99 in the BB calling 2 cold

[TStoneMBD]

Hero is BB with 99
UTG is a semilag, who everysooften likes to raise it in with some random garbage, and i do mean garbage. This raise is a premium hand 50% of the time. mp2 is also semilag, but his 3bet means he definitely has at least a premium hand. SB is just loose/dead money. Is my call in the BB correct or should I be mucking here? With SB calling 3 cold it seems like a pretty easy call, but if he folded then do I have a muck or no?

UTG raises, MP2 3bets, SB calls, BB calls, UTG caps, all call.

The rest of the hand isnt interesting, I flop a set and rake in a huge pot. UTG had AA and MP folded on the turn.

[kowboy]

Calling raises with anything like 99 33 77 etc. is made for a set vs. big overepair. With enough money in the pot I like to call even if sb calls as well. I know what they have and if I dont hit my set Im gone. Your playing battleship, if you hit you will definitely put a dent in em. I like it for deception as well they know you may be in there with small ones so when you do have that overpair they pay you off as well. I like to fold face up post flop if I miss that way my gamble wasnt for nothing, they still know what I called with. /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[shaundeeb]

you have great odds on the flop. And its not calling 2 cold its calling 3 with 1 invested that makes a difference. Without counting the UTG cap you are paying 2 SB to get into a 12SB pot 6to1 is great odds to go for a set knowing if you do hit it the payoff will be 10-15 BB since you will be against overpairs. As in the post Mike had a few days ago I have a similear feeling as him even to a cap infront of me I have a hard time letting go of anypair even ducks. Because a det is a deadly weapon on the flop.

[TStoneMBD]

im not getting 12:2, im getting 10:2 out of position with the possibility that the action will come back to me capped, giving me 13:3.

[Clarkmeister]

Mega easy call. Next.

[amulet]

it is close. your getting 5 to 1 which is a call based on implied odds, however, the possibility of it being 4 bet leans it towards a fold. but there is an additional reason to call; with 4 people putting in all those bets, you can expect even better action after the flop. therefore, while 5 to 1 is usually the minimum to make up for the actual 7.5 to 1 odds on flopping your set, in this case there is the possibility that you can get greater action then ususal if you flop your set. there is also the possibility that you might be getting correct odds to even see the turn for one bet. but when i do the math, the possibilty of a cap, especially if the origional raiser is as you describe probably makes it a fold based on odds. either way it is close, and comes down to the cap or no cap, so your read it impt. this is one of the more interesting questions posted here in a while.

[amulet]

exactly why do you think "mega easy call?"

[GuyOnTilt]

exactly why do you think "mega easy call?"

I think mainly just because it is. He's getting 10:2 if UTG calls, and 13:3 if UTG caps. Let's say UTG will cap here 25% of the time, which is too high, but we'll just say that anyway. He's getting 10.75:2.25, which assuming his set holds up 75% of the time means he'll need to be able to make up about 6.5 BB's on avg. postflop to make his call correct based on set value alone. His avg. will be higher than 6.5 BB's postflop. 99 will have other good flops besides just sets of course, but even ignoring that, calling is completely fine.

These are just rough mental numbers, but they're going to be fairly accurate. Enough to illustrate the point. Calling is right. It's not as "interesting" as you think.

GoT

[Turning Stone Pro]

I play looser than most out of the blinds, but with the implied odds you are getting on this one, I think this is an easy call in that game, even if you were 100% sure it was gonna get capped.

Hope you are still runnin' strong,

TSP

[amulet]

i think it is so close that i would certainly not argue. i also respect your posts a lot.

[TStoneMBD]

i was pretty certain that calling the 2 out of the BB was the correct play with SB in the hand, i just wanted to be 100% sure. the main reason i posted this was to see if its correct to call the 2 cold if SB folds, but noone seemed to dab into that yet. clearly if i asked that then its pretty close to clear to me that calling is correct vs 3 opponents.

[amulet]

i think if you are getting 5 to 1 preflop you can make up on the odds if you hit. 1 bet 4 bets i use 5 to 1 preflop.

[elysium]

hi ts

the call is usually o.k.; about the only time that you might want to fold pre-flop is when you are losing and don't want to subject your bankroll to wild swings, which cold-calling with 88 or 99 will do. by the way, you would also like to be in a game with a field that gets tenaciously aggressive post-flop when cold-calling in a 4-way with 88 or 99. if there isn't a lot of aggressive betting taking place on the expensive rounds, then you shouldn't make the cold-call unless you are winning and have control of the table.

as far as whether or not a solid being in the field might warrant a fold....i don't know. i like having 2 solids in the field rather than just one because in this spot, while you like to have a lot of aggressive betting taking place post-flop, you actually prefer strategically passive conditions on the flop, and as long as each solid is aware of his counterpart's solid status, there is a reasonable enough chance to expect that there will be this early 'feeling each other out' stage of betting which is beneficial. if an aggressive is in there, well, that's o.k. too. but you will usually then need to flop a set because it is less likely that you will see the turn for 1 SB. there is still a chance that the aggressive will be held down by yourself and the others if the others are both solid types.

a little off topic here; in the above, you can see why colluders often have great difficulty wresting a profit away from the table. at the higher levels, the entire game is collusionary in scope. frequently, upon entering a game, one of the first priorities is finding out what the table has gotten themselves into, whose idea was it, and offering a better and more orderly implied collusionary theme than the one currently being used. for example, oftentimes, upon entering the game, you will find the collusionary style of play that the group has decided upon to be a relatively overt and open one, which has harry tiddleywinking tommy and georgette gang signing kim fu. usually the game's customary implied collusionary tactics are in total disarry with intermittent spates of torrid in-fighting breaking out amongst his or her assigned fellow collusionary team partner, during critical juctures and at strategically sensitive passages of the betting round. even when not participating in the hand, it is disheartening to watch ill contrived collusionary tactics unfold in front you that have little chance of achieving anything more successful than a fight out in the parking lot.

as students of the game, it is easy to see that the first player who arrives at the table with a more palatable collusionary game plan will soon have control over that table. and one of the very first priorities of profitable betting organization is to quell the in-fighting and we do that by simply having the group tone it down a little. when wally sends up a phosphoric illumination flair and sounds off with a three finger mantis signaling report, announcing to the whole room that he mucked one of suit to the two-tone, a simple acknowledgment to wally that his announcement has been duly noted by everyone at the table and that we are all-in for a little cards this evening and that we already know what he's holding and, by the way, would he tone it down a little? would he kindly keep his hole cards hidden? 'we know wally we know. good man.' and now hee tiu has no need to counter wally's one of suit with report. hee's T4o stamping dragon razor palm remains safely in the closet, and the group can proceed more maturely and more trustingly once the implied team members are made aware that discloser of one another's hole cards is unnecessary, that we all already know what each other's hole cards are anyway, with a level of reliance that makes having to take the extra step of verification through some convoluted signaling technique, a waste of creative, intuitive energy that can be more effectively focused onto collusion's more challenging aspect; competively correct betting relay alignment and chip routing. once the whole team is working together and adapts to the strategic changes made to their fundemental betting pattern as your position changes both absolutely and relatively, the chip flow conduit can more easily find a path of least resistance in which, outside of the occasional bad run of cards from time to time, a more successful chip conveyance can ultimately be realized.

collusion is never easy, but every game, when played properly, is collusionary. the chip placer and hand signaler can better be put to work in the team's effort toward establishing a more healthy betting relay with less fragmentation and in-fighting. we do this by focusing their attention away from discourteous jesters toward one another that is more like to inspire a fight than a bet, and acclimatizing the whole table as team each team member with the other, so that new avenues are explored in the still unfallowed, fertile poker territory of ethically correct implied collusionary team formation and implementation. when the collusionary team effort can be made to rise to a level of popularity that encompasses the entire table, instead of the incestuary tribal raises that we see so often today; chief raising squaw; dispatcher raising driver; husband, wife; georgette, henriette; kim foo, mi tu; we instead open new pathways allowing mix and match raising to take place as the necessity of energizing the betting relay arises. remember, the very first step in the formation of big pots is developing a sense of integrity and trust between the once fragmented but now united, collusionary team members. when you spot a chip placement signal or two, or perhaps an overt use of fingers, although the particular future united collusionist may currently be using ineffective old style collusionary standards and practices, he or she can easily be brought into the fold of the newer, ethically correct, implied collusionary table team. the first stumbling block has already been breached; he has demonstated a desire to collude. that's not just good, that's great! when you spot the hand signal, or chip placement, whatever method of communication is being used to disclose the values of his hole cards, you say, 'you're using that?'. immediately everyone at the table knows that he or she isn't the only collusionary tribalist. then add, 'boy, are you ever behind the times. hand signaling and chip placement is archaic.'. after you have perked the interest of the future team member, you need only elevate the paranoia of the table neurotic. the neurotic is easy to pickout. he will be constantly preoccupied with changing the deck and checking for marked cards. simply telling the nuero that you suspect incestuary collusion will cause him to train his neuro-corruption detection radar onto every suspicious movement made by anyone at the table, including the dealer himself. best of all, good/ solid table neurotics have an extraordinary heightened naturally occuring ability to make the perpetrater, whose corrupt practice is being held by the neurotic under the rays of his neuro-radar detection, believe that the weight of the entire global gaming community will come thundering down from above, smash him into little atomic particles and sweep him away. even i am a little uneasy when being watched by a neurotic. the sensation of quick and forceful impending justice that the neurotic imparts upon the struggling colluder causes an immediate cessation of his collusionary practices.

if there isn't an available neurotic at the table whose paranoia you would like to heighten, then do it yourself. frequently check for marks on cards. also, you may frequently claim that you have found markings on the cards that are too faint for anyone other than yourself to see, but that you must report anyway in deference to the heightened awareness that you have of your own integrity. then begin holding any and all colluders in check with your phantom neuro-radar.

now put forward your proposal for making it an ethically correct implied collusionary game. and you do this by using the handreading skills you have developed at 2+2 to disclose to you the values of your opponent's hole cards. next, determine who is likely to bet, raise, or fold. use the excellent position based conditioning that you have established over the field that encourages either passive or more aggressive betting relays based on your position. finally, tactfully reward or punish as the case may be, to encourage proper ethically correct collusionary position based betting etiquette, enabling you to direct a variety of mix and match raising which allows the chip flow an opportunity to encounter the path of least resistance, and eliminates a lot of the drudgery of chip placement and hand signaling techniques currently used by future team members who can quickly be taught to pitch in with assist, and keep tempo with bet and position, which puts the chips on a very beneficial conveyer so that you may continue to do well.

collusion can only be successful when you invite the whole table in to be a part of it.

[TStoneMBD]

wait so call?

[elysium]

hi ts

you can call in this type spot if the wild swings that are endemic to these type situations do not pose a serious risk to your bankroll. having control over the table is also equally important.

assuming that you have an adequate bankroll, you will need to get a lot of cooperation from the field to increase the implied odds so that you are getting correct odds to make the cold-call. right away, you should realize that your opponents must be taught to hang in there with you when you check-raise the flop. there is a big problem here because the likely first bettor is the UTG. if you check he will bet. so what you must do on the flop is bet and hope for a raise. the raise will come from the MP however. so the opponents acting after the MP must be encouraged to call. since the MP will likely be making a driveout raise, you must cushion the shock that will be experienced by the opponents acting after the MP raises. you have to instruct the field to call the MP.

the nice thing about instructing a poker table is that your instruction is often seen as a lifeline for your opponent's decision making process, and is followed as a group reflex without a lot of thought. it is very important to understand that when you are not perceived as a threat by the group, they will respond to your instruction positively, particularly when the group perceives you as responding to the same threat as they, and are also good at responding to threats and evaluating the threat correctly. so pre-flop ts, you need to know that on the flop you will likely be betting out, preparing the field behind the MP for the raise, and when the raise is made the field must see that for you, it is an easy, casual call. the field should be seeing that you are in casual call mode, and so should they be. if you can tell the late positions what to do, then you can achieve late position odds even though you are in first position. this hand requires that skill more than almost any other hand because you will flop a set only 1 in 7 or so times, and your ability to direct the table and betting action determines whether or not you should make the call.

now, you don't likely have the second scenario involved in this situation of flopped 99 (or 88) over pair. you are likely against a bigger pair. again though, before making the pre-flop call, under slightly different field conditions, the field must be instructed to fold when that same MP raiser raises on the flop. the field must believe that the MP has a dangerously powerful hand. you do this by instructing everyone behind the MP flop raiser to get out of the way, you're reraising him and he is reraising you. the reason you driveout by threatening a raising war is that if, inspite of your best effort to relay over to the field the instruction to get out because the hand will be expensive, an LP calls or raises, not only is it more likely that might you not be up against a lesser pair than the 99, but if you somehow do have the lead you could still easily be drawnout on. calls or raises like that in the face of such dire warning and strength, are strong indicators that in any event, you will not be likely to get the hand heads-up. so, it's o.k. in some areas of the game for certain players in the field to refuse to follow your instruction. one of the main reasons that you take control over the table through the use of instruction is for that very reason. if a player in the field doesn't follow your advice, he is often relaying over to you precious instruction of sorts of his own that maybe you should follow. so there is never ever just one instructor at the table, every member of the field is actually also an instructor; maybe even a better instructor than you yourself.

should you call? ts, if you can work the field in a way that allows you to increase the amount that the pot would be offering the average player who isn't particulary group oriented, there is enough hardware available in this hand for you to make the call. if, however, you are unable or unwilling to instruct the field in a way that will enhance the inert odds you would, therefore, be receiving in that eventuality, then your poor position would indicate a fold. you then would not be getting correct odds to make the call. the only time that you should make this particular call is when you are willing to make it a team effort.

[TStoneMBD]

oh ok, i get it now, so fold right?

[Kenrick]

I'm as tight as they come and even I call here. Don't care if it's then capped or not. If the sb doesn't come in, I don't see the odds for calling.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
oh ok, i get it now, so fold right?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think he's saying to raise, actually -- and to mark your cards while flashing gang signs. I could be wrong, though.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm as tight as they come and even I call here. Don't care if it's then capped or not. If the sb doesn't come in, I don't see the odds for calling.

[/ QUOTE ]


By the way, as far as the question goes, with or without the Small Blind I'm calling, given your description.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[elysium]

hi ts

actually ts, i think you can do it. just remember that most cases in which getting the LP's to improve the mathematical equation those times you flop a set out of position, involve encouraging the LP's, and all other opponents which remain behind the scary raiser, to call. on the turn, you will likely assume the role of the scary raiser yourself, and a change of strategy is needed in how you coax the relay team. the better you are at coaxing, the more likely that you will be drawnout on, so it is especially advantageous to garner those extra earned bets with hands that not only are strong enough to value raise the field, but that also have a good opportunity to improve. made hands that are vulnerable with little improvement opportunity, should perhaps initially coax in enough bets on the flop to make the pot worth taking down on the turn. other times, you will run into opponents who, once tied to the pot call all the way, or have become so team oriented that they call for no other reason that everyone else is calling. under conditions of extended sub-optimal card sequence which produces a series of cards that nullifies or reverses the gains made in the previous betting rounds of the hand, while you may have initially coaxed and curried into the pot a more favorable mathematic rating based on hand strength and size of pot, and while a high rating represents increased profits, the failure rate of the hand itself also rises with the mathematical hand rating which in turn is based on pot size. it can be especially disheartening when the negative sequence card lands on the river. often, the negative expectation value of these type river cards can equal or exceed the value of the entire pot due to the effect that this type negative sequence card will have in subsequent hands during the session. so remember, as you coax in and garner those extra bets, the risk that your efforts will end in catastrophic failure also goes up, and you will need a bankroll with the sufficient financial wherewithal to pull you through should the failure rate that rises with the extra bets squirelled into the pot be greater than the adjusted rate of the hands that actually hold up, a number which falls commensurate with your efforts, but that, nevertheless, once adjusted represents more profits to you, if someone would ever get around to adjusting it.

i think you can do it ts. but do be careful on the river. the river runs long, hard and deep; the waters therein, positively trecherous.

[TStoneMBD]

im not being sarcastic here, elsyium, i am seriously impressed by your ability to "fluff."