Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Live Low-stakes NL Discussion of up to 3/5 live no-limit, pot-limit and spread-limit Texas Hold'em poker games, situations and strategies.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2018, 06:17 PM   #26
SABR42
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
SABR42's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: printing money
Posts: 21,948
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

This sizing gave me cancer.
SABR42 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 06:24 PM   #27
HawkesDave
adept
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,171
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek View Post
This is a very common counter-argument (I hear it all the time).

But to raise UTG with a wide range at a 10 handed table (which, if anything like mine, is often going very multiway which also reduces the profitable bluffing spots we can get ourselves into) just gets us into way more bloated pots OOP with junky hands; not a great overall strategy, imo. The money we lose overall in these spots just doesn't make up for the extra max value we can perhaps then eke out in the rare spot we just got ourselves into in this particular hand.

Gimo,althoughalotdisagreeG
Címon, GG. I didnít say anything about raising wider UTG on a 10-handed. I said raise more and bluff more. That includes opening wider pre (a standard range, not a loose one), and raising your bluffs appropriately post-flop. Youíre completely stretching my words into something I didnít say.
HawkesDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 06:28 PM   #28
venice10
Referee
 
venice10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Nowhere special
Posts: 24,452
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

Didn't read all the responses.

As someone is in the OMC age bracket, I think the OP doesn't understand them well. Their calling range is inelastic as a function of bet size. If they think they have a winning hand, they are going to call at least. If they hit a set, they'll raise at some point to get paid off (often the river). You can easily fold.

Make solid 2/3 PSB on the flop and turn. With this board, you bet the river too because they can have lots of overpairs. When you're a nit, you aren't going to fold a potential winning hand. Now if you had Ax and had top pair on the river, I'd check behind.
venice10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 06:34 PM   #29
Phraust
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 261
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

I can see how both sides have valid points here.. but if we are trying to play for stacks against the tightest players on this board, then it sounds like we should be trying to play for stacks against anybody on this board. That just doesn't seem right to me.

I see this guy getting his stack in with QQ-AA and sets, and most likely folding lower overpairs (if playing for stacks). I don't see him valuing all overpairs here like they are AA/sets.
Phraust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 06:41 PM   #30
bigdaddycope
centurion
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 167
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phraust View Post
I can see how both sides have valid points here.. but if we are trying to play for stacks against the tightest players on this board, then it sounds like we should be trying to play for stacks against anybody on this board. That just doesn't seem right to me.

I see this guy getting his stack in with QQ-AA and sets, and most likely folding lower overpairs (if playing for stacks). I don't see him valuing all overpairs here like they are AA/sets.

Unless we are ridiculously deep we should be playing for stacks (when it involves us betting and them calling...if they raise at some point things change)

This is an AMAZING board/runout for AA...that's the part that you seem to be not getting.
bigdaddycope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 06:46 PM   #31
Phraust
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 261
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigdaddycope View Post
Unless we are ridiculously deep we should be playing for stacks (when it involves us betting and them calling...if they raise at some point things change)

This is an AMAZING board/runout for AA...that's the part that you seem to be not getting.
I understand this, but the part you're not getting is it's not always that he has KK or something that strong here that he's willing to get stacks in with. If he plays KK like this he most likely isn't playing other overpairs the same way (especially for stacks).

I DO believe I have the best hand here most of the time no matter who I am against, should only be afraid of sets because he most likely doesn't have trips. So the only hands we need to be weary of are 22, 77, 44, 88. We can get value from 99-KK assuming he doesn't have TPTK here which being the player he is I highly doubt it. That doesn't mean I can always get all the money in the middle. The question is do we want to try to play for stacks against an extremely tight player, or try to get some value out of worse hands that he may fold to significant aggression. Whereas I think here it may have been best to get some value instead of go for stacks (most of the time obv if I knew KK then go for stacks).

Last edited by Phraust; 10-04-2018 at 06:55 PM.
Phraust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 07:11 PM   #32
zukes2000
journeyman
 
zukes2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wild, Wonderful
Posts: 238
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

You are right that you have to look at his whole range here. But I figure that he either has over cards (and you aren't getting anything out of him) or an over pair here almost always. He isn't folding QQ-AA here and probably not folding 99-JJ. So if we can get his $250 stack when he has at least half of his over pairs and one or two large streets with the others that's on average way more than getting the $100 or so you will get everytime with this bet sizing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
zukes2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 07:19 PM   #33
Phraust
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 261
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zukes2000 View Post
You are right that you have to look at his whole range here. But I figure that he either has over cards (and you aren't getting anything out of him) or an over pair here almost always. He isn't folding QQ-AA here and probably not folding 99-JJ. So if we can get his $250 stack when he has at least half of his over pairs and one or two large streets with the others that's on average way more than getting the $100 or so you will get everytime with this bet sizing.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Maybe it's just me but I can see him folding 99-JJ depending on the action. Although it's an overpair he has to know with 99 he's beat by TT+, any 4x, or a set (maybe 2 pair but no idea what 2 pair he would put me on). Being UTG and raising he probably thinks I'm pretty strong. He will be asking himself what he is beating that he feels comfortable putting his stack in against and I just can't see him doing that with a hand like 99 here.

Unless he thinks I can 3 barrel bluff or playing for stacks with 7x, he isn't beating much with lower overpairs imo and can find a fold. If he can't get it in himself given as many opportunities that he had with KK when he only really loses to a set or AA then what is he getting it in with besides hands that beat me?
Phraust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 07:38 PM   #34
zukes2000
journeyman
 
zukes2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Wild, Wonderful
Posts: 238
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

I'm doing lazy math here, but if option A is you win $250 half the time and $0 the other half that is still better than winning $100 all the time.

But the bigger point is that players like this are usually pretty inelastic regarding bet size. So when you have a hand, bet big.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
zukes2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2018, 08:04 PM   #35
Phraust
journeyman
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 261
Re: AA vs omc. Too passive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by zukes2000 View Post
I'm doing lazy math here, but if option A is you win $250 half the time and $0 the other half that is still better than winning $100 all the time.

But the bigger point is that players like this are usually pretty inelastic regarding bet size. So when you have a hand, bet big.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
It won't always be that way though because we can't always get stacks in when we want and we can also still lose. There's more options than the 2 you said. Of course if it's 250$ or 0$ i'm going for 250$ every time, but that doesn't mean it's always the best line. There's a middle ground where you know you probably can't get 250$ but you can get more than 0$.

For example, you ever see somebody flop an extremely strong hand knowing their opponent probably has absolutely nothing and check flop and turn? Giving their opponent a chance to bluff? Whereas the villain wouldn't have put in a dime if you had bet? They probably got the max of any other line they could have taken.

Reminds me of this hand: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsTDeuE5T3A

Although the circumstances are pretty damn rare and it isn't always the best line to take (and you probably shouldn't ever do this in low stakes), he probably got more than he would have by betting an earlier street.
Phraust is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive