J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

pokerfied.com
Promoting poker discussions.

Main

Date: 04 Dec 22:38:03
From: jackiepaper
Subject: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it a
fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when you
get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you all
think?

JP

_______________________________________________________________
* New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:58:26
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> > Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
> > without raising?

>
> I'm glad to see that some people have loose low-limit game sense :)

I would never open a pot UNDER THE GUN without raising in a loose low
limit game. And I would always be prepared to go 4 bets when I entered
a pot UTG.

Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:12:35
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 9:58 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> FellKnight wrote:
>
>
> > > Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
> > > without raising?
>
> >
> > I'm glad to see that some people have loose low-limit game sense :)
>
>
> I would never open a pot UNDER THE GUN without raising in a loose low
> limit game. And I would always be prepared to go 4 bets when I entered
> a pot UTG.

Why?

What is your raise intended to accomplish? Think about this for a second.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 01:08:39
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On 4 Dec 2006 20:58:26 -0800, "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com > wrote:

>FellKnight wrote:

>> > Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
>> > without raising?

>> I'm glad to see that some people have loose low-limit game sense :)

>I would never open a pot UNDER THE GUN without raising in a loose low
>limit game. And I would always be prepared to go 4 bets when I entered
>a pot UTG.

I wouldn't do this if it would limit the field, which would be exactly what
I wouldn't want usually. If I would get five callers whether or not I raised,
I'd be more likely to do it, though.

Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:56:38
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> > I think if you plan to play any 2 cards under the gun, you raise it up
> > and prepare to be in with 4 bets. Otherwise, you dump those 2 cards
> > like white hot iron.
> >
> > You wanna play JT suited UTG? Raise it up. Represent a real hand.
> > Otherwise, fwoop, trash em.
>
> You guys and your "fold this trash" are funny.

I never called them trash! They're a fine speculative hand, one of my
favorites in fact. But in limit hold em, under the gun, I would never
limp (as a rule, though perhaps to mix it up, but generally) with any
hand. Raise or fold, and be prepared to go 4 bets.

Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:11:53
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 9:56 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> FellKnight wrote:
>
> > > I think if you plan to play any 2 cards under the gun, you raise it up
> > > and prepare to be in with 4 bets. Otherwise, you dump those 2 cards
> > > like white hot iron.
> > >
> > > You wanna play JT suited UTG? Raise it up. Represent a real hand.
> > > Otherwise, fwoop, trash em.
> >
> > You guys and your "fold this trash" are funny.
>
>
> I never called them trash! They're a fine speculative hand, one of my
> favorites in fact. But in limit hold em, under the gun, I would never
> limp (as a rule, though perhaps to mix it up, but generally) with any
> hand. Raise or fold, and be prepared to go 4 bets.

This aint online, Bill, this is a cash game where you are quite likely to
see a family pot preflop. Limpity limp limp limp!

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 19:58:34
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 3:38 PM, jackiepaper wrote:

> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it
a
> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when
you
> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you
all
> think?
>
>
> JP

Limp in with it all day long and twice on sundays in low limit holdem.
Jen Harman's book is not about low limit holdem.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:55:36
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

JP wrote:
> Always make sure you do exactly the same thing with the same cards
> everytime. Consistency pays off in poker.

Table conditions should dictate how you play a hand. We know we have
JTs and we know we are UTG but we know almost nothing else.

We don't need to play the same hand several different ways for the sake
of deception, however. More deception comes from playing several
different hands the SAME way than comes from playing the same hand
different ways.

Will in New Haven

--

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends".Gandalf in <The
Lord of the Rings >
>
> --
> Jonathan
> "Palooka" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:0C1dh.4286$Os5.2818@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> > "jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
> >>
> >> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
> >> it a
> >> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
> >> when you
> >> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
> >> you all
> >> think?
> >>
> >>
> > Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case
> > you ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > Palooka
> >

Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:51:26
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:47:22
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Palooka wrote:
> "jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
> >
> > sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
> > it a
> > fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
> > when you
> > get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you
> > all
> > think?
> >
> >
> Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case you
> ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.
>
> Palooka

Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
without raising? Do you ever play in loose games? I think you are
applying a good principal where the conditions might be wrong for it,
or they might be right. But you haven't seen the conditions. You just
won't open limp.

Will in New Haven

--

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you
give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in
judgment. Even the very wise cannot see all ends".Gandalf in <The
Lord of the Rings >

Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:08:17
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 6:47 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> Palooka wrote:
> > "jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
> > >
> > > sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
> > > it a
> > > fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
> > > when you
> > > get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
you
> > > all
> > > think?
> > >
> > >
> > Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case
you
> > ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.
> >
> > Palooka
>
> Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
> without raising? Do you ever play in loose games? I think you are
> applying a good principal where the conditions might be wrong for it,
> or they might be right. But you haven't seen the conditions. You just
> won't open limp.
>
> Will in New Haven

I'm glad to see that some people have loose low-limit game sense :)

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:34:29
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"Will in New Haven" <bill.reich@taylorandfrancis.com > wrote in message
news:1165283242.177245.80910@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Palooka wrote:
>> "jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote in message
>> news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
>> >
>> > sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i
>> > find
>> > it a
>> > fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
>> > when you
>> > get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
>> > you
>> > all
>> > think?
>> >
>> >
>> Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case
>> you
>> ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.
>>
>> Palooka
>
> Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
> without raising? Do you ever play in loose games? I think you are
> applying a good principal where the conditions might be wrong for it,
> or they might be right. But you haven't seen the conditions. You just
> won't open limp.
>
Good point. Thanks.

Palooka

Date: 04 Dec 2006 17:44:17
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

jackiepaper wrote:
> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it a
> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when you
> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you all
> think?

This is totally dependant on the qualities of the table. How
tight-loose is it pre-flop. How aggressive is it pre-flop, how
aggressive post-flop, how many people just HAVE to play their
second-best draws and awful made hands down to the river? People who
answer this question without looking at these qualities is not going to
be that adaptable.

If the table is very tight, you can try a blind-steal from UTG with it.
If you get that one caller, maybe you can bet him off the hand on the
flop. If you flop a monster, though, you probably can't get paid off.
Probably dump it even at this table.

If the table is normally tight, just dump it. How aggressive, etc, the
table is doesn't matter much because those qualities will never help at
a tight table.

If the table is properly tight, as Abdul-Jalib sometimes put it, you
fold the hand and get your table-change button with the same motion.
Why would you play at a properly tight table?

If the table is loose and passive, go ahead and play it. Make your real
decision on the flop. It is probably EV neutral to play this hand but
playing hands like this and thus playing a few more hands will help to
keep the atmosphere at this profitable table fun and profitable.

If the table is loose and aggressive, fold it. It's not worth the usual
price of entry. If it is an aggressive table post-flop, you might not
be getting your price on the draws you flop.

If the table is VERY loose and passive, play it. It is +EV and you will
get paid off. Tables like this always pay you off.

If the table is VERY loose but aggressive, you can play this hand if it
the players can't let go of their losing hands.

Will in New Haven

--

"Always play as if you were at a 80/160 game in Las Vegas in 1972. That
way you will always be playing well, no matter what the table
conditions." A complete and absolute idiot on another discussion group
>
>
> JP
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> * New Release: RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 16:22:54
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Date: 04 Dec 2006 20:05:00
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 5:22 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> jackiepaper wrote:
> > sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
it a
> > fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
when you
> > get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you
all
> > think?
>
> I think if you plan to play any 2 cards under the gun, you raise it up
> and prepare to be in with 4 bets. Otherwise, you dump those 2 cards
> like white hot iron.
>
> You wanna play JT suited UTG? Raise it up. Represent a real hand.
> Otherwise, fwoop, trash em.

You guys and your "fold this trash" are funny.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

-----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 16:59:09
From: DaVoice
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com > wrote in message
news:1165278173.966030.155640@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> jackiepaper wrote:
>> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
>> it a
>> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
>> when you
>> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
>> you all
>> think?
>
> I think if you plan to play any 2 cards under the gun, you raise it up
> and prepare to be in with 4 bets. Otherwise, you dump those 2 cards
> like white hot iron.
>
> You wanna play JT suited UTG? Raise it up. Represent a real hand.
> Otherwise, fwoop, trash em.

I absolutely agree with this. Pump 'em or dump 'em in the typical 5 or more
preflop player loose ring game.

RC

Date: 04 Dec 2006 18:04:44
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Mon, 04 Dec 06 22:38:03 GMT, jackiepaper <43081177@recpoker.com > wrote:

>sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it a
>fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when you
>get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you all
>think?

In a very passive loose game go for it. Otherwise dump it.

Date: 04 Dec 23:23:35
From: jackiepaper
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

those are exactly the type of games i'm talking about...typical 3-6 and even
many 6-12 games at a b & m and 2-4 and lower online. they generally have at
least 4 people seeing the flop, folks playing any ace (suited or not) and such.

On Dec 4 2006 3:04 PM, A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> On Mon, 04 Dec 06 22:38:03 GMT, jackiepaper <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote:
>
> >sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it
> >a
> >fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when
> >you
> >get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you
> >all
> >think?
>
> In a very passive loose game go for it. Otherwise dump it.

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 04 Dec 2006 15:00:38
From: kevin cline
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Date: 04 Dec 2006 22:49:32
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com > wrote in message
news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
>
> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
> it a
> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
> when you
> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you
> all
> think?
>
>
Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case you
ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.

Palooka

Date: 04 Dec 2006 14:56:22
From: JP
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Always make sure you do exactly the same thing with the same cards
everytime. Consistency pays off in poker.

--
Jonathan
"Palooka" <nobody@nowhere.com > wrote in message
news:0C1dh.4286$Os5.2818@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> "jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
>>
>> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
>> it a
>> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
>> when you
>> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
>> you all
>> think?
>>
>>
> Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case
> you ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.
>
> Palooka
>

Date: 05 Dec 2006 00:39:10
From: Palooka
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"JP" <awotter@gmail.com > wrote in message news:45749e29$1@nntp0.pdx.net...
> Always make sure you do exactly the same thing with the same cards
> everytime. Consistency pays off in poker.
>
> --
Au contraire, my dear chap.
UTG, sometimes I will fold them instantly. Other times I might wait 5 or 6
seconds before folding.

Palooka

Date: 05 Dec 17:54:58
From: Teabagger
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Carson covers this well in his book. It depends on the table. JTs is a
speculative hand. You need to be getting pot odds in order to play it. In order
to play it up front, you will need to be confident that you will get at least 3
other players seeing the flop. At loose tables, this is a no brainer to call
UTG. At the 2-4 to 5-10 B&M tables in AC, this is a PREMIUM HOLDING - no
kidding. If i'm pretty sure there will be a lot of players, this is a no brainer
UTG. The more the better. As a matter of fact, in a loose game, I am actually
hoping that someone has a big pair, or hits TPTK on the flop. I will get action
all the way to the river, and huge pot odds to call if I have a draw..

You are looking to flop 2 pair, or an open ended straight or flush draw. If you
flop top pair and encounter resisitence, be ready to dump it.

In a tight game, I will fold this without thinking twice.

On Dec 4 2006 5:38 PM, jackiepaper wrote:

>
> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it a
> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when
> you
> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you all
> think?
>
>
> JP

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:05:38
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
> want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
> with 9 6 off who hit their straight.

When tourists limp with 96o, they're making a mistake.
What sort of hand benefits the most from this mistake?

> I'd rather have players in there
> with more predictable hands, and though a raise doesn't set that in
> stone or anything, it helps to a degree.

In a loose game, you end up causing the 96o to fold but the KJo calls.
Those are both bad things.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:00:52
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 8:05 AM, David Nicoson wrote:

> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
> > want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
> > with 9 6 off who hit their straight.
>
> When tourists limp with 96o, they're making a mistake.
> What sort of hand benefits the most from this mistake?
>
> > I'd rather have players in there
> > with more predictable hands, and though a raise doesn't set that in
> > stone or anything, it helps to a degree.
>
> In a loose game, you end up causing the 96o to fold but the KJo calls.
> Those are both bad things.

Ding ding!

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

______________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 15:13:25
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 3:05 PM, David Nicoson wrote:

> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
> > want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
> > with 9 6 off who hit their straight.
>
> When tourists limp with 96o, they're making a mistake.
> What sort of hand benefits the most from this mistake?

9J, imagine a 78T flop...:)

_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:00:39
From: jarrett40
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Date: 05 Dec 2006 06:22:05
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 4 2006 6:47 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > Palooka wrote:
> > > "jackiepaper" <43081177@recpoker.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1165271883$916243@recpoker.com...
> > > >
> > > > sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
> > > > it a
> > > > fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
> > > > when you
> > > > get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
> you
> > > > all
> > > > think?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Fold. UTG this is a heap of crap. I'm not raising with that, and in case
> you
> > > ask, limping is not an option as far as I am concerned.
> > >
> > > Palooka
> >
> > Are you saying that you never open a pot, _in a limit ring game_
> > without raising? Do you ever play in loose games? I think you are
> > applying a good principal where the conditions might be wrong for it,
> > or they might be right. But you haven't seen the conditions. You just
> > won't open limp.
> >
> > Will in New Haven
>
> I'm glad to see that some people have loose low-limit game sense :)
>
> Fell

Thank you. However, I have seen all kinds of table conditions at
various limits.

The limit are only a guideline. You have to observe the actual table
conditions. I have played 4-8 where you couldn't play JTs utg and 20-40
which was so loose-passive you could limp and a hysterically tight
20-40 table where the UTG blind-stealing equity was about enough to
raise with hands like that and watching them fold was so funny I did it
a couple of times. Of course, a 4-8 table where people are playing that
well is a table one must leave ASAP and a 20-40 table that super-tight
should probably be left alone also. But the other 20-40 was a hoot.

Will in New Haven

--

.
> --
> Website: www.fellknight.com
> Email: fellknight at gmail dot com
>
> --------
> : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 06:00:51
From: ML
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:14:47
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> > I would never open a pot UNDER THE GUN without raising in a loose low
> > limit game. And I would always be prepared to go 4 bets when I entered
> > a pot UTG.
>
> Why?
>
> What is your raise intended to accomplish? Think about this for a second.

Hmm. I think I'm starting to see the issue. :) Has it been a while
since you've played at the lower limits, Fell? I remember pre-2002
there were less crazies, but with all the poker on TV, I find that
position is so much more important in limit. Maybe it's different where
you play? I was playing in San Jose and the reservations in Northern
California.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 07:54:17
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 6:14 AM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> FellKnight wrote:
>
> > > I would never open a pot UNDER THE GUN without raising in a loose low
> > > limit game. And I would always be prepared to go 4 bets when I entered
> > > a pot UTG.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > What is your raise intended to accomplish? Think about this for a second.
>
>
> Hmm. I think I'm starting to see the issue. :) Has it been a while
> since you've played at the lower limits, Fell? I remember pre-2002
> there were less crazies, but with all the poker on TV, I find that
> position is so much more important in limit. Maybe it's different where
> you play? I was playing in San Jose and the reservations in Northern
> California.

I've recently played 4/8 in Vegas and 3/6 in Laughlin. I regularly saw
8-10 people to the flop (I was seeing about 50% of them, usually for a
limp). Raises actually did limit the field preflop, but people would play
better hands against you, not what you want with JTs.

But you avoided my question.

Here is the Sklansky list of reasons to raise the pot in Limit Holdem.
Which goals from the below are you trying to accomplish?

* To get more money in the pot when a player has the best hand: If a
player has the best hand, raising for value enables him to win a bigger
pot.

* To drive out opponents when a player has the best hand: If a player
has a made hand, raising may protect his hand by driving out opponents
with drawing hands who may otherwise improve to a better hand.

* To bluff or semi-bluff: If a player raises with an inferior or
drawing hand, the player may induce a better hand to fold. In the case of
semi-bluff, if the player is called, he still has a chance to improve to a
better hand (and also win a larger pot).

* To get a free card: If a player raises with a drawing hand, his
opponent may check to him on the next betting round, giving him a chance
to get a free card to improve his hand.

* To gain information: If a player raises with an uncertain hand, he
gains information about the strength of his opponent's hand if he is
called. Players may use an opening bet on a later betting round (probe or
continuation bets) to gain information by being called or raised (or may
win the pot immediately).

* To drive out worse hands when a player's own hand may be second
best: Sometimes, if a player raises with the second best hand with cards
to come, raising to drive out opponents with worse hands (but who might
improve) may increase the expected value of his hand by giving him a
higher probability of winning in the event his hand improves.

* To drive out better hands when a come hand bets: If an opponent with
an apparent come hand (drawing hand) bets before a player, if the player
raises, opponents behind him who may have a better hand may fold rather
than call a bet and raise. This is a form of isolation play.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 05:03:14
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> This aint online, Bill, this is a cash game where you are quite likely to
> see a family pot preflop. Limpity limp limp limp!

I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
with 9 6 off who hit their straight. I'd rather have players in there
with more predictable hands, and though a raise doesn't set that in
stone or anything, it helps to a degree.

If I sacrifice position in limit, I want to make up for it with
aggression. Then when I hit, I hit big with people who are pot
committed. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But I still manage my 2.5 to
3 BB/hr on average in limit games 3/6 through 5/10.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:06:05
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

> I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
> want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
> with 9 6 off who hit their straight.

Errr, ummm...what exactly would you be doing in a pot with JT on a board
that gives 96 a straight?

Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com

________________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:12:08
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 9:06 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> > I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
> > want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
> > with 9 6 off who hit their straight.
>
> Errr, ummm...what exactly would you be doing in a pot with JT on a board
> that gives 96 a straight?
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com

You wouldn't play a T87 or T872 board?

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:47:15
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

> You wouldn't play a T87 or T872 board?

If we're talking about a loose limit game, with 5-6 to the flop and 3-4 to
showdown and lot of betting/raising in the hand, I don't like JT very much
in that situation. In a game like that, I want to be the guy with 96 :)

Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com

---
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:58:33
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 9:47 AM, XaQ Morphy wrote:

> > You wouldn't play a T87 or T872 board?
>
> If we're talking about a loose limit game, with 5-6 to the flop and 3-4 to
> showdown and lot of betting/raising in the hand, I don't like JT very much
> in that situation. In a game like that, I want to be the guy with 96 :)
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com

Well sure, but with top pair, mediocre kicker, and getting odds from the
pot to draw to your inside straight even if you are behind, I think you
stick around to showdown here almost 100% of the time.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

--------
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 06:24:22
From: xyious
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 2:03 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:
> I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
> want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
> with 9 6 off who hit their straight. I'd rather have players in there
> with more predictable hands, and though a raise doesn't set that in
> stone or anything, it helps to a degree.

there is no chance in hell you're ahead. you are drawing. why draw for
worse odds when you have a chance ?

> If I sacrifice position in limit, I want to make up for it with
> aggression. Then when I hit, I hit big with people who are pot
> committed. It's not everyone's cup of tea. But I still manage my 2.5 to
> 3 BB/hr on average in limit games 3/6 through 5/10.

i disagree with this one too.
when you raise preflop people put you on a good hand, so they're more
likely to fold their bottom pairs.

-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links

--------
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:21:28
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On 5 Dec 2006 05:03:14 -0800, "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com > wrote:

>FellKnight wrote:

>> This aint online, Bill, this is a cash game where you are quite likely to
>> see a family pot preflop. Limpity limp limp limp!

>I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
>want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
>with 9 6 off who hit their straight.

If you have JT, aren't you often in pretty good shape when that tourist
does hit his idiot end straight?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:52:44
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo > wrote in message
news:i4lbn299ppqrfl3pllgvfm6sl344betvdi@4ax.com...
> On 5 Dec 2006 05:03:14 -0800, "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>FellKnight wrote:
>
>>> This aint online, Bill, this is a cash game where you are quite likely to
>>> see a family pot preflop. Limpity limp limp limp!
>
>>I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
>>want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
>>with 9 6 off who hit their straight.
>
> If you have JT, aren't you often in pretty good shape when that tourist
> does hit his idiot end straight?

Hard to hit the idiot end with a 2 gapper unless one
of them is duplicated on the board... he's either got
the nut straight or is playing 1 card out of his hand.

Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:54:06
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"Mark B (Diputsur)" <diputsur@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:4575dad2$0$27723$25e83c3@news.inteliport.com...
>
> "A Man Beaten by Jacks" <nobody@fool.foo> wrote in message
> news:i4lbn299ppqrfl3pllgvfm6sl344betvdi@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Dec 2006 05:03:14 -0800, "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>FellKnight wrote:
>>
>>>> This aint online, Bill, this is a cash game where you are quite likely to
>>>> see a family pot preflop. Limpity limp limp limp!
>>
>>>I DO play live from time to time Fell. :) Without position, I still
>>>want to limit the field somewhat, otherwise you get tourists in there
>>>with 9 6 off who hit their straight.
>>
>> If you have JT, aren't you often in pretty good shape when that tourist
>> does hit his idiot end straight?
>
> Hard to hit the idiot end with a 2 gapper unless one
> of them is duplicated on the board... he's either got
> the nut straight or is playing 1 card out of his hand.

Could have 2nd best too... saw the 78T after posting ;-)
(9J would be nut)

> Mark
> --
> www.myspace.com/diputsur
>

Date: 05 Dec 10:59:06
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 10:38 PM, jackiepaper wrote:

>
> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it a
> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when
> you
> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you all
> think?
>
>
> JP

Cheap, in position, not a bad hand to play. Loose passive table, probably
playable from any position. Just dont go mad on TP, that's all.

_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:16:06
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> And my policy of playing anything remotely playable for a limp has worked
> well for me :)

Well we know you're a lucksack Fell, but not all of us are blessed with
your limping powers. :)

Date: 05 Dec 2006 21:07:12
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
> Hand 1: 31.5595 % 30.29% 01.27% { JTs }
> Hand 2: 34.2201 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
> A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
> Hand 3: 34.2204 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
> A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

Your numbers don't properly that into account the fact that you're
representing a strong hand, and can get some players to fold on the
flop with a continuation bet. They also mainly test a calling station
philosophy, which ignores position. Position is the entire contention
of the raise or fold UTG theory.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:21:34
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 10:07 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> FellKnight wrote:
>
>
> > equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
> > Hand 1: 31.5595 % 30.29% 01.27% { JTs }
> > Hand 2: 34.2201 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
> > A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
> > Hand 3: 34.2204 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
> > A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
>
>
> Your numbers don't properly that into account the fact that you're
> representing a strong hand, and can get some players to fold on the
> flop with a continuation bet. They also mainly test a calling station
> philosophy, which ignores position. Position is the entire contention
> of the raise or fold UTG theory.

Ok, now I'm convinced that you have not played in the games I'm talking
about :)

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

---
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:17:23
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> Everyone is saying this. The KJ ALSO CALLS IF YOU LIMP! Why even bring
> this up?!

He doesn't necessarily raise, though. Or maybe he re-raises. So our
making it two bets puts more money in the pot when we're behind than
we'd have to. If the rest of the field calls that's not so bad, but we
don't know that's going to happen.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:01:32
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:

> That's how you want to play speculative hands that aren't going anywhere
> unless they do hit a draw.

I think I'll just agree to disagree here. I've explained what I do and
why. If you guys are making money limping UTG in low limit, more power
to you. I make money raising or folding UTG, so more power to me. :)

Date: 05 Dec 23:19:47
From: jackiepaper
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

jesus...had no idea this would start such a shitstorm, but thanks for all the
opinions everyone. i think i agree most with fell and ambbj, but thats not
exactly surprising. to those who claimed sklasky-type tables dont really exist,
i call bullshit. go play 3-6 at any LA or bay area club, and thats precisely
the game you will find. loose chumps who think that Q4 suited is playable for 2
bets. these are the kind of games where to win you will have to show down the
best hand against 2 plus opponents nearly every time, the kind of games where
you usually must fold your pocket aces by the turn. these games are out there
my friends, and they drove me mad for quite a while because at first i made the
mistake of reading phil hellmuth's book and believing him. his book is good for
one thing, and thats toilet paper, but it does chafe a bit so you best be reaaal
desperate for tp. overall, , though, mr. sklansky's been good to me. when i
begin moving up, however, i'm certain some adjustments will have to be made.
cheers, y'all, and best of luck out there.

JP

PS; can someone please tell me when the next RGP homegame on stars is?

On Dec 5 2006 2:01 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> A Man Beaten by Jacks wrote:
>
> > That's how you want to play speculative hands that aren't going anywhere
> > unless they do hit a draw.
>
> I think I'll just agree to disagree here. I've explained what I do and
> why. If you guys are making money limping UTG in low limit, more power
> to you. I make money raising or folding UTG, so more power to me. :)

_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:56:33
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:
>
> > > I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
> > > still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
> > > random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.
> >
> > Here's the logic: you're probably not winning this pot without
> > catching a monster anyway, so why not bring along as many
> > people as you can so that maybe a couple will pay you off
> > when you do connect perfectly!
>
> This is lottery play. You want to limp in with everyone, call down your
> draws, only bet if you hit the nuts, and hope that you have the best
> hand on the river.

You often find situations where it is profitable to bet or raise on
your draws. For that matter, you can raise with enough limpers in front
of you pre-flop with this hand. However, raising UTG is acting before
you know conditions are right. It isn't that you are going to force out
too many people but sometimes people have hands that they aren't even
going to LIMP with, even in these games, and you don't have the
conditions where JTs wins more than its share.

>
> The people who are really going to pay you off are the 2 pair or trips
> vs your flush, top pair top kicker vs your straight. The good hands.
> The ones you want to avoid are the crap flushes against your straight,
> or awful straights against your 2 pair or trips. If you don't raise
> UTG, you don't have position to fall back on, and you have no idea what
> you're up against. No information, no advantage.

You know when you have a good enough hand to beat a large number of
random hands. You aren't playing headsup NL. Knowing your opponent is
not nearly as important. Do you have the nuts or don't you? Do you have
a draw to the nuts or don't you? With "the nuts" being interpreted a
bit loosely. More like O8 than most HE games.

>
>
> > Don't you want to pick up a draw first?
>
> Under the gun, how are you going to do anything first other than bet?
> It's the single advantage you have UTG: Setting the tone and pace. If
> you limp in with JT, then there's a raise and re-raise behind you, are
> you going to fold it now? Why didn't you raise in the first place and
> at least break the lottery mentality?

Games like this are not about taking over the table. They are pure math
and trying to be the bull-goose won't do you any good. If the game IS
more like the ones where this sort of thing matters a whole lot, you
don't play JTs UTG anyway.

>
>
> > I often find myself not playing enough hands UTG (too tight up front)
> > and tossing a lot of winners :-(
>
>
> Try a couple randomizers.

Will in New Haven

Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:44:35
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:

> > I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
> > still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
> > random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.
>
> Here's the logic: you're probably not winning this pot without
> catching a monster anyway, so why not bring along as many
> people as you can so that maybe a couple will pay you off
> when you do connect perfectly!

This is lottery play. You want to limp in with everyone, call down your
draws, only bet if you hit the nuts, and hope that you have the best
hand on the river.

The people who are really going to pay you off are the 2 pair or trips
vs your flush, top pair top kicker vs your straight. The good hands.
The ones you want to avoid are the crap flushes against your straight,
or awful straights against your 2 pair or trips. If you don't raise
UTG, you don't have position to fall back on, and you have no idea what
you're up against. No information, no advantage.

> Don't you want to pick up a draw first?

Under the gun, how are you going to do anything first other than bet?
It's the single advantage you have UTG: Setting the tone and pace. If
you limp in with JT, then there's a raise and re-raise behind you, are
you going to fold it now? Why didn't you raise in the first place and
at least break the lottery mentality?

> I often find myself not playing enough hands UTG (too tight up front)
> and tossing a lot of winners :-(

Try a couple randomizers.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:57:40
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On 5 Dec 2006 13:44:35 -0800, "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com > wrote:

>Mark B (Diputsur) wrote:

>> > I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
>> > still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
>> > random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.

>> Here's the logic: you're probably not winning this pot without
>> catching a monster anyway, so why not bring along as many
>> people as you can so that maybe a couple will pay you off
>> when you do connect perfectly!

>This is lottery play. You want to limp in with everyone, call down your
>draws, only bet if you hit the nuts, and hope that you have the best
>hand on the river.

That's how you want to play speculative hands that aren't going anywhere
unless they do hit a draw. And in those cases, you want multiway pots,
because you want a higher chance of your speculative hands paying off
when you do hit. JTs isn't quite in the same boat as 54s or similar
purely speculative hands. It does have a certain amount of high card
value to it. So if you can get it heads-up against an inferior player,
you're probably going to make money with it even going in as a slight
dog. I wouldn't mind raising here.

But raising when you get a multiway pot, you're probably getting a
couple people out of the pot who might have paid you off later, and
even if not, you're still cutting your implied odds by almost half, by
paying more to see a flop than you need to. This might be good for
deceptive purposes from time to time, but I don't see why you'd
usually want to do it.

I don't want to raise with it, because I
don't want to pay 3 bets to see a flop. And in EP you are more likely
to have a real hand behind you that reraises, possibly chasing out
even more people and leaving you in a real mess, having paid
three bets out of position to see the flop with what is probably
a dog and quite possibly a dominated dog.

I'll almost always come in with a raise in MP with anything if I'm
the first in, including stuff I wouldn't even play if someone had
limped, but then I'm usually playing tightish tables where I have
steal equity doing that.

I'll play any suited face in EP down to a 9 kicker, if I don't think
getting raised is inevitable. But in EP, and especially UTG, why
invite the worst possible outcome without a real upside to doing
so?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:28:39
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:

> In a loose game, you end up causing the 96o to fold but the KJo calls.
> Those are both bad things.

Everyone is saying this. The KJ ALSO CALLS IF YOU LIMP! Why even bring
this up?!

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:21:05
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 2:28 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> David Nicoson wrote:
>
> > In a loose game, you end up causing the 96o to fold but the KJo calls.
> > Those are both bad things.
>
> Everyone is saying this. The KJ ALSO CALLS IF YOU LIMP! Why even bring
> this up?!

Because you are playing for 2 bets against a better hand now, instead of
one vs many hands.

You saw this one:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,596,726 games 170.765 secs 21,062 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 15.1543 % 13.86% 01.30% { JTs }
Hand 2: 16.1507 % 15.18% 00.97% { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
T9s, 98s, 87s, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 3: 15.6665 % 14.69% 00.98% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs,
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 4: 15.6723 % 14.70% 00.98% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs,
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 5: 13.1586 % 12.35% 00.81% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+,
T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, A2o+, K8o+, Q9o+, JTo, T9o,
98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }
Hand 6: 13.1714 % 12.36% 00.81% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+,
T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, A2o+, K8o+, Q9o+, JTo, T9o,
98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }
Hand 7: 11.0264 % 10.35% 00.67% { random }

Now see this one:

(assumption is that you get 2 callers who are playing decent hands)

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

12,375,503 games 27.469 secs 450,526 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 31.5595 % 30.29% 01.27% { JTs }
Hand 2: 34.2201 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 3: 34.2204 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }

Oops.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

----
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:52:57
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting usage but I would call that passive, maybe
> > post-flop passive. Also tricky on the straightforward/tricky dimension.
> > However, they may be tricky ONLY in that situation. In which case, they
> > probably don't think of it as being tricky but simply think of it as
> > taking the minimum risk on a hand that might win, might not.
>
>
> That's pretty much it. I also call them 'recreational gamblers'. They
> want to play, maybe even play 'right' in a basic way. But they want to
> extend their session, not blow a lot of their vacation money quickly.
> So minimum exposure, depend on luck is their rule.
>
> As far as bots, why people would make 'tourist bots' is beyond me, but
> I can sort of see the logic. They would be easy to make. ;)

The guys at the University of Alberta who are working with AI for poker
try to make 'bots, as it were, that play as well as possible. They say,
in their published work, I don't know the guys, that making one that
would play really badly would be trivial. It seems to me that I have
seen plays so bad that you couldn't get a 'bot to do it.

Will in New Haven

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:46:06
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Will in New Haven wrote:

> That's an interesting usage but I would call that passive, maybe
> post-flop passive. Also tricky on the straightforward/tricky dimension.
> However, they may be tricky ONLY in that situation. In which case, they
> probably don't think of it as being tricky but simply think of it as
> taking the minimum risk on a hand that might win, might not.

That's pretty much it. I also call them 'recreational gamblers'. They
want to play, maybe even play 'right' in a basic way. But they want to
extend their session, not blow a lot of their vacation money quickly.
So minimum exposure, depend on luck is their rule.

As far as bots, why people would make 'tourist bots' is beyond me, but
I can sort of see the logic. They would be easy to make. ;)

Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:21:07
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:

> I've recently played 4/8 in Vegas and 3/6 in Laughlin. I regularly saw
> 8-10 people to the flop (I was seeing about 50% of them, usually for a
> limp). Raises actually did limit the field preflop, but people would play
> better hands against you, not what you want with JTs.

I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.

> But you avoided my question.

Never saw it.

> Here is the Sklansky list of reasons to raise the pot in Limit Holdem.
> Which goals from the below are you trying to accomplish?

> * To bluff or semi-bluff: If a player raises with an inferior or
> drawing hand, the player may induce a better hand to fold. In the case of
> semi-bluff, if the player is called, he still has a chance to improve to a
> better hand (and also win a larger pot).

This one.

> * To drive out worse hands when a player's own hand may be second
> best: Sometimes, if a player raises with the second best hand with cards
> to come, raising to drive out opponents with worse hands (but who might
> improve) may increase the expected value of his hand by giving him a
> higher probability of winning in the event his hand improves.

This one too.

But Sklansky isn't the be all and end all of limit play. I'll take Lee
Jones' book any day of the week. But you won't find every possible move
in that book either, hell, in any book. All I can say is, under the gun
in limit play, I don't enter a pot unless I'm raising. And it's worked
very, very well for me. Shrug.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 18:17:46
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 5 2006 2:21 PM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> FellKnight wrote:
>
> > I've recently played 4/8 in Vegas and 3/6 in Laughlin. I regularly saw
> > 8-10 people to the flop (I was seeing about 50% of them, usually for a
> > limp). Raises actually did limit the field preflop, but people would play
> > better hands against you, not what you want with JTs.
>
> I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
> still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
> random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.

The logic is that you are getting spectacular odds to make a big hand
(straight, Flush, 2 pair, trips), and are thus a money favourite against
all the hands out there including those that have you dominated. Here is
an example of a typical loose low limit lineup of starters:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

3,596,726 games 170.765 secs 21,062 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 15.1543 % 13.86% 01.30% { JTs }
Hand 2: 16.1507 % 15.18% 00.97% { 22+, ATs+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
T9s, 98s, 87s, ATo+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 3: 15.6665 % 14.69% 00.98% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs,
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 4: 15.6723 % 14.70% 00.98% { 22+, A2s+, K9s+, QTs+, JTs,
T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s, 54s, A9o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
Hand 5: 13.1586 % 12.35% 00.81% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+,
T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, A2o+, K8o+, Q9o+, JTo, T9o,
98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }
Hand 6: 13.1714 % 12.36% 00.81% { 22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+,
T2s+, 92s+, 82s+, 72s+, 62s+, 52s+, 42s+, 32s, A2o+, K8o+, Q9o+, JTo, T9o,
98o, 87o, 76o, 65o, 54o }
Hand 7: 11.0264 % 10.35% 00.67% { random }

> > But you avoided my question.
>
> Never saw it.
>
> > Here is the Sklansky list of reasons to raise the pot in Limit Holdem.
> > Which goals from the below are you trying to accomplish?
>
> > * To bluff or semi-bluff: If a player raises with an inferior or
> > drawing hand, the player may induce a better hand to fold. In the case of
> > semi-bluff, if the player is called, he still has a chance to improve to a
> > better hand (and also win a larger pot).
>
> This one.

The only "better hands" that might fold are hands like Qx and Kx.

> > * To drive out worse hands when a player's own hand may be second
> > best: Sometimes, if a player raises with the second best hand with cards
> > to come, raising to drive out opponents with worse hands (but who might
> > improve) may increase the expected value of his hand by giving him a
> > higher probability of winning in the event his hand improves.
>
> This one too.

Second-best hands benefit from this play, third or 4th best hands that
benefit from multiway pots and big odds do not.

>
> But Sklansky isn't the be all and end all of limit play. I'll take Lee
> Jones' book any day of the week. But you won't find every possible move
> in that book either, hell, in any book. All I can say is, under the gun
> in limit play, I don't enter a pot unless I'm raising. And it's worked
> very, very well for me. Shrug.

And my policy of playing anything remotely playable for a limp has worked
well for me :)

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:35:27
From: A Man Beaten by Jacks
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On 5 Dec 2006 13:21:07 -0800, "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com > wrote:

>FellKnight wrote:

>> I've recently played 4/8 in Vegas and 3/6 in Laughlin. I regularly saw
>> 8-10 people to the flop (I was seeing about 50% of them, usually for a
>> limp). Raises actually did limit the field preflop, but people would play
>> better hands against you, not what you want with JTs.

>I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
>still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
>random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.

JTs is either a flush draw, or a draw to a straight, but usually you're
drawing to the nuts. It's not a top pair hand, nor is it a hand where
you're usually going to have the "extra outs" of hitting top pair at the
end. So I don't see much reason to raise with it. I'd rather see a flop
and take it from there, and I'd rather see the flop in as multi-way a pot
as possible.

The AK and KQ type hands, if you flop your draw, you are often going to
want to buy outs to increase your chance of winning with top pair after
the flop. Alternately, you are often going to start out with top pair and
be happy with it.

With JTs, you are going to want a draw. If you do hit top pair, the odds
of it surviving even against trash are not high. Even hitting two pair
greatly increases the chance of gutshots for people playing two broadway
cards or even weak K9 type hands. The main value of the hand is going
to be in hitting the nut straight, and generally, unless you hit that draw,
you are not very likely to win the pot. But the open-ender and/or flush
draw provides very good odds, especially in a multiway pot.

So unless your raise actually achieves the purpose of getting it heads-up
or against two players, top pair isn't a good hand with JTs. You want the
flush or straight draw. And even then, those players should be pretty weak
if you think playing JTs out of position in a raised pot with them is going
to be profitable.

Normally, raising is going to cut your four or five limpers to three or four,
which is exactly the situation you don't want. I'd rather play this heads-up
or against five or more people, if I'm going to play it out of position.
If you're going to end up versus three or four, why play it? And why play
it in a raised pot?

Date: 05 Dec 2006 16:31:57
From: Mark B $Diputsur$
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

"Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com > wrote in message
news:1165352476.120221.324140@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> FellKnight wrote:
>
>> I've recently played 4/8 in Vegas and 3/6 in Laughlin. I regularly saw
>> 8-10 people to the flop (I was seeing about 50% of them, usually for a
>> limp). Raises actually did limit the field preflop, but people would play
>> better hands against you, not what you want with JTs.
>
> I.. don't understand the logic. If you DON'T raise pre-flop, you're
> still up against the better hands! But now you're ALSO against the
> random hands, and all with the wonderful boon of being out of position.

Here's the logic: you're probably not winning this pot without
catching a monster anyway, so why not bring along as many
people as you can so that maybe a couple will pay you off
when you do connect perfectly! Raise the random hands out
preflop and who will you get to pay you off when the flop comes
789o ? You chased the 6T and 67 out... they're the ones that
would have paid you off!

>
>> But you avoided my question.
>
> Never saw it.
>
>> Here is the Sklansky list of reasons to raise the pot in Limit Holdem.
>> Which goals from the below are you trying to accomplish?
>
>> * To bluff or semi-bluff: If a player raises with an inferior or
>> drawing hand, the player may induce a better hand to fold. In the case of
>> semi-bluff, if the player is called, he still has a chance to improve to a
>> better hand (and also win a larger pot).
>
> This one.

Don't you want to pick up a draw first?

>
>> * To drive out worse hands when a player's own hand may be second
>> best: Sometimes, if a player raises with the second best hand with cards
>> to come, raising to drive out opponents with worse hands (but who might
>> improve) may increase the expected value of his hand by giving him a
>> higher probability of winning in the event his hand improves.
>
> This one too.
>
> But Sklansky isn't the be all and end all of limit play. I'll take Lee
> Jones' book any day of the week. But you won't find every possible move
> in that book either, hell, in any book. All I can say is, under the gun
> in limit play, I don't enter a pot unless I'm raising. And it's worked
> very, very well for me. Shrug.

I often find myself not playing enough hands UTG (too tight up front)
and tossing a lot of winners :-(

Mark
--
www.myspace.com/diputsur

Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:20:11
From: William Brandon
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Wouldn't the pump or dump be exactly what you do not want? Better
hands than you call, worse hands fold.
In a typical loose game, JTs UTG is an insta call. A few more limps,
some jackass will raise in late position (I would raise in late
position with any quality hand), the blinds call, you call and you get
to play a large multiway pot with a great drawing hand. You really do
not need position against 6 players in a pot that big. You will either
win big pots or bail out after the flop. You can check and see how the
betting goes giving you relative position to see if you get priced into
your various draws (which you will). If you do not have the best hand
or a draw you fold when it gets back to you you fold costing you all of
two small bets.

Raising in loose game is a mistake in my opinion and folding is not
very fun in a live game.
On line, as a rule, I fold it as most of the pots I play are not
multiway after the flop.
Good luck.
WB

DaVoice wrote:
> "Bill Ricardi" <billricardi@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:1165278173.966030.155640@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jackiepaper wrote:
> >> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find
> >> it a
> >> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable
> >> when you
> >> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do
> >> you all
> >> think?
> >
> > I think if you plan to play any 2 cards under the gun, you raise it up
> > and prepare to be in with 4 bets. Otherwise, you dump those 2 cards
> > like white hot iron.
> >
> > You wanna play JT suited UTG? Raise it up. Represent a real hand.
> > Otherwise, fwoop, trash em.
>
> I absolutely agree with this. Pump 'em or dump 'em in the typical 5 or more
> preflop player loose ring game.
>
> RC

Date: 06 Dec 2006 10:14:27
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > Add one to the quote file!
>
> It's not like I invented the idea that acting first is a disadvantage.

Yeah and it's sort of the entire point I've been trying to make. Then
you go and state it, like I wouldn't be aware of the fact.

> What you're saying can work on the right table, but a loose table (at
> least by my definition) isn't it. If I read your comments correctly,
> you're hoping to make loose opponents fold better hands on the flop.
> By the definition of loose, this isn't how I expect these opponents to
> behave. Loose opponents call with overcards or whatever, even when
> it's wrong to do so. That's why they're loose.

The OP never said anything about loose. Fell brought up the whole loose
aspect, and I mentioned that I'm never entering a pot UTG in a loose LL
ring game. The point of raising isn't to weed out the loose opponents,
it's to weed out the weak opponents, both loose/weak and tight/weak.
That way you can take advantage of the loose/aggro opponents without
having to deal with the random chaff.

When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
(whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
can, and tend to be tight weak. You DON'T want them limping into the
pot with something when you're out of position, and then calling you
down. You DO want the drunks in the pot, so who cares if they call?

And like I said before, I DO want them pot committed! And that's the
entire point. Raise early, limit the field to crazies and good hands.
Then when you hit, and you raise again, you get massive action.

If I'm not willing to do this, I don't want to be in the hand at all.
I'm not a lottery player. If I don't have either the strength of
position or the strength of a premium hand, I don't want any part of
the hand at all.

Maybe where you play, you don't get a decent mix of players at a table.
Maybe it's all crazies. But where I used to play, there was a fairly
good mix.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:18:17
From: FellKnight
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 6 2006 11:14 AM, Bill Ricardi wrote:

> The tourists (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long
as they
> can, and tend to be tight weak.

Ok, now I know you don't play where I play.

Fell
--
Website: www.fellknight.com
Email: fellknight at gmail dot com

--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:04:31
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> I knew that it worked, because it's part of my winning game, . . .

That doesn't really follow. You could be playing very profitably in
general but not playing JTs UTG in a loose game optimally. Taking this
approach to the extreme, we'd all stop improving our games after we
became a winner at any rate.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:39:48
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > Add one to the quote file!
>
> It's not like I invented the idea that acting first is a disadvantage.
>
> What you're saying can work on the right table, but a loose table (at
> least by my definition) isn't it. If I read your comments correctly,
> you're hoping to make loose opponents fold better hands on the flop.
> By the definition of loose, this isn't how I expect these opponents to
> behave. Loose opponents call with overcards or whatever, even when
> it's wrong to do so. That's why they're loose.
>
> If they're loose preflop, but suddenly tighten up on the flop, then
> good for you. Some people do behave that way, I guess.

It's not uncommon. It would be called loose and weak in the old
terminology. "Weak" sounds perjorative and I don't like that. It is the
quality of being able to give up on a hand, having initially chosen to
play it. Sometimes, often, it is the correct decision. While loose
players are often tough (the technical term used as opposite to "weak"
and sounds approving, so I don't like it either) the correlation isn't
solid.

However, when UTG has raised and gotten multiple callers, as would be
common at the table under discussion, he has created a large pot.
Anyone who thought his starting hand was good and/or has a piece of the
flop is gong to be nailed to the pot. There isn't going to be much to
gain by representing on the flop. These tables pay well because the
players won't fold. Using tactics designed to make people fold is
sailing against the wind.

Will in New Haven

--

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:29:21
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> Add one to the quote file!

It's not like I invented the idea that acting first is a disadvantage.

What you're saying can work on the right table, but a loose table (at
least by my definition) isn't it. If I read your comments correctly,
you're hoping to make loose opponents fold better hands on the flop.
By the definition of loose, this isn't how I expect these opponents to
behave. Loose opponents call with overcards or whatever, even when
it's wrong to do so. That's why they're loose.

If they're loose preflop, but suddenly tighten up on the flop, then
good for you. Some people do behave that way, I guess.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:27:09
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

You know, looking back at this thread, I'm OVERJOYED by these replies
to my suggestion of reaise or fold UTG. :)

Since nobody else would do it, nobody else is going to have any idea
what hands I'm playing UTG. Huge hands, randomizers, and excellent
speculative hands are all going to be indistinguishable from each
other, and perfectly disguised. If these replies are a representative
sample, players of all levels, from heavily experienced to clueless,
aren't going to be able to put me on a hand.

I knew that it worked, because it's part of my winning game, but now I
have a deeper understanding of WHY it works. Maybe I should add a
second randomizer that indicates a random limp UTG when it comes
around. That would confuse the hell out of people. :)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 07:10:16
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:

> The impact of position on a hand UTG is negative. Do you tighten up
> on the button because you think of that as bad position?

...

Add one to the quote file!

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:33:00
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> Which happens a percentage of the time. And of course, it will depend
> on the quality of the players as well, but this is exactly what hasn't
> been factored into Fell's analysis, the human element, and the impact
> of position.

The impact of position on a hand UTG is negative. Do you tighten up
on the button because you think of that as bad position?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 05:25:14
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Old Wolf wrote:

> People don't fold for 1 bet in these games, unless they have
> no pair and no backdoor draws.

Which happens a percentage of the time. And of course, it will depend
on the quality of the players as well, but this is exactly what hasn't
been factored into Fell's analysis, the human element, and the impact
of position.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 01:37:10
From: Old Wolf
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> FellKnight wrote:
>
>
> > equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
> > Hand 1: 31.5595 % 30.29% 01.27% { JTs }
> > Hand 2: 34.2201 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
> > A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
> > Hand 3: 34.2204 % 32.00% 02.23% { 22+, A2s+, KTs+, QTs+, JTs,
> > A2o+, KTo+, QTo+, JTo }
>
>
> Your numbers don't properly that into account the fact that you're
> representing a strong hand, and can get some players to fold on the
> flop with a continuation bet. They also mainly test a calling station
> philosophy, which ignores position. Position is the entire contention
> of the raise or fold UTG theory.

People don't fold for 1 bet in these games, unless they have
no pair and no backdoor draws.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 10:17:58
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Will in New Haven wrote:

> The guys at the University of Alberta who are working with AI for poker
> try to make 'bots, as it were, that play as well as possible. They say,
> in their published work, I don't know the guys, that making one that
> would play really badly would be trivial. It seems to me that I have
> seen plays so bad that you couldn't get a 'bot to do it.

I wish they would make a hundred tourist bots, set them out on play
money tables, and see who the luckiest bot is! Then the luckbot would
be given real money and set upon the unwitting public.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 20:23:39
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:
> Nick can interpret mine for you. Maybe we'll find out we agree.

Please don't interpret this as a slam on Nick's clarity, by the way.
He came to mind because he was commenting in the thread.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:34:23
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

FellKnight wrote:
> On Dec 6 2006 11:14 AM, Bill Ricardi wrote:
>
> > The tourists (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long
> as they
> > can, and tend to be tight weak.
>
> Ok, now I know you don't play where I play.

You should try the casinos in Northern California. First of all, I
don't think you have wine tasting trains and vineyard tours in Vegas.
:) But the clients tend to be, well, of a different manner and
temperament than what you've experienced.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:23:18
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> If Will's gonna do it, I won't bother. :)

Nick can interpret mine for you. Maybe we'll find out we agree.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 19:12:21
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:
> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > He's almost certainly using the word "weak" in the technical sense. The
> > weak/tough dimention involves how easy it is to get a person off the
> > hand once the original decision to play the hand (the tight/loose
> > dimension) has been made. In HE it is almost always a post-flop
> > situation.
>
> Parse this for me, Will.
>
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
> (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
> can, and tend to be **** tight weak **** . You DON'T want them limping
> into the
> pot with something when you're out of position, and then *** calling
> you
> down. ********

If Will's gonna do it, I won't bother. :)

Date: 06 Dec 2006 18:41:35
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Will in New Haven wrote:
> He's almost certainly using the word "weak" in the technical sense. The
> weak/tough dimention involves how easy it is to get a person off the
> hand once the original decision to play the hand (the tight/loose
> dimension) has been made. In HE it is almost always a post-flop
> situation.

Parse this for me, Will.

Bill Ricardi wrote:
When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
(whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
can, and tend to be **** tight weak **** . You DON'T want them limping
into the
pot with something when you're out of position, and then *** calling
you
down. ********

Date: 07 Dec
From: Nick Wool
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 7 2006 2:41 AM, David Nicoson wrote:

> Will in New Haven wrote:
> > He's almost certainly using the word "weak" in the technical sense. The
> > weak/tough dimention involves how easy it is to get a person off the
> > hand once the original decision to play the hand (the tight/loose
> > dimension) has been made. In HE it is almost always a post-flop
> > situation.
>
> Parse this for me, Will.
>
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
> (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
> can, and tend to be **** tight weak **** . You DON'T want them limping
> into the
> pot with something when you're out of position, and then *** calling
> you
> down. ********

Well, I certainly dont want a tight-weak player calling me down...not unless I
have the nuts at the time, anyway...

I think he meant he doesnt want random hands out there because he cannot put
them on a hand....and that's the point I cannot understand...because with TJ in
EP, multi-handed, you shouldn't be betting without getting lucky and flopping a
very strong hand anyway...so I fail to see the neccessary of pushing out the
random hands. And even if you managed to push out all the weak, random hands,
what then? How likely is TJ going to beat a strong calling hand without getting
very lucky, in which case would it not be better to have all those weak random
hands in there?

_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 17:01:49
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > Yeah and it's sort of the entire point I've been trying to make. Then
> > you go and state it, like I wouldn't be aware of the fact.
>
> It looked like your comment was a rebuttal of Fell's analysis. He's
> not considering any penalty for being out of position.
>
> Overcoming bad position with blind aggression is like overcoming a lack
> of seat belts by driving with your eyes closed.
>
> > The OP never said anything about loose. Fell brought up the whole loose
> > aspect, and I mentioned that I'm never entering a pot UTG in a loose LL
> > ring game.
>
> Well, OK. Now we are talking about a loose game.
>
> > The point of raising isn't to weed out the loose opponents,
> > it's to weed out the weak opponents, both loose/weak and tight/weak.
>
> I'm baffled. Don't you want to play against weak players?

He's almost certainly using the word "weak" in the technical sense. The
weak/tough dimention involves how easy it is to get a person off the
hand once the original decision to play the hand (the tight/loose
dimension) has been made. In HE it is almost always a post-flop
situation. The loose/tight dimension is discussed a great deal more
often, as is the passive/aggressive.

I think that the terms "weak" and "tough" are ill-chosen because each
of them carries more than a little hint that the quality involved is
undesirable or desirable where the extremes of either is very bad. In
fact, letting go of hands on the flop, often seen as weak, is one of
the keys to the way I make money in loose games. You really do have to
wind up showing down the winning hand and might as well give up early
if that is unlikely.

The fact that someone raised UTG isn't going to make that much
difference to my decision when there are six or seven people in a
raised pot. I either have the nuts, defined loosely, or a draw to the
nuts, defined loosely, or I don't. The typical player in a loose game
might not even remember who raised. I do and I do think about what my
opponents might have but I have to have such a GOOD hand to win the pot
that simply simulating a premium starting hand isn't going to help
much. I have to beat a big starting hand to win the pot anyway.

Loose players tend to be tough, not weak, but sometimes they are weak.
Also, sometimes they have no piece of the flop and that will get even
many loose/tough players to fold. .

I don't think the raise UTG on JTs is of much value in a very loose
game but it's not going to get many players to fold if they were going
to call anyway. It is also unlikely to convince a player to let go of a
hand where he or she percieves a chance of winning the large pot the
raise created.

Will in New Haven

--

Scorpio - The worst of the lot. You are shrewd in business and
cannot be trusted. You shall achieve the pinnacle of success
because of your total lack of ethics. You are a perfect son-of-a-
bitch. Most Scorpio's are murdered. (Oct23-Nov22)

> > That way you can take advantage of the loose/aggro opponents without
> > having to deal with the random chaff.
>
> I'm completely lost on how you're using these terms. If you're going
> to bluff the flop, you want to be against players who will fold. Loose
> players fold too little. So why are we trying to force a mistake that
> is against their nature?
>
> > When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
> > (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
> > can, and tend to be tight weak.
>
> Lots of tourists take too many flops because that's more entertaining
> to them.
>
> > You DON'T want them limping into the
> > pot with something when you're out of position, and then calling you
> > down.
>
> If we're always bluffing, I suppose.
>
> > You DO want the drunks in the pot, so who cares if they call?
>
> I think this means that we want drunks to call.
>
> > And like I said before, I DO want them pot committed!
>
> That's polar opposite to a line in which you try to take control and
> bluff the flop. Are you trying to make people call or fold?
>
> > And that's the
> > entire point. Raise early, limit the field to crazies and good hands.
> > Then when you hit, and you raise again, you get massive action.
>
> So now we're raising for value?
>
> Hmmm, so the tight player folds the KJ and the crazy player calls two
> bets cold with 96o? No, that can't be right, because you want the 96o
> to fold.
>
> > If I'm not willing to do this, I don't want to be in the hand at all.
> > I'm not a lottery player.
>
> That's an emotionally-charged terminology.
>
> > If I don't have either the strength of
> > position or the strength of a premium hand, I don't want any part of
> > the hand at all.
>
> Fold then. What's this whole raise business?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 16:37:04
From: Omaholic
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

On Dec 4 2006 2:38 PM, jackiepaper wrote:

> sklansky says play it, jen harman (SS2) says dump it...personally, i find it
a
> fun hand to play, easy to dump when you get nothin or quite profitable when
you
> get the straight of flush against some holding kq or the like..what do you
all
> think?
>
>
> JP

Just catching up on the thread...more discussion here than I would have
expected.

They playability of JTs UTG depends entirely on game conditions...if it is
loose-passive, as most low-limit games are, it's an easy limp and I don't
see much argument against it. Folding is clearly -EV in this type of
game, and raising does not help you accomplish your goals for this hand
(although if you play regularly against the same opponents you may want to
occasionally raise UTG). Playing JTs UTG doesn't depend on the limit per
se, just the passivity...the few times I have played in the local 8-16
game have been very passive and this would be an easy call.

In either a tighter or more aggressive game, it is a clear fold (again,
except as a possible cover play). In mid-limit 6-max (say 15-30ish) this
is a routine fold for me unless we are 4-handed such that UTG is also the
cut-off. Same thing in a full ring game.

----
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 15:03:22
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> Yeah and it's sort of the entire point I've been trying to make. Then
> you go and state it, like I wouldn't be aware of the fact.

It looked like your comment was a rebuttal of Fell's analysis. He's
not considering any penalty for being out of position.

Overcoming bad position with blind aggression is like overcoming a lack
of seat belts by driving with your eyes closed.

> The OP never said anything about loose. Fell brought up the whole loose
> aspect, and I mentioned that I'm never entering a pot UTG in a loose LL
> ring game.

Well, OK. Now we are talking about a loose game.

> The point of raising isn't to weed out the loose opponents,
> it's to weed out the weak opponents, both loose/weak and tight/weak.

I'm baffled. Don't you want to play against weak players?

> That way you can take advantage of the loose/aggro opponents without
> having to deal with the random chaff.

I'm completely lost on how you're using these terms. If you're going
to bluff the flop, you want to be against players who will fold. Loose
players fold too little. So why are we trying to force a mistake that
is against their nature?

> When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
> (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
> can, and tend to be tight weak.

Lots of tourists take too many flops because that's more entertaining
to them.

> You DON'T want them limping into the
> pot with something when you're out of position, and then calling you
> down.

If we're always bluffing, I suppose.

> You DO want the drunks in the pot, so who cares if they call?

I think this means that we want drunks to call.

> And like I said before, I DO want them pot committed!

That's polar opposite to a line in which you try to take control and
bluff the flop. Are you trying to make people call or fold?

> And that's the
> entire point. Raise early, limit the field to crazies and good hands.
> Then when you hit, and you raise again, you get massive action.

So now we're raising for value?

Hmmm, so the tight player folds the KJ and the crazy player calls two
bets cold with 96o? No, that can't be right, because you want the 96o
to fold.

> If I'm not willing to do this, I don't want to be in the hand at all.
> I'm not a lottery player.

That's an emotionally-charged terminology.

> If I don't have either the strength of
> position or the strength of a premium hand, I don't want any part of
> the hand at all.

Fold then. What's this whole raise business?

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:38:38
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> David Nicoson wrote:
>
> > OK, I guess he's not. Define weak, please.
>
> I go by Poker Tracker definitions for the tight/loose
> passive/aggressive scales.
>
> Weak is a custom archetype that I created mostly for their post flop
> play. It's someone who tends to call when they should raise. Not a
> calling station, who calls even with a bad hand. Not rocks who only
> play premium hands. But someone who limps in, flops bottom 2 pair, and
> just calls down top pair to the river.

That's an interesting usage but I would call that passive, maybe
post-flop passive. Also tricky on the straightforward/tricky dimension.
However, they may be tricky ONLY in that situation. In which case, they
probably don't think of it as being tricky but simply think of it as
taking the minimum risk on a hand that might win, might not.

In NL tournaments, especially the ones in bars and restaurants, you see
a lot of people who are willing to call you down, even all-in on the
river, and never initiate anything at any point. If you check to them
on the river, having seen this before, they CHECK the same range of
hands that they would call all-in with. I'm pretty sure they are bots.
Well, they can't be but they sure can't be human.

Will in New Haven

--

>
> The reason why weak players are annoying is that you have no idea where
> are you with them. They're always afraid you have a monster.
>
> I guess you can call them pre-flop neutral/neutral and post-flop
> passive. They annoy the crap out of me. :)

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:28:24
From: Bill Ricardi
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:

> OK, I guess he's not. Define weak, please.

I go by Poker Tracker definitions for the tight/loose
passive/aggressive scales.

Weak is a custom archetype that I created mostly for their post flop
play. It's someone who tends to call when they should raise. Not a
calling station, who calls even with a bad hand. Not rocks who only
play premium hands. But someone who limps in, flops bottom 2 pair, and
just calls down top pair to the river.

The reason why weak players are annoying is that you have no idea where
are you with them. They're always afraid you have a monster.

I guess you can call them pre-flop neutral/neutral and post-flop
passive. They annoy the crap out of me. :)

Date: 08 Dec 2006 09:11:48
From: Will in New Haven
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

David Nicoson wrote:
> Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > David Nicoson wrote:
> > > Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > > When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
> > > (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
> > > can, and tend to be **** tight weak **** . You DON'T want them limping
> > > into the
> > > pot with something when you're out of position, and then *** calling
> > > you
> > > down. ********
> >
> > If Will's gonna do it, I won't bother. :)
>
> OK, I guess he's not. Define weak, please.

I didn't answer because you want to know what _he_ means by the term.

In technical poker discussions, it always meant the quality of being
able to let go of a hand that had originally been judged playable. The
opposite quality is "tough." Since "weak" is a word that sounds like
criticism and "tough" sounds like praise, these are not good terms but
they are the ones we have.

This dimension of play, unlike the tight/loose dimension and the
passive/aggressive dimension, does not get discussed much. I don't know
that he meant weak in this sense. "Weak" is often used to mean "bad
player," which confuses things. I think we need terms for this
dimension that don't sound like a judgment on the player's overall
ability.

I don't know for sure what he means by weak here but it seemed that he
meant it in the technical sense when I first read it.

Of course, each of these dimensions is infinite in length and the
extremes in any direction are going to be undersirable.

BTW: The style I advocate for games that are very loose is somewhat
loose, although much tighter than the average player at the table,
fairly aggressive, but not so aggressive as to suggest raising UTG with
JTs, and fairly weak. Giving up on hands that did not flop well saves a
great many chips.

Will in New Haven

--

Date: 08 Dec 2006 08:52:01
From: David Nicoson
Subject: Re: J10 suited UTG in low limit holdem

Bill Ricardi wrote:
> David Nicoson wrote:
> > Bill Ricardi wrote:
> > When you play live low limit, you get tourists and drunks. The tourists
> > (whether they know it or not) want to milk their stack as long as they
> > can, and tend to be **** tight weak **** . You DON'T want them limping
> > into the
> > pot with something when you're out of position, and then *** calling
> > you
> > down. ********
>
> If Will's gonna do it, I won't bother. :)

OK, I guess he's not. Define weak, please.