NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Here is a common situation we come against in NL Holdem and I'm interested to see what you guys think is the best line.

Assume effective stacks are 100bb at low-mid stakes, you are a solid TAG to SLAG player and villain is reasonable but no great shakes (he's no nit nor is he very LAG).

Villain is early to MP in a 6-max game and raises 3.5bb preflop. Action is on you in BB with 66-99. There is merit in 3-betting but assume in this instance recent table image, etc dictates it's not the best move OOP. We call, primarily looking to fit or fold.

The flop is about as unhelpful as it can get being the likes of 665 or 225, or 345, etc. We have an overpair to the board and have a reasonable chance of having the best hand.

However, there are problems:

1. We are OOP
2. If we are ahead villain likely has 6 outs to beat us and we don't know which overcards are a danger.
3. If we are behind we are well behind
4. It's very difficult to exercise pot control in this situation.

Let us also assume we multi-table so we don't have cast iron reads on villains play.

What is our strategy in this sort of hand and why?

We could lead out however villain may very well raise AK/AQ/KQ type hands as our lead looks like it's designed to test the water (I'd usually semi-bluff raise those hands if I held them here facing a lead out).

We could also check-raise with a shut down and fold policy if called or raised. That way we sucker a c-bet (usually) out of hands we beat but give some extra value to hands that beat us. At least with this line we'll usually have a very good idea of where we stand after we raise.

Finally we could check-call. What is our plan from the turn if it's a low brick, or a high card, when do we give up, etc. Villain holding AK may very well double barrel if a Q or J comes and vice versa meaning that any J-A on the turn could put us in a difficult spot if calling the whole way down is our strategy.

Obviously there is just the check-fold option but that seems the weak line here. Variance free and safe but there is no question we are usually folding to the lesser hands given that there are many more combo's of non-pair raising hands than paired hand above ours.

I see this as being a fairly common tricky spot in NLHE poker and I'm interested to read what you regard as the best overall line and why [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Without reads, like in a multitabling sceneario, I would tend to bet out 3/4 pot and then shut down. My second choice would be to either check fold or perhaps call a 1/2 pot bet.

All of the various factors you mentioned are valid. However, to play this hand in a variety of ways you would need to have good reads on the situation.

So the conservative approach is best I feel when you aren't sure of the reads. That means making either one stab on the flop or calling one bet, and then shutting down.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

[ QUOTE ]
So the conservative approach is best I feel when you aren't sure of the reads. That means making either one stab on the flop or calling one bet, and then shutting down.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree that discretion is the better part of valor here. IMO, however, check-calling in this spot, heads up and out of position, is atrocious unless Villain is passive - and I mean 'scared of his own shadow' passive. A free card buys us virtually nothing here - we're 22:1 against to hit - and obviously C/C gives us 0 fold equity.

I often like a C/R here as it does carry a lot of FE as compared to our likely range of pot equity. 100BB stacks are enough that this move won't pot commit us (though below about 60BB this becomes a real consideration), which is good b/c when our C/R gets called (never mind 3-bet) we are ahead, to two decimal places, approximately never.

With shorter stacks (say the 60BB from above) I usually prefer to float and shut down to a raise. I might two-barrel the turn if I get flat-called, but that's verrrry read-dependent.

Mook

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Against a relative unknown I share Mook's views on Check-calling. Villain is far too likely to put pressure on the turn to force a fold.

My problem with leading out is the fact this is lower limit poker. At high stakes a lead out gets more respect here, especially if you balance your strategy of leading out with hands that you'll fold to a raise (i.e the one) with hands you'll not (i.e set, top-two, etc). Even if you did balance your lead out game like this at these levels its not likely to be noticed. This means your pair will quite often be floated by the likes of AK/AQ or possibly semi-bluff raised.

I personally lean towards C/R. As I said above you get some extra value when you are ahead and crucially will nearly always get AK/AQ type hands to fold. The price is you give some extra value to villain when you are behind but then you might (rarely) make him lay down a hand better than yours (such as when you have 77 and he has 88-99 on a 2,4,6 board). My instincts tell me the ends justify the means here but I don't have the maths head to calculate exactly the expectation of such a play. I think it's important to realize you can C/R a light lighter then usual. For example if you usually raise 4x villains bet then 3x will have the same effect on this sort of board.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

This is one of the many situations where "finding out where you're at" is way overrated. The reason is inherent -- you know your behind when he continues with the hand & you know you were in front when you folds because you just made your opponent play perfectly which is not good!

Take the CR option here. It folds out all the hands you beat, and it doesn't fold any of the hands you don't beat.
[ QUOTE ]
We could also check-raise with a shut down and fold policy if called or raised. At least with this line we'll usually have a very good idea of where we stand after we raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
None of that is wrong. But realise that you have turned your hand into a pure bluff. You will never win a showdown with this line. On, e.g. a 632 board after you raise, 84 is arguably a better hand to have than 88. C/R may not be a bad play here, but realise if it's correct with 88 then C/F 84 cannot be right.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

^^^ I hear you and understand your point? My point is.....what is the best line? I see C/R as the lesser of the evils.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Generally, I like the check call on flop, and call or fold on turn if villain bets, depending on villain and size of bet. In most cases, I'd never call 3 barrels without improving. If it goes check/check on turn, I would make a value bet or check/call on river, depending on villain. I find a lot of guys will bluff again on river, and its one of those rare spots it pays to play passively vs somewhat aggressive opponents. A 1/3rd- 1/2 pot bet works better vs more lose-passive opps.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

CR yields the most information IMO, and is strong enough that hands that don't beat us will fold without getting a chance to improve on turn.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

IMHO, I feel some of you are misusing the c/r.

I checkraise: A) when I have the best hand and I want to get one bet out of an inferior hand by allowing him to bluff into me. B) as a bluff when I am against a weak player who will fold good hands. C) as a semi-bluff to either win with a good draw or get a free card. D) against a super aggro who will always bet no matter what.

I don't see this hand applying to any of those situations.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Pants, it applies here does it not....A) when I have the best hand and I want to get one bet out of an inferior hand by allowing him to bluff into me.

In the situation described a PP is still likely to be the best hand unless villains raising range is really, really tight. You therefore c/r to trap his c-bet. If he calls or pushes then its clear you were not ahead on that occasion but I don't think it makes the play -EV.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Pants, it applies here does it not....A) when I have the best hand and I want to get one bet out of an inferior hand by allowing him to bluff into me.

In the situation described a PP is still likely to be the best hand unless villains raising range is really, really tight. You therefore c/r to trap his c-bet. If he calls or pushes then its clear you were not ahead on that occasion but I don't think it makes the play -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But I feel this is a way ahead/way behind situation. And in those situations, it is generally better to keep the pot under control. He may very well call a c/r with overcards and if one hits on the turn, you are in a bad spot.

I'm with Doyle Brunson on this one. I think c/r is overused and expensive in the long term.

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps. But I feel this is a way ahead/way behind situation. And in those situations, it is generally better to keep the pot under control. He may very well call a c/r with overcards and if one hits on the turn, you are in a bad spot.

[/ QUOTE ]
But honestly, I'm not all that concerned what hits on the turn. If he calls my C/R, most of the time I'm done with the hand. I'm check-raising because when he has anything less than an overpair - i.e. the vast majority of the time - my C/R will often take down the pot, including his continuation bet.

Pot control is only important when you intend to see a showdown, and an unimproved middle pair isn't usually the kind of hand I want to do that with ... especially out of position and flying blind against a PF raise.

Mook

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

First off, this is a great question posed by Acevader. Having said that, I am going to ignore it for the moment to focus on the issue of bluff check raising continuation bets. As Pokerfarian mentioned, a check raise will turn a hand like 88 into a bluff. He also correctly notes that turning it into a bluff might be the best option.

Given the flop texture and villain’s hand range, he likely has no draw and no hand unless he started with a large pocket pair. He might bluff back at you if he views this flop as unlikely to have hit your range, but in the live games I play, most players won’t bluff you back and they don’t draw to 6 questionable outs.

What makes the check raise attractive is that villains are continuation betting flops that are extremely unlikely to hit their hand range. You must make players pay if they consistently c-bet without regard to board texture and can only represent an overpair or a 6 outer. Obviously, the viability of a check raise bluff depends on hand ranges, continuation bet percentage, and images.

Hand Range: Tighter the villain the more likely he will have a big pocket pair which makes it less likely he will fold to your check raise. This is somewhat counteracted because tighter players tend not to play back at you with air. Looser players might end up calling with a draw but are less likely to have a made hand. They are also more likely to play back at you.

Image: I will also check raise with my big hands and I am generally viewed as a tight player. Both these factors make my bluff more believable.

Continuation bet percentage: The higher the continuation bet percentage the less likely villain has a hand on a given continuation bet. If he sometimes checks behind on dry flops, then it might not be profitable to check raise bluff. Usually his preflop raise percentage considered along with his continuation bet percentage can give you a great idea if he is betting with air.

Now back to Acevader’s question. In many situations I do think it is best to turn your 88 into a bluff. Why?
I am unlikely to get paid off by weaker hands anyway so no big loss there.
Villain likely has overcards that I don’t want to draw against me.
Bluffing exploits a current game weakness that some players always c-bet
You can change your bluff into pot management if he checks behind. Then use the showdown value of 88 to your benefit.
It works well with my overall approach. I will check raise my sets sometimes.

It is important for me to reiterate that the check raise depends critically on how often the opponent is continuation betting. The higher that percentage the better the value of the check raise.

I could give you my thoughts on how to play the hand but you can basically rationalize any line based on hand ranges, continuation bet percentages, floating percentage, etc. I would recommend that you develop a simple excel model and play around with the numbers to reflect different player types and bet sizes.

Keith

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

^^^ Very good post - like it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Personally, I agree with Mook.

If you assume you are behind after a flop where you have an overpair, you're going to have a real hard time making money IMO. A 3.5 raise from the average player preflop could be anything from 78s to AA in my experience.

And on a board that pairs low or has a low straight draw on it, the CR is going to get a fold from most anyone who does not have you beat. Remember, you JUST CALLED pre-flop, and depending on position and how many limpers there were you could have been calling with almost anything.

If you're scared CR-ing will be too expensive, then make a pot sized bet on the flop.

Just my .02

Re: NL - unimproved middling overpairs (best line in theory)
 

Check raise is by far the best option. If you flat call the villain is not gonna put anymore money in the pot unless he improves or a scare card comes that he can use to take you off your hand. He also has the option of firing a second barrel to represent an overpair and can take you off the hand this way too. If you cr and he calls 90% of the time you are beat and you are out cheap.
I mix it up between leading and check raising in these kind of spots. If the villain flat calls a small leading bet on the flop he very likely has overcards and 80% of the time he'll fold to a decent size follow-up bet on the turn.
As jack_plyr says it's all about the villains preflop raising frequency. If he's raising alot remember he has nothing most of the time so don't let yourself be pushed around.