I hate jacks

[AtticusFinch]

$109 SNG level 1 with jj, on button. All relevant players have roughly 1k. It's early, so no reads.

Folded to CO, who raises to 45. I repop to 100. SB calls, as does CO.

Flop: 348r

Checked to me, I bet 225. SB folds, CO pushes.

Call?

[pearljam]

yes, nines or tens are his most likely holding, I think.

[Hendricks433]

Tough call but I fell like you have to. I dont play the $109's so I dont know what players push here. He might be just tying to push you off your hand with a couple bigs. Im too use to playing with total donks.

[ChrisV]

The reraise is the problem. I don't reraise with JJ at all in this situation. If you do, make it larger.

On the flop, you've gotta call. TT and 99 are very likely. KK and QQ not so likely. If he has 88 or AA, too bad.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
The reraise is the problem. I don't reraise with JJ at all in this situation. If you do, make it larger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. Seeing as villain turned over 44, a bigger reraise might well have saved my ass.

Wow, at the $109s dude bumped it 3xBB with 4s? I need build my bankroll ASAP.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, at the $109s dude bumped it 3xBB with 4s? I need build my bankroll ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I'd say it can be OK sometimes from the CO, but damn, not on level 1. Sheesh.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Yep. I'd say it can be OK sometimes from the CO, but damn, not on level 1. Sheesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his set (when he hits it) has a markedly higher chance of getting paid if he plays it this way rather than limping. If he limps and then check-pushes over a postflop pot-sized bet (which I think was too large, by the way) (EDIT: missed the third player. Oops. I like that better now that I realize it's 2/3 pot.), what are you going to put him on? At least this way you can include hyper-LAGgy AK type holdings in his range. Also, this way he doesn't overplay the 44 postflop when he misses.

Raising 44 all the time in that spot wouldn't be right, but as an occasional move I think it's fine.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yep. I'd say it can be OK sometimes from the CO, but damn, not on level 1. Sheesh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his set (when he hits it) has a markedly higher chance of getting paid if he plays it this way rather than limping. If he limps and then check-pushes over a postflop pot-sized bet (which I think was too large, by the way) (EDIT: missed the third player. Oops. I like that better now that I realize it's 2/3 pot.), what are you going to put him on? At least this way you can include hyper-LAGgy AK type holdings in his range. Also, this way he doesn't overplay the 44 postflop when he misses.

Raising 44 all the time in that spot wouldn't be right, but as an occasional move I think it's fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, I'd just save it for a little later, usually, when I have a little more FE to throw into the mix.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, at the $109s dude bumped it 3xBB with 4s? I need build my bankroll ASAP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I'm going to start doing it myself:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em Tourney, Big Blind is t15 (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

MP1 (t1160)
Hero (t1055)
MP3 (t870)
CO (t1210)
Button (t915)
SB (t835)
BB (t2613)
UTG (t780)
UTG+1 (t562)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls t15, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises to t85</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, BB calls t70, Hero calls t70.

Flop: (t262.50) 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets t200</font>, BB calls t785, BB calls t185.

Turn: (t1432.50) J/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>

River: (t1432.50) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>

Final Pot: t1432.50

[Scuba Chuck]

This hand sucks. I think I'd call, but I'd be worried I'm behind a decent amount of the time.

Personally, I'd play preflop differently. It would make this hand a little easier to let go (if that matters to you). The way you played it, it makes it difficult to read villain's actions.

Suppose you just call. Same players in the pot. Flop pot is now 150 (compared to 315). Now a bet is more likely to be smooth called (or check-raised - not allin) by your set-man as he tries to build the pot. This line will probably give you more information. I doubt all this helps, but you would have had the same problem with AA/KK/QQ here. FWIW, I think hands like 99 and TT play the same way. Furthermore, as of late (on the $55s at least), hands like QQ have been just flat calling preflop, to see if it's "clear."

Scuba

Atticus, can you talk a little about your thinking in calling the raise pre-flop? This is something I would never even think of doing in this spot.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
Atticus, can you talk a little about your thinking in calling the raise pre-flop? This is something I would never even think of doing in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not atticus, but Ill take a stab. I think this thread is interesting in one respect. Playing low-med pps for set value: usually, we dont have the express pot odds to play, say 44 for set value, and since it isnt a great hand on its own (w/o improving) multiway, we chuck it early in the game to a raise. But we might limp it and hope to flop a set.

The question is, when we limp and flop the set, will it get paid off? With a limped pot, it seems less likely. In a raised pot however, we are paying more to see the flop, but, with a tighter guarantee of getting paid.

I know party's stacks are lower, but, basically, if a LAG player raises and I have 55, and my stack can withstand the raise, ill take it if 7 times the raise is within LAG's stack.

The bottom line is not whether you have the odds, but how sure you are that you can get paid off. Ill take the bad end occasionally PF to see if I can make that happen. It appears that was atticus' thinking above as well.

pooh

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Suppose you just call. Same players in the pot. Flop pot is now 150 (compared to 315). Now a bet is more likely to be smooth called (or check-raised - not allin) by your set-man as he tries to build the pot. This line will probably give you more information.

[/ QUOTE ]

More than a c/r all-in out of your opponent gives you? I don't think so, personally. That's a very dry looking flop, and I could see lots of opponents calling with just about anything that they raised with in the smaller pot. Against certain opponents it's conceivable that you learn more, but in general I suspect you do not.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not atticus, but Ill take a stab. I think this thread is interesting in one respect. Playing low-med pps for set value: usually, we dont have the express pot odds to play, say 44 for set value, and since it isnt a great hand on its own (w/o improving) multiway, we chuck it early in the game to a raise. But we might limp it and hope to flop a set.

The question is, when we limp and flop the set, will it get paid off? With a limped pot, it seems less likely. In a raised pot however, we are paying more to see the flop, but, with a tighter guarantee of getting paid.

I know party's stacks are lower, but, basically, if a LAG player raises and I have 55, and my stack can withstand the raise, ill take it if 7 times the raise is within LAG's stack.

The bottom line is not whether you have the odds, but how sure you are that you can get paid off. Ill take the bad end occasionally PF to see if I can make that happen. It appears that was atticus' thinking above as well.

pooh

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought maybe he was thinking beyond set value and believing in his post-flop play way more than I could ever believe in mine.

His express odds on his pre-flop call were 3.5 to 1. As you know, the chances of hitting a set are about 7 to 1 against. If you are playing for set value and are dumping anything other than a set to any betting at all, that means that about 86% of the time you are going to lose -t47.

So, does the other 14% of the time make up for the 86%? The vagueness of implied odds makes it hard to calculate. Assuming you get no action at all post-flop for whatever reason and take down the existing pot, you have taken down t250. Let's say this happens 1/3 of the time. Your overall standing is 4.6% a takedown of t195 for a +t9. Let's say 1/3 of the time you induce another t250 into the pot before taking it down. This is +t20. Finally, let's say that 1/3 of the time you induce someone else's entire stack into the pot. Let's use Hero's t970 plus the t195 of the flop pot for a t1165 gain by the t55 pre-flop call. That's +t54.

So, with these very rough estimates we're looking at an overall +t36. Looks good, BUT it doesn't take into account the rare but disastrous situations where your trip 3s lose out to higher trips or a made straight or flush.

Not sure where this takes me. Thoughts?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not atticus, but Ill take a stab. I think this thread is interesting in one respect. Playing low-med pps for set value: usually, we dont have the express pot odds to play, say 44 for set value, and since it isnt a great hand on its own (w/o improving) multiway, we chuck it early in the game to a raise. But we might limp it and hope to flop a set.

The question is, when we limp and flop the set, will it get paid off? With a limped pot, it seems less likely. In a raised pot however, we are paying more to see the flop, but, with a tighter guarantee of getting paid.

I know party's stacks are lower, but, basically, if a LAG player raises and I have 55, and my stack can withstand the raise, ill take it if 7 times the raise is within LAG's stack.

The bottom line is not whether you have the odds, but how sure you are that you can get paid off. Ill take the bad end occasionally PF to see if I can make that happen. It appears that was atticus' thinking above as well.

pooh

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought maybe he was thinking beyond set value and believing in his post-flop play way more than I could ever believe in mine.

His express odds on his pre-flop call were 3.5 to 1. As you know, the chances of hitting a set are about 7 to 1 against. If you are playing for set value and are dumping anything other than a set to any betting at all, that means that about 86% of the time you are going to lose -t47.

So, does the other 14% of the time make up for the 86%? The vagueness of implied odds makes it hard to calculate. Assuming you get no action at all post-flop for whatever reason and take down the existing pot, you have taken down t250. Let's say this happens 1/3 of the time. Your overall standing is 4.6% a takedown of t195 for a +t9. Let's say 1/3 of the time you induce another t250 into the pot before taking it down. This is +t20. Finally, let's say that 1/3 of the time you induce someone else's entire stack into the pot. Let's use Hero's t970 plus the t195 of the flop pot for a t1165 gain by the t55 pre-flop call. That's +t54.

So, with these very rough estimates we're looking at an overall +t36. Looks good, BUT it doesn't take into account the rare but disastrous situations where your trip 3s lose out to higher trips or a made straight or flush.

Not sure where this takes me. Thoughts?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah you get it...but basically, I am saying that when the pot is raised, especially with more than yourself as the caller, the chances of stacking someone increases greatly. Of course, reverse implied odds are alos a consideration, but not a huge one.

[Chaostracize]

I think Villain played this hand well and villain played poorly.

It all stems from that tiny preflop raise. You're saying you're have strength but you're not putting enough chips in the pot to make it unprofitable for making hands like 44 to call, and from the looks of it you're giving way too good implied odds.

I call this with JJ on level 1, or if I'm feeling frisky I raise to 150. Raising this to 100 makes this hand VERY difficult to play.

Just my opinion.

And I see no problem with villain raising with 44 there.

[microbet]

I cheated.

My first thoughts were, there is no draw, so he has an overpair.

I read people talking about 99 and TT and those hands are reasonable, but there is some wishful thinking in there.

Then I saw he had 44. I hadn't really decided whether it was worth the call considering the chips already in the pot. It's close enough that I really can't be sure knowing the results isn't affecting me.

[gisb0rne]

I like a larger reraise preflop. 150-200.

Given the current action I probably would have called on the flop, gone into a rampage (especially if it's a hot day)and broken a lamp or something, quit playing for a few days, and once again fail to meet my tourneys/week goal.

[microbet]

I would have just called preflop. I like to raise with JJ in a lot of situations, but facing the raise to 45 it just seems it takes too many chips to do anything meaningful, and you certainly can't just push.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah you get it...but basically, I am saying that when the pot is raised, especially with more than yourself as the caller, the chances of stacking someone increases greatly. Of course, reverse implied odds are alos a consideration, but not a huge one.

[/ QUOTE ]

You guys have pretty much figured out my line of reasoning. I'll often call small raises with small pps, especially if I've already limped. My requirements are:

1) The bet is &lt; 10% of my stack
2) At least one other player in the hand also has at least 10x the bet in their stack.
3) I believe a reraise behind is unlikely

In that situation, I figure my implied odds are good enough to take a look at the flop. I play it mostly for set value, but often take down the pot if a board full of blanks falls.

[AtticusFinch]

[ QUOTE ]

I call this with JJ on level 1, or if I'm feeling frisky I raise to 150. Raising this to 100 makes this hand VERY difficult to play.


[/ QUOTE ]

From this and another thread of mine I'm learning that my raises are often too small. Possibly a big leak in my game. I'll try bumping them up a notch.

Thanks for the comments, all.