$25 NLHE 6-max: Always check the flop?

[dj11]

Goes to style. I approach mid pair passive aggressively. Setmining nearly always. Might not setmine with 22 from UTG, but would as an opener from LP. I limp in order to effect some sort of pot control. It usually works well to calm a multiway table down some. Yes, there is danger,

If the flop comes and squashes my 77, it is an easy hand to fold.

But here's the thing; 1-17 hands will see a pp. This works 2 different ways. Personally, I will see a pp once every 17 hands (almost 3 orbits). But someone on the table will have a pp once every (almost) 3 hands.

There is a very good probability that 77 is ahead most of the time, and the higher the pp, the more probable that is. So at 6 max I am not dropping TT, pre, ever. (OK, almost never).

I can see the argument for a rr with the 77, and that might depend on what my HUD suggests.

Post flop, this hand pretty much plays itself.

I understand the maths, but I am not convinced this is purely a math issue. To me, this is more a Poker issue (the big umbrella of Poker). The math can not always make your decisions.

I would love to learn a strat that makes it look like just a pot sweetener after the flop. Min bet? Might make it look like a noob cb.

 

[ChrisMurray]

Goes to style. I approach mid pair passive aggressively. Setmining nearly always. Might not setmine with 22 from UTG, but would as an opener from LP. I limp in order to effect some sort of pot control. It usually works well to calm a multiway table down some. Yes, there is danger,

If the flop comes and squashes my 77, it is an easy hand to fold.

But here's the thing; 1-17 hands will see a pp. This works 2 different ways. Personally, I will see a pp once every 17 hands (almost 3 orbits). But someone on the table will have a pp once every (almost) 3 hands.

There is a very good probability that 77 is ahead most of the time, and the higher the pp, the more probable that is. So at 6 max I am not dropping TT, pre, ever. (OK, almost never).

I can see the argument for rr the 77, and that might depend on what my HUD suggests.

Post flop, this hand pretty much plays itself.

I understand the maths, but I am not convinced this is purely a math issue. To me, this is more a Poker issue (the big umbrella of Poker). The math can not always make your decisions.

Interesting. I certainly agree with most of what you say. I agree about it being a poker issue, that's part of the reason I don't call here. It's so much harder to get value when we do flop a set from OOP, and if we get 4-bet by the raiser, well, we're hating life! Personally, cold-calling 3-bets is NEVER a play I make and when someone makes it against me, I'm loving life because I know 9/10 times it's going to be 77-JJ or AQ. Being able to put them on such a narrow range allows me to play asbolutely perfectly. On the flip side, being that predictable is why I don't want to call here, because it allows the villain to play perfectly against us.

Anyway, that's just my two cents!

 

[IPlay]

This convo went far and I do think we need to fold pre with this stack depth and being OOP. The 3bet was only against a minraise and would give us some implied odd post if we had ATLEAST 100bbs. I'd still prefer ~120 still but I'd settle for 100 if villain is a fish.

 

[dj11]

This hand is interesting in a couple of tangential ways. It is a ZOOM hand, and it is 6 max.

It is (for me) so much easier to fold 77 pre at a full table. I still see pp's only once in 17 hands, but the table will deal pp's to someone a bit better than every 2 hands. I still like to set mine most PP's but 'it depends' plays into the story more often at a full table. My personal starting hand chart has a leeway that includes calling (perhaps even cold calling a 3 bet)...but as always 'it depends'.

The Zoom part is that many players are jamming thru hands as fast as possible. Pure (educated) guess is that 1/2 the players have their mouse poised over the fold button every hand. This does not happen at regular tables. At 6 max it works out (if I am even close to right) that the hands play much like Spin and Goes. 3 handed at most, most of the time.

IMHO, this makes PP's almost always good enough to raise with on 6 max ZOOM tables, lots of folks are just itching to mash that fold button with marginal hands. Depending on position, it also makes it worthwhile (for my style) to set mine any pp.

I disagree Chris, I think hitting the set OOP makes it easier to score big. Traps usually work. Sure we all have the horror stories, but they usually work! 'Usually' here is probably well above 75%, but I haven't scoured my tracker stats in a while.

 

[ChrisMurray]

This hand is interesting in a couple of tangential ways. It is a ZOOM hand, and it is 6 max.

It is (for me) so much easier to fold 77 pre at a full table. I still see pp's only once in 17 hands, but the table will deal pp's to someone a bit better than every 2 hands. I still like to set mine most PP's but 'it depends' plays into the story more often at a full table. My personal starting hand chart has a leeway that includes calling (perhaps even cold calling a 3 bet)...but as always 'it depends'.

The Zoom part is that many players are jamming thru hands as fast as possible. Pure (educated) guess is that 1/2 the players have their mouse poised over the fold button every hand. This does not happen at regular tables. At 6 max it works out (if I am even close to right) that the hands play much like Spin and Goes. 3 handed at most, most of the time.

IMHO, this makes PP's almost always good enough to raise with on 6 max ZOOM tables, lots of folks are just itching to mash that fold button with marginal hands. Depending on position, it also makes it worthwhile (for my style) to set mine any pp.

I disagree Chris, I think hitting the set OOP makes it easier to score big. Traps usually work. Sure we all have the horror stories, but they usually work! 'Usually' here is probably well above 75%, but I haven't scoured my tracker stats in a while.

I think you certainly have a point about the unique nature of Zoom. Didn't consider that. I don't think you're quite right in the Spin comparison though, because I think players with have decent hands won't fold until they see what the action is like. But I take the point, there is a difference.


On the positional thing, being OOP is always a disadvantage. Say we hit a set OOP like this. We usually have to check (there are some situations where a case for leading could be made, but it's not commonplace). This gives the opportunity for the raiser to take a free card. He can outdraw us if he has a draw, and we also miss a crucial street of value. If we take the same hand in position, we don't run that risk because we control the hand. 'Position is power', he can't take a free card unless we let him.
OOP, you frequently miss some value because the other player gets to control the hand,l. You can mitigate this by C/Ring, but if he's got a hand strong enough to call a C/R in a 3-bet pot, you're probably getting all the money in anyway.