Both tables running weak/loose/passive. 1/3.

H#1 Couple hours of play with villain. Basically limping ATC, lots of fit/folding post, but definitely floating flop light. Totally passive w/ stuff like AQss on JT2ss boards, etc. Not sure if he'll overplay 2PR, but my read was 'no'. ~ $550 effective.

H#2 Not much history, maybe an hour, villain seems like a passive/recreational late 40s male, limp/calling & limp/folding pre a handful of times so far. He has a flush mostly, struggled to find bluffs, but thought some sets/AxKh might overplay this way. ~ $275 behind.

Thanks.

H#1:

5s 5c

UTG limps $3, V c $3, fold x 2, Hero c $3, HJ c $3, SB/BB check

F ($18): Kx 6x 5x

SB x, BB x, UTG x, V x, H (MP2) $15, HJ c $15, fold, V c $15, fold x 2

T ($63): 3x

V x, H b $55, HJ c $55, V r $180, H ???

H#2:

Ac As

H (UTG) r $15, call x 2, V (SB) c $15

F ($60): Qh 6h 2s

V x, H b $40, fold x 2, V c $40

T ($140): Ah

V x, H b $60, V r $225 all-in, H ???

Hand 2 is easy. Not happy when the flush comes in but not folding top set without solid history. You are not that far off straight odds to draw against a flush, add in the chance he has a lower set and it's an easy call.

Hand 1 is more puke fold if no flush draws are possible. You block most 2 pair possibilities and two people are interested in the pot despite heavy betting. The chance one of them has a straight or better set is dangerously high.

Some idea what HJ calls behind with on the turn matters a bit. But mostly the don't go broke in a limped pot principle applies.

This is what I leaned towards in H#1, but thought there was some validity in calling (getting almost direct odds around 3:1 & likely high IO on a FH) if I'm pretty sure villain behind does not reopen the betting & let other guy jam.

H#2 I sized down a bit to target Qx. Should I be going bigger? Does it matter much?

Hand 1, I'm calling and evaluating river. If he's playing ATC, I'm not giving him credit right away for 42, 74, 66, KK. I can see him doing the same thing with 53, 63, K3, and it'd be criminal to fold if he has a decent chance of having 2P.

Hand 2, is relatively quick call. Never folding top set here even when the flush comes in. I think 60 is fine, especially since it can induce him to bluff. Although larger like 90-110 wouldn't be so bad either. Either way, it's a cooler if he hit a flush.

H#1 I definitely appreciate what you're saying, but my "live read" was I'd have to discount these a bit. I've just seen too many passive guys play two pair super passive to include every combo of it. Like maybe I can put K6, & the rare K5, but he has every straight & 66 here. Pretty ****ty.

Thanks for input.

H1 is a weird spot. You have enough equity to call if his raise was all-in. The problem is, your equity consists of a) redrawing vs straights and b) the chance that he has K3 (which I think even a passive player can have here, I agree he probably doesn't have like 63). The problem is, not all of this equity actually operates. If you don't improve and he bets the river, you can't call because there aren't enough combos of K3 compared to straights. Therefore, unless you expect him to check down K3 OTR, the equity against that is a mirage, you won't ever actually realize it. I think it's a fold.

H2, check back the turn. What are you trying to get value from? He basically can't have anything you beat that can call. Hand protection isn't a big concern considering (assuming he doesn't have a flush) he's a dog to have a heart in his hand and only has 8 outs even if he does. There's no upside to betting that is worth the downside of getting checkraised by flushes. As played, call.

Great points H#1. The 'virtual' vs 'actual' equity concept based on position, chance of getting to showdown, etc. is very important here, and I think it's sort of another crucial level of equity analysis, but which isn't always easy to compute in real time.

H#2. I don't disagree, & that's a good argument too, but was targeting Qx w/ a heart, AQ, A6, 66, 22. When you look at blockers he shouldn't have as many flushes as you might think, but yeah get what you're saying.

Wow, folding H1 seems really exploitable to me. If v really plays ATC for a limp, then how can we discount any two pair combos? I think I call and re-eval river (although Chris makes a compelling argument re: phantom equity).

H2: Snap call. Not enough $$ to fold and almost immediate odds to draw if behind.

How much we discount is obviously part of the art/science of hand reading. All I can say is this guy seems very passive, and low stakes guys are usually happy to get to showdown w/ 2PR too often. Like I said I'll include K6/K5, a few K3, but I cut out the bottom stuff here. Then add to that what Chris said.

Also, not too worried about being "exploited" by this guy.

Not sure how we can possibly fold in H1 (the Xs mean this is rainbow, right?) Are we worried about 74 and 42? Seems insane to me when he could be raising K6 or K5 or 65. I like shoving now.

H2 is gross but don't see how we can fold now.

A super loose/passive villain isn't trying to exploit hero. Villain thinks they have the best hand after a bet and call. Some of the most profitable play at low stakes is stuff that would be exploitable by decent villains but isn't because the fish do not think or play that way.

Hand 1 would be a very different situation against a more conventional TAG or LAG villain. A TAG could be making a move with pair+draw that doesn't think hero is super strong and has outs even if called. A LAG can be trying to squeeze hero out with even worse hands. The whole hand likely plays differently with villain being more aggressive and leading or raising flop.

Having looked at it again I think it's close, I probably still prefer check by a little bit. Check has a small chance to work against a large number of hands (by which I mean that if he has like QJcc, he's drawing dead and check can work by having him hit a Q or J). Betting has a large chance to work against a small number of hands. In particular, while AQ is only three combos, checking just nets us one bet OTR, while betting probably gets us allin on the turn with him drawing dead. So it's hard to compare the two, there's merit to both.

I’m not even considering folding either hand.

Hand 1 you have implied odds to call even if he shows you a straight. His range is wider than just straights. If you brick river you can evaluate based on his sizing or value bet when checked to.

Your stack size would be helpful in all of these scenarios

In hand 1 you must remember to always raise your pocket pairs if it has been limped to you. There are at least 2 reasons for this:

1. If you hit your set you want to get paid
2. It is much easier to go broke with a set in an un-raised pot, because everyone has tried to flop the nuts for free

Many villains, myself included will try to flop the nuts or a draw to the nuts in position for 1 BB, you indicated from the Villains tenancies that he does this a lot. As played either call or jam the turn if it is set over set or he has a straight, oh well. Hope the board pairs on the river and he has the straight. You might have him beat already though. He could also have 2 pair here.

Hand 2
This is a cooler, I think it is rather obvious the villain likely had a flush draw that hit or one combo of AQ. Since we bet rather small into the flush board and got raised we have to call 165 to win 425. We are likely behind we need 38% equity here to make the call and only have 20% equity against a flush. If you think Villain is ever bluffing or over valuing 2 pair then call, as it stands you do not have the pot odds to call the bet. It is hard to fold top set and you may just have to pay the guy off.

$550 in H#1. $275 in H#2.

I appreciate the input, but I don't agree that H#1 is a cautionary tale about not raising 55 over a bunch of limps in MP pre.

H1:

Don't go broke in limped pots without the nuts
Don't go broke in limped pots without the nuts
Don't go broke in limped pots without the nuts

Sure, but should we call hoping to fill up or not? We're $550 to start.

No, because a) 66 is firmly in both Vs ranges; b) against the straights we barely have the implied odds to chase even if we were guaranteed to stack one; c) I don't think we get V's stack every time we pull ahead on the river.

Good points. Thanks for explaining further.