Frustrating 200 nl hand for 250 BB's

villian is pretty loose, but seems decent. im running 19/8.
On the turn i figured he might've made the str8 with 6 4, so i just called hoping the board would pair.
when it did, I knew he'd bet the river hard so thats why i check raised all in. I couldnt put him on J7. it was such a weird hand to have.
I didnt think he could have JJ, because of his late position and i had seen him raise in a similar situation.

how did i do?

POKERSTARS GAME #5378289369: HOLD'EM NO LIMIT ($1/$2) - 2006/06/26 - 23:51:29 (ET)
Table 'Kale' 9-max Seat #9 is the button
Seat 2: eckoo ($194 in chips)
Seat 3: bulldog77 ($68 in chips)
Seat 4: homeboy604 ($221.20 in chips)
Seat 5: FilmDirector ($198 in chips)
Seat 6: rgolazo ($321.05 in chips)
Seat 7: double b 10 ($232.55 in chips)
Seat 8: JumboShrmp ($162.30 in chips)
Seat 9: borgata9 ($369.90 in chips)
eckoo: posts small blind $1
bulldog77: posts big blind $2
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to homeboy604 [5c 5s]
homeboy604: calls $2
FilmDirector: folds
rgolazo: calls $2
double b 10: folds
JumboShrmp: folds
borgata9: calls $2
eckoo: folds
bulldog77: checks
*** FLOP *** [5h 3h Jd]
bulldog77: checks
homeboy604: bets $6
rgolazo: calls $6
borgata9: calls $6
bulldog77: folds
*** TURN *** [5h 3h Jd] [7s]
homeboy604: bets $20
rgolazo: calls $20
borgata9: raises $40 to $60
homeboy604: calls $40
rgolazo: folds
*** RIVER *** [5h 3h Jd 7s] [7h]
homeboy604: checks
borgata9: bets $60
homeboy604: raises $93.20 to $153.20 and is all-in
borgata9: calls $93.20
*** SHOW DOWN ***
homeboy604: shows [5c 5s] (a full house, Fives full of Sevens)
borgata9: shows [7d Jc] (a full house, Sevens full of Jacks)
borgata9 collected $470.40 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $473.40 | Rake $3
Board [5h 3h Jd 7s 7h]
Seat 2: eckoo (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: bulldog77 (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: homeboy604 showed [5c 5s] and lost with a full house, Fives full of Sevens
Seat 5: FilmDirector folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: rgolazo folded on the Turn
Seat 7: double b 10 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 8: JumboShrmp folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 9: borgata9 (button) showed [7d Jc] and won ($470.40) with a full house, Sevens full of Jacks

um you only have 100bbs.

this hand is one reason why I raise all pps in all positions.

As played theres really no way you could hope to get away from it.

^^^ total pot was 250 bbs
how do you find raising stuff like 22-66 in all positions at a loose table?
hard to play?
those are the only ones i dont raise pf in early position.

Here's all the advantages of raising all pairs IMO:

I generally have a tight enough image that I get a decent amount of fold equity on the flop after I raise pf. If I just limp the PP's I find myself having to give up on the flop too much.

It gets me into less sticky situations when I flop bottom set. Bottom set is often the second best hand in an unraised, multiway pot, whereas unimproved pocket pairs are often good in raised, heads up pots.

I take down the blinds a lot.

Whenever I flop a set, I am more likely to have action (and the kind of action I want).

It opens up my raising range in all positions, giving me more action on my AA/KK.



Of course, the disadvantage is that you sometimes get reraised off it preflop. But in soft games this isn't a worry really. Most people min-reraise so you are priced in to set up anyways.




I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this strategy.

renton, good post, and I agree with most of it.

A quick question...

Quote:

---

Here's all the advantages of raising all pairs IMO:

---

Quote:

---

It gets me into less sticky situations when I flop bottom set. Bottom set is often the second best hand in an unraised, multiway pot, whereas unimproved pocket pairs are often good in raised, heads up pots.

---

Can you elaborate on this statement some more with these facts in mind?

1) people don't fold pairs for standard raises
2) bottom set is good the vast majority of the time in unraised multiway pots (yes I know things changes when the nitty UTG limper starts playing back at you, but we don't have this info yet).

I would have got the money in on the turn.

^^^^like i said, i thought he might have 64. i was in check call mode unless the board paired on the river.
i think if i go all in on the turn he calls anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Can you elaborate on this statement some more with these facts in mind?

1) people don't fold pairs for standard raises
2) bottom set is good the vast majority of the time in unraised multiway pots (yes I know things changes when the nitty UTG limper starts playing back at you, but we don't have this info yet).

---

Bottom set is good the vast majority of the time ANYWAY regardess of the nature of the pot. My point is that it is usually a stronger hand in a raise pot because isolation occurred preflop (e.g. less players and the hand we're heads up with a hand that is somewhat defined).

We don't intend to fold out pairs. If we raise with 22, they call with 33 and we both flop sets, we're probably not getting away from it. What we do fold out however is unpaired hands that make unlikely boats, like J7.

Also in a raised pot the stack ratios are much less deep when we hit our set. It thus becomes more "correct" for someone to stack off with top pair. Even a donk can often get away from top pair in an unraised pot because the effective stacks are so high related to the size of the pot on the flop.

Yeah, good post, Renton.

I also raise all PPs in all positions. Another advantage to doing so that you left off is that your sets are camoflaged. There's nothing more transparent, once you start looking for it, than the old limp from UTG/call a big PF raise.

Also, related to Lukie's post, I think raising low PPs may not greatly reduce the amount of times bottom set isn't good, but it certainly reduces the amount of times you run into situations like this hand--it gets rid of the weird hidden straight/boat hands that people make when they're allowed to limp.

Quote:

---

Bottom set is good the vast majority of the time ANYWAY regardess of the nature of the pot. My point is that it is usually a stronger hand in a raise pot because isolation occurred preflop (e.g. less players and the hand we're heads up with a hand that is somewhat defined).

---

What exactly makes bottom set a stronger hand in a raised pot then an unraised pot, given the assumptions that the board won't flop made straight or made flush possibilities, AND that people aren't folding pairs preflop for standard raises? I'm speaking just about hand strength, not stack size or deception or whatever.

Quote:

---

We don't intend to fold out pairs. If we raise with 22, they call with 33 and we both flop sets, we're probably not getting away from it. What we do fold out however is unpaired hands that make unlikely boats, like J7.

---

that make unlikely boats eh? What do you think the odds are that we'll hit an underful and an unpaired hand will hit an overfull? I have no idea what the answer is, but I can gaurentee you 100% that they are astronomical.

Quote:

---

Also in a raised pot the stack ratios are much less deep when we hit our set. It thus becomes more "correct" for someone to stack off with top pair. Even a donk can often get away from top pair in an unraised pot because the effective stacks are so high related to the size of the pot on the flop.

---

agreed, although it's worthy to note, that against players like us, it's basically never correct to stack off with just top pair. period.


fwiw, I'm not really arguing that raising pairs is bad, but I think some of your reasoning is a bit faulty. Like in a 6max game where everyone has relatively healthy stacks, I'll open 22+ from all positions, and I'd much rather raise them then overlimp. Although in a FR game I think opening all pairs from all positions is a bit silly, particularly given the table dynamics of most middlish stakes games.

Quote:

---

Also, related to Lukie's post, I think raising low PPs may not greatly reduce the amount of times bottom set isn't good, but it certainly reduces the amount of times you run into situations like this hand--it gets rid of the weird hidden straight/boat hands that people make when they're allowed to limp.

---

why do we want to get rid of situations like this hand?

Do you guys understand how grossly +EV we are in this hand given how the flop and turn played? (i'd probably 3-bet the turn, but that's irrelavent to my point)

in actuality we were in great shape throughout this hand.

However, in the abstract, where we don't know whats in villains hand, we are alone in the dark. We have no idea where we were at. This is obvious, as hero was just saying that on the turn he figured he was up against the str8. In reality he was in great shape until the river.

The point is that there isn't as much darkness obscuring villains hand if we'd've raised preflop.

good point, and one that I never argued against.

Neither of us had made any prior mention to it, however...

Quote:

---

why do we want to get rid of situations like this hand?

---

We obviously don't want to get rid of situations exactly like this hand where we're way ahead until villain hits a miracle turn and river. I think you're being a bit intentionally obtuse.

Quote:

---

Although in a FR game I think opening all pairs from all positions is a bit silly, particularly given the table dynamics of most middlish stakes games.

---

Could you please elaborate on this? I'm only playing NL100 FR, but I find that everything Renton wrote earlier is dead on. I'm guessing you're saying that at higher stakes an early position raise is more likely to be reraised, thus fucking our implied odds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Here's all the advantages of raising all pairs IMO:

I generally have a tight enough image that I get a decent amount of fold equity on the flop after I raise pf. If I just limp the PP's I find myself having to give up on the flop too much.

---

I've played around with open-raising all PP's from any position, but I feel like it gives me a loose image and I lose $ to pre-flop re-raises, or called or raised c-bets. How do you figure you keep a tight image with this strategy? Just raising 22+ & AK from UTG is 7% of hands, much looser than average I think, and adding AQ makes it 8%. Adding more hands in position will easily put your PFR% over 10, which I think is begging people to play back at you and push you off your low PP's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

Here's all the advantages of raising all pairs IMO:

I generally have a tight enough image that I get a decent amount of fold equity on the flop after I raise pf. If I just limp the PP's I find myself having to give up on the flop too much.

---

I've played around with open-raising all PP's from any position, but I feel like it gives me a loose image and I lose $ to pre-flop re-raises, or called or raised c-bets. How do you figure you keep a tight image with this strategy? Just raising 22+ & AK from UTG is 7% of hands, much looser than average I think, and adding AQ makes it 8%. Adding more hands in position will easily put your PFR% over 10, which I think is begging people to play back at you and push you off your low PP's.

---

PFR over 10 equals good.

And its still a fairly tight range. Most great full ring players raise around ten percent.

The goal of a good player is to be just loose enough to instill doubt in his opponents when he bets, but just tight enough to have the best of it more often than not. He doesn't want his bets to be entirely respected. He wants his opponents to look at every single one of his bets and wonder if he has it.

I like people to think I am capable of having air whenever I bet, because it causes them to guess. If your opponents guess, then you have an edge over them immediately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

that make unlikely boats eh? What do you think the odds are that we'll hit an underful and an unpaired hand will hit an overfull?

---

Its a bit easier to lay down 33 on a JKK3 board than it is to lay down 33 on a J773 board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

PFR over 10 equals good.

And its still a fairly tight range. Most great full ring players raise around ten percent.

---

At 50NL I think the average PFR% is only 5 or 6. I run around 22/9 and feel like I get played back at fairly often. This is usually good, but if I'm raising any PP from any position, I have to dump them a lot. I might just need to pick my c-bet spots better.

Quote:

---

PFR over 10 equals good.

---

Ahhh, dunno about that. There was a 2+2 poll of all the successful smaller-stakes players and I believe the average was around 6, surprisingly. Kind of meaningless in a vacuum, but I certainly don't think there's any hard and fast, "over ten is good" rule you can make.

almost all of the sharks in the waters I play at have a PFR between 9 and 11.

Are you 6max or FR? If 6max, I think 11ish was the norm.

full ring

guys like renton have inspired me to forget my knit ways of the past, and open up my pfr'ing range.
i used to be at about 3.5, but now ive more then doubled that, and im almost positive that im making more money this way (almost positive because ive only been playing this way for 10k hands or so.)

i recomend opening up your pfr range to anybody.

renton,

arent you the advocate of utg limping that ive been posting with for the last couple days? WHY would you raise with a small pp from utg and limp with q 10? Im NOT trying to say that raising from utg with a pp is a bad play , but dont you get the same advantages from raising with 55 that you would get with raising q 10?

My PFR is edging above 8, but this involves selectively raising PPs (still limping 50%+) - selectively meaning position, table texture and the occasional mixing-it-up. However, I have recently been winning money with low PPs (22-66) and losing substantially with 77-99, so clearly I need to take a closer look at how I play them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by izybx

renton,

arent you the advocate of utg limping that ive been posting with for the last couple days? WHY would you raise with a small pp from utg and limp with q 10? Im NOT trying to say that raising from utg with a pp is a bad play , but dont you get the same advantages from raising with 55 that you would get with raising q 10?

---

QTs is a hand you want to be playing with deep stack ratios, whereas you want to build a pot preflop before you flop a set with 22. Plus, 22 is more likely than QT to have showdown value after the flop.