defending blinds in NL w/ small PP

[bravos1]

These types of hands beat my head in when thinking NL as they are far different than in limit.

Example..

Assume 100BBs effective stacks
Hero dealt 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in BB

Folded to CO who 4x's it, BTN folds, SB folds..

if CO is uber LAG, hero?
CO is normal?
CO is TAG?
CO is nitty?

Flop is 26Tr...
if we 3bet PF, obv we have to cbet a flop like this y/n?

How do we play a flop if above we call?

[futuredoc85]

1)usually fold
2)if normal means a random then usually call
3)if TAG= solid and can get away from hands then fold
4)call b/c you have the implied odds you need vs a nits range

ya bet flop usually. if you call then c/f that flop

there are exceptions to all of these but in general call when you feel CO is the type to give you enough of his stack to make the call +EV when you hit.

[Rev. Good Will]

hey bravos,

go to this thread, it's long I know, but read through it, mainly Paul Thompson's answer sheet.

[Josh.]

i'm pretty sure i've never folded a pocket pair for a single raise with full stacks

i don't 3-bet 55 or other small-medium pairs. some people do it, but they have good calling value and are clunky and awkward in 3-bet pots, especially out of position.

once you see that flop, it depends on your opponent's tendencies. if he's loose and aggressive, you c/f. if he's tight, you can sometimes lead into him or check-raise as a bluff. if he's passive and straightforward but c-bets a normal amount, you can call the flop and hope to check it down

[KingOtter]

[ QUOTE ]
hey bravos,

go to this thread, it's long I know, but read through it, mainly Paul Thompson's answer sheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Woo, got 75% on that one! That's a C!

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
hey bravos,

go to this thread, it's long I know, but read through it, mainly Paul Thompson's answer sheet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rev,

Thanks a ton! That thread really brings up some concepts that that I never really think much about being primarily a limit player. I really need to start thinking about hand ranges, and player types in relation to thinking about how I can stack them, not just how often I am ahead.

Unfortunately I don't think I have ever said to myself, hmmm this guys opening range is fairly small, so if I hit, I have a strong chance of taking his stack. This type of thinking is very diff from limit.

It's this kind of thinking that reinforces the theory that when playing NL, you are playing to take stacks.

I'm really starting to see how poorly I play NL, which is demoralizing but good at the same time since I know I have SO MUCH to work on.

It also shows how crappy the average NL10-NL100 players are [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

I'm not sure how much NL I'll really be playing, but finding news ways to think about poker are always good fun and usually very profitable if applied correctly.

Wook, I'm glad you got this forum going.. as it has been vry good/informative so far and FWIW, this forum has been much easier for me to follow than SSNL. This is no knock on the posters there, but this forum has been in lock-step with my thoughts and IMO done a good job so far for anyone looking to go LIMIT->NL.

[Buzz-cp]

[ QUOTE ]
Lag 1)usually fold


[/ QUOTE ]

obv there are different kinds of lags..snowflakes... but I can't imagine folding a potential hand that may stack this kind of villain.

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lag 1)usually fold


[/ QUOTE ]

obv there are different kinds of lags..snowflakes... but I can't imagine folding a potential hand that may stack this kind of villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

LAG is the type of villain you are least likely to stack. not that calling is bad but you are much more likely to stack a nit than a LAG b/c a LAG is less likely to make a hand worth stacking off with due to his wider range.

[Josh.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lag 1)usually fold


[/ QUOTE ]

obv there are different kinds of lags..snowflakes... but I can't imagine folding a potential hand that may stack this kind of villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

LAG is the type of villain you are least likely to stack. not that calling is bad but you are much more likely to stack a nit than a LAG b/c a LAG is less likely to make a hand worth stacking off with due to his wider range.

[/ QUOTE ]


i disagree. lags are more likely to bluff off their stacks and overplay one pair hands

[Grunch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lag 1)usually fold


[/ QUOTE ]

obv there are different kinds of lags..snowflakes... but I can't imagine folding a potential hand that may stack this kind of villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

LAG is the type of villain you are least likely to stack. not that calling is bad but you are much more likely to stack a nit than a LAG b/c a LAG is less likely to make a hand worth stacking off with due to his wider range.

[/ QUOTE ]


i disagree. lags are more likely to bluff off their stacks and overplay one pair hands

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I'm with Josh on this.