$200 NLHE 6-max: Recurring spot: PP flops second pair

$200 NL HE 6-max: Recurring spot: PP flops second pair

This always makes me go "eh, now what do I do?" which in turn makes me play with the idea of 3-betting preflop more often with middle pairs to avoid the tough decisions. Thing is, I don't know if that's (more) profitable than just calling, because I know that I show a profit just calling.

Perhaps 3-betting pre vs. villains who don't 4-bet often (because I really don't want to get 4-bet off the best hand and I don't want to miss a chance to flop a set vs. aggressive opponents.

How should I be thinking about this hand vs a reg? This particular hand was actually vs. a 71/8, but let's pretend he's a decent reg instead.

(Belgo doesn't have to reply if he doesn't want to since he never plays OOP )

--------------------
HAND 1
--------------------

$1/$2 No Limit Hold'em Cash Game, 5 Players
Poker Tools by Stoxpoker - Hand Details


SB: $200 (100 bb)
MP: $244.30 (122.2 bb)
BTN: $255.30 (127.7 bb)
CO: $594.51 (297.3 bb)
Hero (BB): $226.05 (113 bb)

Pre-Flop: Hero is BB with 9 9
MP folds, CO raises to $8, 2 folds, Hero calls $6

Flop: ($17) 6 Q 4 (2 players)
Hero hates these spots.

Well I 3bet as a standard play, change if villian is very aggressive, as its not easy to play these hands OPP as you mentioned.

Against a solid LAG who I flatted, which I might do, I would check and since he is firing 80% at least I will either call or raise, depending on villian and dynamics. I expect to be good here a large portion of the time but leading out doesnt really accomplish enough as we might get raised by air anyway. if this guy doubles often I probably c/c and probably c/c or c/r most turn cards. C/r kind of turns our hand into a bluff but its a line he will have a really hard time bluffing and I expect we are usually good. I c/c some cards as well, gets us into some tough decisions on the river but we can re-evaluate his range there. A LAG will double so often that he is doing it with more air then made hands so I dont like folding really. I wouldnt be against c/c c/c c/c which sounds like spew but against good LAGs and a coopoerating board it really makes his line a lot more bluffs than made hands.

If he is a TAG I dont know really whats the best line and I avoid those spots. It depends to how he reacts to donks, how often he double barrels ect...

F Paulsson said:

(Belgo doesn't have to reply if he doesn't want to since he never plays OOP )

Click to expand...

After missclicking a calling preflop, i think we want to turn ourselves into calling stations here. How many barrels we choose to call depends on villain, obviously.

I think this is what bobbofitos refers to as a reverse equity situation. And it sucks.

We're oop, don't know what villain holds on tons of turn cards (assuming he's a reg who opens wide), and his equity can change dramatically on lots of turns from crappy to good. It makes it really hard to call down and this is why being on the other end, barreling the shit out of the weak sb who tries to call down a weak pair, is so much better.

So you 3bet here against LAGs who will 4bet wide and float a lot?

I 3bet this with the intention of stacking pf if they 4bet wide enough.

Otherwise we're in a shitty spot regardless - if we 3bet, they call and raise/float tons of flops and we have to give up; if we flat, then we get in situations just like this.

I'm kind of at a loss as to what the best play is with these spots too without some glaring leak in my opponent's game like folding to 3bets well or 4betting too much or whatever.

I agree, and like I said I usually almost 3bet this, but against some LAGs who just float so often and 4bet enough to make it difficult but not enough to stack 99 (This is a leak of mine I think not stacking wide enough against people who 4bet too wide) I would rather play a raised pot then a 3bet pot here.

I was going to argue that a good player can exploit you regardless of whether you 3bet or flat, but if we 3bet kind of large it makes floating/raising flop a little harder (or rather it commits more of his stack), so he'll do it less often. I dunno, maybe 3betting in general is easier, but my decision changes completely depending on so many factors that I can't really say. How wide he opens, how well he folds to 3bets, how often he 4bets, how often he barrels if we flat, how often he floats in a 3BP, how often he raises ", etc etc

Regarding 3betting and shipping vs a 4bet, I once heard a DC (i think?) coach say that if they're 3betting smaller pairs, they're always shipping them vs a 4bet. I'm almost sure he said that in a midstakes video where the 4betting dynamic was pretty huge, but his point was that most middle pairs like 88-TT or JJ or whatever are often just flatting vs a 3bet whereas when our opponent 4bets we can expect more of the unpaired high cards (AK/AQ/KQ etc) and some bluffs as well. Just a side note, I thought that point was really interesting.

Yeah, I'm profitable over a decent a sample of 5-6 instances shipping 99-TT all in preflop, and I'm often a favorite when I get it in.

I certainly like 3-bet/shipping or 3-bet/folding based on his 4-bet range.

So in the rare instances when we call, this seems like an obvious check. Whether we choose to check/raise or check/call or check/fold is really the only question. There aren't a whole crapload of queens in villain's button raising range, however he will c-bet this board with great frequency.

One thing I want to point out, though is just how exploitable a check/call, check/call, check/call plan for the hand is. On a board like J72tt, any Q, K, A, or flush card is going to be scary, and any T,8 is going to likely improve villain's range as well. By check/calling, we are giving our opponent all the "choice" in the hand. He knows your range is weak and doesn't want to build a pot, so he will essentially know where he is in the hand at all times. This will give him an easy decision. Even fish can figure this out, and after we check 2-3 times I see fish v-bet 2nd pair & such when I decide to make a call down.

And what's worse, is that against a good TAG will be bluffing the most on cards that make our hand lose equity. He'll almost always bet an ace on the turn, but its a bad card for us to call down on, because he's raising a ton of aces on the button as a steal. So this makes our spot even worse. Villain will have an easy time bluffing us because we have to dodge so many cards, and he will have an easy time value-betting us because its easy to put us on a range.

So in these spots, I RARELY RARELY check/call down. I either check/fold to good players, or check/raise (the flop or turn) against players I think I can bluff off their hand with good frequency. Once in a while, I will call the flop, and if the turn hits perfect, instead of raising, I'll go for the total call down. But that requires that they be barreling a lot.

So lets say a K of clubs rolls off the deck on the turn if we check/call. I think that'd be a perfect opportunity to check/raise as a bluff. Villain will likely check back most queens to that card, but he'll likely barrel it with all his air. And by check/raising, we can represent a very wide non-air range of flushes, KQ, sets, and maybe some draws that picked up a club draw.

So yeah, in conclusion:

1) C9 likes 3-betting.
2) C9 doesn't like donking the flop.
3) C9 doesn't like a plan for the hand involving check/calling all 3 streets unless circumstances REALLY dictate it, because he thinks its retardedly easy to exploit.
4) C9 usually lets the flop & turn texture, as well as his opponent dictate which action he takes.

c9h13no3 said:

Villain will have an easy time bluffing us because we have to dodge so many cards, and he will have an easy time value-betting us because its easy to put us on a range.

Click to expand...

Ok before I say anything I agree with most of your post, but I dont think this makes much sense. What you are saying is they are barrelling almost always if its a bluff or for value, so we just have to figure out what there are more of, if I think its bluffs I will call. I like c/r some turns as well but I dont really think calling all three is that terrible for someone that barrels a ton. You say its easy to bluff and to bet for value, well if they arent betting extremely thin for value (most people who triple a ton dont enough), then a lot of times it will be bluffs. I am not at my home computer but put in some ranges and boards that they will be triple barreling that has more value raises then bluffs, my guess is not many.

This is only for a few amount of people here but if someone is firing 3 times in a button v blind there range is usually has a lot more bluffs. I am also not always calling down obviously, I will c/r and fold sometimes too depending on the board and villian but to say they can easily v bet us and can easily bluff us doesnt really make sense.

If you're in the upper range of pairs, say JJ/TT, and the flop comes with one over, say a Q, can you not play this as wa/wb? Be prepared to call one, maybe two streets depending on the board/villain? I'm not saying all situations, but in a few, very dependent on the board/villain combination.

NineLions said:

If you're in the upper range of pairs, say JJ/TT, and the flop comes with one over, say a Q, can you not play this as wa/wb?

Click to expand...

wa/wb applies much better in position.

It depends on the rest of the flop but its still not really a good WA/WB situation since we are OOP and he could have some overs on us giving him 6 outs there. Any draws add to that obviously even though we would have some of the out cards if it were T82 for example. I am calling streets if villian is firing regardless and his range is a high amount of bluffs. For example if villian is 95/90 in button vs blind barrels then I will call most boards since his range has sooo many more bluffs than hands that beat us. Call the river too if board is fine/he barrels a lot/he doesnt vbet thinly enough (would check Jx on a 4k7j2 board)

I am not saying do this often at all, the key to villian is he will triple barrel a ton. If he doesnt his triple barrel has much less bluffs in it. A lot of villians wont fire a third time with nothing so make sure it is someone who will.

We're never WA/WB with unimproved nines, though, since villain will so often have at least 6 overcard outs. That's what sucks about check/calling; we have to make new, difficult and often wrong decisions on the turn and river.

3-betting pre is an OK play, at least vs. most opponents. I think there's a sweet spot (sour spot?) in their 4-betting frequency where they 4-bet "just right" meaning that they bluff often enough that I don't want to be 3-betting mid pairs because I don't want to be bluffed off, yet I can't ship it vs. their range either. Once their 4-betting range starts creeping upwards of 2.5-3%, I'm happy to get it in with nines. And if it's below 1.5%, I'm happy to 3-bet/fold pre.

How much does my situation change if my hand had been 77 instead of 99? Same deal?

For calldowns - something I do occasionally, quite possibly too often - I of course prefer 99 vs. 77 (12 more combos of PPs I beat, more likely that my opponent has 3 outs instead of 6). It requires my opponent to be a barrelmonkey who hasn't yet figured out that I'm a showdownmonkey.

Are any of you suggesting no c-bet here?

Even a min bet will look powerful enough to cause villain some concern, and if he hit, he'll generally let you know.

The min bet here could be extra powerful if it is not something your villain sees often.

But I have zero experience at anything close to those stakes, and admit I'm the fish.

widowmaker89 said:

to say they can easily v bet us and can easily bluff us doesnt really make sense.

Click to expand...

Why not? You are giving villain all the choice by check/calling multiple streets because you're telling him your range just isn't strong. Thus, when villain knows this about you, if he's even half-way decent, he knows what sorts of cards are bad for you if he wants to bluff. And he gets a better idea about your range if he's inclined to v-bet thin.

Think about it this way: If you told villain you held a range of [77-99, Q8-KQ, medium flush draws] wouldn't it be easy to play against you? By check/calling multiple streets, we're making our hand range very narrow and weak/medium strength at most. And wether villain wants to v-bet or bluff, narrowing your hand range down makes his decision easier no matter what he wants to do. Obviously if he could see your cards, he'd be able to bluff us or v-bet us better, and this is a similar situation. It helps him be able to do both. Which is why check/calling multiple streets is so exploitable. When regs take that line against me its just too easy to assign them a range, and I start v-betting super thin, or bluffing super frequent depending on their tendancies, my hand, and the board.

So yeah, often I'll realize "Oh, villain has a medium strength hand (2nd pair - TPWK)". And sometimes the board will develop well for him to call me down, so I won't bluff. Or sometimes it will get scary and I will. Or sometimes I'll have a hand like top pair, 3rd kicker, and I'll just keep firing because I know I'm ahead. But either way, no matter what hand I hold, or what my goal, because my opponent has defined his hand in such an obvious way, that I can make better decisions against him.

I keep writing about this because I just hate hate hate hate hate a line of check/call, check/call, check/call. Your plan for the hand should almost never be to check/call every street without a damn good reason to do so, because its just so exploitable.

Alright well thats true, I guess I am ignoring any sort of knowledge villian has on me and assuming I have a substantial amount on him, which isnt fair obviously. My point is that if we expect him to triple barrel a huge portion of the time then we can profitable call, call, call on most boards. If he knows we do this that obviously changes everything and then he triples up much less bluffs and much thiner for value. But lets say we have never been in a button vs blind against him but know he will triple tons based on other obvservations, then I have no problem with a call call call plan since his range is so favored towards bluffs on some boards.

Now I rarely ever do this at all against anyone and am not a calling station in general but there are times where a call call call is fine imo.

If he opens 70% from the button and c-bets 80-80-80 then I will call him down a lot.

I guess a good way to put it is there are situations that players can know our hand and we can still be profitable. If he thinks we are folding a middle pair he will bluff more than he v bets. Hell if it goes brick, then A on river I still probably call a river bet against good aggro players since its such a good card to bluff yet really narrows his range. If he has QT he is probably checking back the river, obviously all Aces bet so do all bluffs. Obviously we cant just do this all the time, or it is super exploitable. Then we can start doing this with strong hands as well or start c/r more often if I notice he is checking back more hands on me.

As I said my main play is to probably c/r a lot of turns since it looks super strong and hard to bluff us but this was just another option that can be profitable.

I really hate a plan of check calling all the way down without a damn good reason but I think this can be a damn good reason against the correct players.

widowmaker89 said:

If he has QT he is probably checking back the river

Click to expand...

I would certainly bet KQ on the river if you had check/called me down with no reads, even if an ace hits. If I had spewy history against you (and I have spewy/aggro history against most players) I'm probably betting Q9 as well. And while that may just be me (I LOVE thin v-betting), but I don't think its that hard to figure out that your range sucks when you check 3 times. It ain't rocket science and even fish can "sense weakness".

widowmaker89 said:

I really hate a plan of check calling all the way down without a damn good reason but I think this can be a damn good reason against the correct players.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it can be profitable, and certain situations mean you should be willing to call 3 streets with 2nd pair or ace high or whatever. But you need reads, and REALLY GOOD ONES to do so. A high aggression factor and button vs. blind is not a read.

I honestly think one of my biggest leaks was making hero calls like this on too regular a basis. Or villain would start off bluffing, and then spike their gutshot/set/two-pair/whatever. I'd think it was a blank and call him down. So while yeah, he isn't going to bink a 4-outer every time, he's not going to fire 3 every hand either. So yeah, villain may make a smallish mistake on the flop c-betting a hand with 2-6 outs, but we're setting ourselves up to make a giant mistake on the turn-river with this mentality that we're calling down. Villain's wide range means that yes, he'll have lots of hands that he can turn into bluffs, but he'll also have weird crap that makes hands that have us crushed and we have no idea. And most villains play a pretty value based game, that I think makes blindly calling down pretty bad vs. most players. It takes hella balls to bluff 3 streets after a guy has check/called you, and I don't think many players have those.

c9h13no3 said:

Most players at 100NL play a value based game, and they just don't bluff enough to make this profitable.

Click to expand...

This I totally agree with and there are probably 2 people i have ever ran into that I would even consider doing this against. Im not really advocating check calling down, just saying its an option against some(very few) players and can be the best play.

Again the total key here is a high triple barrel. if someone opens super wide and triples nearly always they are bluffing so much more than they are v-betting and check calling can be most EV+. c/r is fine too obviously, especially since not many people fit the bill to check/call.

By the way im not trying to say you are wrong or anything, I love your game, just looking for other lines to take.

I am not doing this thinking I am best and hope we get to a cheap showdown. If he checks behind anywhere we are usually beat, so just to make it clear, I am doing this to get him to bluff. Its probably a higher variance line but it can be good.

edit after your edit: I agree most people dont have the balls and I really dont ever do this since so few players will fire three enough but when they come I think its a good line. Its a higher variance play since they will hit their hands sometime but if they are firing enough I think its fine.

So yeah, to answer FP's question, here's my decision making process:

1) On the flop, I'd be weighing check/calling vs. check/raising vs. check/folding if I didn't 3-bet pre.
2) If we're check-raising, I'd want a flop where we can rep a lot of dangerous non-draw hands, so like Q76tt. Villain can put us on a lot of hands that just aren't going to give up, but it doesn't hit his range all that hard. And obviously we want an opponent who c-bets wide, steals wide, and can fold postflop.
3) If we're check/calling then I'd like there to be some hands in my range that I can baluga bluff on the turn. If a nice turn peels off, then I'd certainly entertain calling down all the way to showdown, but I'm not using that as my best option unless my opponent really loves pressing the bet button.
4) And I'd like my opponent to suck. So if I think they have a bet-size tell, or if their decision making sucks postflop, then I'll be more inclined to play more poker on later streets. But if I respect a player's postflop game, then I'm more likely to check/fold or check/raise and try to end the hand ASAP. Players who obviously know how to make adjustments to people's game, I just avoid.

Or, in a nut-shell, I "play poker". But in all of this poker playing, my plan is rarely to call down 3 streets.

I think in this spot 3-bet > fold > call. I hate calling this preflop because basically unless we flop a set we have no idea where we are and villain can put us on a pretty narrow range unless we want to turn it into a bluff. So if he's very loose I 3-bet this and depending on his tendencies with 3 and 4-betting possibly get it in preflop. If he's competent I just fold because even if we beat his range that means squat if he can own us postflop. The only time I would flat is if this is a straightforward opponent who predictably does something like say cbet most boards and give up if called.

Sorry I would be a little pissed so take with pinches of evil.

What is so wrong with donking the flop, especially if we lead with sets in the same spot ? We C/R or C/C every time we flop a set here, do we now ?

Ie Bet/fold but at the same time having the abilitly to bet raise bluff, or bet raise for value.

zachvac said:

I think in this spot 3-bet > fold > call. I hate calling this preflop because basically unless we flop a set we have no idea where we are and villain can put us on a pretty narrow range unless we want to turn it into a bluff. So if he's very loose I 3-bet this and depending on his tendencies with 3 and 4-betting possibly get it in preflop. If he's competent I just fold because even if we beat his range that means squat if he can own us postflop. The only time I would flat is if this is a straightforward opponent who predictably does something like say cbet most boards and give up if called.

Click to expand...

Folding is certainly not > calling, at least not for me. Flatting mid pairs in BB pre shows a pretty decent profit for me over a large sample. I'm open to the idea that 3-betting is > flatting, though. If you 3-bet PPs from the blinds, as well as premiums and I assume stuff like AQ and AJs (or?), do you

a) never 3-bet as a pure bluff from the blinds, or
b) have something like 12% 3-bet from the BB?

Or do you just fold the majority of your PPs from the blinds? Again, I show a profit flatting so I don't think this is an option for me.

tenbob said:

What is so wrong with donking the flop, especially if we lead with sets in the same spot?

Click to expand...

1) The only time we can get called by worse is when villain has a plan to make life suck for us on the turn/river, so we likely won't get to showdown anyways.
2) Villain will c-bet this flop like always, unless he has Q2, TT, or JJ.
3) As a bluff, we're going to get floated/bluff raised a lot, so its unlikely to work.

So we can't donk lead for value, we can't donk lead as a bluff very successfully, and we lose out on his c-bet. Its very easy to exploit people who c-bet 100% of their range, you check to them, and let them bet. So why make things difficult by trying to exploit our opponent by donk-leading.

c9h13no3 said:

2) If we're check-raising, I'd want a flop where we can rep a lot of dangerous non-draw hands, so like Q76tt. Villain can put us on a lot of hands that just aren't going to give up, but it doesn't hit his range all that hard. And obviously we want an opponent who c-bets wide, steals wide, and can fold postflop

Click to expand...

I like your overall thought process, but disagree with this. I think we want draws (stronger is better) in our range to keep it wide. When we check-raise a flop with no draws, unless we do things like flat big pairs or KQ/AQ/AK/etc and check-raise top pairs (which very few people do but should do), then we're repping a small enough range that a good villain will just repop or float us to take it away later.


next post, just nitpicking:

c9h13no3 said:

2) Villain will c-bet this flop like always, unless he has Q2, TT, or JJ.

Click to expand...

A good villain will usually bet those hands for thin value. Lots of draws and worse pairs that will peel (ahem). But then again in your opinion a good player doesn't peel 9s here, so I see where you're coming from, ie he'd have to pot control them.

Donking is really bad though. Liam: betting to balance our sets means we're repping sets or marginal made hands (like 99) here. Marginal made hands by FAR make the bulk of our range in combinations, and villain will often just raise us. Donking doesn't work against good players. Bet/raising as a bluff is just committing way too much in a spot where we can balance our strong or even weak draws with our sets and not worry about doing anything with hands like 99.