$10 NLHE 6-max: JJ in the blinds

[Aces2w1n]

lol the whole dont listen to you sticks out like dogs b#lls

 

[ekgbeat]

it doesnt matter cuz we assign a range and perhaps this time i got lucky or unlucky... most of us see so many hands we already know but doesnt mean we dont get leaks or bad plays in our game so we check or ask about diff plays...

thats why this hand is interesring because its a diff line wrong or right but it just raises a few questions and important ones

Answers or riot. I would like to know how this one ends, or at least your thoughts on why you took that line.

 

[Aces2w1n]

flatting to fold on flops didnt sound appealing.
setmining oop isnt a great idea either... i thought if he had ak he may call or hopefully i could take down the pot right there.

i just know medium pp oop in a mw pot generally doesnt fair well... i guess it was an answer to control the hand because if we flat we are never in control. unless ofc as dog says the j comes out...

 

[ekgbeat]

flatting to fold on flops didnt sound appealing.
setmining oop isnt a great idea either... i thought if he had ak he may call or hopefully i could take down the pot right there.

i just know medium pp oop in a mw pot generally doesnt fair well... i guess it was an answer to control the hand because if we flat we are never in control. unless ofc as dog says the j comes out...

I guess that is fair. Given that you are 100BB deep, and you are giving villain better than 2 to 1. They are incentivized to call with the equity in their range. I guess I would prefer to find a better spot to stack villain.

 

[nicolas jesus]

A question. Jj's hand in bb. if instead of having jj you got pocket queens. and suppose that the villain for 3 bet is rock. What is the correct way to play pocket queens?
and with respect to the hand, had not seen the villain for 3 bet pre flop has a low number 3 bet. There are few hands to take this into account, but apparently its range is short.

 

[ChrisMurray]

A question. Jj's hand in bb. if instead of having jj you got pocket queens. and suppose that the villain for 3 bet is rock. What is the correct way to play pocket queens?
and with respect to the hand, had not seen the villain for 3 bet pre flop has a low number 3 bet. There are few hands to take this into account, but apparently its range is short.

Unfortunately, the sample size we have on villain is too short to even consider the 3-bet number. It's meaningless until we have at least 100 hands, preferably more like 200.

And unless villain is a super-nit (with less than 3% 3-bet over a decent sample) I'm 4-betting QQ.

 

[seventhsense]

A question. Jj's hand in bb. if instead of having jj you got pocket queens. and suppose that the villain for 3 bet is rock. What is the correct way to play pocket queens?
and with respect to the hand, had not seen the villain for 3 bet pre flop has a low number 3 bet. There are few hands to take this into account, but apparently its range is short.

I would recommend not bracketing play against 'Rock's' or 'LAGs'. In fact, I hate the terms.

It is the same as asking ways to chat up a blonde. Then doing it differently for a brunette.

Not every 'TAG' plays the same. Not every blonde likes dead baby jokes.

If a player is stealing. Check their steal stat and adjust accordingly. If they are 4 betting. Check their 4 bet stat and adjust accordingly.

 

[John A]

I would recommend not bracketing play against 'Rock's' or 'LAGs'. In fact, I hate the terms.

It is the same as asking ways to chat up a blonde. Then doing it differently for a brunette.

Not every 'TAG' plays the same. Not every blonde likes dead baby jokes.

If a player is stealing. Check their steal stat and adjust accordingly. If they are 4 betting. Check their 4 bet stat and adjust accordingly.

True. Some blondes prefer babies on spikes jokes.

You just never really know.

In all seriousness I have to strongly disagree with you here. Classifying people is important. Then you refine your classification into finer and finer parts as you get more info. But in poker you're always working with limited info, so you have to make the most of what you do have. Not every LAG will play the same, but there's common tendencies that they do share, or any stereotype for that matter.

 

[seventhsense]

True. Some blondes prefer babies on spikes jokes.

You just never really know.

In all seriousness I have to strongly disagree with you here. Classifying people is important. Then you refine your classification into finer and finer parts as you get more info. But in poker you're always working with limited info, so you have to make the most of what you do have. Not every LAG will play the same, but there's common tendencies that they do share, or any stereotype for that matter.

For sure you can take information from other stats that maybe have converged over the number of hands you have, and use that to make educated guesses.

My point, especially considering we are talking about a fairly fast converging stat, is that we are asking 'how do we respond against a TAG?'. Instead, I think it makes far more sense to be asking, 'how do we respond against a 4-5% 3 bettor?'.

I am absolutely not suggesting that we shouldn't use VPIP/PFR to make an educated guess on stats if they haven't yet converged. But once they have, calling them a TAG or LAG is really not descriptive enough to be accurate because once we have the info to assume both parts of the TAG or LAG style, we probably have a lot of post flop hands on them and can use specific stats more reliably. It's mostly the AG part that I have problems with. It takes a lot of hands to work out how aggro someone is post flop and when we do, we will have stats on Cbet/FCB/donk/CR that will be more reliable.

 

[ChrisMurray]

For sure you can take information from other stats that maybe have converged over the number of hands you have, and use that to make educated guesses.

My point, especially considering we are talking about a fairly fast converging stat, is that we are asking 'how do we respond against a TAG?'. Instead, I think it makes far more sense to be asking, 'how do we respond against a 4-5% 3 bettor?'.

I am absolutely not suggesting that we shouldn't use VPIP/PFR to make an educated guess on stats if they haven't yet converged. But once they have, calling them a TAG or LAG is really not descriptive enough to be accurate because once we have the info to assume both parts of the TAG or LAG style, we probably have a lot of post flop hands on them and can use specific stats more reliably. It's mostly the AG part that I have problems with. It takes a lot of hands to work out how aggro someone is post flop and when we do, we will have stats on Cbet/FCB/donk/CR that will be more reliable.

I actually agree with this. Generic labels are fine when we have limited information on our opponents, but as soon as we are able to accurately view more detailed statistics, we should approach each player differently.

For example, some players (this is quite common) are very passive pre-flop, and very aggressive post-flop. If you label them as a LAG, you're going to end up making pre-flop mistakes.

 

[Four Dogs]

lol the whole dont listen to you sticks out like dogs b#lls

My standard disclamer. Don't want to get sued.