Keep in mind if you raise the limpers will call assuming it is not raised behind you so you will not get anyone out. A10s is just not good enough to justify raising to "build a pot" as it just not a good enough raising hand.

Miller has a section in SSH where he specifically uses ATs as an example where you should raise preflop. I think he had it in the BB against a field of limpers.

Assuming we are talking limit, A-10 in middle positions is a caller with 1 or 2 limpers IMO.

You fold to a raise UTG considering you have more than 40% of chances to be dominated and the other 40% is a coin flip. Only 20% where you are the dog.

Raiser in these situations:

In late position every one folding to you or only one limper in middle or also late position, it could be a raiser or even reraiser if you know your oponetes pretty well.

In small blind and BB, its a big time restealer.

HOWEVER:
In very loose passive conditions I mean VERY. 5-6 players seeing the flops on every hand and most of the time unraised. I always raise with A10s for value and odds.

If you flop your draws your more likely to have the odds to call or even raise if you flop both to the river.

Honestly, I dont know if its statisticaly the play to do, but i look pretty good for me I think. I do the same with suited connectors 8-9 and over.

KJ

This is why I wanted a specific discussion point, not just an insult randomy hurled. This is why I hate the anonymity of discussion boards.
ATs in the big blind acting last preflop against a field of limpers (which I would raise maybe 70% of the time) is a HUGE change in situation from ATs in middle position with 5 or so people left to act, any one of which might reraise you. Do you really want to play A10s three bet preflop out of position against the threebetter with two other limpers in front of you?

This is why I wanted a specific discussion point, not just an insult randomy hurled. This is why I hate the anonymity of discussion boards.
ATs in the big blind acting last preflop against a field of limpers (which I would raise maybe 70% of the time) is a HUGE change in situation from ATs in middle position with 5 or so people left to act, any one of which might reraise you. Do you really want to play A10s three bet preflop out of position against the threebetter with two other limpers in front of you?

First, dont take my original post as me hurling an insult at you. I dont have some hidden agenda to undermine random posters. Sorry if it came off that way. Anyways, when I read your first post, it seemed to contradict things that SSH addressed. Then in your very next post, you recommended SSH. You can see why someone would be confused, right?

On to more important things,

1. Why do you only raise ATs in the BB 70% of the time. Why not 100% of the time? Why not 50% of the time? How do you know that 70% of the time is optimal?

2. How often are you 3bet preflop when you raise ATs w/ 5 people left to act after you. Have you done the math?

OK, thx for the explanation. My recomendation of SSH was addressing the original poster's book discussion, not as a reference to this specific hand, which is why I put it in a separate post.

As for the two points:
1: I was guessing 70% on average because it would depend on the specific table. I would say that on certain tables I do it 100% of the time but then on others I do it seldom. It wasn't so much that I vary this playing the same hand twice at the same table.
For instance, at alot of the locals places in Vegas 4-8 is played with baby 1-2 blinds. All these local rocks limp with EVERYTHING to see how the flop hits them (KK to 23o, I'm not kidding). If you raise it in the big blind then a bunch fold, and the whole idea SSH-style was to build a bigger pot against a bunch of limpers with mediocre hands. So you get the 8 way down to 3 way with no guess on hand strength and there is not alot of dead money since it's only $2 a head. At the MGM 4-8 it is normal blinds and usually people limp with mediocre cards and will call the raise, the people with better hands would have raised the first time so you know where they are at better then the elderly rocks at the Station casinos.

2. This is dependent on human nature and the table so I don't know how the math could be done. If I had a good aggressive player behind me I sure wouldn't raise with A10s in middle position if the pot was already multiway with two limpers in front. If I was the opener in middle to late postion after all folds I would often raise. Totally different situations.

1. Great. I thought you meant that you would sometimes raise and sometimes check at the same table. As for the weird structured game, I think I would still raise it, but I didn't give much thought to it. Any dead money is good.

2. It can be done, or at least it can be estimated. If we assume that the players behind us are average, then they will at least 3bet AA-JJ, AKo, AKs, though they might 3bet more hands like AQo, AQs,AJs, TT.

Then we see how often one person behind us would have this hand. Ex: If I randomly distributed you a hand, it would be AA-TT, AKo-AQo, AKs-AQs x% of the time. Using x, we can figure out how often at least one of the 5 people behind us have a 3bettable hand. Doing this requires some dirty math. In fact I'll just do this example quickly. My work might have errors.

The 5 people behind me will 3bet with AA-TT, AKo-AJo, AKs-AJs. As it turns out, all the 3betting hands are the ones that dominate us.
-How often does a player who was randomly dealt cards have these hands?
Since we have one Ace and one T, we discount one each time. Let's assume we have As Ts

Possible Combinations
AA: 3 combos, (AcAh, AcAd, AhAd)
KK-JJ: 6 combos each (KdKc, KdKs, KdKh, KcKs, KcKh, KsKh)
TT: 3 bomcos (like AA)
AKo-AJo: 6 combos each
AKs-AJs: 3 combos each

Total "3bet" combos: 51
Total possible combos: (50*49)/2 = 1225

Chance that one person gets randomly dealt "3bet" combo: 51/1225 ~ 4.16%.

-How often does at least one person out of 5 people get randomly dealt a "3bet" hand?

This part will suck. The probability that at least one person out of five has a "3bet" hand = 1 minus the probability that all five pepole DON'T have one.

Prob that one person doesn't have a 3bet hand: 1 - .0416
Prob that all five pepole don't have a 3bet hand: (1-.0416)^5
Then:
1-(1-.0416)^5 = .1915 or 19.15% of the time.

So 19.15 percent of the time we are 3bet. Take what you will from this information.

It might be a good excercise to do this stuff. In the heat of battle, this info won't be very useful, because we wont have done the calculations for different table conditions. Having a super maniac behind us obviously changes things, but that would be the exception the norm. Still, it's nice to know for a few reasons.

Sorry I've been out of the conversation. I work nights (which is the reason for the odd hours of my posts) and I sleep days. I haven't read all the posts yet and I'm in the middle of cooking dinner, but I wanted to state that the reason for my first post was the disagreement in the books...

IE: A10 mp (IMHO) is a calling hand, but books I've read (One is The Illustrated Guide to Texas Hold'um by Dennis Purdy [dumb book], and the other I lent to a friend so I don't have the referance handy) disagree on one main point in the exact same manner...The both state that a calling hand in low limit poker is a raising hand, however they both state that you should see the flop for as cheap possible.

I can't reconcile these two statements, so I came up with the example in the original post as a situation where (in my mind) it becomes an issue. I honestly believe that if I can call, I can raise, however, I also like to see the flop as cheaply as possible and play from there. In my personal play, I try to switch between these two modes to confuse my enemies.

As with all posts, I'm satisfying my desire to discuss poker with others (who I don't play with so as not to educate the enemy), while trying to answer the questions that have eluded me since I started paying attention to my play...

I will read all posts after I finish cooking dinner and respond to anything I feel needs a response later in the post.

Trons