only says no raises, but then talks about stealing blinds implying no callers) in middle or late position. If the table is fairly tight that reduces your chances of having proper implied odds to win by just calling, so you may very well be in a fold or raise (for the folding equity) situation. Your folding equity is nearly independent of your hand, unless the opponents left to act have a read on whether you would raise with one but not the other, so there is very little difference in folding equity between suited and unsuited. As to JH's advice, with either hand you are probably left with a decision as to the folding equity, since you wont have the implied odds for a call. Since you are getting only the blinds (1.5 sb/2 sb odds) you need about a 60% chance or better that everyone after you is going to fold. Thats a pretty high number to expect if you have no history with the table, and an unrealistic number if you are playing online at low and mid limits . In a JH level game 60% may be very realistic especially from late position..but that is the only time I would raise with them....tight table in late position.

[the_stein 0]

there isn't a big difference preflop between suited and unsuited cards, it doesn't make a big enough difference to consider