[Closed] What to do after double up?

Hand discussions for No Limit

Last Post by 098799 19 years ago

5 Posts

3 Users

0 Reactions

539 Views

RSS

098799

Joined: 23.07.2007

Posts: 1,059

22.03.2008, 18:49 0

Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)
[tg]Position_Stack:hands/vp$ip/pfr/af/wts/ats/foldbb/w$sd;Hero$50.92:///////;[/tg]Hero$50.92
0.50/1 No-Limit Hold'em (10 handed)
Hand recorder used for this poker hand: Texas Grabem 1.9 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A♥, A♣
UTG folds, Hero raises to $6.00, 8 folds.

Final Pot: $7.50

Let me post this hand to start a discussion about the play after double-up. Do you tighten up or maybe loosen up? At the example hand I raised 6BB instead of 4 to reduce variance. I'm wondering if such a play can be marked as +EV or maybe rather -EV.

I would like to see some of you sharing experience about the play after double-up.

4 replies

erob60

Joined: 08.03.2007

Posts: 163

22.03.2008, 20:02 0

Raising strongly with aces is never -EV. Either you pick up the blinds or the opponent puts money into the pot when they are way behind.

Unless you are confident about playing other hands with a mid-stack (not usually advisable), its probably just best to play AA and KK (and play them aggressively).

xylere

Joined: 28.05.2007

Posts: 2,078

22.03.2008, 20:28 0

erob60 explained it well.
With 40BB stack you will give opponents higher implied odds, so their mistakes will be cheaper. Also, more players know how to adjust against a midstack.

I would play
early: JJ+, AK
Middle: TT+, AK, AQs maybe
Late: everything that i like ♦

xylere

Joined: 28.05.2007

Posts: 2,078

22.03.2008, 20:31 0

forgot to mention, that betting less with AA to decrease variance is extremely weak-tight approach

098799 Topic starter

Joined: 23.07.2007

Posts: 1,059

22.03.2008, 22:10 0

Originally posted by xylere
forgot to mention, that betting less with AA to decrease the variance is extremely weak-tight approach

? Do you mean 'more'? And yes, i thought so ;). But it stays in rough contradiction to what erob said ;).