(60) TT overpair in EP

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]
i would lead flop. the pfr will be hard-pressed to do anything but fold if he doesn't have you beat with so many people left to act (sb is a likely check-raiser). you're sort of letting him play perfectly, but sometimes that's still the best choice, and sometimes he will be dumb and call with 77.

if the pfr plays then i shut down. i'd be willing to get it in against one of the others though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? I'm very worried about the SB having me beat if he puts more chips in this pot

[Pudge714]

I would raise preflop. However it doesn't matter that much. Pooh's post about preflop is very good.

Since I limped preflop I check this flop and reevalute when it comes back around.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, check call flop, lead turn and fold to a raise is a pretty good way to find out whether he has an overpair bigger than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to ignore the rest of what you said, but this seems to contradict "the cheap way" approach you're advocating. Check calling and leading is not going to be cheap and you're finding out (maybe) if he has a bigger overpair at a much higher price. At L1 I want to keep my losses small and not go deep figuring out where I'm at. I think a lot of the time, AK will flat call and they are already making a mistake by doing that, and if they fold, great!

If we're talking about maxing value and then talking about being lost to a PF raiser, I want to mitigate between these two...IOW, know right away what kind of strength I am dealing with, but take down a moderate pot a lot of the time. For L1 this is a great way to mitigate bewteen risk and reward on a hand where you're either WAWB.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then again, if you're going to think about taking a check-call approach where you have an over-pair to the board, then betting is better then check-calling and it is much cheaper to find out where you're at.

Again, if "no-set, no-bet" then be weak-tight a$$ and check-fold.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
If you don't want to play this hand cautiously, raise preflop. It's that simple. Also betting might make the hand easier to play since you can fold to a raise from the PF raiser, but then again you might just as well have any two cards here. Also you let your opponent play perfectly and you don't get a c-bet out of whiffed overcards. Betting feels pretty close to plain bad for me. Check call, see what happens on the turn. If he fires again, play poker. Probably fold unless he is very two barrel happy.

By leading out into the preflop raiser here in a multiway pot we are showing real strength, we are repping much more strength than we actually have. That makes the hand easy to play since we are basicly bluffing with a marginal made hand, but is not the way to get value out of our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-call and checking turn is another good line, I agree. But 3 way, I think leading is better...if HU, I like your line. Does that make any sense?

Also, I agree that since you limped you are missing c-Bets...I just don't want to have to play this hand down passively and I usually don't have any idea as to who is "two-barrel" happy and who isn't, so that isnt helpful.

[AMT]

TT is very grey as people have said...id limp UTG but perhaps sitting in UTG+1 id open for a raise. as played preflop i think its fine.

does no one think a hand like A8, XcXc, or 67 gives us action if we lead this flop? not only do i think they will if they are in the least bit aggro, but i think that overall theyll do it often enough that you want to lead the flop even after playing passively preflop.... this is obviously read dependent/table dependent but i still think that leading is fine regardless of whether you limp or raise PF.

also for those saying "no set no bet", i think most people take the approach of "no set/overpair, no bet"...so there is certainly a bit of overpair value to be had with a hand like this, and i think playing 100% (literally) for set value is not optimal.

[schwza]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i would lead flop. the pfr will be hard-pressed to do anything but fold if he doesn't have you beat with so many people left to act (sb is a likely check-raiser). you're sort of letting him play perfectly, but sometimes that's still the best choice, and sometimes he will be dumb and call with 77.

if the pfr plays then i shut down. i'd be willing to get it in against one of the others though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you kidding me? I'm very worried about the SB having me beat if he puts more chips in this pot

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i'm not saying i'm psyched about it, but i think you see draws/99/8x/worse pairs significantly more often than you see 22/55/88.

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

Check-call and checking turn is another good line, I agree. But 3 way, I think leading is better...if HU, I like your line. Does that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think the opposite actually

Also, AK is not a WAWB hand here, 6 outs is too many imo to say WA

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Check-call and checking turn is another good line, I agree. But 3 way, I think leading is better...if HU, I like your line. Does that make any sense?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think the opposite actually

Also, AK is not a WAWB hand here, 6 outs is too many imo to say WA

[/ QUOTE ]

i knew you'd say thaT. 75% with 2 to come is fine especially when you know to cut and run.