100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

100/200NL ... Jamie Gold is two to my left. I open raise to 700 in mp with 96hh, I have about 22K behind me. I have played a variety of hands and shown down some big hands that I played staightforward and made some laydowns to big re-raises. I was not opening a lot of pots relative to the table. Jamie is sitting on 30K. Jamie calls and one other player who has me covered calls.

The flop comes As 9s 6c.

I check, Jamie fires 1500 (which he does about every other hand) and the blind re-pops to 5500.

What is the best line from here? Is leading out better on the flop? Is bottom two-pair strong here vs a Jamie Gold raise and a re-raise with me behind?

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

ai

if the flop was rainbow maybe fold i dunno

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

ai, fist pump, suckout, hang head, rebuy

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

all in, quite likely champ has air blind may have some A9, A6, 99 66 set hand, but can easily think he's protecting A-Big or maybe KJss type hand.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

if you're raising 96s in MP, you've got to get it in here.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

So, what about the line?

Is it every wise to raise pf with 96hh? Can bottom two ever get a call from an AK or 78 who thinks I am pushing thin? If I push here and only get a call from A6 and better

it is probably not profitable if I push out AK and worse and get called only by A9, A6, 66, 99 then I am dead to rights every time I get a call (equity vs range is about 6%) then he has to be making this play 75% of the time with hands weaker than two pair, e.g., 78, AK, AQ, etc. Seems kind of marginal to push.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, what about the line?

Is it every wise to raise pf with 96hh? Can bottom two ever get a call from an AK or 78 who thinks I am pushing thin? If I push here and only get a call from A6 and better

it is probably not profitable if I push out AK and worse and get called only by A9, A6, 66, 99 then I am dead to rights every time I get a call (equity vs range is about 6%) then he has to be making this play 75% of the time with hands weaker than two pair, e.g., 78, AK, AQ, etc. Seems kind of marginal to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

just stfu and push.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you're raising 96s in MP, you've got to get it in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

not true at all, but get it in OP

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, what about the line?

Is it every wise to raise pf with 96hh? Can bottom two ever get a call from an AK or 78 who thinks I am pushing thin? If I push here and only get a call from A6 and better

it is probably not profitable if I push out AK and worse and get called only by A9, A6, 66, 99 then I am dead to rights every time I get a call (equity vs range is about 6%) then he has to be making this play 75% of the time with hands weaker than two pair, e.g., 78, AK, AQ, etc. Seems kind of marginal to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ not including a single draw.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you're raising 96s in MP, you've got to get it in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [censored] HATE it when people post stupid garbage like this. No, you don't have to do dick unless you strongly feel like you have the best hand and given the action, that won't be true nearly every time, so nothing says you have to go broke here. If you have never even played this high - short-stacking doesn't count - then save your worthless one-liners for SSNL where they might give a [censored].

But given that you checked the flop (which I don't like since bottom two is too vulnerable of a hand to slowplay) and the raiser is probably playing vs Jaime having discounted you (you didn't provide any reads on the other guy, btw, and that can make a big difference), I can see shoving there, but I would not be happy about it. If the other guy is not overly aggro and on the tighter side, I might actually find a fold, much as I would hate it.

Kirk

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

I definitely prefer a bet instead of a check on the flop, with top 2 or a set I'd like checking much more. As played I'd probably push but reads on the blind would help.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

i really dont like the flop check at all.

problem with your line is if you go ahead and shove obv really hard to get looked up by worse. in fact, i don't think it's unreasonable that you could fold a better hand.

i agree w/ kirkk that folding against a tightish player, while painful, might be the best play

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you're raising 96s in MP, you've got to get it in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [censored] HATE it when people post stupid garbage like this. No, you don't have to do dick unless you strongly feel like you have the best hand and given the action, that won't be true nearly every time, so nothing says you have to go broke here. If you have never even played this high - short-stacking doesn't count - then save your worthless one-liners for SSNL where they might give a [censored].

But given that you checked the flop (which I don't like since bottom two is too vulnerable of a hand to slowplay) and the raiser is probably playing vs Jaime having discounted you (you didn't provide any reads on the other guy, btw, and that can make a big difference), I can see shoving there, but I would not be happy about it. If the other guy is not overly aggro and on the tighter side, I might actually find a fold, much as I would hate it.

Kirk

[/ QUOTE ]

here does not mean zomg two pair, raised pot, getthemoniesinshipit. What it means is that you have what i think is usually the best hand in a situation with 110 BB's. Having bottom two here means a higher two pair and sets are unlikely, and you've built a pot by slowplaying your hand. I think everyone agrees calling is a bad play, and jamming it works well. The best part is since this was posted, its almost guaranteed that I'm wrong, someone had a set of aces, 6's blah blah. But i still think this is correct (w/o reads) and this spot is an instant ARRRRRRRINN.
thats all i meant

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

I think I'd overbet shove here to make it look like a draw like KJss or somethin and expect someone to make a big call with like AJ or AQ. I would say blind has one of those and is valueraising vs idiot Jamie, and Jamie probably has something like 89. So yea, the c/rai overbet shove would be effective in this spot, and besides, Jamie will gamble on 78 with no spades in this situation probably hahah.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

I don't think checking to Jamie in that spot is giving up much. He is going to bet any drawy flop almost 100% of the time (fyi I have played these limits with Jamie on three other occasions and have had friends who played with him and he plays consistently toward making gigantic overbets when scare cards come out and you have to be willing to call those down with less than the nuts to beat him and some people don't like the variance). Otherwise I agree you can't check. But there may be other reasons to lead the flop, I am not sure.

The other guy was Kevin Aaronson, solid player, is comfortable at 100/200+ live action and placed 15th in last year's wsop. I have played with him before he is in my view half-way between tag and lag. I could see him making that play with some kind of 78ss, or pair + flush draw thinking I am solid and will fold AK and has outs vs 99. I could see him having a set there or A9 as well.

The confounding factor is Jamie is going to bet any scare card to ridiculous sums. One possible reason for pushing there is that (i) Jamie could have nothing and (ii) Kevin could think he has the best hand and not want to face a 20K bet on the turn.

I thought this was a trick hand and one thing that is clear is that it's not that strong vs a bet and a re-raise unless the original raiser is crazy loose and the re-raiser is v aggressive. Not sure.

I will wait to see if anyone else has thoughts and then post what I did and how the hand played out.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you're raising 96s in MP, you've got to get it in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [censored] HATE it when people post stupid garbage like this. No, you don't have to do dick unless you strongly feel like you have the best hand and given the action, that won't be true nearly every time, so nothing says you have to go broke here. If you have never even played this high - short-stacking doesn't count - then save your worthless one-liners for SSNL where they might give a [censored].

But given that you checked the flop (which I don't like since bottom two is too vulnerable of a hand to slowplay) and the raiser is probably playing vs Jaime having discounted you (you didn't provide any reads on the other guy, btw, and that can make a big difference), I can see shoving there, but I would not be happy about it. If the other guy is not overly aggro and on the tighter side, I might actually find a fold, much as I would hate it.

Kirk

[/ QUOTE ]

here does not mean zomg two pair, raised pot, getthemoniesinshipit. What it means is that you have what i think is usually the best hand in a situation with 110 BB's. Having bottom two here means a higher two pair and sets are unlikely, and you've built a pot by slowplaying your hand. I think everyone agrees calling is a bad play, and jamming it works well. The best part is since this was posted, its almost guaranteed that I'm wrong, someone had a set of aces, 6's blah blah. But i still think this is correct (w/o reads) and this spot is an instant ARRRRRRRINN.
thats all i meant

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that for this forum to be most interesting people have to post hands where they fold as well as where they lose here to a set of nines. I promise you I will post equally often hands where I fold and wonder whether or not a call was warranted.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, what about the line?

Is it every wise to raise pf with 96hh? Can bottom two ever get a call from an AK or 78 who thinks I am pushing thin? If I push here and only get a call from A6 and better

it is probably not profitable if I push out AK and worse and get called only by A9, A6, 66, 99 then I am dead to rights every time I get a call (equity vs range is about 6%) then he has to be making this play 75% of the time with hands weaker than two pair, e.g., 78, AK, AQ, etc. Seems kind of marginal to push.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ not including a single draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol @ not calling 78 a draw

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
i really dont like the flop check at all.

problem with your line is if you go ahead and shove obv really hard to get looked up by worse. in fact, i don't think it's unreasonable that you could fold a better hand.

i agree w/ kirkk that folding against a tightish player, while painful, might be the best play

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree totally, this is the problem. If I shove, the only hands that call me are strong draws and hands that are ahead of me. It's hard to see anyone calling with top pair. That means I need to be getting a fold a high percentage of the time to make this profitable and it's hard to see getting a fold with this action 75%+ of the time. This points to my saying "I don't have a lot invested in this hand, maybe I am being bluffed, but muck it."

Regarding my line, if Kevin (the blind) checks, and I lead out 3/4 pot and then Jamie calls and Kevin makes it 6K how does this change things? To play devil's advocate my lead out could be looked at as a standard continuation bet, maybe I have something, maybe I don't, Jamie's call would be seen as standard Jamie fare, and now I have inflated the pot. BTW, I am honestly seeking feedback here, I do not have a good answer to these questions.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

ai aiai aiaiaiaiaiii

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

lead and focus on extracting from jamie-i feel like he pays you off wiht a [censored] ton of hands...

also though if you cold call (as fed up as that is) i could def see the hand getting checked through unless a scare card hits and jamie goes bonkers...which might be good for you

this could also be crazy here but if you shove i think you have a reasonable shot at folding out the two pair hands and maybe even 666...a shove from you presents the reraiser with the same problem that you are considering given his bet only i your range has got to be a lot smaller...

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

i've played with both players before. this is a pretty easy all in given all the information. Kevin would reraise Jamie here with any reasonable ace... and given the action Kevin can't have AA, and 99 or 66 is extremely unlikely given your 96. Just about the only way you are beat is Kevin having A6 or A9 suited... you still might get called by AK or AQ by either player, or a monster draw... but i don't see any way you can fold 96 here for 22k. and calling is by far worse then shoving.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've played with both players before. this is a pretty easy all in given all the information. Kevin would reraise Jamie here with any reasonable ace... and given the action Kevin can't have AA, and 99 or 66 is extremely unlikely given your 96. Just about the only way you are beat is Kevin having A6 or A9 suited... you still might get called by AK or AQ by either player, or a monster draw... but i don't see any way you can fold 96 here for 22k. and calling is by far worse then shoving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Here is what happened. I shoved based on basically the above analysis. Jamie insta-folded (surprised?) and then Kevin sat for about five minutes and agonized. He finally said in all seriousness "I am just not good enough to lay this down to you" and called! Turn and river were 5, 5. I said "I have two-pair" and probably everyone thought I had AK, he showed a set of 9s.

I left thinking that this may have been nothing more than a cooler, but I wondered whether or not there was a way to play this hand with as much upside and less downside. All two pairs are really unlikely here as are sets, but I have lost bottom two to middle set before and I have not won big pots very often with bottom two. The all-in shove drives out everything but the sets and big draws. I now think that there I am getting called only by AA, 99, 66, A9, A6 and 7s8s (str8, flush draw) and maybe pair + flush draw (my best shot) I have very little equity and he needs to fold 70% of the time for this to be profitable.

I think it's possible as someone else said that my push would have folded out A9, A6 and possibly even 66 given that he was considering folding 99. BTW, the table reprimanded him severely for not insta-calling with 99 (I told him later I could not believe he hesitated, but Kevin is a good guy and genuinely considered laying it down as he was seriously worried about AA).

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteI left thinking that this may have been nothing more than a cooler, but I wondered whether or not there was a way to play this hand with as much upside and less downside.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bet the flop, and judge the action from here, rather than second guessing your hand. You're unsure as to whether it's the best hand on the flop, so why check it over anyway? Only check it across if you're 100% sure you got the best of it, and can shove.

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

I am def not Nick Schulman, lol. The 100/200 game played many a night at the Bellagio. I left after that hand as I was tired from the WSOP, etc, etc. I think I was in the 3 seat (table on the main floor, near Bobby's room, near the poker cage).

Post deleted by Mat Sklansky
 

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

I was at the table at the time: I'm pretty positive you only had 12k to start the hand, as Kevin only had to call like 5200 more, which is something we were all talking about when making fun of him for how long it took him to call. Also, Kevin had been playing very tight but not so tight that you could fold this: he could easily be playing back at Jamie and you're an afterthought in the hand with your stack and your flop check. Getting it all in is the right play, but you should have thought about it for a bit because you asked Jamie how much he has and when he told you, you IMMEDIATELY shoved: not the best way to get a call from AK/AQ (Jamie actually jumped up and immediately slid his cards to me, showing me AK and folding).

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

13kish more not 5200. Hero's line looks real strong and I know he wasn't bluffing.

I was trying to figure out what hands a tight/solid player would ship it there-I know he wouldn't push with ak and the ace of spades was on board

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
13kish more not 5200. Hero's line looks real strong and I know he wasn't bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Sorry about that: could have sworn it was 5 or 6k. Either way, yeah obvious push and obvious call for you.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]


lol @ not including a single draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

while you are not going to get called often while ahead (by the combo draws or pair + draws) and are obviously getting called while behind, you also have to take into account that sometimes your shove is the only way to protect what is often going to be the best hand if kevin was just playing back at jamie. Flat calling a bet and raise and then having half the deck make your hand look awful sucks, and despite the results, I think folding this would be a little weak.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
13kish more not 5200. Hero's line looks real strong and I know he wasn't bluffing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Sorry about that: could have sworn it was 5 or 6k. Either way, yeah obvious push and obvious call for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely had over 20K to start the hand. It wouldn't even be a post w/ 12K to start!

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

Def over 20K. I shoved WAY too quickly. Major leak. I am shocked Jamie had AK. Best hand he had all night.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you're raising 96s in MP, you've got to get it in here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I [censored] HATE it when people post stupid garbage like this. No, you don't have to do dick unless you strongly feel like you have the best hand and given the action, that won't be true nearly every time, so nothing says you have to go broke here. If you have never even played this high - short-stacking doesn't count - then save your worthless one-liners for SSNL where they might give a [censored].

But given that you checked the flop (which I don't like since bottom two is too vulnerable of a hand to slowplay) and the raiser is probably playing vs Jaime having discounted you (you didn't provide any reads on the other guy, btw, and that can make a big difference), I can see shoving there, but I would not be happy about it. If the other guy is not overly aggro and on the tighter side, I might actually find a fold, much as I would hate it.

Kirk

[/ QUOTE ]

ranges yo, against Gold, you have to include the raiser's range which is AQ and AK... AI imo,

I'm not sure what to do if you're deeper.

-Joo

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've played with both players before. this is a pretty easy all in given all the information. Kevin would reraise Jamie here with any reasonable ace... and given the action Kevin can't have AA, and 99 or 66 is extremely unlikely given your 96. Just about the only way you are beat is Kevin having A6 or A9 suited... you still might get called by AK or AQ by either player, or a monster draw... but i don't see any way you can fold 96 here for 22k. and calling is by far worse then shoving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Here is what happened. I shoved based on basically the above analysis. Jamie insta-folded (surprised?) and then Kevin sat for about five minutes and agonized. He finally said in all seriousness "I am just not good enough to lay this down to you" and called! Turn and river were 5, 5. I said "I have two-pair" and probably everyone thought I had AK, he showed a set of 9s.

I left thinking that this may have been nothing more than a cooler, but I wondered whether or not there was a way to play this hand with as much upside and less downside. All two pairs are really unlikely here as are sets, but I have lost bottom two to middle set before and I have not won big pots very often with bottom two. The all-in shove drives out everything but the sets and big draws. I now think that there I am getting called only by AA, 99, 66, A9, A6 and 7s8s (str8, flush draw) and maybe pair + flush draw (my best shot) I have very little equity and he needs to fold 70% of the time for this to be profitable.

I think it's possible as someone else said that my push would have folded out A9, A6 and possibly even 66 given that he was considering folding 99. BTW, the table reprimanded him severely for not insta-calling with 99 (I told him later I could not believe he hesitated, but Kevin is a good guy and genuinely considered laying it down as he was seriously worried about AA).

[/ QUOTE ]

the way you talk about "not having equity" makes me think you're completly not taking into account the dead money in the pot and the poss that your hand is goot. There's like 7-8k in there, you have 20k and you have bottom two against someone who raised jamie gold... obv it depends on your read of the raiser(and you [censored] yourself by letting jamie gold define your hand)

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've played with both players before. this is a pretty easy all in given all the information. Kevin would reraise Jamie here with any reasonable ace... and given the action Kevin can't have AA, and 99 or 66 is extremely unlikely given your 96. Just about the only way you are beat is Kevin having A6 or A9 suited... you still might get called by AK or AQ by either player, or a monster draw... but i don't see any way you can fold 96 here for 22k. and calling is by far worse then shoving.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. Here is what happened. I shoved based on basically the above analysis. Jamie insta-folded (surprised?) and then Kevin sat for about five minutes and agonized. He finally said in all seriousness "I am just not good enough to lay this down to you" and called! Turn and river were 5, 5. I said "I have two-pair" and probably everyone thought I had AK, he showed a set of 9s.

I left thinking that this may have been nothing more than a cooler, but I wondered whether or not there was a way to play this hand with as much upside and less downside. All two pairs are really unlikely here as are sets, but I have lost bottom two to middle set before and I have not won big pots very often with bottom two. The all-in shove drives out everything but the sets and big draws. I now think that there I am getting called only by AA, 99, 66, A9, A6 and 7s8s (str8, flush draw) and maybe pair + flush draw (my best shot) I have very little equity and he needs to fold 70% of the time for this to be profitable.

I think it's possible as someone else said that my push would have folded out A9, A6 and possibly even 66 given that he was considering folding 99. BTW, the table reprimanded him severely for not insta-calling with 99 (I told him later I could not believe he hesitated, but Kevin is a good guy and genuinely considered laying it down as he was seriously worried about AA).

[/ QUOTE ]

the way you talk about "not having equity" makes me think you're completly not taking into account the dead money in the pot and the poss that your hand is goot. There's like 7-8k in there, you have 20k and you have bottom two against someone who raised jamie gold... obv it depends on your read of the raiser(and you [censored] yourself by letting jamie gold define your hand)

[/ QUOTE ]

I did the math with the dead money and 7s8s in the range. It's a little different if you let all 78 in but not that much different.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

could you show the math? It doesnt seem right that given your hand, the action, and the relative shallowness of stacks that a raise AI here is isnt +EV and that a fold is better.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
could you show the math? It doesnt seem right that given your hand, the action, and the relative shallowness of stacks that a raise AI here is isnt +EV and that a fold is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say a fold was better. I said that to be break even I need him to fold a lot against a tight range that includes better hands and a good draw. It depends on how tight he plays it.

Here are some poker stove calculations. To keep it simple, say I start with 22K and am covered. We put 700 each in pre-flop (2100 pot at the flop). Jamie bets 1500, Kevin rr to 5500. Then the pot is 9100 before my bet. I have 21300 left.

- If I push and everyone folds, I win 9100.
- If I push and get called by one player I either
-- win 24200 (Jamie's 2200 + 22000 from Kevin)
-- lose 21700 (that I bet in the pot)

Some specifics ... he only calls with 2 pair, set, sfd

17,820 games 0.031 secs 574,838 games/sec

Board: As 9s 6d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 08.953% 08.95% 00.01% 1594 1.50 { 9h6h }
Hand 1: 91.047% 91.04% 00.01% 16223 1.50 { AA, 99, 66, A9s, A6s, 8s7s, A9o, A6o }<---- only oesfd

With this calling range, I have 9% equity if he calls. Say he calls 33% of the time. Then I win 9% x 34% = 3.1% of the time he calls for 740 in equity. I lose 34% x 91% = 31.1% of the time for 6750 in negative equity. He folds 66% of the time so I have 6000 in fold equity. So break even with this tight range is he needs to fold 66% of the time.

If we loosen up his range to include any oesd (any 78) then things change dramatically:

Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

32,670 games 0.005 secs 6,534,000 games/sec

Board: As 9s 6d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 36.200% 36.20% 00.00% 11825 1.50 { 9h6h }
Hand 1: 63.800% 63.80% 00.00% 20842 1.50 { AA, 99, 66, A9s, A6s, 87s, A9o, A6o, 87o }<--- includes all oesd

Doing the same math he only has to fold 20% of the time for this to be break even.

If he would do this with other combo draws such as any reasonable pair + fd then we get:

20,790 games 0.016 secs 1,299,375 games/sec

Board: As 9s 6d
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 16.469% 16.44% 00.03% 3418 6.00 { 9h6h }
Hand 1: 83.531% 83.50% 00.03% 17360 6.00 { AA, 99, 66, A9s, A6s, Ks6s, 9s6s, 8s7s, 8s6s, 7s6s, A9o, A6o }

16% equity and he needs to fold 54% of the time for me to break even.

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

isnt the guy who raised jamie golds flop bet gonna have a very wide range because jamie gold is so aggro think it makes a shove a lot easier because u know he knows how aggressive jamie plays and he can raise him profitable very light. is it possible he can call u with a worse hand thinking that u know jamie is fos and that u know he knows hes fos and therefore raising jamie very light (probably thinking to deep into it but just a thought)?if u had a fl draw here would it be a good shove?

Re: 100/200NL live 2-pair hand
 

omg all in all ianslaa in all in al in al ina la nai naalnm aina laianlainalin alin alinalin lai nlianlain ali naln al nali