#1
|
|||
|
|||
100NL Playing 65s aggressively
Villain is 18/3
Poker Stars, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players LeggoPoker Hand History Converter UTG+1: $69.65 UTG+2: $108.90 MP1: $81.90 MP2: $16.50 Hero (CO): $141.50 BTN: $89.45 SB: $125.25 BB: $14.80 UTG: $87.65 Pre-Flop: 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] dealt to Hero (CO) 2 folds, UTG+2 calls $1, MP1 calls $1, MP2 folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, 4 folds, MP1 calls $5 Flop: ($14.50) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players) MP1 checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $10</font>, MP1 calls $10 Turn: ($34.50) J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 Players) MP1 checks, <font color="red">Hero ??</font> Villain can peel this flop with a wide range of hands. I don't think his range stands a lot of heat against a 2nd barrel. However when he raises my bet, I won't get the proper odds to call. Is bet/folding OK, or am I destined to check here? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
The turn is basically a blank.
I think stack sizes favor a check here because you don't want to bet/fold and miss your chance to stack him on the river if he slowplayed something good. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
I think there's an argument for 2nd barreling because it'd make him fold 77-55, A8, and a lot of other crap, but getting checkraised by a set would suck really bad. Still, I like 2nd barreling better than checking against this type of player because he'll fold on the turn really often.
edit: That's what I'd do if he had a full stack. I didn't notice his stack size until SABR posted while I was typing the above. I agree with what he said. If you hit the straight raise all in if he bets the river |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
Check behind and take a free card. If you hit your staight and he had something with which to c/c the flop planning to crai on the turn, then you'll bust him on the river.
You also retain the option to bluff at a blank river (or scarecard river) if he checks that to you as well. So, check. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
[ QUOTE ]
Check behind and take a free card. If you hit your staight and he had something with which to c/c the flop planning to crai on the turn, then you'll bust him on the river. You also retain the option to bluff at a blank river (or scarecard river) if he checks that to you as well. So, check. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is your best option. Also, alot of weak players at this level will bet the min or something close to it with a real weak hand they just want to showdown. If this happens I raise em pretty big and you will most likely take the pot. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
I usually take the free card here and value bet big when I hit
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
Does this fall under the category of betting may be +EV, but checking is ++EV?
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
[ QUOTE ]
Check behind and take a free card. If you hit your staight and he had something with which to c/c the flop planning to crai on the turn, then you'll bust him on the river. You also retain the option to bluff at a blank river (or scarecard river) if he checks that to you as well. So, check. [/ QUOTE ] at SSNL it's really bad to fire river without betting turn. you get looked up super light. To thinking players, they may/may not fold depending on if river is a face card, but in general it's only one more bet to "see" your cards, and of course you're always on air anyways. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
I realised that it makes a lot of difference whether he had a full stack to start with, or just $80 in this case. You have a lot of FE, because in most cases villain holds a hand here on which he can't risk his whole stack. Sure he could hold a monster and it would suck to get c/rai. But more often he's holding a marginal hand and we can take the pot down with 6 high.
I agree with checking here. Villain only has $65 behind, which makes it less likely that he will fold than if he had still $85 behind. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Playing 65s aggressively
would check
|
|
|