Squeeeeze

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]
all,

is hand 1 a fold then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[antidan444]

bilbo-san and others,

Here's the problem I have with the second hand: The risk-reward ratio just seems too high. We've got three people in the hand, and we have a good but not great hand that is going to be hard to play postflop if we miss. Sure, squeezing here may take it down right now, and a flop c-bet may take it down, too. But we're risking an awful lot to find out, especially at these stakes, where people love to call. I feel more often than not we're just slamming ourselves into a brick wall, with no need, when we also have the option of calling and trying to spike a 9.

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm used to 10-handed, but I'll give them a go.

1) fold. out of position with a dominated hand and UTG has you out-stacked.
2) pretty much my standard play, although you can consider calling here.
3) I'd likely call here and hope for a monster. This play isn't in my game, though I'm thinking it should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, ya, 10 handed AJo is poison. Hell, AQo is poison vs. 10-handed UTG raisers.

The problem with 3) is that you don't flop a monster often enough (and what's a "monster")?

You'll flop draws, but it's really hard to extract on draws OOP.

And some flops that you might consider monsters are in fact, very obvious to the other players (77x, 66x), and you aren't likely to get much action.

And some flops that look monstrous are in fact very high-variance flops where someone else may have flopped a big draw (76A).

Now, if you raise and are called, there is practically no way that the caller is going to ever think you hit the 77x flop, or have a 7 with a better kicker.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
bilbo-san and others,

Here's the problem I have with the second hand: The risk-reward ratio just seems too high. We've got three people in the hand, and we have a good but not great hand that is going to be hard to play postflop if we miss. Sure, squeezing here may take it down right now, and a flop c-bet may take it down, too. But we're risking an awful lot to find out, especially at these stakes, where people love to call. I feel more often than not we're just slamming ourselves into a brick wall, with no need, when we also have the option of calling and trying to spike a 9.

Maybe I'm wrong. I've been wrong before.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is 99 hard to play when you miss? If you get called, you bet just about any flop. If you are called, you give up unless you hit a 9. If you get called by 2 or 3 people, fuhgetaboudit and c/f anything but a 9.

It's very easy to play. The sum of the probabilities of taking it down now + taking it down with a CB are more profitable than calling for set value.

The exception is if you are playing with some 55/10/2 types. Then, I'm nut-pedalling 99. But this discussion isn't geared towards that type of table texture (I hope).

[Nikademus]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with 3) is that you don't flop a monster often enough (and what's a "monster")?

You'll flop draws, but it's really hard to extract on draws OOP.

And some flops that you might consider monsters are in fact, very obvious to the other players (77x, 66x), and you aren't likely to get much action.

And some flops that look monstrous are in fact very high-variance flops where someone else may have flopped a big draw (76A).

Now, if you raise and are called, there is practically no way that the caller is going to ever think you hit the 77x flop, or have a 7 with a better kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. I've realized I'm not playing this situation correctly. I'm putting myself into situations where, if I were to win, I won't win much.

[antidan444]

I just feel you get called down too often to make this more profitable than simply playing for set value at these stakes. I understand how you'd play it if you choose to squeeze, I just don't like the risk-reward ratio compared to just calling preflop.

[Dan Bitel]

antidan,

my biggest problem with playing for set value is that you'll rarely stack any1 if you hit, unless you get very lucky and the PFR has AA/KK. IME, in multiway pots, people play very straightforward and even a bit cautious

[antidan444]

When I hit a set in a four-way pot at 50NL or 100NL, I get paid off plenty.

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
I just feel you get called down too often to make this more profitable than simply playing for set value at these stakes. I understand how you'd play it if you choose to squeeze, I just don't like the risk-reward ratio compared to just calling preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

What *worse* hands call down at these stakes (and if they did, why would that be bad)?

Villains will obviously call the flop if they out-flop you, but that isn't the point.

If your point is that UTG always has a better hand preflop then we aren't talking about the same thing when I say "wide raising range". If you think that Villains always outflop you, then we have different understandings of probability. If you think that Villains always call the flop with unimproved overcards in RE-raised pots then we are talking about different types of Villains, and I agree that we shouldn't be re-popping 99 against them.

[terp]

hand 1 works if UTG raiser is pretty LAG and you're willing to play some poker...but without knowing this i drop it.

others look good.