is this theory valid (or am i talking out my arse?)

[Snowman22 0]

The post about JJ play got me to thinking about why i don't like raising with premium hands, which i rarely do now, tho it depends a lot on my mood + if i've been winning / losing. Anyway, does the following (dubbed 'The Snowman Theory') make logical sense:I HATE people who play shorthanded NL and raise every other hand to 5x BB. It pisses me off because i like cheap action and enjoy post-flop play. I also wonder why people insist on giving them action with any less than the top 5 hands. I refuse to, because i don't like getting large proportions of my money in when i don't know where i stand. And if someone is raising 3 times a round, i know i'm usually ahead when i call / re-raise with premium holdings.This is what i like to call picking the battleground IE we're playing on my terms.For the same reason, if i hold premium goods against them and am acting first, i'll limp as i don't want them to know. Again, i'm picking the battles (on the flip-side, i won't limp unless i have the goods to call a raise).I realise there a downsides to this IE being blinded away, but in no-limit it only takes one big pot to cripple your opponent, and i'm happy to live with the more varied swings this style brings.However, it doesn't just apply to aggressive opponents. Why should i let anyone know when i'm holding premium goods? That way, we're always playing on my terms. Thus, the only raises i'll advocate pre-flop are those hands requiring field thinning from an early position (JJ for instance). Otherwise, why draw attention to yourself?I realise this post probably contains nothing new / useful, but i just enjoy the sound of my own voice!

[Jubba 0]

If you limp with premium hands, you're just begging to get crushed by marginal holdings. Say you have AA and don't raise. The flop comes 6-7-7The big blind had 7-3 but because you didn't raise, you're almost sure to lose this pot. Pre-flop raising is a key part of the strategy involved in poker. If you don't like it, then you don't have to do it, but you're shorting yourself and are going to cost yourself money in the long-run.

[stojke7-2 0]

I'm pretty sure he means not raising if he's sure someone after him will raise/not re-raise if someone already has

[Jubba 0]

I don't think so. He said,

For the same reason, if i hold premium goods against them and am acting first, i'll limp as i don't want them to know. Again, i'm picking the battles (on the flip-side, i won't limp unless i have the goods to call a raise).

yes re-raising is a possibility but he specifically said, he'd rather limp than raise in order to conceal the strength of his hand.

[Smasharoo 0]

is this theory valid (or am i talking out my arse?) It's that second one.Commense with the "there is no answer, it allways depends, everyone's right in Holdem" replies.