tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Okay I am curious as to 2+2s consensus here because I got these blatlently wrong.. and it puzzled me if I was wrong or the book was wrong.

You're on the button with KJs
Unknown UTG raises, unknown CO calls.. You?

You're on the button with T9s
LAG UTG raises, calling station CO calls...You?

explain your answers.

edit:
1/2 structure, 6 handed, the book says 1/2$ limit but doesnt mention how much rake there is.

Im also a tool and realized he was talking about KJo and not KJs.... The T9s question still applies tho.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

both folds. both hands suck against a raise, it could get capped, and also the kjo is so bad against an utg raise and a coldcaller because of the high chance our hand is reverse dominated.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Edit: I'm assuming 5-10 6 handed with 1-2 blinds.

They're both close. Hand #1 I fold, but I question myself about it. I feel like being dominated is too much of an issue. Im assuming the blinds are unknown. If even 1 is a loose bad player I think you should call.

Hand #2 How lag is utg? good lag or bad lag? blinds? Id call vs bad lag, fold vs good one, call with loose blinds.

Not really enough info to go on here.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

Id cc in both of them, 3bet in 1 w/ a read. I feel like I am wrong in both spots, but they are both such pretty hands and I make alot of flushes.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

which tanenbaum book? The "advanced" one he wrote by himself is pretty crappy, but the one he wrote with Lawrence Mak and Terry whats-his-name is fairly good imo.

I think both those hands can be folded.

The kjs hand is close but unknowns typically raise like 17% of hands utg and its hard for the coldcaller to play enough dominated junk for us to get >31% equity.

That plus we get capped a lot and they're unknown so we don't know their postflop tendencies makes me wanna fold.

The t9s hand is a pretty easy fold imo. its not much different from kjo.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

those questions are totally player and rake dependent. 1) I'm likely folding because I assume UTGs have reasonable raising standards until otherwise prove. (I'm confused is it KJo or KJs in 1?)

2) I'll CC (since he is a LAG) if I know that the SB and BB are likely to come along because we have a 5 way pot and I have a great m-way hand and the button.

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

I hated the advanced limit holdthem. I thought most of the advice was terrible for today's midstakes games. If 1 is really KJo I'm folding. 2 I'm usually ccing, sometimes 3bet, rarely fold depending on the particulars (esp. the blinds).

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
2 I'm usually ccing, sometimes 3bet, rarely fold depending on the particulars (esp. the blinds).

[/ QUOTE ]

fluff,

should the fact that the game is presumably high raked and online and only at $1/$2 change our view?

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

[ QUOTE ]
the game is presumably high raked

[/ QUOTE ]

This should make us fold more often, but there should still be cases where CC and 3bet are correct.

The 3bet case (for me) is when the raiser is very loose, and one or both of the blinds are bad and will call for 1 or 2 bets indiscriminately. In this situation we will have basically even equity, but the 3bet gives us a significant postflop strategic advantage, and adds value to our stronger 3bets. When we win after 3betting, we expect that the pot will generally be large. This should negate the impact of the rake somewhat, right?

Re: tanenbaums book - PF questions I want 2+2 input on
 

I fold both.

reason: I'm a nit.
detailed reason: KJs doesn't fair well against an unknown UTG opening range and domination issues are huge.
T9s doesn't have enough equity 3-way.