Correct my problems with 88-TT

[Christian_Peters]

Here's the deal. I suck with these hands. Here's how I've been playing them.
In a typical tight/aggressive .5/1 PS table - with about 3 on average seeing the flop and 90% of pots are raised PF:

If there is a raise in front of me, I prefer to 3-bet with these hands. I reason that they become much easier to play Post Flop if you 3-bet them PF. So, here's how I handle them:

If there's a raise in front of me from any non-rock player, I will 3-bet them. Typically, it's folded around to the player I have isolated.

If he caps, I interpret that as him having a bigger pocket pair 90% of the time (But he will occassionally do this with AKo or AKs). So, if he caps I feel I am drawing to two outs.

If he caps PF and then leads the flop, I'm done with the hand. Is this correct? Should I be calling one here and then folding the turn UI? How about a R/F? A R/F makes some sense to me because if you're just called, you will likely be able to get the free card. And if he caps the flop, you know you are toast.

How about if the only broadway overcard is the A? You can be reasonably sure that he is scared of the A - he will have JJ-KK more often than he will have AA. And anyone who caps PF will auto bet the flop, so does a raise make sense here? You will probably get two cards for the price of 1BB - then if we don't spike one of our 2 outs, we will have to fold to his River bet because we are beat too often to make calling profitable.

How about CC PF with 88-TT? Seems stupid to me because you've invested 1BB to spike your set when you probably won't get paid that we'll anyway - because the hand will probably be 4 way at most. And I can just imagine Sklansky smacking me upside the head after I CC with one of these medium pairs.

Maybe I just need to be folding 88-99 to a raise more often than I am. And maybe until I get better at playing TT postflop, I need to be folding it as well in most circumstances.

If anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears. I think misplaying these more often than any other holding. Seasoned advice is badly needed.

[Zeldark]

I don't particularly like it. In my (steadily improving) opinion...

The whole point of medium-low pairs is to land a set and get loads of bets when unsuspecting opponents overplay their top pair or perhaps 2 pair. I think I'd base my actions on the average of the table. If it is loose (3 or 4+ others cold calling and perhaps the blinds getting involved) I'm going to call myself. It is my understanding that medium to small pocket pairs play best in many-handed unraised pots. You need high implied odds to make up for the times you will not land a set (I think it's 9-1 against yes?). By isolating with the medium pairs you put yourself into a sort of difficult situation to play in heads up. While you are correct that if he reraises you can isolate his holdings further, but if he just calls and an overcard comes that is not an Ace, the correct line to take could be blurry.

If the table was on the tight side, I'd probably fold them all, maybe reraise TT if I was feeling lucky.

[bennyhana]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't particularly like it. In my (steadily improving) opinion...

The whole point of medium-low pairs is to land a set and get loads of bets when unsuspecting opponents overplay their top pair or perhaps 2 pair. I think I'd base my actions on the average of the table. If it is loose (3 or 4+ others cold calling and perhaps the blinds getting involved) I'm going to call myself. It is my understanding that medium to small pocket pairs play best in many-handed unraised pots. You need high implied odds to make up for the times you will not land a set (I think it's 9-1 against yes?). By isolating with the medium pairs you put yourself into a sort of difficult situation to play in heads up. While you are correct that if he reraises you can isolate his holdings further, but if he just calls and an overcard comes that is not an Ace, the correct line to take could be blurry.

If the table was on the tight side, I'd probably fold them all, maybe reraise TT if I was feeling lucky.

[/ QUOTE ]

this post is teh nuts.

OP, your post is a bit spewy. Always 3 betting these hands, or always raising them preflop, is a mistake. Read what Zeldark wrote, then read it again. Then open SSH to page 66 and read that, then read it again.

[Christian_Peters]

THX. I've got a leak to fix.

[Zeldark]

[ QUOTE ]
THX. I've got a leak to fix.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the analogies that I like to think of is the boat and the storm.

Everyone has leaks. Some have more than others. Some leaks will make a big difference, but some will not. The stakes are like the ocean and storms. At lower stakes it's fairly calm, and you can manage if you keep the critical leaks plugged.

The higher you go, the more treacherous and dangerous the storms get, the more all the little leaks will matter if you want to sail in those waters and not sink. And like I'll typically ask... "Am I wrong?"

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THX. I've got a leak to fix.

[/ QUOTE ]
One of the analogies that I like to think of is the boat and the storm.

Everyone has leaks. Some have more than others. Some leaks will make a big difference, but some will not. The stakes are like the ocean and storms. At lower stakes it's fairly calm, and you can manage if you keep the critical leaks plugged.

The higher you go, the more treacherous and dangerous the storms get, the more all the little leaks will matter if you want to sail in those waters and not sink. And like I'll typically ask... "Am I wrong?"

[/ QUOTE ]

More importantly than the size of the bets when you are making errors is the frequency you are making them. If you always fold royal flushes you have a leak, but it's always going to be smaller than, say, always defending your blinds against a raise, which happens probably several order of magnitudes more often.

In other words, I'd rather make a $100 error once every 100k hands than a $1 error every 100 hands.

[Zeldark]

That seems like more of an agreement and add-on than an arguement. Had I fleshed out my post further, it would've been fairly similar. There are errors you can make that will have relatively less impact on your game than others.

Going looney and deciding to relentlessly (and foolishly) cap every hand you ever decide to try to bluff will much worse than perhaps sloppy attempts at stealing the blinds after everyone else folds. If you played well otherwise, you could survive I think and blunder with your steals. But if you have this twisted policy of spewing so much money everytime you bluff ever, you'll soon be considering whether you want to invest in a another bankroll.

Which is NOT to say that continuously failing to steal/defend the blinds is an insignificant mistake. Sloppy blind steals/defense is a significant part of my current slump (among other things). I think I've flagged all of my immediate survival leaks, I just need to get all the plugs securely in place.

[johno]

Yes, these medium PP do play 'best' in multiway when they hit a set, but that doesn't sound like it's going to happen at this table.

They also are strong HU, in fact a slight favourite against overcards. So the question becomes are you going to dump this potentially strong hand? Are you only going to play them in LP, with 3/4 callers ahead of you - this will mean a lot of folding on tight aggressive tables- I don't think SSH poker is going to win consistently enough.

Anybody PFR 8%+, must be raising with 'non-premium' hands. As you suggest, isolating these players HU with a re-raise is likely to be + EV, especially as you have positional advantage.

As to how to play them post-flop, I'm not sure that I am the best to advise you as my HU play often sucks! My observations are -

1) Opponent will miss the flop 60-70% of the time - therefore any pair is a strong hand.

2) Betting and raising is less likely to indicate strength - and therefore more likely to be a bluff.

3) Check-raising and capping/persistent betting more likely to indicate strength.

In my opinion, the art of HU is to determine what level of aggression indicates your opponent has you beaten. Some players will cap pre-flop routinely, and re-raise the flop with overcards, knowing that a lot of players will fold to the aggression. Others, as you suggest, will only cap with premium hands. Reads will become increasingly important. Flop texture wil be important.

But, I think folding these potentially strong hands in position against loose, aggressive players, when you could be winning post-flop 60-70% of the time is a mistake. Plus you'll still hit your sets, with potential for winning large pot if opponent hits pair. Plus you'll get more action on your premium hands. Plus it's fun as you get to play more hands.

Just my two pennies - back to work now.

[Zeldark]

There are the 3 categories that SSHE rates their hands. High card Strength, Suitedness, Connectedness. Which I'm guessing you know. I'm trying to develop attaching a 4th attribute to each of them: Ease of play. Since I am not an expert just yet, knowing which hands will be easy to play post-flop is important. As I get better, I can add more hands in more situations (or come to my senses and remove some as needed).

Pocket Pairs are of the "easy to play" variety. You hit your set or you don't. If you do not hit and you do not fold, they can become very difficult to play. If you are behind you will often have only 2 outs. With the pocket pairs in question, 88-TT, there are plenty of overcards that will instil doubt that we might not have the best hand anymore. It will not be uncommon to get one or 2 overcards with 88, and still not incredibly unlikely with TT.

I think playing this after the flop will require not just a good read on our opponent being agressive, but also the nature of his agression. If he's raising with any 2 face cards we are much worse off than him raising with any 2 spades. Will he raise anytime so-and-so is in the blind or will he raise whenever he bloody pleases? People think of some silly randomizers for their agression, and some people have agression purely at will. Okay sorry for that rant.

The point is people are going to be raising with a range of hands that an abundance of which will have overcards to 88, 99, TT. I might (and have) raised on occasion to throw off my opponents for the hand and hope I got lucky (that was a wonderful hand), but even after I landed my 8s I had no intention of making that my standard play.

If we are truly ahead 60-70% of the time how are we going to handle it? Do we call down every time and not protect our hand? Do we become agressive creating some serious swings?

Hard to play. Much variance I think.


Edit: I'm about to go to sleep but I thought of this last thing to say before I stepped away from the computer that should say everything again in once sentence. I thought it sounded more funny, so don't take it so much as an insult...

Can you say "Reverse Implied Odds?"

[RcrdBoy]

I play TT-99 this way.

Assuming someone is raising 10% or more PF I think it's +EV.

If it's like 9% or less I think it's close with TT.

Check your ranges in pokerstove.