This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

[NL2-NL10] NL4; SH: 22 cold call

    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      IPoker, $0.02/$0.04 No Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
      Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

      BTN: $5.30 (132.5 bb)
      SB: $4.69 (117.3 bb)
      BB: $7.66 (191.5 bb)
      UTG: $5.66 (141.5 bb)
      MP: $2.40 (60 bb)
      Hero (CO): $4.11 (102.8 bb)

      Preflop: Hero is CO with 2 2
      UTG raises to $0.16, MP calls $0.16, Hero calls $0.16, 3 folds

      Flop: ($0.54) 8 6 A (3 players)
      UTG checks, MP checks, Hero checks

      Turn: ($0.54) A (3 players)
      UTG bets $0.32, MP calls $0.32, Hero folds

      River: ($1.18) 2 (2 players)
      UTG checks, MP bets $0.40, UTG calls $0.40

      Results: $1.98 pot ($0.13 rake)
      Final Board: 8 6 A A 2
      UTG showed T T and won $1.85 ($0.97 net)
      MP showed 9 T and lost (-$0.88 net)



      The initial raiser is an unknown, the midstack is a huge fish.
      The call preflop is standard, I guess. About postflop: because our opponent is a fish, I decided not to make a position bet, but had the second player not been such a fish, could I consider betting to get the pot?
  • 8 replies
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello Avatars91,

      The only option would be to Bet is the flop. But even than I am not really sure if we should do that. :) Rather just take the passive approach with your PP.

      Best Regards.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      But I've read somewhere here on pokerstrategy.com or seen a video where it is said that you can make position bets IP 3handed to get the pot. You know - take a stab at it, since the initial raiser didn't cbet and the other guy checked as well.

      Under what conditions, if any, can we make such a play?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      But I've read somewhere here on pokerstrategy.com or seen a video where it is said that you can make position bets IP 3handed to get the pot. You know - take a stab at it, since the initial raiser didn't cbet and the other guy checked as well.

      Under what conditions, if any, can we make such a play?
      Well, as you described perfectly well yourself, when the preflop aggressor doesn't show interest in the pot.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      But that is exactly what happened in this very own hand. Except the fact that the second guy is a big fish. Is taking the passive approach, as you suggested, preferable because of the fact that there is a fish in the hand?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      But that is exactly what happened in this very own hand. Except the fact that the second guy is a big fish. Is taking the passive approach, as you suggested, preferable because of the fact that there is a fish in the hand?
      If there is a huge fish in the pot who can even float with 8x hands or even weaker pairs/PPs then seems to be fine.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      I didn't quite understand. You mean if the fish calls with 8x or weaker pairs it's desirable to fold?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      I didn't quite understand. You mean if the fish calls with 8x or weaker pairs it's desirable to fold?
      It's desirable to Check behind the flop. :> Guess we both were talking about different stuff. :f_biggrin:
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Lol, no. I just said 'fold' accidentally instead of 'check-behind'. I understand now.

      Thank you!