This is all a bit above me, I think in much simpler terms, but it's a fascinating read, & a great insight to how "proper" players play.
But I can't get past Step 1 yet. We made it 1,400 (at 200-400) after URG had already limped. So we underbet this - & we did so, if I understand the thread correctly, deliberately.
In your spot, I'd have either.....
a) Raised "properly" - made it about 2,000, thus asking a decent question & hopefully get a decent clarification of where we are. Maybe we would have been spared these difficult problems on the Turn if we'd bet properly pre-flop?
b) Limped. Now, I can see everyone throwing their arms up in horror at limping, after an UTG Limper, with AK, but it does have it's merits - because it un-nerves HIM, too. AND it helps control the Pot size. And enables me, be it on street 1 or 2, to get away cheaper if it starts to smell sussy.
But over & above all that, I love this notion of the balance between winning a little with low risk, & turning up the Risk-Dial & optimising what we can win. It's a bit advanced, & risky for me - I try to minimise the "gamble" - but that's the beauty of the game, we all run at it from different angles. And get different results. But for me, I just can't consider the notion of deliberately "teasing" my UTG Oppo into the hand when I have AK. I EITHER want to see where we are, OR limit our loss/win by limping, & leaving myself an escape route.
Tikay, the problem with an approach of raising to 2000 pre to try and define where we are in the hand is that we are liable to receive incorrect or misleading information. Becuase of our current image and the frequency with which we have been putting money into the pot - If our opponent was to limp, shove on us we could not fold; because we would have to assume that he is willing to do that with much more than just AA and KK at this point in time.
Equally, an extra 600 should not change is decision to call or fold that much preflop. It is hard to imagine that his range for limp, calling 1400 is hugely different to what he will limp, call 2k for. I mean, he shouldn't limp, call anything here ffs - so if he's willing to do it with any hand he'll prolly play for an extra blind and a half.
And it logically follows that even if we had put in an extra 1200 chips between us preflop he is going to play postflop against us more or less the same - again as our image and his expectation of our range will still be the same on the basis of the past 30 hands irrespective of our raise size preflop in this hand.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What making it 1400 does allow you to do though is play a smaller pot postflop with more money behind. The more of an edge we think we have and the more comfortable in our game we feel - the better this should be for us. Yes, we may have to make slightly tougher decisions on the turn or river sometimes - but we have to have the confidence to believe that we will play pressure spots better than villain. So the more room we have to manouevre the better.
We will flop no pair no draw a lot; hate the flop a lot; and want to give up a lot postflop a lot. So the less money in there the better. Also, the less it will cost to make a 2 / 3 pot continuation bet in the hopes he folds against us the times we have missed.
Also, you may dismiss the idea of balancing your play and range - but it really is worth considering that we will want to raise an UTG limper with more than just JJ - AA // AK. When we have weaker hands it suits us to invest less chips. And in order to win other pots when we don't have high absolute hand strength we're going to have to create a scenario where the nuts can always be in our range and our bluffs are successful and believable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think limping is neccesarily bad. But you need to make whatever the play is (be it openlimping; raising 6x BB) much, much more than the odd time and with all sorts of hands in order to make yourself difficult to play against. I personally never openlimp anything and always make the same raise size per level for everything I'm playing - so my opponents won't be able to just put me on a big hand either; and will frequently disbelieve me when I do have it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, and this is really important,
doing anything solely to find out "where you are" is beyond bad. And, while I don't expect people who use this idea as a fundamental part of their strategy to instantly understand and accept such a statement, it is a concept that I see brought up in almost every HH thread on this forum.
- Bet to make worse hands call
- Bet to make better hands fold
Don't bet on the basis that it will illicit a reaction from your opponents which will make your future decisions easier. Why? Because your opponents will play bad and make mistakes. And they won't play perfect poker against you.
So - you might bet top pair so that you can fold or slowdown if raised or called. But if you do that you are assuming that your opponent never continues with worse. It's flawed thinking because if that was the case poker would be unbeatable. It would just come down to ran best all the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example (and this is a somewhat contrived scenario), let's say I'm playing a live game and we have been at the table an hour or so. I have heard my opponent use terminology like "needed to find out where I was" after some previous hands. So this guy is in the BB and we are playing 25 / 50 with 20k stacks. I get dealt AA when it is folded to me on the button and I make my standard raise at this level to 150. He calls in the BB.
The flop comes K95. He leads for 225. I CALL so he thinks his King is good. Then I either raise him on a non 10+ turn or bet if he checks it. He now bet calls or check / calls on the basis that I didn't raise the flop so he could be ahead a lot "and the turn changed nothing". And I can now try to illicit value from him on the river assuming he checks it because the pot is big and while he thought he made a good play to find out where he was all he achieved was to tell me exactly where I was and confuse himself.
Or run the above scenario when I raise 89o when folded to me on the button. Now I can raise the flop and play the turn aggressively this time and fold out his top pair a lot. But he is happy with his fold because he "must be beat, right?"
His play is transparent and forces him into mistakes and allows a good opponent to manipulate him in position.
Equally though, we can't just do this all the time as if we do then other players will be able to react to our lines and understand that a call of a donk bet on the flop means we are playing towards the top of our range and are ahead; and a raise of the donk bet could mean we have air. But we will be mixing things up to deceive our opponent and make things harder for him. All while having an easy time reading his hands and figuring him out.
He continues to bet for info; change his betsizing and lines in paralell to what hands he actually holds at that time; and play utterly predictably. So who wins in the long run? And who needs the best hand less often in order to do it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Somebody may be able to explain why betting for information is bad better than me. Suffice to say, it is an issue that has been examined and worked out in other places a thousand times before.
Author