Early position Small pairs, suited connectors in full ring $1-$2 nl

luckylucky

I'm having a big debate with an american pal of mine. He's been running bad of late, to be fair I've witnessed a lot of his bad luck and it's truly incredible. Anyway he's a decent player, has been playing for a fair few years. We got to discussing our games in a bit more depth than usual and normally we are in agreement but we have had a big disagreement on playing in early position in a full ring game.

I basically play tight as hell when I'm out of position in a full ring game, pocket pair at a minimum 77, Ak, AQ, maybe and i mean just maybe AJs and that's about it, and I almost always open it for a raise

He on the other hand is in favour of limping with any pair in any early position, suited connectors above 76s and even some 1 gap suited connectors in early mid-position.

I don't like this at all, as you're out of position with not a great hand, How often does the pot get raised in the $1-$2 nl full ring games? Ballpark I'm thinking probably 3 out of 4 times (anyone know can this be checked on PT?), so what you going to do then when you are facing a raise?

It's hard to justify calling the raise(in most cases) with a moderate hand out of position and even then you would certainly need a multiway hand to justify it and what guarantees do you have of that!

When he misses his set over 7 in 8 times, he has to bin the hand the vast majority of times, compare this to the times he hits his set, sure sometimes he is going to get paid off to the max, often though he might only gain a few extra chips.

Now he makes the case that he won't play this way in very aggressive game, but i think in most games these days you can expect a raise more often than not. I mean if it was an extremely weak loose game I'd play it the way my pal does too, it's be great to get in cheap with hands that could hit the flop and with great possibilities of getting paid off when you hit and mostly easily dumped if you miss, but rarely do i find this to be the reality.

We've gone over this in different ways, he makes the argument that a lot of raises aren't big enough so it's easy to call and I guess it's a valid point.

We've also talked that of course there is different ways of playing the game, what works for him and works for me isn't necessarily going to be the same.

I still feel that in most games you are far better off dumping small pairs and suited connectors the vast majority of the time in early position, though adding them in on occasion for deception is ok imo.

Anyway I've given this more from my point of view, couldn't be helped really.

So just wondering what others thoughts are on this.

As a rule do you play tight like i do in early position in full ring NL or loose like my pal does?

TheRock

Somewhere in between.
I generally like limping small pairs 77 down in EP for set value. If there's a raise I might call if there a few callers and I'm getting implied odds. If I'm not getting the right odds I'll prob muck to a raise.
Generally unless I make the set I'm done with the hand. I think at the lower levels if you make set against TPTK you can stack someone a lot of time.

I'll raise with 88 up.
I wont bother with suited connecters in EP.

sikes

I never play FR, cos its just no fun, but i would be happy to raise up any PP, AK maybe AQ and everything else is being dumped. The smaller PP allow for deception for your bigger hands, but they play well OOP too, you cant just play like a total rock from ep and wait for AK, JJ+. Mixing it up with suited connectors and suited one gapers in EP in a full ring game doesnt make much sense to me.

The equity gained from being the aggresor is huge, and add that to being in EP, players tend to give a lot of respect to them, so you will take down the blinds and your CBets will be more effective. Limp/ calling with SC and the like doesnt make much sense to me. Playing these hands passively OOP is not a way to make them profitable.

NickyOD

You should sometimes limp and sometimes raise with those small paors. A lot depends on how the table is playing. On a really loose talbe I might limp in or raise wth a lot of those suited connectors too just fo deception.

On tight tables you're actually getting better expected value from raising with 9Ts from EP than with AT.

Ste05

In EP I would nearly always open raise with all PP's and dump AJs. Limp behind other limpers with small PP's and call a raise with them if we are deep enough (effective stacks of over 100 BB's)

S/C's are a little trickier, if opening a pot in EP, I'll sometimes raise, and sometimes fold, (depending on the table dynamics and how I am viewed) rarely would I ever open limp, so to me that's not really an option no matter what I have. I'd limp behind other limpers, might call a raise from a donk/TAG who consistently stacks off with over pairs and TP hands, against a good player, I just dump them.

But I'd be much more likely to be raising in EP with 78s, 55 or the likes than with AJ. Full ring in EP AJ is garbage and AQ isn't that much better.

luckylucky

Ste05 wrote:

I'd limp behind other limpers, might call a raise from a donk/TAG who consistently stacks off with over pairs and TP hands.QUOTE]

i agree here I'd actually be a lot more inclined to call with my small pair here or suited connector in this spot. I don't like open limping though full stop. And i would on occasion raise with those small pairs for deception, but tbh i raise quite a lot in position so when someone sees that i have raised with 44 or 76s from the cutoff, when they see me raising UTG it doesn't dawn on them quite a lot that this time it's far more likely to be with QQ and not 44.

jomatty

hey guys,

im the friend in question and i appreciate all of your responses.

i limp or raise with all pairs from any position and feel strongly that this is the correct approach in all but the most aggressive nl games. these hands are very easy to play out of position and i am even willing to stand a small raise with them. i think that this is correct and that there is quite a bit of profit in small pairs.

the suited connectors are much more marginal and although i never played them as consistently as i did the small pairs i still have decided to start to play them less often. i will still play hands like JTs or QJs in the vast majority of games, but will take most of the smaller suited connectors and all of the one gappers (in most situations) out of my repertoire.

the hand that started this discussion was actually a hand where i limped with QTs in early-mid position, lucky raised and i junked it. i still think that as we approach mid position that these sort of hands are profitable, or at the very least break even or very very slight losers. if a hand i break even i want to play it for image reasons. lucky (correct me if im wrong) likes to avoid some of these spots to avoid sticky, troublesome situations. i think both approaches have merit and it is largely a question of style.

in fact i think most of this debate comes down to a matter of style with no right or wrong answer. Starting hands in no limit are very subjective in no limit and there is much more room for different styles then there is in a game like limit hold em (where for the record i would not play any of these hands). i do think the small pairs are profitable from any position but you still are not giving up much by not playing them. the suited connectors are prob. generally not profitable, but there are image and meta game considerations that make playing them not a huge leak.

and one things for sure, and that is that if you are gonna play these hands you better play them well, and if you are not confident you can maneuver some tricky situation you would be better off folding.

thanks,
matty

The Snapper

jomatty wrote:

hey guys,

im the friend in question and i appreciate all of your responses.

i limp or raise with all pairs from any position and feel strongly that this is the correct approach in all but the most aggressive nl games. these hands are very easy to play out of position and i am even willing to stand a small raise with them. i think that this is correct and that there is quite a bit of profit in small pairs.

the suited connectors are much more marginal and although i never played them as consistently as i did the small pairs i still have decided to start to play them less often. i will still play hands like JTs or QJs in the vast majority of games, but will take most of the smaller suited connectors and all of the one gappers (in most situations) out of my repertoire.

the hand that started this discussion was actually a hand where i limped with QTs in early-mid position, lucky raised and i junked it. i still think that as we approach mid position that these sort of hands are profitable, or at the very least break even or very very slight losers. if a hand i break even i want to play it for image reasons. lucky (correct me if im wrong) likes to avoid some of these spots to avoid sticky, troublesome situations. i think both approaches have merit and it is largely a question of style.

in fact i think most of this debate comes down to a matter of style with no right or wrong answer. Starting hands in no limit are very subjective in no limit and there is much more room for different styles then there is in a game like limit hold em (where for the record i would not play any of these hands). i do think the small pairs are profitable from any position but you still are not giving up much by not playing them. the suited connectors are prob. generally not profitable, but there are image and meta game considerations that make playing them not a huge leak.

and one things for sure, and that is that if you are gonna play these hands you better play them well, and if you are not confident you can maneuver some tricky situation you would be better off folding.

thanks,
matty

Excellent post Matty.:)

Pretty much covers all styles. Essentially the better post flop players are less likely to leak big with marginal starting hands and surely their broader break even-profitable range is ++EV ?

Backstreet Moyes

I think you should always raise with any PP be the aggressor coming into the pot and if you miss your set bet the flop you take it down most of time or else take the blinds. But i believe to get true set value you have to raise coming in when you hit your set you want the pot to be bigger so the betting is bigger or these are also the type of pots that some players cant help trying to steal and donk off their money to you. You dont want to limp in and win a small pot thwn you hit your set you want to win as big a pot as possible.

sikes

jomatty wrote:

i limp or raise with all pairs from any position and feel strongly that this is the correct approach in all but the most aggressive nl games. these hands are very easy to play out of position and i am even willing to stand a small raise with them. i think that this is correct and that there is quite a bit of profit in small pairs.

Why do you limp? Would this be in agressive games where you want still be able to call for set value?

jomatty wrote:

the suited connectors are much more marginal and although i never played them as consistently as i did the small pairs i still have decided to start to play them less often. i will still play hands like JTs or QJs in the vast majority of games, but will take most of the smaller suited connectors and all of the one gappers (in most situations) out of my repertoire.

Do you come in raising with these from EP? Why JTs and OJs more so than 67s etc.?

jomatty wrote:

the hand that started this discussion was actually a hand where i limped with QTs in early-mid position, lucky raised and i junked it. i still think that as we approach mid position that these sort of hands are profitable, or at the very least break even or very very slight losers. if a hand i break even i want to play it for image reasons. lucky (correct me if im wrong) likes to avoid some of these spots to avoid sticky, troublesome situations. i think both approaches have merit and it is largely a question of style.

Although this is very much depends on the game, these type of hands are most profitable in position and the probability of this happening by limping in early mid position is not very high.

jomatty wrote:

in fact i think most of this debate comes down to a matter of style with no right or wrong answer. Starting hands in no limit are very subjective in no limit and there is much more room for different styles then there is in a game like limit hold em (where for the record i would not play any of these hands). i do think the small pairs are profitable from any position but you still are not giving up much by not playing them. the suited connectors are prob. generally not profitable, but there are image and meta game considerations that make playing them not a huge leak.

I often find that players use meta game as a reason for playing pretty hands in unprofitable situations. Yeah the odd time we might raise with a suited connector, but by playing pockets pairs aggressively from EP i would think that gives enough deception for our big hands.

luckylucky

Nuts102 wrote:

I think you should always raise with any PP be the aggressor coming into the pot and if you miss your set bet the flop you take it down most of time or else take the blinds. But i believe to get true set value you have to raise coming in when you hit your set you want the pot to be bigger so the betting is bigger or these are also the type of pots that some players cant help trying to steal and donk off their money to you. You dont want to limp in and win a small pot thwn you hit your set you want to win as big a pot as possible.

You think you can get away with this time and time against observant opponents. I might be weary of getting involved in early position but in late position if I see someone playing like this I'm getting involved by either re-raising or calling for my own set value etc.

Jomatty wrote:

Starting hands in no limit are very subjective in no limit and there is much more room for different styles.

Yip there sure is.

Don't get me wrong about the small pairs btw, if you have a high chance of seeing the flop cheapy in any position then i have no problem with them, this is where I guess I differ in opinion I don't think you get to see the flop cheap enough, often enough, in a weak loose game I'll call, or in late early position if there's 2 limpers or even one guy raising small there's a good chance I'll call, especially if I feel he's a poor player who'll pay me off a lot. But I really hate to open with them in early position, limping or otherwise.

Also the ol meta-game thingy. There's always that argument for playing them, but you can reverse the argument too, I raise a lot in late position but when someone looks at their pahud and see's my raising is somewhere around 10 to 14%(depending on game) it probably doesn't look unusually high and so I get away with steals a lot. If I were to raise in early position with hands I'm far from comfortable with in the first place, then I'm going to be pinned as a LAG and people will fight back against me more, when it's not what I'm looking for.

And just one more thing on the meta game thing :- You get a table with enough donks - then you dont need to do anything EV- for metagame reasons!

Anyway been an interesting debate imo for me with the yank .

And I'll concede that the argument wasn't as clear cut as I first thought, but vis-a-vis the way I play, I'm happy to not tinker with it, well not much anyway