[NL2-NL10] Nl2 - Kk

    • lynius
      lynius
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.01.2011 Posts: 382
      Known players:
      Position:
      Stack
      SB:
      $2
      Hero:
      $1.82
      MP3:
      $4.94

      0.01/0.02 No-Limit Hold'em (9 handed)
      Hand recorder used for this poker hand: PokerStrategy.com Elephant 0.102 by www.pokerstrategy.com.

      Preflop: Hero is MP2 with K:diamond: , K:club:
      3 folds, Hero raises to $0.06, MP3 calls $0.06, 2 folds, SB calls $0.05, BB folds.

        Don't know what I was thinking here with this raise size. I recall it was a fairly tight table, though noting that I'm MP2, I really should have gone for the 4BB

        Is there any neccessity to play smaller raises preflop on a tight table?

      Flop: ($0.20) T:club: , 9:diamond: , 4:diamond: (3 players)
      SB checks, Hero bets $0.12, MP3 raises to $0.24, SB folds, Hero raises to $0.48, MP3 raises to $0.72, Hero calls $0.24.

        Made a standard conti-bet on a board that looked like it was drawy. Villain had been quite aggressive so I'd assumed semi-bluffs were going on. I decided not to shove after his 4-bet, fearing trips, but with such a thought - should I fold or call here?

      Turn: ($1.64) 6:club: (2 players)
      Hero checks, MP3 bets $1.2, Hero ...
  • 3 replies
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello lynius,

      Yeah, well preflop 4xBB. :P Also add to full stack. :)

      But as played I'd still Cbet bigger ~$0,18 the board is way too drawy. And as we get raised I'd really rather prefer to Call his raise than isolate ourselves against very strong hands. Even if you raise there then why the heck do you raise so smallish? I mean you are giving perfect odds for him to draw. :) And of course as we face such a 4bet then it's most likely a sign that we can easily be far-far behind here. He is most likely rather trapping than bluffing here.

      Best regards.
    • lynius
      lynius
      Bronze
      Joined: 15.01.2011 Posts: 382
      Originally posted by veriz
      the board is way too drawy.
      • Can 2 connections (2 cards next to each other, 2 cards suited), really constitute "way too drawy"?

      • Whilst I can appreciate that an OESD+FD are possible, surely I can't bet 80% of the pot every time a damp flop comes down?

      • Otherwise, would the suggestion of an 80% c-bet be more based upon the high VPIP of opponents, plus the fact that there are multiple opponents?

      • Finally, would such a sized c-bet be more focused on protection or value maximisation? What should I be more focused on in this spot?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Can 2 connections (2 cards next to each other, 2 cards suited), really constitute "way too drawy"?

      I don't understand your question? You want to say that it's not drawy or what? As I said, the board is draw-heavy.

      Whilst I can appreciate that an OESD+FD are possible, surely I can't bet 80% of the pot every time a damp flop comes down?

      Why not? Why shouldn't we bet for value? Why do you want to skip the value and obviously the protection?

      Otherwise, would the suggestion of an 80% c-bet be more based upon the high VPIP of opponents, plus the fact that there are multiple opponents?

      Value-hand, high VPIP and etc stuff. There are couple of factors and no factors instead us not doing 80% Cbet.

      Finally, would such a sized c-bet be more focused on protection or value maximisation? What should I be more focused on in this spot?

      Betting for protection mostly = value-bet. :) And yes, our idea is to get more value in those spots while the opponents are very loose and capable of paying with very wide range.

      I would definitely advice you to re-read articles about bet sizes.