Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly agree with the basic idea that the play is close, and that it increases variance, although at the same time it's probably superior for metagame.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems that most of us agree that in isolation it doesnt matter a lot what we do in this hand as long as we are taking it to showdown somehow.

But what about the metagame? What exactly do we want him to in future hands?

As I understand we want him to keep on betting.

Against a thinking overaggressive player we cant just attack with our good hands, call with the decent ones and fold the bad ones. He will pick up on what we are doing and and understand that his aggression doesnt do what he wants it to do, so he will give us less action.

But a worse overaggressive player will be more focused on his own cards and the betting pattern, not on our cards. This player will just see that we arent very aggressive agaisnt him and will think that he is running us over. When we play passively he will keep on betting either becuse he got some sort of hand or because he got nothing and want us to fold. Against these type of bad LAGs looking scared is best for our metagame.

All that said, I think NAtes warning about not treating all players like they are stupid nonthinking is important. To often 2+2ers seems to split all players into 3 categories: Thinking 2+2ers, textbookplayers (ABC-poker, correct stats but easy 2 read) and idiots. And they treat the idots like they never think so against them we dont have to balance our game or think about our metagame.