[NL2-NL10] What to do after double up?

    • 098799
      098799
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.07.2007 Posts: 1,245
      Known players: (for a description of vp$ip, pfr, ats, folded bb, af, wts, wsd or hands click here)         
      Position:
      Stack
      Hero:
      $50.92
      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:heart: , A:club:
      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
      erob60
      Gold
      Joined: 08.03.2007 Posts: 165
      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
      xylere
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2007 Posts: 2,939
      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 :D
    • xylere
      xylere
      Bronze
      Joined: 27.05.2007 Posts: 2,939
      forgot to mention, that betting less with AA to decrease variance is extremely weak-tight approach :)
    • 098799
      098799
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.07.2007 Posts: 1,245
      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 ;) .