Umm, shouldn't their *post* flop play dictate your pre-flop strategy?!

So ...
(i) out of position, do they follow through with their raises against 2? 3? (how many call a $15 raise?).
(ii) in position, how do they react to being led into? Do they always bet when checked to?
(iii) do they follow through on the turn?

I'd guess it's something like: they lead into 1 overcard and 1-2 opponents, check-fold 2 overcards or more opponents, bet when checked to in LP, and sometimes call, sometimes fold when led into? And usually give up when called on the flop? Anywhere near?

You should consider not limping in EP with small pairs unless you're willing to lead into a back position raiser on a missed flop. (Since, as you pointed out, you're not getting implied odds).

In position I'd have thought you're fine to call with any playable hand provided there aren't too many other callers.

My plan would be to something like ... mostly bet if checked to (eg unless a free card would be really handy), call bets with any part of the flop, and raise when you hit your overcards (or with a monster). Occasionally check the flop behind and raise the turn (assuming they'll usually lead if the flop is checked down).

The underlying strategy is to be a pain in the neck while breaking even/making a small profit, and then get paid off on your big hands. But you should definitely exploit after the flop the fold equity inherent in their poor pre-flop play.

If a guy raises to $15 with 66 and then the flop is something normal like Q92, what does he do?

If he wont put any more money into the pot, then I would call his preflop raises with any suited connector and reraise ANY pair. If you reraise any pair and bet the flop like you have an overpair, hes going to fold 7 times out of 8 when he misses his set.

(This assumes its heads up). You can reraise his 66 with your 44 and still win most of the time.

You can call with a suited connector and take it away from him on the flop if he checks it to you. You will also win a monster now and then when you hit a str8 or flush against his set.

Here's the way the hand usually plays. Someone raises to $15-$20 with a little pair. At an 8-player table, 4-5 players see the flop with all kinds of holdings. PP always calls (I'm actually beginning to question this play as well--see below for why), sometimes AX, sometimes anything suited.

Now, normally, they also slowplay their sets, so it all gets muddled up and maybe the holdings get sorted out on the river, when big hands start to put serious money into the pot. This whole thing stinks big time to me. I would absolutely NEVER play that way, neither PF nor subsequently, but, particularly when half or more of the table is playing this game, it makes seeing flops somewhat difficult. It's all just one big mess to my mind.

Here are a few ideas. Let's just start with KQo from MP. Normally, I'm never calling a raise with this hand, but now I'm beginning to see why the semi-pro who lost his stack to me the first night was doing it. What's critical in playing this hand to a raise is if there's a tell on some of these players (and I'm very unsure about this up to now) between their "little pair" raise and their AK raise. After my KK cliffhanger, I'm also beginning to think that big raise means big pair (on that hand, I figure if I could actually narrow the hand range PF to QQ-AA, it would have been +EV to just lay down my KK--basically, QQ folds to my re-raise and loses $50, AA moves in and I lose $150 even if I fold it right there, but that's another "issue").

Anyhow, if I play a hand like KQ to a $15-$20 raise, I don't see what's really wrong with the following strategy if the raiser is one of the little pair raisers: Bet the flop if I hit--and when I bet a flop, I bet close to pot. It's just the way I play. Now, if I get a caller (even if I can't distinguish AK from little pair, but I'm working on that), I'm beat and done with the hand, so just check to the river and fold to any sizeable bet. Little pair can't call the flop, obviously, and set will slowplay. The thing is, KQ is at least reasonably secure here and will hit the flop much more often than the little pair who raised. Now, if raiser folds and I get a "draw caller" (I think I can distinguish these at this point), I can indeed bet the turn if logical draws miss.

A second thing to watch here is whether I'm actually going to get sufficient action here on my own little sets. And, when I started this post, I was beginning to think it might not be a bad idea to lay down 22-55 PF here, but I think I'm changing my mind on this one. What I definitely do need to watch if I have a just baby pair, is if the original raiser is the one calling when I bet my set (contrary to majority play). He may well have me oversetted. Other players are likely to be sitting possibly on a high card, possibly on a draw. But they won't play back at you actively, as in my opinion is a much better way to do it. I think I can continue to call these things with any PP (and limp on PP, as I always have). I just need to watch exactly where my set is in the scheme of things if initial raiser calls my bet.

Basically, the table is mildly aggressive and pretty loose PF, but on the flop, the made set then typically slowplays, and everyone else is in trouble anyway. So there's a lot of checking around on these flops.

And I'd say about average for this table is seeing a flop 4-handed. I remember the big stack who raised to $50 UTG with AA had commented shortly before about getting too much action--so he bumped his raise to $35 and still got 5 callers. What did he have? 55...

So, anyhow, for someone such as myself, who really wants to get the issue pretty much clarified on the flop, this table is pretty weird and seemed just incredibly stupid and loose-passive at first. I still don't particularly care for the strategy, but it does pose some problems. Basically, if you call the raise with PP, it's often going to be difficult to get much action when you do make your set. And, they're forcing you (or me, anyway, at least in my current phase of wanting to feel them out a bit more before coming after them with what I'm convinced is a completely sound counter-strategy) to lay down a lot of hands like KQ more often than I'd like.

I mean, the way I look at it, you don't want to be risking your stack on these TP reasonable kicker type hands. But those are the ones that hit the flop most often. So, they're paying for a lot of blinds, and they're setting up your big hands in that, when they call the flop bet, they assume you just have another one of those (which is, in actuality, usually the case). And if every PP at the table raises PF, then something like half the flops are getting raised.

What do you guys think of trying to play KQ there to a little raise, as well as AQ and AJ? Then betting the flop pretty much as usual if you hit, but with more of the idea: take it down right there or forget about it. If we have 4 callers to the raise, we're talking here about a $60 pot ($80 if the raise was to $20), so I'd probably indeed want to fire out $50/$65 into the thing... ???

If I then get a caller, I have to ask myself what I'm up against for the turn--draw or made set. So, that read become of critical importance here, because I need to bet against the draw, but check-fold to the set. I think the Asian guy I mentioned who chases draws does pretty well for this reason: "Normal" hands are often afraid to deny him correct odds for the draw.

Oh, one other dimension to the problem: Some of these little pair raisers play short-stacked at $100-$200. I also think I need to keep a close eye on the stack doing the raising: If a $100 raises his 55 to $15, I may not lay down my 22 if I've already limped, but I don't think I have much business cold-calling it--then again, there are also some deep stacks at the table who may be calling with AJ, AT or whatever...

If a $100 stack raises to $15 with what youre pretty sure is a little pair, you should fold or push all in, depending on who is behind you or if there are any other callers.

You shouldnt be flat calling that raise no matter what you have.

Yeah, with a $100 stack I can see it, although that's somewhat rare. It's just one of the regulars who's often playing with that little stack.

What do you guys think about flat calling with the stronger trouble hands? (KQ, AJ-AK)

I think I am going to start going with my strong re-raise on QQ-AA and AKs. I just have to have the balls to fire out $120 on umimproved AKs if I'm playing out of position or in position to a check. I think my table image can handle that now--I've only turned over AA or KK only in memorable pots up to now (and only been doing it on those hands, too).

Another unconventional play I'm thinking about and would very much like your opinion: Play AXs to a little raise in LP.

Basically, these passive flops could easily allow catching the flush, and if I have a player who looks like he's on TP, I can semi-bluff it to get a free card to the river.

Good play or bad at this table?