|
|
#11
06-25-2007, 01:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah people need to quit assuming that their opponents are total jackasses that will autobet every street without thinking. You have a very nice hand with MPTK, the backdoor nut flush draw, and reverse domination against his Ax hands, and the T is a little bit too low to hit a large portion of his preflop capping range. [/ QUOTE ] In my experience there are so many players that never ever pick up patterns. U raise A3o on button, they 3bet from blinds, flop is Axx, u call flop, turn, river and they show u their pocketpair. 3 hands later they do the same. Not saying its bad to checkraise this flop, but it can be very hard to play hand if he raise turn or river. But more importantly, since he is an aggressive 50/25 guy we normally shouldnt get fancy with something little or bad draws out of position, so Im not sure how he will understand we got a pair whenever we start to checkcall, since we will often play a draw or just overcards the same way. Of course, if we now he is thinking we got to balance and not only attack with ok hands. 
|
|
#12
06-25-2007, 02:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience there are so many players that never ever pick up patterns. U raise A3o on button, they 3bet from blinds, flop is Axx, u call flop, turn, river and they show u their pocketpair. 3 hands later they do the same. [/ QUOTE ] Of course he should be betting most pocket pairs on each street throughout this hand if you're just checking and calling. The question is whether he continues to bet AKo or 98s the whole way through. Most guys don't, at least not all of the time, so it's "scary" to have to pay a bet off on the river.
|
|
#13
06-25-2007, 04:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
and we have an equity edge. [/ QUOTE ] How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten. I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands.
|
|
#14
06-25-2007, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] and we have an equity edge. [/ QUOTE ] How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten. I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands. [/ QUOTE ] What about the option where he bets with his winning hands and just checks with his losing hands? Because that's what happens a lot of the time when you play passive.
|
|
#15
06-25-2007, 04:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] and we have an equity edge. [/ QUOTE ] How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten. I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands. [/ QUOTE ] What about the option where he bets with his winning hands and just checks with his losing hands? Because that's what happens a lot of the time when you play passive. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just speaking about the flop here, is your comment about the rest of the hand? Because on the flop, if he bets with his winning hands and checks with his losing hands, then a checkraise is really awful, we'll be behind every time!
|
|
#16
06-25-2007, 06:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] and we have an equity edge. [/ QUOTE ] How do you figure? I don't have Stove with me, but no matter how I cut it I get a roughly equal # of combos I'm ahead or behind. (And number of outs are roughly the same). If I start making his range looser, it doesn't help because he can now have a ten. I understand all the meta-game stuff, but in a vacuum I'm not sure I want to give him the option of 3-betting his winning hands and just peeling with his losing hands. [/ QUOTE ] What about the option where he bets with his winning hands and just checks with his losing hands? Because that's what happens a lot of the time when you play passive. [/ QUOTE ] I'm just speaking about the flop here, is your comment about the rest of the hand? Because on the flop, if he bets with his winning hands and checks with his losing hands, then a checkraise is really awful, we'll be behind every time! [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises.
|
|
#17
06-25-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises. [/ QUOTE ] When I wrote that I was actually thinking of leading lots of turns. But as I think about it, in practice he may find a fold with hands we beat and that kind of sucks. I still think check/calling, donking the turn, and balancing it with other hands is best in theory, though.
|
|
#18
06-25-2007, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises. [/ QUOTE ] When I wrote that I was actually thinking of leading lots of turns. But as I think about it, in practice he may find a fold with AK-AJ and that kind of sucks. I still think check/calling, donking the turn, and balancing it with other hands is best in theory, though. [/ QUOTE ] I think those hands (especially AK) get shown down an awful lot unless some draws get completed on the board that mean he can't beat a semi-bluff. Besides that, there are some hands like KQ that you really wouldn't mind him folding on the turn.
|
|
#19
06-25-2007, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yeah, I'm talking about the rest of the hand. Against someone competent, you'll really be pushed pretty close to your pressure points on the turn/river when you've just been checking and calling. Basically, if he has AK, then you'll most frequently make 3 SB if you check and call (the "automatic" bet on the flop and generally one bet big on the turn/river) versus 4-6 SB if you check-raise. Conversely, if he has TT, then you lose 5 SB if you just calldown the whole way versus 7-8 SB if you check-raise the flop and calldown any raises. [/ QUOTE ] When I wrote that I was actually thinking of leading lots of turns. But as I think about it, in practice he may find a fold with AK-AJ and that kind of sucks. I still think check/calling, donking the turn, and balancing it with other hands is best in theory, though. [/ QUOTE ] I think those hands (especially AK) get shown down an awful lot unless some draws get completed on the board that mean he can't beat a semi-bluff. Besides that, there are some hands like KQ that you really wouldn't mind him folding on the turn. [/ QUOTE ] Ok, then. So I guess my claim is that the flop checkraise does nothing that a check/call/donk doesn't do, but the checkraise does give him an extra chance to get a third small bet in when you're behind. I was worried about donking the turn, as opposed to leading after a checkraise, not because of theoretical considerations but rather because I don't know how he'll react to the donk and thus I can't make a good plan. It seems you have this under control, though, so if you have this read I think I like the turn donk.
|
|
#20
06-25-2007, 07:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Plan of attack with Mid Pair in Blind Battle?
Nate,
would you say that playing this hand aggressively vs. passively is slightly more +ev (because the lose:win ratio gets lower) and also comes with slightly more variance (because we're talking about more bets)??????
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
