ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
Fooling with some filters and decided to compare the difference in value I get by raising and limping my small pairs in EP. Keep in mind I'm a full-ring player.
Filters were:
-hands 77-22
-pf action = raise
or
-pf action = call and BBs called pf is <2 (HEM considers the first three positions "EP", and therefore calling pf could also mean calling a raise from earlier position instead of open limping, so I had to filter that out)
-minimum of 7 players
Raising:
482 hands, 17.80 bb/100
Limping:
274 hands, 92.72 bb/100
Folding should be considered too, but we don't need to look at HEM to know that we neither make nor lose money by folding. 0bb/100 if you will. It's clearly the worst option since the other plays not only yield positive expectation, but very positive at that.
So obviously my winrate for limping is much higher than for raising, but there are some other problems that have me on the fence about this.
For one, even though this is from a 185k hand database, the sample size is still relatively small (one of the many reasons why sample size is everything). I don't know exactly how many hands we'd need to make my winrates converge enough to really start making assumptions, but there's definitely the possibility that my hand sample could mean nothing.
Even if the winrates are accurate, metagame issues could mean that raising is actually more profitable in the 'big picture' because it balances my range so well.
I mean if I were to accept limping as a better play and eliminate raising with small pairs in EP from my game, that basically forces me to change my entire game to balance that play. I would have to start limping suited connectors and a lot of strong hands in EP in order to balance that. Then my raises with big hands become much more transparent because I will have 'moved' small pairs and suited connectors from my raising (or folding with respect to suited connectors) range to my limping range.
bah!
Not a very well thought-out post, just kind of posting my thoughts as I go. Discuss? I'm curious what you guys think.
Filters were:
-hands 77-22
-pf action = raise
or
-pf action = call and BBs called pf is <2 (HEM considers the first three positions "EP", and therefore calling pf could also mean calling a raise from earlier position instead of open limping, so I had to filter that out)
-minimum of 7 players
Raising:
482 hands, 17.80 bb/100
Limping:
274 hands, 92.72 bb/100
Folding should be considered too, but we don't need to look at HEM to know that we neither make nor lose money by folding. 0bb/100 if you will. It's clearly the worst option since the other plays not only yield positive expectation, but very positive at that.
So obviously my winrate for limping is much higher than for raising, but there are some other problems that have me on the fence about this.
For one, even though this is from a 185k hand database, the sample size is still relatively small (one of the many reasons why sample size is everything). I don't know exactly how many hands we'd need to make my winrates converge enough to really start making assumptions, but there's definitely the possibility that my hand sample could mean nothing.
Even if the winrates are accurate, metagame issues could mean that raising is actually more profitable in the 'big picture' because it balances my range so well.
I mean if I were to accept limping as a better play and eliminate raising with small pairs in EP from my game, that basically forces me to change my entire game to balance that play. I would have to start limping suited connectors and a lot of strong hands in EP in order to balance that. Then my raises with big hands become much more transparent because I will have 'moved' small pairs and suited connectors from my raising (or folding with respect to suited connectors) range to my limping range.
bah!
Not a very well thought-out post, just kind of posting my thoughts as I go. Discuss? I'm curious what you guys think.