Well, first after 2 rather dismal weeks, I'm not at all sure, thinking about the actual way the hands went, that "moves" are really even the proper solution, although I did find it very interesting during my bad stretch the latter half of this week that the winning parts of it were when I suddenly pushed my LAG button.

But, as I mentioned in another post, here are the ways in which my big sessions have become big:

1) Highly leveraged PF pots, where I have the best of it. Lately, I effectively always have AA, so there's no question that I do have the best of it PF if I get in deep.

2) Sets getting paid off when I raise them unusually hard. By the same token, my losing sessions are pretty consistently those where my sets lose after I'm already in quite deep.

3) Hitting just right on a suited connector of some sort. This is actually noticeably less frequent for me than big set hands, and in my biggest suited connector pot to date ($2000), I got outdrawn. But I've had a few big hands like this, too, just not as many as sets.

The reason I say this is that I think those scenarios just ARE where the big money is in this game, and any moves that one makes need to support getting paid off in those situations.

Really, looking at how the cards have fallen the last week, I'm not having a problem getting sets or suited connectors paid off. I'm just having a problem getting them.

I think the only real thing to consider here is re-raising occasionally on less than AA, although there, too, I think very few players are going to lay down QQ to my first re-raise still--or even AK, for that matter. While I do have a list of "moves" that I consider promising under certain conditions, I just don't think it's time yet. I'll try to list them in a separate post in this thread. At the moment, my head is still spinning a little from last week's marathon of poker. For the moment, this is just going to be a way of giving a little bit of structure to the whole thing.

Ok, I guess the two "moves" I've been thinking more seriously about really do both involve shifting gears. One is getting a lot looser on re-raises, but I'll save that for later (I'm still very uncertain about the details). The other is making some loose LP raises.

That's the one I want to discuss here, and I'm taking the idea in part from Harrington, who considers it still to be tight play to raise QJs from LP.

What I'm toying with here is basically raising ALL of my MP playable hands from LP after some limpers, and raising exactly the same amount as I would on AA. If there are some limpers, that means raising to at least $25. If it's folded around, my standard raise on any hand I want to play is $15.

So, this would be the hand selection: All pairs, AK, true suited connectors, unpaired, unsuited cards J or better, unpaired, suited cards T or better. I would then limp in LP with JTo-ATo, 98o or all suited one-gappers.

The plan would also be to follow up the raising hands with a full continuation bet barring horrible flops (possible made straights, suited boards with none of the appropriate suit).

I think this is probably the kind of move that one needs to switch on and off. The way my table image currently is, I don't see it as a problem. And maybe it's a "keeper" move anyway.

LP also gives an enormous advantage in that you can easily lay down to any real heat if someone bets into you, and you lose only the raise. What I've also concluded in my own battles with loose raisers is that I find it much easier to make loose calls in position. Well, in this case, everybody is automatically out of position in playing the flop. They're really in a rather bad way with their own KJo. If they bet it out, as they may, I can easily fold. If they don't, a checkraise is going to cost more than one really needs to be putting in on that kind of hand.

I do think this kind of play should probably also be associated with backing down a little bit off of full pot with all continuation bets--maybe more in the 2/3 to 3/4 pot range. I've generally been keeping them at full pot barring a true monster (like top set), but I really don't think I have had anyone yet raise my continuation bet without being able to beat AA (maybe once in the last 3 months, and I'm not even sure about that one). I really don't see that changing much if I make the price a little bit lower.

Anyhow, I'd be interested to hear what you guys think about this idea. Also, whether it has general potential, or is something that one should turn off as soon as it starts becoming more transparent. I really think it's pretty hard to come up with a good counter-strategy, although I'd probably turn it off if I felt like I was getting chronic re-raises.