[NL2-NL10] FR NL25 - Bottom Two Pair...

    • Faye6891
      Faye6891
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.11.2007 Posts: 1,234
      No Limit Hold'em
      Blinds: $0.10/$0.25
      Stacks
      Hero: $25.00
      BB: $23.45

      Pre-flop: (8 players) Hero is UTG with 7 :club: 8 :club:
      Hero calls, 2 folds, MP2 calls, CO folds, BTN calls, SB folds, BB checks.

      OK, I know you're going to say "Fold PF". :D
      But I use a different SHC, and in this hand it doesn't make a difference, I had position on villain (BB).


      Flop: 8 :heart: K :spade: 7 :diamond: ($1.10, 4 players)
      BB bets $0.25, Hero raises to $1.10, 2 folds, BB reraises to $1.95, Hero reraises to $6.00, BB reraises to $23.20 and is all-in, Hero folds.

      Kinda tough decision here I think.
      Villain was not playing a lot of hands, and had been passive on the hands he played, and then he re-re-raises me all-in on a (almost) drawless flop.
      There is only a straight draw, but for a player that has been passive, I just couldn't put him on the draw nor a pair.
      He saw a free flop, so he could be holding K7 or K8, maybe 77 or 88 as well. And on any of these hands I'd be drawing very thin... or dead against 88.
      Decided it was best to fold here, and save my stack for a better spot.
  • 8 replies
    • chenny8888
      chenny8888
      Bronze
      Joined: 03.10.2007 Posts: 19,324
      or K9-KQ?, i definitely wouldn't fold here, at this limit bottom 2-pair on a rainbow non-connected board is the same as a set is the same as the absolute nuts
    • Peter87
      Peter87
      Bronze
      Joined: 05.04.2006 Posts: 13,565
      But I use a different SHC


      don´t do that :D

      call his minraise on the flop and evaltuate new on the turn. But you have bottom two and I don´t see any 1 pair Hand, that he would play like this.
    • Kaitz20
      Kaitz20
      Bronze
      Joined: 02.02.2007 Posts: 27,343
      Why should you want to limp with 78s. If you want to play, then better raise to get the initiative. Imo 78s is a little too weak to open raise with UTg, but I guess it depends if you are lag or tag. I think I would also call his min-reraise and then re-evaluate on the turn.
    • Thorsten77
      Thorsten77
      Black
      Joined: 28.05.2006 Posts: 12,896
      Originally posted by Faye6891
      But I use a different SHC
      You should ask the author of this SHC on the goal of limping a small SC from EP. Is it to hope fro a raise behind you to get an "easy fold" or do you want to play this hand w/o initiative and out of position? ;)
    • Faye6891
      Faye6891
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.11.2007 Posts: 1,234
      Originally posted by Thorsten77
      You should ask the author of this SHC on the goal of limping a small SC from EP.
      Anyone has Sklansky's e-mail? LOL! :D

      I thought strange at first when I saw this in his book, but I've been playing this way for about a month now, and I think it can be profitable (after all, it's Sklansky, right?), at least if the table's been passive. Because I probably won't get raised PF and I'll see a cheap flop, and if I hit two pair or better, or a draw (flush or straight), I take the initiative on the flop, I'm one of the first players to act after all.

      I've been taking down a lot of pots on semi-bluffs playing hands like this, and when I hit them I almost always get paid off. (get paid off = stack someone)

      Of course, even if the table's been passive, after I limp I get raised I have to reevaluate, most times it's a fold. But if it's a small raise and/or there are a few other callers, then I see a flop. (unless it's a very huge raise, then there's no way I'm getting decent implied odds to call, and it's an "easy fold". ;) After all I don't want to play this hand heads-up and OOP, in a multiway pot OOP it's OK though. :P )

      And believe me or not, my VPIP is something around 19%. (I don't use PokerTracker, this number is shown in Bodog software.)
    • helemaalnicks
      helemaalnicks
      Silver
      Joined: 21.09.2007 Posts: 7,195
      are you sure that sklansky wrote this SHC for lowlimit cashgames? I don't think so. The nice thing about playing cash is that you don't have to play, and thats why i'd fold suited connectors first in. I play outside the shc sometimes, but not as speculative as this, only completing sb with any 2 suited cards, any ace, etc. And I stretch the suitedconnector call rule a little bit on passive tables, where ive seen people slowplay their pocketrockets. But EP i would only limp those on passive tables in tournaments and sg's, because the time pressure makes me want to play nice implied odds more often.

      Oop these are more expensive if you are behind, and you win less if you hit your monster. In position, it's much easier to win an all in with those then it is oop. Thats why i would def. recommend you to print the bss PS SHC, and don't use the sklansky one. Safe those speculative, unexpected plays for higher limits or live tournaments.

      or K9-KQ?, i definitely wouldn't fold here, at this limit bottom 2-pair on a rainbow non-connected board is the same as a set is the same as the absolute nuts


      you dont play cashgames. In a s and g, this is a clear push, in a cashgame, i would be more careful. People are still donkeys in cashgames, but i don't think you get the right odds to push in this particular situation.
    • Faye6891
      Faye6891
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.11.2007 Posts: 1,234
      Originally posted by chenny8888
      or K9-KQ?, i definitely wouldn't fold here, at this limit bottom 2-pair on a rainbow non-connected board is the same as a set is the same as the absolute nuts
      Against a maniac I could expect these hands. But against a passive player, I just don't see how he could be holding only a King.

      And IMO you're making a big mistake if you play bottom 2 pair the same way you play a set.

      Set:
      The odds that you flop a set and your opponent flops a bigger set is very small. The odds that he flop a straight or flush are even smaller, but even then you still have around 34% chance of making a full house or quads.

      Two Pair:
      The odds that you flop bottom two pair and your opponnent flops top two, top and bottom pair, or a set are certainly bigger than in the case I mentioned above with trips. And when your opponent flops a straight or flush, you only have around 16% chance of improving to a full house (and a ridiculously small chance for quads with runner runner).

      So, IMO, two pair (specially bottom two) are a lot weaker than a set and shouldn't be played the same way.
    • Faye6891
      Faye6891
      Bronze
      Joined: 09.11.2007 Posts: 1,234
      Originally posted by helemaalnicks
      are you sure that sklansky wrote this SHC for lowlimit cashgames? I don't think so. The nice thing about playing cash is that you don't have to play, and thats why i'd fold suited connectors first in. I play outside the shc sometimes, but not as speculative as this, only completing sb with any 2 suited cards, any ace, etc. And I stretch the suitedconnector call rule a little bit on passive tables, where ive seen people slowplay their pocketrockets. But EP i would only limp those on passive tables in tournaments and sg's, because the time pressure makes me want to play nice implied odds more often.

      Oop these are more expensive if you are behind, and you win less if you hit your monster. In position, it's much easier to win an all in with those then it is oop. Thats why i would def. recommend you to print the bss PS SHC, and don't use the sklansky one. Safe those speculative, unexpected plays for higher limits or live tournaments.
      It's certainly not specified for low limit, but I think it can be used in any limit, I only read the book once, I will re-read a few times more when I have the time, to try and really understand it. (I have to admit I don't deeply understand everyplay I make. But I'm certainly not the only one. :D )

      What I understood from it is that I'm only calling $0.25 in order to try and win my opponent's $25.00 stack, that's 100-to-1 implied odds and that's pretty good. Of course, there will be times when I won't stack my opponent, but the fact that I will probably be in a multiway pot, my implied odds will be even higher, so, even OOP, that makes it a profitable play.

      Of course, I may have gotten it the wrong way, and I will certainly re-read the book.

      But I have been using this Preflop strategy for a month, and it seems to be working out so far, it's been about 10K hands, and I know it's not a big sample but my winrate is around 7.4BB/100Hands. (It even reached around 17BB/100Hands in the middle of the month, but I suffered a few bad beats along the way.)...... (And I don't have a clue if this winrate is good or not cause I don't know what the average is. :P But it's certainly higher than my Avg. in previous months.)

      These numbers, since I don't use PokerTracker, are all estimates since there's no way I can know the exact number of hands I played the entire month. And also there's no way I can really know if these especulative hands are being played profitably, but since I've been playing (really) a LOT of especulative hands, I believe I can assume with some degree of confidence that they are being profitable.

      And of course, I'd love to read PS Strategy article on BSS play (there's always something new to learn.), but first I have to reach silver status. And I haven't been working on those Strategy Points, only next month. :D

      P.S.: I just noticed that my posts are always so big... lol! :D