Two Plus Two Newer Archives - back into 2 pair vs TAG

Two Plus Two Newer Archives (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/index.php)

- Small Stakes (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/forumdisplay.php?f=41)

- - back into 2 pair vs TAG (http://archives1.twoplustwo.com/showthread.php?t=553205)

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
check-call. there might be a little merit in a bet-call, but I just think he ends up with the goods too much and i don't think he value raises with AK. And if i bet I'd make it a small blocking bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

paul, curious why you'd make it a small blocking bet rather than something for straight up value.

I expect him to just call w/ all worse 2 pairs, AK and maybe some worse aces but I doubt there are that many in his range.

problem w/ betting as I see it is my hand is virtually face up and should be pretty easy for him to deduce what I have by the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry i just looked at stack sizes, but let's assume that we were 100bb deep to begin the hand. I'd bet 45-50 on the river, trying to induce a bluff push from a worse hand. So the point of the small bet on the river is to look to the Villain that we bet small with a missed draw or a weak hand on the river leaving us room to fold if Villain pushes.

Given the actual stack sizes, I kinda hate betting 3/4 of the pot and having to call a push. The reason being is that some Villain's will raise with A9 (weaker 2-pair) and others will just call with AK. But I think most Villain's are raising with us with all the better hands.

So I'd lean even more toward check-call.

However, if you really thinking you're losing value by not betting...I'd lean toward a pot size bet on the river because Villain's stats suggests that he's decent and our line is really suspect in the sense that our range should be polarized as nuts or air and given our line up to the point, it'll look like air. So our bet size on the river should try and induce the Villain into making a mistake by changing his calling range. Also, since we'll have to call a push, we'll be getting better odds (even though this isn't a good reason to bet large by itself on the end...just happens to be a bonus.)

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

[ QUOTE ]
who is villain?

[/ QUOTE ]

scom bridae

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

don't know him.

This is a good spot to bet/fold river. He'll look us up a little lighter since the FD missed and I doubt he ever raises worse.

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

scom bridae is solid but not great, and will likely call with AK if you lead river even if he does think you very well may have AJ

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

[ QUOTE ]
don't know him.

This is a good spot to bet/fold river. He'll look us up a little lighter since the FD missed and I doubt he ever raises worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, I led out for $59 I think? thoughts on that size? and he thought for a couple secs before shoving.

right after he raised I hated my bet cause I was like "omfg it's so obvious I have AJ..." and thought he might have the balls to try and bluff me off it.

I think overall bet/fold is pretty solid w/ this hand but against a good tag I'm not sure.

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

Dude, no way he's trying to bluff you off AJ here. I don't even try to bluffs regs I think are good off that, because really, even good regs at 200NL seem to generally be semi-stations and have leaks.

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

[ QUOTE ]
Dude, no way he's trying to bluff you off AJ here. I don't even try to bluffs regs I think are good off that, because really, even good regs at 200NL seem to generally be semi-stations and have leaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, maybe I'm overthinking things lately.

thanks for the reality check spivey

Re: back into 2 pair vs TAG

nobody is trying to get you off AJ here.

Just skimmed all the replies...bet/fold is much much better than c/c imo.