Is it good to limp with small pocket pairs in tourneys?

[Jacki Burkhart]

I did watch that video with Phil Ivey. You say it's impossible for somebody to have a flush draw or 2 pair there....I disagree...big time disagree. For instance the 1st reraiser had only TPGK. You don't think it's possible for somebody to have AT or KsJs or KsQs there? nut flush draw plus a gutshot in a big multiway pot...and you think they would obviously just fold it-huh? I disagree.

You say it's impossible but in reality 2 pair, monster combo draws, and sets are ALL possible and a set is the least likely of those three. When facing that entire range Phil takes an aggressive line. You claim Phil should have known he was facing a range of ONLY bigger sets. Let's not forget that we, the viewers at home have the benefit of the hole cam to know what's actually going on. I wonder how Phil Ivey would respond to your assertion that he should have known he was facing a bigger set do you think he'd say "yeah man, you're right. they can only have a set there. I should have just mucked" or do you think he would say something like "I was crushing both of their combined ranges and the pot was already big enough to warrant taking it down on the flop. Dude had the top of his range that time, on to the next tourney..."

and here's the flip side...then shouldn't the guy with the set of tens be able to now fold to Ivey's shove because he doesn't have the stone cold nuts either. After all, Ivey was the preflop raiser. couldn't he have a set of aces? sure he could. and if 2 pair, and combo draws are IMPOSSIBLE in this situation and clearly everybody should KNOW that they are impossible so Ivey knows they are impossible too....right? so then using your same line of thought, the set of 10s should fold to Ivey's obvious set. facing a range of ONLY SETS and with all the action leading up to him, obviously Ivey should easily fold his set of 3s and so the only possible hand that remains in Ivey's range is a set of aces. so....hence....the set of Ts should fold, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2y40U2LvKY


Obviously, I'm being facetious there...but I maintain my position that for the most part we shouldn't be folding sets on the flop. The exceptions are rare enough not to really worry about too much. This hand you posted might even be one of those exceptions and it's still not an obvious fold, IMO.

Ok Michael, you are articulate and nice to debate with and you're making lots of good points, I just happen to disagree with some of them.

edit: how the heck do you add a youtube video so that you can just click the video instead of having to click the link?

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

cool! I learned how to post a video...(but not in time before my "edit" capability expired in my last post.)

please apply this video to my last post!

 

[Michael Paler]

I did watch that video with Phil Ivey. You say it's impossible for somebody to have a flush draw or 2 pair there....I disagree...big time disagree. For instance the 1st reraiser had only TPGK. You don't think it's possible for somebody to have AT or KsJs or KsQs there? nut flush draw plus a gutshot in a big multiway pot...and you think they would obviously just fold it-huh? I disagree.

Fair enough, yet after a C-bet by the original raiser, a raise by the next guy, and almost a 1/2 pot re-raise from yet another...you have to wonder what they are doing it with. Average Joe with a flush draw might either shove or re-raise or just call - but a pro, especially one who has the same size stack? Not likely. These guys know how to make hard laydowns. They do it all the time. Would the pro go 1/3rd his stack in a 3-way pot with only top 2 or a draw after 2 players show such strength on the flop? No. It screams a set, IMHO

You say it's impossible but in reality 2 pair, monster combo draws, and sets are ALL possible and a set is the least likely of those three. When facing that entire range Phil takes an aggressive line. You claim Phil should have known he was facing a range of ONLY bigger sets. Let's not forget that we, the viewers at home have the benefit of the hole cam to know what's actually going on Good point, we are monday morning quarterbacking here. But these guys know you do not go to war with as little as two pair.. I wonder how Phil Ivey would respond to your assertion that he should have known he was facing a bigger set do you think he'd say "yeah man, you're right. they can only have a set there. I should have just mucked" Well, he has before!! Why not then?or do you think he would say something like "I was crushing both of their combined ranges And what was in those ranges? AA and 10-10!and the pot was already big enough to warrant taking it down on the flop. Dude had the top of his range that time, on to the next tourney..."

Again, I think a bigger set, given the circumstances and players, was obvious. Or should have been. They could not both have a flush draw or 2 pair with the action as it played out. Sure enough, only one had an ace. So what does that leave for the 3rd man? What's better than an ace, two pair or draw? ANOTHER SET!

and here's the flip side...then shouldn't the guy with the set of tens be able to now fold to Ivey's shove because he doesn't have the stone cold nuts either No, as he could only lose to AA. What would a guy who is first to act do when he flops top set in a 4 way pot? Check, and hope someone bets. Not c-bet and hope it gets raised. Remember - there was a flush draw. So, what would ivey do with top set but facing a possible flush draw? Well, he would have bet enough to not give the draw good pot odds. He didn't do that, did he? Why not? Well, becasue he does not have AA would be at the top of the list, wouldn't it?. After all, Ivey was the preflop raiser. couldn't he have a set of aces? sure he could. and if 2 pair, and combo draws are IMPOSSIBLE in this situation and clearly everybody should KNOW that they are impossible so Ivey knows they are impossible too....right? so then using your same line of thought, the set of 10s should fold to Ivey's obvious set. facing a range of ONLY SETS and with all the action leading up to him, obviously Ivey should easily fold his set of 3s and so the only possible hand that remains in Ivey's range is a set of aces. so....hence....the set of Ts should fold, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2y40U2LvKY


Obviously, I'm being facetious there...but I maintain my position that for the most part we shouldn't be folding sets on the flop. The exceptions are rare enough not to really worry about too much. This hand you posted might even be one of those exceptions and it's still not an obvious fold, IMO.

Ok Michael, you are articulate and nice to debate with and you're making lots of good points, I just happen to disagree with some of them.

Well, good, because I am not an expert by any means!!

edit: how the heck do you add a youtube video so that you can just click the video instead of having to click the link?

Glad you figured it out. Took me forever! And what a great applicable video! LMAO!!

But that's the point I am making - you need to think stuff out beyond polarized ranges and conventional wisdom. Which is what we are both doing. You just sounded more like "I got a set, no way I'm letting go!". That kind of thought process is better for later in an MTT, and against a stack you are on top of, not dominated by. Nor am I saying "No nuts, no bets". But I am saying you have to be very careful to not get it in drawing dead. And with bottom set, you so very well could be with those cards, those players, and the action as it unfolded.

 

[Jacki Burkhart]

Fair enough, yet after a C-bet by the original raiser, a raise by the next guy, and almost a 1/2 pot re-raise from yet another...you have to wonder what they are doing it with.

so, the actual bet sequence on the flop was a 16,000 Cbet by Ivey, a reraise to 41,000 by the guy with AQ and then a flat call by steinberg with the set of tens. at no point did yet another 3rd player make another raise. it went Cbet, Raise, flat, jam.

also, both Ivey and Steinberg are facing only 1 hand that could really beat them because Steinberg elected to just flat in an already multiway pot preflop you can practically rule out AA. So, Ivey only loses to TT and Steinberg only loses to AA. In a huge pot in a MTT when there is only 1 hand that could feasibly beat you it's just a cooler when you get it in and your opponent actually has that hand. So whether Ivey had AA and Steinberg lost with his middle set, or whether Ivey had 33 and lost with his bottom set...either way it's just a cooler. set over set on the flop is just a cooler.

anyways...as much as I'm enjoying this (I think we both like to debate and have the last word! ) We are probably derailing the thread a bit. The question is should you limp your small pocket pairs....what you and I are talking about only loosely applies to that orginial topic...especially since in the Phil Ivey hand, it was not a limped pot.

 

[thatgreekdude]

Depends how deep you are really, limping is fine, I actually don't even mind an open limp if you're deep enough, consider stack sizes of your opponents when playing them, make sure it's going to be profitable when you hit your set, you'll hit one roughly 12% of the time.

EDIT: To add about getting 2x,3x + 4x'd from the BTN consider that villains range is considerably wider than say an UTG raise, set mining is better when you know your opponent is strong, facing an UTG 3x you almost know most players are going to be strong there, so when the flop comes ace high you and your little set of two's are going to be laughing all the way to the bank

 

[Michael Paler]

so, the actual bet sequence on the flop was a 16,000 Cbet by Ivey, a reraise to 41,000 by the guy with AQ and then a flat call by steinberg with the set of tens. at no point did yet another 3rd player make another raise. it went Cbet, Raise, flat, jam.

also, both Ivey and Steinberg are facing only 1 hand that could really beat them because Steinberg elected to just flat in an already multiway pot preflop you can practically rule out AA. So, Ivey only loses to TT and Steinberg only loses to AA. In a huge pot in a MTT when there is only 1 hand that could feasibly beat you it's just a cooler when you get it in and your opponent actually has that hand. So whether Ivey had AA and Steinberg lost with his middle set, or whether Ivey had 33 and lost with his bottom set...either way it's just a cooler. set over set on the flop is just a cooler.

anyways...as much as I'm enjoying this (I think we both like to debate and have the last word! ) We are probably derailing the thread a bit. The question is should you limp your small pocket pairs....what you and I are talking about only loosely applies to that orginial topic...especially since in the Phil Ivey hand, it was not a limped pot.

Good point. Still, this will only make all of us better players. See what you think about this one....https://www.cardschat.com/forum/tournament-poker-59/how-do-you-play-one-251671/

 

[mange1234]

Small Pocket Pair

Hello friends!!

My name is Gaurav Sharma and I always have big problem in playing small pocket pairs less than 8.

Actually, It becomes more difficult situation for me when anyone in button raise (2xBB,3xBB,4xBB) me .

So, my question is I have to limp him or raise him from big blind with small pocket pairs such as seven pocket pair.

Kindly, give me any suggestion with a solid proof. So, i can rectify this problem asap.

Thanks

Any advise I give is just repeating what the Pros teach. Call bet on small pocket pair and fold if raised. Also, after the flop, fold (unless checked) if you don't help out the pair.

Don't forget, you only have two outs with the small pocket pair. Depending on how many callers also determine if you should even stay in the pot. It gets complicated, depending on lots of factors. But, myself, I just fold them if it starts to cost me chips.

Good luck,

mike

 

[HelioCastTCG]

No harm limping small PP's to see cheap flops. If you brick its usually just a c/f situation. If you hit, take that chump to value town .

 

[joe777]

I would try to see the flop as cheaply as i could early in MTTS with small pockets.

 

[Everybodylovesdeuces]

Once again, I find the answer to the question really depends on your table. Assuming we are talking about early to mid tournament. Do you have a maniac table that has many 3 and 4 bets? Is it typical that lots of people will limp and not get squeezed? If I have a maniac table I'll typically let the really small pairs go and fold in early position. If I have a limpy table I'll often limp. If I have a 'normal' table I'll put in my standard raise. In fact, I mostly will just come in for a small raise and call any reraise that's less than 10% of my stack. I couldn't agree more about getting some good basic poker books that discuss this and other strategies.

With Jacki and Michael's debate, I can agree that there are times where you are really experienced that you can find a fold with a set, but obviously the op is fairly new to the game and years away from needing to learn to fold a set. I can only think of maybe two times I've folded a set and it was a highly textured board with straights and flushes and lots of action. I can't think of any time I've ever gotten away from set over set. It's just too nitty. Yes you'll loose occasionally, but the amount you'll loose trying to fold a set over set will cost you more in the long run. And yes I say that considering MTT too. You're overall long term results will suffer. I don't even think I could fold a set on a non-textured board on the bubble of the wsop ME.

 

[love that omaha]

If you are going to limp from early position this means you have to occasionally limp with AK and big pocket pairs so that your hand is not basically face up to your opponents. I think 77 and lower play better from late position and can be folded many times in early position, I will call a raise from the bb if I am closing out the action and have only 2 or fewer opponents in early stages of tournaments. In later stages I am trying to convince myself of the value of shoving from mid position and on but I just hate to flip or in some cases be dominated, but as the saying goes.... in NLHE to live you can't be afraid to die.

 

[niphon56]

I has seen many player ALL-in at preflop with small pocket pairs.
bluff some times very effective.
In the situation of small pocket pairs I fold under Short Stack

 

[demibar]

i dont like small pocket of pairs i really dont raise anything at preflop i just want to see the flop if it is worth it i will raise 2bet and maybe 3bet ..but depend the blinds your position if your oponents are tight etc 10's JJ'S QQ'S KK'S,AA'S that pairs will for rick it with all in at preflop

 

[upstage]

If I have 20-30 BB with pair pocket raise 3BB if is no activity on table to isolate limpers and select only strong hands holders.If is flop low board you got big chance to win hand.But only if on table arent limping fishis :-(

 

[PershingSt]

In the early levels of an mtt when you are 100-150 bbs deep , I believe limping is fine because you generally want to play the pot multiway anyways . You will also probably be playing a "set" it or forget it strategy where you either flop the set and try and pile heaps in or you whiff and just check fold . Limping will generally give you this opportunity imo .

 

[killcoringa]

largely depends on the opponent, it is hard to play small pairs out of position.
now in position depending on the amounts of opponents think valid limp

 

[Mug]

I'll standard 2.5-3.5x open raise with any pocket pairs from any position 98% of the time. I don't care if its 22 UTG. Your hand is always going to be disguised playing as such.

I found myself writing a book about playing them after the flop, but that is an entirely different discussion.

Times I would limp pocket pairs would likely be against very specific opponents. Maniacs in a cash game for example. If the maniac is 3 betting frequently I'll occasionally start looking to see flops on the cheap with a variety of hands and attempt to trap.

There is also the rare occasion I fold a small pocket pair from early position in a tournament against a loose table of deeper stacks while I am in the 8-12BB range. This situation could also coincide with a bubble. There is just so little room to play poker post flop with so little chips.

 

[LongRover]

Limping with low pairs like 66, 55, 44, 33 and 22 is risky. Wins are 51%, meaning 5100 times of 10,000 hands played. Conversely, losses are 49%, meaning 4900 of 10,000 hands played. Any kind of limping is noted by opponents because this implies weakness, uncertainty or stealth. So, call pre-flop, nothing more, because betting or raising can escalate risks to stacks. The notion "if I can call, then I can raise" does not apply well herein. Nor is it reasonable to raise with low pairs unless the plan is to bluff from the get-go. Otherwise, do not bet or raise low pairs pre-flop. If any player raises or re-raises post-call or post-bluff pre-flop, then FOLD immediately.

Position counts with low pairs; later is optimal. It reveals who plays and does not; how many play and fold; and who bets, raises and re-raises. Limping from an early position can mean later punishment to stacks, even if the loss is only equal to the big blind. In tournament play, banroll management informs many decisions when it comes to playing low pairs. Better, as they say, with a deep stack...

A low pair wants to trip on the flop. If it does not trip, check, if possible, hoping for a free card at the turn. If a player raises, if another re-raises, if cards with higher values than the held low pair present in the flop, then fold because the loss potential is already there. It is risky and costly to chase trips faced with over cards. If there is a trip on the flop, then the odds of winning climb, and the next move is critical. Trips are reasonably strong hands at any given stage. Still, low trips are vulnerable, so take a really good look at the board. If the potential for the trips to win is present, then bet opponents out by raising high ASAP. Try not go to the turn or the river if avoidable. Sometimes it ain't...

 

[Anki_KB]

I usually like to limp early in tournaments in early position with pairs lower than 8 and raise from late position if I am the first person coming in.

My reasoning is in early position I want to be able to call a raise and try to hit a set against a big hand that raised or see a multi-way pot with several other limpers since either situation increases my possible pot equity if I hit. In late position I am more than happy to either get a call or two out of the blinds to build a pot in case I get a set or am equally happy to just take down the blinds with my small pair if they fold.

I agree with revskip in this matter. Limp early in the hand and raise late. but blind size versus stack size also matter how you should play your cards.

 

[sammy22]

Limping with low pairs like 66, 55, 44, 33 and 22 is risky. Wins are 51%, meaning 5100 times of 10,000 hands played. Conversely, losses are 49%, meaning 4900 of 10,000 hands played. Any kind of limping is noted by opponents because this implies weakness, uncertainty or stealth. So, call pre-flop, nothing more, because betting or raising can escalate risks to stacks. The notion "if I can call, then I can raise" does not apply well herein. Nor is it reasonable to raise with low pairs unless the plan is to bluff from the get-go. Otherwise, do not bet or raise low pairs pre-flop. If any player raises or re-raises post-call or post-bluff pre-flop, then FOLD immediately.

Position counts with low pairs; later is optimal. It reveals who plays and does not; how many play and fold; and who bets, raises and re-raises. Limping from an early position can mean later punishment to stacks, even if the loss is only equal to the big blind. In tournament play, banroll management informs many decisions when it comes to playing low pairs. Better, as they say, with a deep stack...

A low pair wants to trip on the flop. If it does not trip, check, if possible, hoping for a free card at the turn. If a player raises, if another re-raises, if cards with higher values than the held low pair present in the flop, then fold because the loss potential is already there. It is risky and costly to chase trips faced with over cards. If there is a trip on the flop, then the odds of winning climb, and the next move is critical. Trips are reasonably strong hands at any given stage. Still, low trips are vulnerable, so take a really good look at the board. If the potential for the trips to win is present, then bet opponents out by raising high ASAP. Try not go to the turn or the river if avoidable. Sometimes it ain't...

So basically are you saying early and middle of a tournament, everyone has at least an average stack, it’s best to raise small pp’s only in late position AND if there are limpers in front of you while in late position just go ahead and limp?

 

[liuouhgkres]

Never open limp. Always raise or fold.

 

[dino]

yep, why not??
If you limp, then you can see flop cheaply, just like any other players.
Then you can start (if you hit) building from there on, raising, re-raising etc...
But, like all others said, it depends on your position, bankroll, what kind of tournament you play or cash .....

 

[LongRover]

To Sammy22
So basically are you saying early and middle of a tournament, everyone has at least an average stack, it’s best to raise small pp’s only in late position AND if there are limpers in front of you while in late position just go ahead and limp?


No. That is not what I saying. The difficulty in raising small pairs in any position is that this play immediately becomes vulnerable to overpairs or plus 66 mid pairs. The problem is a lack of clarity that might ultimately lead to bankroll losses. Small pairs run risks at any point in a tournament. Even small trips come with their own hazards, although I would raise with these... depending on what I see upon the table.

 

[Eric Salvador]

From the BB on a CO or Button open you need to be 3betting around 50% of the time and calling the other to balance your range. Folding to some 4bets but you have to defend some of these with a call and maybe 77 or 66 with a 5bet if you feel villain is an exploiting style of player. A UTG open to the LoJack should be folded unless villain is getting out of line.

 

[karl coakley]

I like to try to fold small pairs as much as possible. I also like to not limp as much as possible. Of course, like everyone, I do a little of both here and there. The real problem is that in a disproportionate amount of the time you aren't going to hit a set. On the other times, ie. 4 handed, you are going to hit a small set and no one else connects resulting in a small pot.

This is just generally a leak in your game. Playing passive and hope to hit a set is not where you want to be.