have 22 facing preflop raise

really typical situation, almost didn't make the thread because I'm not sure how seriously people will take me or realistically look at the situation.

anyway,

5/10 NL with 1k effective all the way around.

5-handed, UTG opens to 35, we have 22 in the CO.

UTG is a very good aggro player, runs maybe 22/17ish and fires 1-2 barrels frequently postflop, generally doesn't get it in without the goods but is aggro enough to make the occasional move. no blatantly exploitable post-flop tendencies.

best play right now and why? how do we balance this out % wise assuming that calling 100% of the time may be standard but most certainly isn't ideal. i'm not saying it's not the best play.

some random thoughts--

by calling we have to accept the fact that we are going to get squeezed off our hand a certain % of the time preflop. Typically the very strong aggressive players will squeeze here more often than most so thats something to keep in mind. At the very least, we're getting squeezed off our hand 10% of the time. also when we call against this particular player, our hand is going to be unplayable on the large majority of flops given that he has very good post-flop balance. So we are giving him some very profitable c-betting opportunities. so between the times we lose the pot preflop or we see a flop and get pushed off quickly, we might be losing 10 pots (~35bb) for every time we hit a set. our implied odds certainly don't make up for that so calling generally seems to suck here even though it's very standard and i probably call here the large majority of the time.

plus side, we may have some profitable bluff-raising or multi-street bluffing opportunities. also we generally avoid big mistakes and hitting a set and getting paid is always very fun, even if it happens a lot less than people like to think and we may often not have a lock hand (ie we might have 65% allin on the flop vs flush draw + gutshot).

by raising, we may be laying 130 or so to win 50 preflop with a (hopefully) positive expectation going to the flop if called. most people don't 4-bet here nearly enough against light 3-betting taggs so it's reasonable to suspect that a player might open 20% of their hands might only 4-bet the top 1-2% of their hands or so. c-bets are generally profitable in 3-bet pots and raising to isolate here is a better idea than most understand. It needs to be balanced well though with legit hands and thats something that especially needs to be thought about in detail against people who love to c/r all-in and other such nonsense. against some players it's so obvious that it's coming (big opening range, absurdly tight 3-bet calling range) that we can pretty much just not c-bet if they call our reraise pre.

easy to spew like crazy when we start doing this.

folding just can't be right, we have a pair!

if anybody bothered to read, please post thoughts. Especially thoughts that have to do with merging ranges, math, various %'s, etc.


cliff notes: super long winded post by some idiot who was extremely tired and might have had a drink or 2, probably makes no sense and everything is likely wrong

I like the subject you want to discuss here. I'm not nearly at the level you are playing (I'm at 50NL), but I'm thinking lately on wether we really actually have the implied odds we think when calling small PP's.

I still do lean towards calling as a default play here. Mostly because the raiser is UTG, so his range is a bit tighter so our implied odds bigger, and hero is OTB. I think when hero is CO (BTN squeeze) and/or raiser is from medium position (wider range) the situation changes quite a bit.

I would also take in mind UTG's postflop play level. If you think you can, and are willing to, outplay him on the right flops, it's a call even more. Give UTG a hard time with your position.

The larger:
1. the squeezing possibility
2. UTG's range
3. UTGs postflop skills

... imo the more of the above 3, the more it is a 3-bet .... or in extreme situations maybe even a fold (not likely).

I think it depends a lot on dynamics of the game to consider a threebet here. Personally, while I see the merits of threebetting low pp's I see the fact it loses a lot of its value for me because we're pretty much butchering our position when we build a pot like this.

If UTG is fourbetting almost never, like only AK, I think a fourbet is good. If you've been threebetting him light and he's fourbetting AK, JJ+ (AQ), and sometimes Axs, Then I really like cold calling a lot better.

Although, at my stakes I don't have to deal with a squeeze as much as you do, although at 2/4 you run into some guys (like me) who do it with everything.

" how do we balance this out % wise assuming that calling 100% of the time may be standard but most certainly isn't ideal. i'm not saying it's not the best play. "

i read this sentence, then i read the time you posted at, then i read cliff notes, and then i stopped reading

in my mind, 3betting light with 22 is the same as 3betting light with a random hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gabe

" how do we balance this out % wise assuming that calling 100% of the time may be standard but most certainly isn't ideal. i'm not saying it's not the best play. "

i read this sentence, then i read the time you posted at, then i read cliff notes, and then i stopped reading

---

well why don't you read it, you may learn something

i knew that exact sentence was going to get quoted and ???'d but the idea is that doing just about anything in poker 100% of the time generally isn't ideal (one obvious exception would be calling an all-in with the nuts). Maybe 90% call 10% raise in this situation would be better, hence the line 'i'm not saying it's not the best play'. or that it is.

gonna go play now, i have lots of ideas to work on.

"the idea is that doing just about anything in poker 100% of the time generally isn't ideal"

i think you are thinking about this too hard. in general, i play alot of specific hands the same 99% of the time, but i balance it by playing other hands like them occasionaly. for example, i always open raise AQ on the button, but people dont always put me on AQ because i open raise alot of other things. you dont need to occasionally limp or fold in these spots to keep people guessing.

Why have so little faith in your own positional postflop play? Obviously you don't need a set, and have a number of ways of winning postflop without one.

i call 50% raise 50%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce123

i call 50% raise 50%

---

PROVE IT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce123

i call 50% raise 50%

---

i dont get it, I'm wondering whether I should weigh all the factors and come to a conclusion...

Question: Without metagame factors is threebetting 22 more profitable than flat calling it in position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IowaSkinsFan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce123

i call 50% raise 50%

---

i dont get it, I'm wondering whether I should weigh all the factors and come to a conclusion...

Question: Without metagame factors is threebetting 22 more profitable than flat calling it in position?

---

metagame is how u decided what to do

I'm in way over my head here but I'll try to add some limited perspective.

3betting reduces the liklihood of getting squeezed. Builds a pot for when we set up, and there's probably only 4-5 hands (if that) villain will 4bet. Now, this probably shouldn't be the "standard" play, but throwing it in for balance might not be bad (I mean, if you 3bet, flop a set and stack UTG, you're going to get more action than you can handle on your subsequent positional 3bets).

It's entirely dependent on what villain's UTG raising range is. If it's like 3-4%, you're getting set odds, and by calling an UTG raiser that tight you're definitely discouraging a squeeze by the blinds without KK+. So cold calling would be the right play.

If villain is unknown, put him to the test and 3bet him, knowing that, if nothing else, the 3bet protects your 22 from other callers and/or a squeeze (e.g. you want . Button/SB/BB folding 33-TT). His 4bet range is probably 5-6% at most, and he probably folds the bottom 15-20% of his raising range. You're still getting implieds to hit a set, as even with a $130 repop you're getting 7:1.

Just some thoughts.

we're assuming that villain's UTG opening range (5-handed) is 15%+.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

we're assuming that villain's UTG opening range (5-handed) is 15%+.

---

If his 3bet calling range is < 8% 3bet and watch him fold like a chump (Edit: often enough to make it profitable to do so.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce123

i call 50% raise 50%

---

i have similar ideas, probably weighted slightly heavier toward calling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Why have so little faith in your own positional postflop play? Obviously you don't need a set, and have a number of ways of winning postflop without one.

---

i raise and float on c-bets more than most. the bottom line though is that are hand is pretty much worthless on most flops so it doesn't just come down to 'positional play'. I'm also curious on what exactly 'having a number of ways of winning without [a set]' exactly entails against a very well rounded post-flop player. I assume it's what I alluded to earlier (bluff raising/floating on cbets) but you get yourself into all kinds of tricky spots when you do that with any sort of reasonable frequency. Doesn't that go against what you've always preached, like in the 'beat NL100/NL200 thread'?

uh, i'm just finished after a long session and my brain is in a mush, so this mightn't be great, but I've always assumed that calling with 22 isn't a play that needs to be balanced. i mean i think calling is vastly superior to raising, so why balance it by playing it in a worse way?

if you're gonna balance it surely calling with other stuff besides just pairs is the way to do it, not by raising?

tbh i don't really like 3bet pairs below qq anyway, (except in bvb situations and stuff), sure i do it with scs, thrash and stuff, but i think 3betting just turns these hands into bluffs, makes it hard to get value from them, and puts us in awkward spots post flop, when just calling is a better play.


hmmm. i might edit this in 12hrs.

sometimes it's best to look at things from your villains' perspective; say we are now the raiser and we have this other tagg calling in position. we are going to get stacked by sets so little and when we get it allin vs a set we'll often have 10% or 35% or so anyway. now facing a large 3-bet OOP from a tough player when our range has all sorts of suited trash, weak aces and other stuff it may become MUCH tougher (and less profitable) to play.

fwiw i'm just trying to throw some ideas around and i'm not saying anything definitive. it's just a spot that peaks my interest.

I think raising or calling really depends on how aggro the blinds are, and how we are adjusting to them. I think that mixing up our play with 22 is fine when we are also mixing our play with QQ+, if the blinds are aggro enough to squeeze with ATC. If the blinds are playing straight forward then we should also be leaning heavily towards calling.

My friend was observing me a few days ago and he said to me, "I don't get some of your plays sometimes, you got 66 on the button and just called with it once, and then 20 hands later you reraised it in the same position."

I do have a mixture of what i do with some of my hands, but it's mostly based on what's been happening at the table, my, image, my opponent, etc. What Sauce said... except it's not really 50/50 for me.

3betting is teh nutz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce123

3betting is teh nutz

---

i wish to subscribe to your newsletter

The answer can never be general. It has everything to do with the meta situation and the opponents at the table. If the initial raiser folds to 3-bets often enough I 3-bet. If the opponent will tend to make enough mistakes after the flop based on all the meta present at the time and otherwise (maybe they're bad), I call. If the opponent is solid, and I have aggressive players behind me who may squeeze too often, I fold. I fold in that spot because I get more implied odds out of showdown hands against careless squeeze plays.

The bottom line is if it's too hard to play the hand, and I'm getting extra value on other hands for various reasons, I just drop it.

Squeeze? Google came up with the wrong definition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Squeeze? Google came up with the wrong definition.

---

A 3bet after a coldcall.

I.E.- UTG opens, we flatcall with 22 in the CO and the SB 3bets. That's a squeeze.

nice post. i call here with a low pp 99% of the time.

i 3bet so much anyway that i'd prefer to just call with my pps. i can save the 3betting for good hands and suited connectors. if you start 3betting your low pps 50% of the time it will change the whole dynamics of your game.
players will start 4bet bluffing you more often, a lot of things will change.

i would definitely be 4bet bluffing a player if he was 3betting this often.

the 3bet is a powerful play though.

i think you get squeezed more than 10% of the time if you just call against a good set of players.
i also think folding is the worst option and your hand hand does have value when you miss the flop. are you telling me 22 has no value on a 349r flop in position?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Squeeze? Google came up with the wrong definition.

---

A 3bet after a coldcall.

I.E.- UTG opens, we flatcall with 22 in the CO and the SB 3bets. That's a squeeze.

---

Is it a squeeze because it's a 3 bet after a CC, or is it implied that it's a likely steal?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigspenda73

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wufwugy

Squeeze? Google came up with the wrong definition.

---

A 3bet after a coldcall.

I.E.- UTG opens, we flatcall with 22 in the CO and the SB 3bets. That's a squeeze.

---

Is it a squeeze because it's a 3 bet after a CC, or is it implied that it's a likely steal?

---

Not exactly sure what the term "squeeze" itself implies really. I think it's likely to be a steal. We know the cc'er hand cannot be strong at all therefore all we are up against is the openers range and if we 3bet out of the blinds we are generally given more respect therefore making it a seemingly profitable play.

FWIW I rarely squeeze ever but I don't play 400nl

Quote:

---

Is it a squeeze because it's a 3 bet after a CC?

---

yes. it could be a steal or a legit hand.

it's a strong move, because if the original raiser folds, the player that called the original raise nearly always folds (unless he is aware that he is playing a game where squeezing is likely or he is a fish).
at $400NL the caller folds nearly every time. squeezing is not done often enough that one would hope to be squeezed holding AA. and if they were holding a big hand they would have raised themselves.

the squeeze is also more powerful than the 3bet because there is more dead money in the pot and the raise is usually larger, making sure the original raiser will not call with low pps, suited connectors and weak Ax hands. if the original raiser does call or reraise, his hand is narrowed down a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

Quote:

---

Is it a squeeze because it's a 3 bet after a CC?

---

yes. it could be a steal or a legit hand.

it's a strong move, because if the original raiser folds, the player that called the original raise nearly always folds (unless he is aware that he is playing a game where squeezing is likely or he is a fish).
at $400NL the caller folds nearly every time. squeezing is not done often enough that one would hope to be squeezed holding AA. and if they were holding a big hand they would have raised themselves.

the squeeze is also more powerful than the 3bet because there is more dead money in the pot and the raise is usually larger, making sure the original raiser will not call with low pps, suited connectors and weak Ax hands. if the original raiser does call or reraise, his hand is narrowed down a lot.

---

nice post.

one other reason why a squeeze is so effective is that it forces villain to invest a pot committing portion of his stack to see if we were fucking with im preflop (if he 4bets) and we can get away relatively cheaply.

in the event he does call he has to dodge a ton of hurtles to make his call profitable

a) he doesnt have the initiative
b) he basically has to fold if an A or K falls and he doesnt have one as our range has a ton of combos of AK in it.
c) we might show up with a big hand
d) we are pretty sure he doesnt have a big hand and can proceed with confidence while he is at risk of being dominated pretty much unless he flops 2 pair+ which happens about 5% of the time.

hoooray squeezing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sauce123

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

Quote:

---

Is it a squeeze because it's a 3 bet after a CC?

---

yes. it could be a steal or a legit hand.

it's a strong move, because if the original raiser folds, the player that called the original raise nearly always folds (unless he is aware that he is playing a game where squeezing is likely or he is a fish).
at $400NL the caller folds nearly every time. squeezing is not done often enough that one would hope to be squeezed holding AA. and if they were holding a big hand they would have raised themselves.

the squeeze is also more powerful than the 3bet because there is more dead money in the pot and the raise is usually larger, making sure the original raiser will not call with low pps, suited connectors and weak Ax hands. if the original raiser does call or reraise, his hand is narrowed down a lot.

---

nice post.

one other reason why a squeeze is so effective is that it forces villain to invest a pot committing portion of his stack to see if we were fucking with im preflop (if he 4bets) and we can get away relatively cheaply.

in the event he does call he has to dodge a ton of hurtles to make his call profitable

a) he doesnt have the initiative
b) he basically has to fold if an A or K falls and he doesnt have one as our range has a ton of combos of AK in it.
c) we might show up with a big hand
d) we are pretty sure he doesnt have a big hand and can proceed with confidence while he is at risk of being dominated pretty much unless he flops 2 pair+ which happens about 5% of the time.

hoooray squeezing

---

he does have a big hand a lot of the time. i don't know what games you play in, but when i squeeze, i expect my opponent to have TT+ or AQ+. if we are squeezing a lot then he could have a much wider range.

one word...fold

calling with dueces is -ev full stop

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geanosssss

one word...fold

calling with dueces is -ev full stop

---

wtf are you talking about and what are you referring to?
you are wrong. calling with deuces is not -ev.

or are you referring to a specific situation? and if you are, then expand on your comment

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geanosssss

one word...fold

calling with dueces is -ev full stop

---

wtf are you talking about and what are you referring to?
you are wrong. calling with deuces is not -ev.

or are you referring to a specific situation? and if you are, then expand on your comment

---

obviously it's very situationally dependent. If I'm in position against an average tagg with 100bb+ stacks facing a 3.5x raise it's an easy easy call (or 3-bet possibly). in the SB facing the same raise against a very good open-raiser, calling is most definitely -EV and I'm very confident in that but it's so hard to quantify.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pokerroomace

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geanosssss

one word...fold

calling with dueces is -ev full stop

---

wtf are you talking about and what are you referring to?
you are wrong. calling with deuces is not -ev.

or are you referring to a specific situation? and if you are, then expand on your comment

---

I think OP is a just a n00b.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

[
well why don't you read it, you may learn something

---

Thank you, Bill Cosby.

Folding is only incorrect because of implied odds when we hit a set. Otherwise, it's worse than a random hand. If OR has a wide range (and he does) and isn't a postflop spew monkey, our implied odds go right TF out the window. That means if we don't have implied odds, folding PF is correct (or at worst ev 0)

Maybe best situation is we get squeezed by a blind, but he doesn't raise enough, giving us implied odds to stack him with a bigger PF pot.

I very very rarely 3-bet here.

An interesting thread ive jst read and my initial thoughts were verified by Pokerroomaces comment on how drastic of a change 3 betting 22 will affect how ppl will play us.

If they see us 3 betting 22 then shouldnt they auto-think we 3bet ALL PPs therefore we face more frequent 4bets and also the call 3bets lighter even OOP. I think 22 is balanced up better in calling bcoz we call with alot of SC,Axs,pps therefore we HAVE obtained the balance we are looking for,no??

Also Lukie, if you hit a set you have many lines to take since you are a frequent floater/c/r'er/leader type player as you say.

I think the table dynamics were very well discussed above as in how exactly are the blinds playing ie aggro/striaghtforward which makes me think more about those spots in general.

Added end thought is how will 3betting 22 PF affect the respect your double barrelling gets!! Just an added thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da GOAT

An interesting thread ive jst read and my initial thoughts were verified by Pokerroomaces comment on how drastic of a change 3 betting 22 will affect how ppl will play us.

If they see us 3 betting 22 then shouldnt they auto-think we 3bet ALL PPs therefore we face more frequent 4bets and also the call 3bets lighter even OOP. I think 22 is balanced up better in calling bcoz we call with alot of SC,Axs,pps therefore we HAVE obtained the balance we are looking for,no??

---

not really b/c the only real balance we've obtained is that we're calling with a lot of drawing hands, giving the preflop raiser profitable c-betting opportunities, the players on our left profitable 3-bet squeezing opportunities, etc. flip side is we're really narrowing our own 3-betting range by never 3-betting any of these hands, and that also sucks for us.

Quote:

---

Also Lukie, if you hit a set you have many lines to take since you are a frequent floater/c/r'er/leader type player as you say.

---

yes but some good players also have a very good balance as well, often making it hard to win a pot without a big hand yet also hard to stack when we do.

Quote:

---

I think the table dynamics were very well discussed above as in how exactly are the blinds playing ie aggro/striaghtforward which makes me think more about those spots in general.

Added end thought is how will 3betting 22 PF affect the respect your double barrelling gets!! Just an added thought.

---

hmm, not sure i follow. double barreling as generally discussed usually refers to firing 2 barrels with initiative in a raised pot. I'm not sure what you're asking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lukie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Da GOAT

An interesting thread ive jst read and my initial thoughts were verified by Pokerroomaces comment on how drastic of a change 3 betting 22 will affect how ppl will play us.

If they see us 3 betting 22 then shouldnt they auto-think we 3bet ALL PPs therefore we face more frequent 4bets and also the call 3bets lighter even OOP. I think 22 is balanced up better in calling bcoz we call with alot of SC,Axs,pps therefore we HAVE obtained the balance we are looking for,no??

---

not really b/c the only real balance we've obtained is that we're calling with a lot of drawing hands, giving the preflop raiser profitable c-betting opportunities, the players on our left profitable 3-bet squeezing opportunities, etc. flip side is we're really narrowing our own 3-betting range by never 3-betting any of these hands, and that also sucks for us.

yeah i guess i ignored the fact of being squeezed when i was thinking here, squeeze plays happen fairly rarely in 200NL from my experience. Well by your deduction then i dont see why not 3 bet 22+ sometimes, im not as knowledgable to beleive id get away with 3betting 50% and calling 50%, though i probably could vs my opp's :D

Quote:

---

Also Lukie, if you hit a set you have many lines to take since you are a frequent floater/c/r'er/leader type player as you say.

---

yes but some good players also have a very good balance as well, often making it hard to win a pot without a big hand yet also hard to stack when we do.

lol indeed sir, seriously a good point

Quote:

---

I think the table dynamics were very well discussed above as in how exactly are the blinds playing ie aggro/striaghtforward which makes me think more about those spots in general.

Added end thought is how will 3betting 22 PF affect the respect your double barrelling gets!! Just an added thought.

---

hmm, not sure i follow. double barreling as generally discussed usually refers to firing 2 barrels with initiative in a raised pot. I'm not sure what you're asking.

im just spooning a big thought whereby opp knows you can 3 bet 22 therefore you can c/b any flops, when they decide to float you and an A,K or any scare-card depending on board comes, and you fire a second barrel. basically would you not find players calling you down so much more is what im saying. i guess its not a huge point since you can just adjust to that anyway.

---