The difference is that Im not mocking anyone's line. This is a tough hand that can be played a variety of ways. Some of you cant understand that.

so what you are saying is you prefer to c/r, but you wouldn't like it if you bet and they raise... I would c/r when I don't mind getting stacks in but not with an upper medium pocket pair. I think a c/r is over playing the hand, and if you bet and get raised, you can always fold. It sounds like you are c/r'ing to end the hand, where I would rather they keep putting more money in.

Most of the time sticky players will call with their entire range that we crush, and some of them even love to call with Ax looking for an ace.

You can't understand that.

You can't understand that we are not arguing that it is absolutely bad to check the flop, just that it is of lower EV than betting.

Betting is good for several reasons, 1st being that we can win the pot outright.

Checking is less than optimal for several reasons, 1st being that we are giving a free card on favorable board against 3 opponents.

If you cannot comprehend why betting is better than checking, then maybe you should try harder to understand it.

I think folding was the right move once you checked flop, although as discussed I wouldn't be checking flop.

The hands we are up against here are basically a worse case scenario but I think how this hand played out shows that a b/f of flop would be best. V2 didn't raise V1 with a flush draw so we didn't have to worry about him getting spicy. We would have c/f on any 8, 7, 3, spade turn which would all have been correct except the 3 and I doubt anyone here is bluffing a 3.

This is among the easier hands that you'll play at low stakes no limit.

Im being completely serious when I say this. I completely understand your logic here. In the past 5 months or so since reading 2+2 regularly I have let alot of concepts like this one soak into my little pea brain and have applied them the best I know how. The problem is that my win rate has dropped and my variance has risen since making several adjustments based on 2+2 advice.

So clearly, either I am applying them wrong or I am misunderstanding them or they dont work as well as people think they do. The actual reason they dont work for me doesnt matter as much as the mere fact that they dont work for me.

In this particular hand, sure, one or more could be calling to hit an ace. Or they could be calling with a pair and draw, or they could have TT/99, but you are OOP to multiple people with no idea which of those hands they have. After the flop bet and call, there are still 2 villains in the hand. They could have several of those possibilities covered. Playing the turn is going to be very tough if you just bet the flop and get called twice.

So as much as some of you hate my line, I prefer to check/fold or check raise and make them pay dearly to continue...and yes Im very happy if the hand ends right there. I win a medium pot with a lot less variance than I will have by playing a turn and river with no clue what they have or what cards beat me (and there are a lot of them)

^ it helps if you learn how to hand read, size your bets correctly, and bet/fold instead of just trying to end every hand on the flop and avoid any hard decisions

If we bet and they are calling with their entire "chasing range," the turn is most likely a nightmare. Add A and K to the hands we don't want to see on the turn and that's 23 cards.

If they are drawing, I would rather check/raise and make them pay for it than put money in for them to call and chase with so many turns I hate.

The over-bet is an interesting idea, but I admit I didn't even think about it at the time. However, not knowing exactly how sticky V2 is or the strength of V1's hand, I chose to fold, which I agree was fine.

I prefer check/raise over bet/fold (see above post). I don't mind my check/fold, which is probably better than check/raise, but, as stated, in hindsight (after seeing their hands) I wish I had check/raised.

This is interesting, because the same thing happens to me. I see so many good posts and ideas on 2+2, but if I read the forums before I play a session, I almost always end up losing. Weird but true. I think about how 2+2 posters would view the hand, play that way, and some how I'm down. I no longer read 2+2 on the days I know I'm going to play. (However, my player pool in general is VERY different from what most 2+2 posters are used to. Very deep stacks, very loose/aggressive players, at least one maniac, lots of 3- and 4-betting, etc., so variance is quite high.)

+1.

And understand why betting on a favorable board is better than check raising.

Unlike a lot of others, I feel committed on the flop. Not in love with checking, but given that we did, I would actually shove at this point. Any reasonable raise commits leaves us with relatively lol behind anyways. Plus, people despise folding draws on the flop, so we can still easily get called by a worse hand (including a weaker overpair who puts us as the one pushing the draw).

GcluelessNLnoobG

Based on reading how defensive you are with others' advice, I would say that you probably don't understand them nor applying them correctly.

And it could also simply be variance, as in the advice is +EV in 70% of the situation, but the scenario happens to take place in the 30%.

Doesn't surprise me. If it doesn't show result, no point learning why it doesn't. That's probably of the main reason why you are so defensive and get into so many unnecessary arguments.

If that's the argument for post-flop, why not use the same argument for preflop?

We are OOP pre and have JJ, people could call with worse hands, or people could call with QQ+ and raise with them. Since we have no idea what they have, we should just limp/raise.

Playing OOP is tough, period.

There are two ways to go about dealing with a tough situation:

1. Run away - avoid the situation.

2. Learn to deal with the situation.

If you are #1, then there's really no point arguing when most of us are discussing #2.

I can't speak for others, but I don't hate your line. I just think it's a -EV line for reasons stated above.

Hey Mike and RP, can ya'll just put each other one ignore please?
No really.

Good idea. Done.

Flop seems like a slam-dunk value bet/fold. We can go big on this board, $40-50. We don't want to go for a check-raise because these villains will check with lots of hands that would call a bet, like overcards, top pair, draws - and these hands make up an overwhelming portion of their ranges. My issue with a check-raise is I can't see it being for value (are we going for value against flush draws? Those can find a fold making our value bet bad, and all better hands will call or shove) or a bluff (obviously we aren't folding out better). It's a "protection" line and should be avoided.

If we face any decent-sized raise on the flop, we should easily be able to find a fold. We'll be folding the best hand when villain is raising with a draw, but that's the difficulty of playing OOP.

I didn't even consider gobbledegeek's overbet flop-shove turn line, which I really like in this spot. We can get clear value vs flush draws, bare overcards, low overcards with a gutshot, TT-77.

I'm not concerned with what to do when we get raised on the flop. Im concerned with what to do when we get 1-2 calls and half the deck sucks on the turn.

For those betting the flop and getting 2 calls, what are we doing on the turn if its a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, A, K, Q, or spade? Puking?

I'm evaluating the turn for badness. If it's bad I'll check and see what they do. Just because I bet the flop doesn't mean I have to get all in on the turn. If a bunch of draws get there then I can back off. Sometimes I give the draws a freebee on the river but that's part of the deal when you're playing against multiple ranges. What I'm not doing is giving them all a free shot at their entire range including over cards by checking the flop.


Mike I like that you look ahead for sticky spots to avoid. I don't like that you avoid them at all costs including check raising a ton just so you don't have to figure it out later.

That's a fair enough assessment.

The main reason I like to check though is to get more info. Once one guy bets, I would expect the 2nd guy to raise most of the time with a strong made hand like a set, 2 pair or even a straight. When he calls instead of raising, Im pretty confidant my hand is ahead of his. Of course Im still worried about the guy who bet though. Back in my nitty days I would just check/fold and move on and I still think that's not a bad idea. We dont have to bet JJ just because it an overpair. This is a terrible board in this spot.

The check raise is pretty bold and although I said I would do it here, in reality I would probably only do it against players that I know very well and there are a lot of them in my player pool.

did you happen to read the OP and see they are sticky players? I expect them to both call. With all of their range.

When those cards hit the turn, why would I puke? What percentage of those hands are in their range (please enlighten me)?

Those arent hands that I listed. They are cards. If the players are sticky their hand ranges are very wide. Any of those cards that I listed could easily put one or both of them ahead of us. We have no idea which of the cards are good or bad cards. One villain could have 65 and another 4 puts us ahead....or he could have 34 and that same 4 puts us behind. Its a no win situation against 2 players OOP on that board.

I mean we can always just bet 2/3 pot on any turn card and pray, but I prefer not get God involved in it.

easily? So the majority of their range consists of those draws?

I need to hit that button before irtm gets angry at me.

In this thread we learn value betting is to be avoided unless you have 100% equity because there's a chance you may put money in the pot with the presently best hand and still not win the pot.

Mike- There are some merits to what you're doing. You listed them. I just don't see it as the best line.

By betting, you get called by virtually all of their worse hands that aren't total air, and raised almost every time by better. That's a great spot to be in. You get to charge them for whatever they're calling with. So, it's simply a value move. Now, if things get ugly on the turn, there is a chance you could make a mistake because there are a lot of cards you don't like. But you do have a brain, which means that you can back off of scary cards. If they all of a sudden start betting you can evaluate how things are looking and call/fold depending on your read (youve stated that your reads are the strength of your game so you should be more willing than most to trust them on later streets). If they continue to show weakness then yes you've given them a freebee, but you get your showdown much cheaper and they're still likely to play this board really straight forwardly.


Aside from this hand, you've stated that your resutls haven't been as good as you've tried to adjust your game. To that I say:

1. Variance. There's no way you've played enough to really see if it's working or not.
2. It's to be expected to see a dip in your results as you get into unfamiliar spots. YOu know how to check raise vs. weakness. That's plain. You're still learning how to implement some of these other possibly more +EV lines. It takes time to figure it out. Give yourself a break. I played piano competitively for about 15 years. I was really good at some things. Every time I picked up a new technique book though I'd sound like a 2nd grader in Mrs. Wilson's basement plunking away until I mastered that technique. I'd add it to my existing skills and I'd be a better piano player for it. I wasn't instantly better though. I had to work on that one specific skill until it was up to par with the rest of my game. Same thing here. You're picking up new things and I commend you for the work you've been doing here. You like to argue your stances for sure, but I've seen that you're putting in effort to pick up on things that you didn't have before. Keep at it.

Will do, Sir. Thx.