Pocket pairs unimproved on the flop

» KOLUMNE

Pocket Pairs unimproved on the Flop

von MiiWiin

We usually consider pocket pairs to be relatively strong before the flop, because they have the potential to turn into a monster after the flop. However, if we fail to improve on the flop because we missed our set, it is difficult to progress with the hand. Although there is no standard way of playing these hands, I would like to offer some thoughts and suggestions.

Most players acknowledge that pocket pairs possess the potential to become a very strong hand in No-Limit-Holdem. For this strength to be realised, we have to hit our set on the flop, where we would then be obliged to go broke. However, if we miss the flop, our hand is quite weak most of the time.

The advantage of a pocket pair is its playability: a set is a very strong hand that cannot be dominated, because the problem of a weak kicker doesn't exist. The disadvantage is that all we are playing for, essentially, is set value, and the chances of making any other hand are slim. We rarely hold an over pair with a medium pocket pair on the flop and even if we do, our hand is still quite weak. We only have 2 outs to improve considerably, so it is rare we hit any draws.

I have selected some situations involving pocket pairs in order to demonstrate their playability. We will be dealing with medium pocket pairs, which we are playing without initiative, because we only called for set value before the flop.

PartyPoker $25 NL Hold'em (6 handed)

Stacks & Stats
MP ($25)
CO ($25)
UTG ($25)
BB ($25)
SB ($25)
Hero ($25)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 8 , 8
UTG raises to $1.00 2 folds, Hero calls to $1.00, 2 folds

Flop: ($2.25) 3, 3, K (2 players)
SB bets $1.50, Hero?

The following thoughts allude to this or similar situations. We aren't dealing with pocket pairs like 22/33 or QQ/KK. The question whether you could have raised pre-flop is not of interest now - we are in this situation and have to deal with it.

The position: Let's assume we generally call pocket pairs for set value in position. We avoid open limping because we would either be out of position in a 3-bet pot or, if villain only called, the initiative would be on us . The most likely situation is the blind-defence, where we call our pocket pair from the blinds, and have to play out of position. We will focus on the game in position and briefly deal with playing out of position.

Our options: Let's use the example from above: We called in position pre-flop and are now playing heads-up, having failed to improve. Villain makes his standard continuation bet. What do we do now?

As usual we have three possibilities: Fold, call or raise.

A Fold would be the easiest decision, as we have failed to hit the board.

If we Raise, we may be forced to make another decision, depending on how the villain acts. If he folds, we would win the hand straight away, but what do we do if he calls, or 3-bets?

If we decide to Call, we have to make another decision on the turn. If villain checks to us, do we check as well, or do we bet? Do we fold, call or raise if villain bets on the turn again?

As already mentioned, folding would be the simplest decision. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we actually folded the best hand?

What is villain capable of? Do we possess any stats or reads on him, or is he unknown? Have we thought about how the hand is going to develop later? If villain is a tight player, we would only put him on premium hands from UTG. We called purely for set value and were prepared to give up the hand if we missed the board.

We assume that we are behind before the flop and cannot bluff villain off his hand. If these two thoughts are in your mind, a fold is the logical decision.

What changes if we were playing against a loose player against whom we could still be ahead?

If you decide to raise in this situation, you have to ask yourself what you are hoping to achieve.

A raise basically has two different purposes: on the one hand, we raise for value because we want to get paid off by worse hands, and on the other we raise to create fold equity, in order to make better hands fold.

Let's use the example with the tight UTG-raiser again. We think that he has a strong hand but decide to raise! This raise cannot be for value because we already think that we are behind. However, can we make hands like QQ/JJ fold by raising? If you cannot provide a definite answer, what is the point of raising?

If we were convinced that villain could fold a stronger hand in this situation, a bluff raise would make sense.

It will be a lot more problematic if you are playing against a loose villain who is capable of playing much worse hands pre-flop. (I would like to say that we could have 3-bet preflop as well. In this case we elected to call in position though).

How is villain going to react to our raise? Is he that loose that he would actually call with worse hands, meaning we could raise for value, or does this mean that we can't get villain to fold a better hand?

If we assume that villain will 2nd-barrel a lot, a raise would be the best solution. We will create some fold equity and take villains opportunity to bluff us out of the hand. It's obviously very hard to put your hand in relation to villains range, in order to decide how far you want to go with the hand.

By default, we should consider the hand to be lost if villain 3-bets, no matter what you think of the player. It will only be interesting if he calls.

You have to try to put your opponent on a range on the flop, as well as the turn. The fold equity against a loose player, who plays bet/call on the flop, isn't that great. The pot will also be very large most of the time. You should therefore refrain from making another bet in most cases, to hope for a cheap showdown.

The last option would be a call. By calling we stay in the hand, but we obviously don't create any fold equity. We can't win the hand immediately and have to reach another decision on the turn. This might be logical to you, but this implies that you already have a plan for the turn when you are calling the flop.

Which possibilities do we have on the turn?

If villain bets again, we theoretically have three options. A raise should be an exception. We can never be sure to be ahead in this position, therefore raising for value is out of the equation. If we are convinced that we create a lot of fold equity by raising, we would need some good reads on the opponent, because a 2nd barrel certainly illustrates strength.

This leaves us with two options: call and fold. Against a very tight player, a fold would be a good option because we could put him on a very strong hand if he 2nd barrels, or respectively only 2nd barrels when he has a made hand. Some might think that the option call flop / fold turn demonstrates weakness, however, we have invested very little money and are quite sure to be behind due to our reads. We believe we have received enough information regarding villains' hand to be able to assume that we are behind on the turn. We can therefore fold.

If we were to call again, we would enter a "way ahead /way behind" situation, which fails to make sense against a tight opponent. It would have to be an opponent who is very loose aggressive and whom we don't give much credit for his earlier bet. Just as you have to have a plan for the turn when you are calling the flop, you have to have a plan for the river when you are calling the turn.

Are we really in a way ahead/way behind situation? Can we put our opponent on a weaker hand, even though he is prepared to barrel three times? Can we call another bet with our relatively weak made hand on the river, and expect to be ahead?

A big problem arises: if we don't intend to call on the river, even though we assume that villain will bluff quite often, in which case we should have given up our hand on the turn rather than the river. However, if we decide to be in a "way ahead / way behind" situation due to the looseness of the player, we should call the river as well.

The possibility of villain checking to us also still exists. We have the option of checking behind or making a bet. If we decide to bet, the hand will turn into a float. A float is a bluff. Our goal would be to make villain fold a better hand.

Against an aggressive villain who is capable of bluff check raising us on the turn or bluff bet on the river, we should check behind on the turn and call the river if we think that we are ahead.

If we are dealing with a tight player, you have to ask yourself whether villain is capable of folding a better hand as well. Again, you should float if you see any fold equity.

It was already mentioned that we should avoid playing out of position with small pocket pairs.

You can convert your hand into a pure bluff and play donk bet/fold, however we will be bluff raised by many players, because the pre-flop aggressor doesn't want to give up his over cards. We would be folding the best hand because we cannot call the raise.

Furthermore, you could also check raise, which creates more fold equity, but of course, is a bluff as well. The disadvantage of a check raise is that it is much more expensive and therefore has to have a high success rate.

However, you could check/call as well. We would basically float out of position if we decide to play check/call on the flop and then donk-bet the turn. This is a good option against very aggressive players. We would at least win the continuation bet of players who like to bluff a lot. When we know that this player frequently 2nd barrels the turn with air, but avoids raising after our donk bet, because he would basically commit himself, this play would be a good option.

We can play check/fold against tighter players because we wouldn't expect them to 2nd barrel with air. We would take our hand, which might still be the best, to the showdown cheaply and expect to be behind after the turn bet of a tight-passive player.

The situations described in this article mostly deal with heads-up situations from the flop onwards. If we are in a multiway pot, we could be playing against several hands, which might be better than ours or hands that have many outs against us. Our fold equity will be very low. We should act much more carefully.

These two scenarios are very generalised and should only be an approach to help you get started. Having exact reads and stats of villain enables us to estimate which hands he raises with preflop, how many times he bets the flop and turn and how often he gives up his hand. Values like "went to showdown" are especially important when you try to float.

Additionally, actions on the turn and river are dependent on the board. Can we bluff on certain cards or are there certain cards which obviously didn't change the situation at all?

Our history and table image are of course imperative when coming to a decision. If we have floated quite often in the past, we should fold pocket pairs straight away more often. If we have been fairly aggressive in the past and think that we are ahead, we should try to see a showdown and check the turn.

It is also important to make use of deception and balancing. For example if we play "check/call flop // check turn" only with small pocket pairs we didn't hit, a villain could pick up on this and start to 2nd barrel more often. Obviously we could also make use of this in turn by playing the same way with a set and then check-raise the turn.

The same applies to any attempt to float - we should follow a similar pattern with strong, made hands. It's also crucial that you avoid folding too many hands straight away. We know that we only hit our set one in eight times. If we fold our hand seven out of the eight times on the flop because we didn't hit, we won't get paid off that often if we do hit our set.