Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
 

Villian is 41/26/2 over 175 hands

PokerStars 10/20 Hold'em (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button caps</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (9 SB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero?

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

Seems to be a wa/wb spot. I c/c down usually...sometimes finding a fold if two broadway cards hit and hes still firing.

Bet/Call down is prob ok too.

Edit- Bet if he starts checking.

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

I almost always c/r the flop against this guy.

I would never donk the flop.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I almost always c/r the flop against this guy.

I would never donk the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Im assuming call down if he three bets?

What if he just calls...and raises a blank turn.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I almost always c/r the flop against this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Seems like a super good time to let this guy keep the lead. I like passivity here a lot.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Why? Seems like a super good time to let this guy keep the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

He will bet the flop 100% of the time, and we have an equity edge. I don't think we can assume that this type of player will 3 barrel off with total trash all the time if we tend to play our pairs passively against him. He will pick up on it, and start checking behind turn and/or rivers with UI Ax hands he would pay off with. I think tending to is less exploitable than tending to c/c.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? Seems like a super good time to let this guy keep the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

He will bet the flop 100% of the time, and we have an equity edge. I don't think we can assume that this type of player will 3 barrel off with total trash all the time if we tend to play our pairs passively against him. He will pick up on it, and start checking behind turn and/or rivers with UI Ax hands he would pay off with. I think tending to is less exploitable than tending to c/c.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah people need to quit assuming that their opponents are total jackasses that will autobet every street without thinking. You have a very nice hand with MPTK, the backdoor nut flush draw, and reverse domination against his Ax hands, and the T is a little bit too low to hit a large portion of his preflop capping range. I think this almost always a check-raise, with occasional exceptions made for balancing.

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

I like a lead. This type of player will raise the flop almost 100%. Especially when the flop has obvious draws that we might be donking. c/c turn unimproved and bet/call river works fine against a special kind of donk, but usually c/c river.

By c/r-ing we're allowing him to play almost perfectly vs us. He calls flop correctly, unless he has AK/AQ/AJ, because we priced him in by bloating the pot, then folds ui on the turn or raises our bet if he has us beat.

Another thing is that when we improve our strength on the turn by hitting an A or 7 we get a c/r in for a big bet.

[ QUOTE ]
people need to quit assuming that their opponents are total jackasses that will autobet every street without thinking

[ QUOTE ]
Villian is 41/26/2

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
But these guys usually are jackasses that will autobet every street.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I like a lead. This type of player will raise the flop almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
By c/r-ing we're allowing him to play almost perfectly vs us...then folds ui on the turn or raises our bet if he has us beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your model of this opponent strikes me as a tad inconsistent.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like a lead. This type of player will raise the flop almost 100%.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
By c/r-ing we're allowing him to play almost perfectly vs us...then folds ui on the turn or raises our bet if he has us beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your model of this opponent strikes me as a tad inconsistent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean

I just think that if he's the type of overaggro lagtard that are common at these stakes he'll probably just go ahead and 3bet our c/r and then bet the turn. Then we're taking the maximum spew line if he has us beat.

Also, if we c/r the turn, he just calls, and then raises our turn bet, are you folding? How bout if the turn is a heart?

I think a c/r lets him control the hand (i.e. control how big the pot becomes) and therefore we'll spew more when behind, and win less when ahead.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah people need to quit assuming that their opponents are total jackasses that will autobet every street without thinking. You have a very nice hand with MPTK, the backdoor nut flush draw, and reverse domination against his Ax hands, and the T is a little bit too low to hit a large portion of his preflop capping range.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience there are so many players that never ever pick up patterns. U raise A3o on button, they 3bet from blinds, flop is Axx, u call flop, turn, river and they show u their pocketpair. 3 hands later they do the same.

Not saying its bad to checkraise this flop, but it can be very hard to play hand if he raise turn or river. But more importantly, since he is an aggressive 50/25 guy we normally shouldnt get fancy with something little or bad draws out of position, so Im not sure how he will understand we got a pair whenever we start to checkcall, since we will often play a draw or just overcards the same way.

Of course, if we now he is thinking we got to balance and not only attack with ok hands.

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

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience there are so many players that never ever pick up patterns. U raise A3o on button, they 3bet from blinds, flop is Axx, u call flop, turn, river and they show u their pocketpair. 3 hands later they do the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he should be betting most pocket pairs on each street throughout this hand if you're just checking and calling. The question is whether he continues to bet AKo or 98s the whole way through. Most guys don't, at least not all of the time, so it's "scary" to have to pay a bet off on the river.

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

[ QUOTE ]
and we have an equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten.

I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and we have an equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten.

I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the option where he bets with his winning hands and just checks with his losing hands? Because that's what happens a lot of the time when you play passive.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and we have an equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten.

I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the option where he bets with his winning hands and just checks with his losing hands? Because that's what happens a lot of the time when you play passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just speaking about the flop here, is your comment about the rest of the hand? Because on the flop, if he bets with his winning hands and checks with his losing hands, then a checkraise is really awful, we'll be behind every time!

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and we have an equity edge.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten.

I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the option where he bets with his winning hands and just checks with his losing hands? Because that's what happens a lot of the time when you play passive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm just speaking about the flop here, is your comment about the rest of the hand? Because on the flop, if he bets with his winning hands and checks with his losing hands, then a checkraise is really awful, we'll be behind every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises.

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

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I wrote that I was actually thinking of leading lots of turns. But as I think about it, in practice he may find a fold with hands we beat and that kind of sucks. I still think check/calling, donking the turn, and balancing it with other hands is best in theory, though.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I wrote that I was actually thinking of leading lots of turns. But as I think about it, in practice he may find a fold with AK-AJ and that kind of sucks. I still think check/calling, donking the turn, and balancing it with other hands is best in theory, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those hands (especially AK) get shown down an awful lot unless some draws get completed on the board that mean he can't beat a semi-bluff. Besides that, there are some hands like KQ that you really wouldn't mind him folding on the turn.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I wrote that I was actually thinking of leading lots of turns. But as I think about it, in practice he may find a fold with AK-AJ and that kind of sucks. I still think check/calling, donking the turn, and balancing it with other hands is best in theory, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think those hands (especially AK) get shown down an awful lot unless some draws get completed on the board that mean he can't beat a semi-bluff. Besides that, there are some hands like KQ that you really wouldn't mind him folding on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, then. So I guess my claim is that the flop checkraise does nothing that a check/call/donk doesn't do, but the checkraise does give him an extra chance to get a third small bet in when you're behind.

I was worried about donking the turn, as opposed to leading after a checkraise, not because of theoretical considerations but rather because I don't know how he'll react to the donk and thus I can't make a good plan. It seems you have this under control, though, so if you have this read I think I like the turn donk.

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

Nate,

would you say that playing this hand aggressively vs. passively is slightly more +ev (because the lose:win ratio gets lower) and also comes with slightly more variance (because we're talking about more bets)??????

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? Seems like a super good time to let this guy keep the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

He will bet the flop 100% of the time, and we have an equity edge. I don't think we can assume that this type of player will 3 barrel off with total trash all the time if we tend to play our pairs passively against him. He will pick up on it, and start checking behind turn and/or rivers with UI Ax hands he would pay off with. I think tending to is less exploitable than tending to c/c.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah people need to quit assuming that their opponents are total jackasses that will autobet every street without thinking. You have a very nice hand with MPTK, the backdoor nut flush draw, and reverse domination against his Ax hands, and the T is a little bit too low to hit a large portion of his preflop capping range. I think this almost always a check-raise, with occasional exceptions made for balancing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate,

It's been my experience that most players will bet the flop + turn before they stop and check if they have a pair, since we "have to" peel any flopped gutter or OCs b/c of the potsize.

Given that, we may choose to take a different line on the turn or river(donk, etc) to flatten that ratio (3sbs when ahead, 5sbs when behind) but in general this differential is a factor of position, not being outplayed - if this were bb vs sb we would be nearly always be 5sbs to 5sbs since he'll bet forced to bet stuff like AKo UI on the river OOP (safe-ish boards), because he has to call it anyway.

IMO, taking an aggressive line on the flop doesn't flatten the ratio so much as increase the magnitude, since he will still be able to take us to value-town with better hands and may find folds with worse.

Surf

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

I really don't understand this thread [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I can only assume that the 45/26 Lagtards @10/20 are much smarter than those at 5/10 because they fold Ace high and don't 3bet flop checkraises with trash like oh, I don't know...all the [censored] time?

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

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand this thread [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I can only assume that the 45/26 Lagtards @10/20 are much smarter than those at 5/10 because they fold Ace high and don't 3bet flop checkraises with trash like oh, I don't know...all the [censored] time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget about folding ace-high. I assume you're talking about the spot where I say I don't know how he'll react to a donk. That's just me being dumb.

As for 3-betting on the flop, what do you do when that happens? Do you let him take the free card? If he does, it's the same as check/call donk when you're ahead. But how about when you're behind? Are you claiming that when he 3-bets the flop and bets the turn, we're actually ahead close to 50%? Since we're assuming our equity is roughly 50/50 without any additional knowledge, this just can't be true.

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

[ QUOTE ]
Nate,

would you say that playing this hand aggressively vs. passively is slightly more +ev (because the lose:win ratio gets lower) and also comes with slightly more variance (because we're talking about more bets)??????

[/ QUOTE ]

It's absolutely higher variance but given this particular board/opponent I think it probably earns you a couple of bucks.

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

i'm watching family feud right now and god people are ugly.

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

c/r flop, then either c/c turn or keep betting depending on what lands.

41/25/2 types will still autobet turn (if that's what we want) once we provoke them by giving up the lead from the flop.

if an Ace lands, then we often get &gt;1 extra bb using this sequence if they have the case AK.

if they don't 3 bet flop, this narrows their range at least a bit (compared to cc from flop), so this line gives us more info by the turn about whether we want to induce bluffs or lead the turn/ river in the hope of making an extra bet on the river for AK or similar.

and we are putting in more money on flop when we are prob ahead of their range

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

wow, seems like this spot is genuinely close. I prefer a c/r for the following reasons:

1. It's a blind battle and I have a pair
2. It's a blind battle and I don't think capping narrows this dude's range that much
3. I have a pair vs. a LAG
4. I really don't like taking a passive/WA/WB line because I'm rarely way ahead
5. This line makes the most money when he's reverse dominated and an Ace comes.

I was planning on calling down a flop 3bet or turn raise most of the time as long as the board doesn't get too ugly.

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

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why? Seems like a super good time to let this guy keep the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

He will bet the flop 100% of the time, and we have an equity edge. I don't think we can assume that this type of player will 3 barrel off with total trash all the time if we tend to play our pairs passively against him. He will pick up on it, and start checking behind turn and/or rivers with UI Ax hands he would pay off with. I think tending to is less exploitable than tending to c/c.

Though, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah people need to quit assuming that their opponents are total jackasses that will autobet every street without thinking. You have a very nice hand with MPTK, the backdoor nut flush draw, and reverse domination against his Ax hands, and the T is a little bit too low to hit a large portion of his preflop capping range. I think this almost always a check-raise, with occasional exceptions made for balancing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate,

It's been my experience that most players will bet the flop + turn before they stop and check if they have a pair, since we "have to" peel any flopped gutter or OCs b/c of the potsize.

Given that, we may choose to take a different line on the turn or river(donk, etc) to flatten that ratio (3sbs when ahead, 5sbs when behind) but in general this differential is a factor of position, not being outplayed - if this were bb vs sb we would be nearly always be 5sbs to 5sbs since he'll bet forced to bet stuff like AKo UI on the river OOP (safe-ish boards), because he has to call it anyway.

IMO, taking an aggressive line on the flop doesn't flatten the ratio so much as increase the magnitude, since he will still be able to take us to value-town with better hands and may find folds with worse.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very common problem and obviously there are a lot of different dimensions to it, the most important probably being how often the opponent will call down with a hand like ace-high, how often he'll continue to put bets in with an inferior hand if given the lead, and how often he'll reraise with a bluff or a worse hand. 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.

With all that said, it's important to recognize that it's *not* as simple as saying that you're risking two bets to win one, as you might be in a parallel situation on the river, because out of position you have less control of the action on future streets.

FWIW, I think it should be fairly self-evident that check-raising is incorrect if you have less than 50% equity in the pot, provided that there is no chance of getting the opponent to make an incorrect fold. On the other hand, I would think that with certain rare exceptions, check-raising is almost always superior to check-calling down if we have at least 60% equity in the pot (though it might sometimes be inferior to other aggressive lines like check-raising the turn or call-call-donking). So the playing field is effectively between 50% and 60% equity, which is where considerations like opponent texture and board texture and metagame come into play, and our hand here falls right in the middle of that range.

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

[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand this thread [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
I can only assume that the 45/26 Lagtards @10/20 are much smarter than those at 5/10 because they fold Ace high and don't 3bet flop checkraises with trash like oh, I don't know...all the [censored] time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't think this spot is all that close and think the quoted post sums it up. I also think that c/r'ing the turn is a decent option against many lags.

Who cares if its higher variance--human poker is all luck anyhow.

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

[ QUOTE ]
human poker is all luck anyhow

[/ QUOTE ]

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.