small pkt pairs on B or in CO against SB 3-ball

thepizzlefosho · #1 07-10-2007, 11:01 AM

I've been mulling over a bit of strategy and was hoping to get some feedback to see if this line of thinking is solid. Suppose that you have a 2p2 TAG type player (28/20 pf guy) in the SB, and you open in late position with a small pkt pair (7s or lower) and they 3-ball you. The BB folds and it is back to you.

Lately I have found that capping preflop has made these hands significantly easier to play. The reason being a couple of things...

1) against this type of player his 3-betting range is wider from the SB than anywhere else on the table. Typically this player is trying to push out the BB and get HU with me when he has a hand that is worth defending against a steal. Thus it is much more likely that I am ahead against his range, and also have more postflop fold equity (ie he doesn't necessarily have AK and is going to showdown).

2) When I cap the post flop play when the flop comes Axx is relatively simple. If I just call and my opponent leads out on an A-high raggy flop I don't know whether this is a c-bet with KQ, he has another low pkt pair, or he's got the A. However when I cap and he checks to me on the flop (which he will almost always do) when I bet out I folding just about any non-A or pkt pair hand. If I get called obviously it becomes a case of reading the board to see whether he is playing WA/WB or if I'm up against a draw. However a c/r makes this a pretty easy fold for me, and my play becomes significantly more straightforward for the rest of the hand.

Thus I feel like this play has a lot of benefit based on the Fundamental Thereom of poker. If I cap here with a decent range of hands including all pkt pairs as well as my really big aces and big pairs, then it becomes much more difficult to read my hand postflop. Also this tends to force this kind of villain to play more honestly after the flop since I seem more SD bound, so I have a better understanding of their holding.

Is this sound theory, or am I just spewing pf when I do this with 22 and 33?

(obviously some people would say I should change tables instead of having a TAG with position on me, but lets save that argument for a different thread)

Oink · #2 07-10-2007, 11:18 AM

I think Heis made a pretty good post about capping low pp's in position a few months ago. Try finding it by searching his name.

IMHO its a good play and I like your reasoning. (I cap em myself [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

jba · #3 07-10-2007, 11:29 AM

"it is much more likely that I am ahead against his range"

you're pretty never ahead of an sb three betting range with a small pp. 22 is about even money with a random hand.

edit: this strategy gains value as villain is less showdown bound with his range. the river is a very significant card when you have a small pair, if you can keep them from seeing it consistently this is good. if they tend to showdown a lot, or play back at you a lot, it is bad to bloat the pot as a dog imo.

thepizzlefosho · #4 07-10-2007, 11:33 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"it is much more likely that I am ahead against his range"

you're pretty never ahead of an sb three betting range with a small pp. 22 is about even money with a random hand.

edit: this strategy gains value as villain is less showdown bound with his range. the river is a very significant card when you have a small pair, if you can keep them from seeing it consistently this is good. if they tend to showdown a lot, or play back at you a lot, it is bad to bloat the pot as a dog imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point. I guess I could rephrase it, that I am much less likely to be dominated by a larger pkt pair. Considering that he is three betting a lot of hands like KJ, QJs, sometimes stuff like T9s etc.

Also your point about being SD bound is very important. If this guy tries to get to the SD with every hand, this play loses a lot of value. But I think most TAGs are 3-betting from a the SB with a lot of hands that they won't SD with if they don't improve.

thepizzlefosho · #5 07-10-2007, 11:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I think Heis made a pretty good post about capping low pp's in position a few months ago. Try finding it by searching his name.

IMHO its a good play and I like your reasoning. (I cap em myself [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

any chance you could link that post? I searched through Heis's last 200 posts and tried a couple of different phrases in the search feature, but I didn't find it. or if you see this Heis, could you link it for me.

thanks.

jstill · #6 07-10-2007, 12:20 PM

depends on the player for me and how they ll react to it, if they arent gonna go passive with many hands maybe even they shouldnt theres definite value, if theyre gonna play back against ur cap a ton still and resteal I just cap with stronger hands.

the question I always like to think about is this one: If i cap here with 22 what holdings on what boards can I make him make a mistake and take down the pot when I shouldnt vs if I let him keep initiative he ll win those pots. It definitely has value, mostly when he has a better PP and u get to take it down when 2 oversflop. If u cap tho and hes still peeling any PP 1 or 2 streets on almsot any board the play loses its merit a bit I think.

thepizzlefosho · #7 07-10-2007, 12:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
depends on the player for me and how they ll react to it, if they arent gonna go passive with many hands maybe even they shouldnt theres definite value, if theyre gonna play back against ur cap a ton still and resteal I just cap with stronger hands.

the question I always like to think about is this one: If i cap here with 22 what holdings on what boards can I make him make a mistake and take down the pot when I shouldnt vs if I let him keep initiative he ll win those pots. It definitely has value, mostly when he has a better PP and u get to take it down when 2 oversflop. If u cap tho and hes still peeling any PP 1 or 2 streets on almsot any board the play loses its merit a bit I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

good point, and I think I definitely do this quick sub-concious analysis at the table. FWIW this play really won't work against the guys that SD a lot, and who have some problems with FPS since you can't really gain the same value by capping.

and I think looking at the simple math helps the argument. You are putting in 1 more SB into a pot of 8.5 SB. So basically if that extra SB causes the villain to fold UI overs or a better pp once in every 9.5 times then it was worth the play. Against TAGs who will make some folds I think this is definitely the case.

jstill · #8 07-10-2007, 12:59 PM

i miswrote the first sentence in my response, I take it my intent was understood tho

thepizzlefosho · #9 07-10-2007, 01:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i miswrote the first sentence in my response, I take it my intent was understood tho

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah I got it. I am a frequent user of the edit option so I pick up on others mistypes.

sethypooh21 · #10 07-10-2007, 02:17 PM

Worth noting that you are essentially committing yourself for SD here by capping pf vs. a SB 3-better raiser. I think if you have a taggish image, you are actually reducing your fold equity by capping, because if villain is thinking, he knows that you know that his SB 3-ball range is big, so your capping range is wider than usual. And now the pot is that much bigger, so he's obviously going to contest it more tenaciously.

Basically, with the cap you are going for the parlay of his 3b being at the bottom of his range and the flop missing him completely. I think I prefer to play slightly passively, perhaps FSDR on the turn on non-terribly threatening boards, in this spot as a 28/20 guy is very capable of 3-barreling K hi here.