Pocket pairs

[illuminati]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think pairs <77 are great raising/reraising hands from the blinds as they play so easily (usually) post flop and mask the times you have a big hand. Sets in unraised pots have the ghey.

[/ QUOTE ]
Single raised pot <> Unraised pot, we are not talking about limping obv.

I am actually of the direct opposite opinion, that low pairs are not good hands to 3-bet with from the blinds in general and are much more inclined doing it with hands like AT, KQ and such if someone opens from CO or button.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm I'm in the school of thought that KQ and AT etc. can get us into a lot of trouble (classic reverse implieds) when the opponent chooses to put big bets in. Although I'm very open to suggestions as to why this is better.

Why do you think SPs are bad hands to do this with?

[Hattifnatt]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you think SPs are bad hands to do this with?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because they have value in itself and when you get 4-bet you almost always have to drop them missing the chance to possibly stack the opponent.

Also, when you miss the flop and bet and he calls you have to fire again (most likely all-in) or just give it up most of the time. But if you've done the same with for example KQ on a Jxx board and get called you might pick up something like a Q, T or 9 on the turn that you can fire again on with ok equity if the money goes in the middle.

[illuminati]

Even 22-66? Barring a super read I think they play fairly poorly on a lot of flops and even when we get a fair one (like we have 66 on a 933 board) there are often lots of good second barrel cards for the opponent unless we plan on reraising somewhere to get overcards to drop. I don't think we get 4-bet AI that often to make it a bad play in a lot of games but maybe that's my experience with eurodonk sites.

I do like the points wrt KQ on a J high flop etc. I think I am this way inclined because 2p2 has an obsession with reverse implied odds etc and am very keen to hear other successful player's views on it.

[Hattifnatt]

I reason roughly the same with all small PPs <TT in that spot. I like to hear other players view on this as well.

[Choparno]

I sometimes fold small PPs from SB v a laggy button opener who will call 3-bets light and float in RRsed pots, but still not likely stack off if I hit. In short fold from SB against someone unlikely to have much of a hand, but who still won't let me have the pot easily if I 3-bet. Don't know if this is flawed reasoning or not.

[DLizzle]

i fold small pairs in the blinds from decent players at 100bb stacks quite often, and if not i'll usually 3bet. it just seems so bad to call then c/f so many flops, or try a raise or float oop on a missed flop and spew. Once stacks get a bit bigger I can't bring myself to fold though, not sure what the magic number is.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
i fold small pairs in the blinds from decent players at 100bb stacks quite often

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe folding SB to early position raiser makes some sense but folding BB vs steals for example is not really an option as pushing is better than mucking.

[bokla]

I am talking here about 22-55
Blind play: one lag opener = fold because this guy wont fold to rr and he wont easily fold to a flop lead or c/r whatever he has.
one tag opener: call w/ 100+bb stacks and c/r 90% if hit
c/r 15% if no hit
lead 10% if hit
lead 10% if no hit
one opener and one caller always call with the opner having 100+bb stack.
other positions:
if no one opens limp 60% if blinds are habitual 3 bettors or very weak players
raise 15% fold the rest
if someone else opens call 100% if very weak player is to act behind
call 50% fold 50% otherwise

[punter11235]

No insult but this sounds like strategy generated randomly.

[bokla]

the percentages i give here are very rough because i cant use pt on the site im playing. but i am doing something close to this and winning 10bb/100 hands