Cold calling ITB with PP's

How profitable if at all is cold calling with PP's 22-99 for example.

If it can be then against what opponents can we do this and what lines can/should we take?

Over a small sample my line seems to be check/call on certain boards, basically to bluff catch missed over-cards from wide button ranges.

I play 6-max fwiw at 2nl. How does this affect my decision to cold call or not? I think the straight forwardness of micro players is a factor.

From my experience such PP's 22-99 are easy to play after flop. This may sound .... simple and silly but if you hit trips right on the flop you continue to call ( but ofc depending on the flop, if it looks dangerous or not, say flush chances , str8 etc ) and if not it's nice to play them because they are so easy to lay down , at least they are for easy to lay down for me.
I think such PP's should be played more often versus very lose and aggressive players which tend to have a very wide area of raising hands.
But my first argument is the one that makes me like these pairs so much , for me they are easy to play if i hit trips and easy to fold if i dont.

You can profiatbly call if the pot is MW.

HU its better to fold most times as you will not find it as easy to build a pot OOP as it is IP.

Cold calling IP or OOP?
big diff there

pokerstud777 said:

Cold calling IP or OOP?
big diff there

Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't mention it in the OP but in the title by ITB I meant in the blinds or OOP, specifically my blind vs the button.

Stu_Ungar said:

You can profiatbly call if the pot is MW.

HU its better to fold most times as you will not find it as easy to build a pot OOP as it is IP.

Click to expand...

I play 6-max so pots are mostly HU. How does less players and paying more blinds relate to playing PP's OOP, if at all? Can I afford to just fold them in the blinds to every button open, assuming a decent player with a wide range.

Orcusan said:

From my experience such PP's 22-99 are easy to play after flop. This may sound .... simple and silly but if you hit trips right on the flop you continue to call ( but ofc depending on the flop, if it looks dangerous or not, say flush chances , str8 etc ) and if not it's nice to play them because they are so easy to lay down , at least they are for easy to lay down for me.
I think such PP's should be played more often versus very lose and aggressive players which tend to have a very wide area of raising hands.
But my first argument is the one that makes me like these pairs so much , for me they are easy to play if i hit trips and easy to fold if i dont.

Click to expand...

Calling Button opens with small PP's and playing fit or fold is definitely a leak.

Playing fit or fold isn't necessarily a leak. Against your standard reg (ie someone who balances everything pretty well and is somewhat aggressive) it probably is. Against someone who's either so nitty that we can almost pure set-mine, against someone who isn't exploiting us (ie not cbetting/barreling enough) or against someone who pays off way too often, it's just fine.

As usual, it depends.

I generally don't fold pairs to single raises 100bb deep and it's shown a profit over my career.

Err... Doesn't cold calling mean calling a 3bet (or higher) when we were not the first raiser? Are you sure you don't mean flat calling?

LuckyChippy said:

ifically my blind vs the button.
I play 6-max so pots are mostly HU. How does less players and paying more blinds relate to playing PP's OOP, if at all? Can I afford to just fold them in the blinds to every button open, assuming a decent player with a wide range.

Click to expand...

what you cant do is to play fit or fold setmining.

CO/BTN ranges are too wide to expect to play for stacks when you hit.

So when you hit a set you rarely get the 12:1 required to show a profit.

Stu_Ungar said:

what you cant do is to play fit or fold setmining.

CO/BTN ranges are too wide to expect to play for stacks when you hit.

So when you hit a set you rarely get the 12:1 required to show a profit.

Click to expand...

While the core of this theory is fine, it's not exactly correct. Set mining doesn't depend entirely on tight preflop ranges.

To take one extreme, imagine someone who opens %100 of their range pf, but also pots every street postflop and pays off light. Clearly we're never folding a pair pf to them.

Implied odds are not found only vs nits. They're found vs aggressive regulars, bad fish, and finally, nits as well.

We also don't necessarily need implied odds to play them profitably either. You get to showdown often enough in general to make flatting them just fine.

ThunderPT said:

Err... Doesn't cold calling mean calling a 3bet (or higher) when we were not the first raiser? Are you sure you don't mean flat calling?

Click to expand...

No. Cold calling applies to both. The term 'cold' simply implies that hero hadn't vpip'ed up to the point of the call.

ChuckTs said:

While the core of this theory is fine, it's not exactly correct. Set mining doesn't depend entirely on tight preflop ranges.

To take one extreme, imagine someone who opens %100 of their range pf, but also pots every street postflop and pays off light. Clearly we're never folding a pair pf to them.

Implied odds are not found only vs nits. They're found vs aggressive regulars, bad fish, and finally, nits as well.

We also don't necessarily need implied odds to play them profitably either. You get to showdown often enough in general to make flatting them just fine.

Click to expand...

Yeah the implied odds theory is something I took from our session, it's not just nits that give them to us but bad lags and extreme calling station fish to an extent.

Thanks for letting me know that they do have an underlying profitability provided they are played correctly post-flop, that's basically what I was getting at.

i use as a rule of thumb ,that i d call oop only if the vilain has 15times the bet,giving me great IO