Another possibility is he just considered his hand to be marginal enough against 3 other players that he preferred to check and pot control. His plan maybe was to see where the bet was coming from before deciding on a further course of action.

If I had a nickel for every time I saw AK/AQ play for stacks vs Ace rag two pair, i'd have a lot of nickels.

having A5 on an AT35 board that was raised pre is a pretty strong hand to have especially when the flop was checked. What hands are we afriad of? Truth is, we are much more likely to snap of AK, AQ, AJs (who misplayed the flop w FPS) or air than we are to run into AA, TT, 33, AT or 42.

So i see its your second post OP, and you got whacked around pretty good.

Look at it like this. In the event that you feel like its a bit personal, i would overlook it. Getting decent strategy info. for free is a luxury this day and time, and if i have to get verbally whacked around some in order to get some fine info. then im right there in line every day for my shillackin. I wouldnt miss it.

Welcome to 2+2.

C-bet this dry board with 44 here. I'm not big on C-betting into 3 other players this weak but I like it here. If called take the card when you pick up the 6 outter. When bet into OTR I typically fold.

As played I don't hate the turn play if you think he is thinking, but it's not the best. Once he calls I am only firing the river if our 6 outter hits, mostly.

I think cbetting is a much better plan, particularly on the dry board. Most likely buys you a free card going into the river and if you miss your outs, you can fold and get out of it pretty cheaply. If the turn looks like an opportunity, have another barrel at it, but you can probably stop short of jamming the river when/if called.

This I think is the problem with the play on the turn. If OP doesn't bet the flop, it makes any action he throws out on the turn (if he decides to act) look incredibly suspicious at best and air ball at worst.

This is very true. I take a good number of lumps around here, but I think the value of community and conversation around the game is great for development. My game is better because of it. GL

This deep? Its only 150bb so its not like its a massive 300bb or whatever.

Anyhow, betting the turn is i assume you are meaning you want to protect your hand and win the pot right there. You have to agree that with the flop action, that betting turn like $65 or $75 will result in just taking the pot a lot of the time.

Curbing stabs/bluffing at the orphan pot is basically a novice play. Its far greater worth to gain a $65 bluff here than it is to protect the $100 pot and usually "somebody" will take a stab on the second go around. Nevertheless, going for free bluff money on the turn is always going to be the optimal move unless all villains are simply nits and never put bluff money in the pot.

I don't hate the PFR as much as others. You can raise low PPs in MP or LP imo if (and this is the key) you have 100BB+ stacks, you only setmine, and you raise an amount you know will get 4+callers (I would make it $20 here). Now all the postflop bets are bigger and you can easily get stacks in. Dgiharris in your example hero still isnt getting stacks OTR assuming 100bb+ starting. You say he loses $140 and this is true but you ignore what he makes 1/8th of the time. A raise to $20 needs to make $160 to be justify the raise which usually happens imo. A limp of $5 only needs to make $40 which obv happens as well. However I prefer the higher variance line to make sure I get stacks.

It also adds deception to your game as most people wont put you on a low PP and it might induce lighter calls in the future.

Don't forget the times you get three bet off your hand and lose the chance to stack a big pair.

Very true, obv you need to gauge the 3bet frequency of various villains.

These are all nice thoughts and ill admit, most (slightly above the avg player) live players think exactly like this. I would however put these items out there for ya for completion sake on this issue. Feel free to bash any that dont seem right.

1- What amt. guarantees 4+ players? 2x, 3x, certainly NOT 4x.

2- If Xx guarantees 4+ players then the avg. hand calling this raise is super wide and weak with no 3 bets.

3- Hero can assume he is getting stacks in a high % of time when hits a set when villains hands are so weak? (oh yea, and never loses with the set?)

4- Hero MUST make at least $160 net profit every time he hits a set in order just to break even at this rate. This includes the times that the flop is monotone and nobody can bet much. It includes the times that guys stack us with flush draws and we never filled. it includes all that time that flop goes chk chk chk chk and turn goes bet fold fold fold.

So for live play, it comes down to how you can perceive it using all the mental capacity you can muster in order to best guess what this answer is. Online you can click a filter and instantly tell. This is why ive said before that playing online "some" and getting used to analyzing hands and results gives a player amazing insight into how the edges really work and also how small they really are compared to what everybody thinks they are.

I dont see why all the hate for OP's preflop play. Raising 2 limpers with 44 is totally fine in position. We want to build up the pot to be able to play for stacks if we hit a set. If we do miss and is checked to us we can take it down with a cbet.

It's so funny when people post hands like: "I flopped a set in a limped pot how do I get all-in?"

With that said I really can't support OP's turn and river play. Maybe taking a shot at the pot when it's checked to you twice is not so bad. But you leveled yourself into thinking that villian is check/raising with air, and spewed $600 to try to bluff him off his hand.

I really think not betting the flop is what threw his whole hand into disarray. If he bets the flop and barrels the turn (though he could easily just take the card on the turn when he picks up 4 more outs), OP can get away on the river pretty easily.

Myabe the communication was not so clear. Its merely -EV, and so there doesnt have to be "hate" as you put it. If you honestly believe that raising 44 IP to 4x vs only 2 limpers will result in enough winning stackoffs when flopping a set, then you have to go with that. What many of the top posters here agree on is that it is not +EV. Its obv up to each individual which way they believe this to be.

And aside from that, if these villains play THAT poorly postflop, then winning a large pot even if the pot is limped wont be that difficult as dharris (sp) explained very clearly. Sets will get all in when others have 2pair+ and the pot will be raised/3 bet etc which bloats it very quickly. Compare that with forcing the action just so you may get allin by the turn is just -EV IMO based on the facts that i gave (as well as others) above.

I happen to be all for LP aggression myself. This happens not to be the spot for it. That again is merely my position on it.

I don't hate the PF raise,
but it's not that much different than raising ATC.
you are turning your hand into a bluff, in a way.
I agree w/ ANL, djih;
i'd rather c-bet overcards, than 44.
also, If you get 3-bet PF, it's a disaster. it's really really bad for Hero.

If you play your draws aggressively, it's not that hard to get stacks in
w/ a flopped set in a limped pot vs. your average players who hit something, and also don't like folding.

I think the situation in which raising this hand PF would have merit, is when you are at a table of tough players, any of which will know you have a weak hand when you limp, and exploit you for it.
this is virtually never happening at this level.

BASICALLY im tickled to death that people on a forum will argue it.

open shoving PF, and then breaking an Oreo in two, may be the better play??

the reason I think it could be ok to raise it vs. tough players, is that If I get 3-bet, it's not as big a deal.
they don't have a RIO hand, like QQ, nearly as much, so i'm not missing out on the oppurtunity to stack them when i get pushed off.
I'm also widening my range, and they ARE paying attention.
problem is, there are few or none tough players at 2/5.
If you get 3-bet by a str8 forward player who cannot fold an overpair, it sucks balls>>> you just outplayed yourself.
can anyone (besides ANL, djih) see how you're losing more equity, than your gaining w/ a PF raise at the end of the day??

Cool that u mentioned this as i will pose another question. If you are early
and open with either 44 or JTss vs good players, which would you rather open with in say utg+2 spot?

I'll take JTs over 44. Haven't crunched any numbers on this, but JT should have more playability post flop than 44.

With 44, either you hit, or you don't. Plus, w 44 there is a good chance that if you hit your villains will whiff.

However, if you spike gin with JTs, there is a good chance your villains have caught enough to pay you off.

There is some pros and cons though as JTs will have bigger RIO than 44.
But I think w postflop playability and the fact that if you nail your hand there is a good chance your villains have caught enough to pay you off, I think JTs comes out on top.

I would not be opposed to raising w 44 vs "tough" players. Reason being, in those games (which are few and far between) deception is extremely important and you get into some "play the player" dynamics.

however, the problem is, what exactly is a 'tough' player.

This is up there when people come in here and say, "villain was solid..." and then they describe a villain that is a complete fish. Really, that's solid to you?

My definition of "tough" players would be level III players and they are few and far between at 2/5.

I have absolutely no doubt stamp would be able to sniff out the right situations in which to raise pre w 44 to add that component of deception to his game when needed.

But for the majority of us, I think we would butcher it and end up putting ourselves at a disadvantage. Sorry if that comes across as elitist.

But that really isn't the argument in this thread. The argument isn't to ID the exceptional times we should be raising w 44 in MP. The argument is that its ok to raise with 44 in MP as the norm to 'build a pot' so we can flop gin and get stacks in.

And its my argument, that line is -EV. I don't think its a catastrophic leak, but it is a leak.

In fact, I made this mistake the other day in a $5 MTT w 100 players to go. I was a big stack and decided to add some deception and raise w 66 from MP as well as possibly steal the blinds. BTN 3bet me, bb calls, I have to fold, flop comes A Q 6....

FML.

stacks get in, they both had AQ.

And even as I was raising w 66 my inner voice said, "You setmine 22-88, why are you raising here?" and then my FPS voice said, "Hey, we got too loosen up and add some deception".... and then I get 3betted by the btn, fold, and see that flop

FML

i know i know, tourney play is different from cash game play...

just sayin...

I agree with others that small pocket pairs should really be played as cheaply as possible to set mine.

But to play devil's advocate......

1) Would OP's line on flop/turn play become +EV if villain did not hit his 2 pair on turn? say villain had Ax

2) Same hand....If OP limped and flop was checked around....then Villain led out on turn, would a raise here have any fold equity, and thus become +EV move?

^^^

in the above situations, playing 44 is really no different than playing 72 and taking a bluff line.

So, if you can argue successfully that we should play 44 in the above spots and "outplay" our villains, then you can extend that argument to ATC.

Yeah...you got a good point
Thanks

bah, iso pre is fine vs idiots.

as for the postflop line, its tricky.

probably checking whole way through if you dont bet flop.

i wouldnt bet turn, but once you do and get min-raised. over bet shoving should be considered or just fold. your bet doesnt make much sense.

I've been reading the medium stakes forum a lot lately and there are a lot of winning 5/10 regs that would just limp both of these hands in that position. In fact I'd say that's the standard play in any live game.


Both of those scenarios are invalid. In scenario 1, if hero had just double barreled like some people told him to, then villain still folds. In scenario 2, if villain didn't have two pair he wouldn't have check raised the turn DUCY?