a leak of aggression

[Dominic]

10-20 UB...

Whenever I'm in mid to late position with small pocket pairs and it's folded around to me, I raise. Standard, right? However, looking at my pokertracker stats, it seems to be a huge leak in my game.

Either I'm playing these small PPs horribly after the flop - not a real difficult thing to do, by the way, especially if you're out of position - or...hell, i'm sure that's it.

Anyway...just wondering what everyone's thoughts are on being that aggressive with small PPs...good? bad? I'm just playing that badly?

[lil feller]

This is a tough spot, and a really good question. I think the real question here is how likely the blinds are to fold pre flop, or on the flop. Obviously if you have something like 66 or smaller the chance that your opponent has 2 overs is very high, and the chance that there will be 2 overs on the flop is very high.

I think against weak/straightforward opponents these hands are very easy to play, and they are equally easy to play against passive opponents. I think against aggressive opponents whether they're smart aggressive or LAGGY these hands are very tough to play, as you're going to be put to the test on the turn more often than not.

Part of me says just check the turn against these opponents, so they can't raise with a worse hand, and call any river.

The other part of me hates to give guys a free shot at 6 cards. I don't know whats right, but I think its a good question.

lf

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a tough spot, and a really good question. I think the real question here is how likely the blinds are to fold pre flop, or on the flop. Obviously if you have something like 66 or smaller the chance that your opponent has 2 overs is very high, and the chance that there will be 2 overs on the flop is very high.

I think against weak/straightforward opponents these hands are very easy to play, and they are equally easy to play against passive opponents. I think against aggressive opponents whether they're smart aggressive or LAGGY these hands are very tough to play, as you're going to be put to the test on the turn more often than not.

Part of me says just check the turn against these opponents, so they can't raise with a worse hand, and call any river.

The other part of me hates to give guys a free shot at 6 cards. I don't know whats right, but I think its a good question.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]


interesting approach....like you, I obviously feel it all depends on how "stealable" the blinds actually are. Maybe I need to take that into account even more and not feel like a pussie when I fold 55 in the CO to known LAG types in the blinds....

[MoDOH]

[ QUOTE ]
interesting approach....like you, I obviously feel it all depends on how "stealable" the blinds actually are. Maybe I need to take that into account even more and not feel like a pussie when I fold 55 in the CO to known LAG types in the blinds....

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are LAGGY enough then it should be profitable to play them for set value alone...

It´s a tricky question though, and there are no clear cut answers to this one. it all depends on the players behind you and in the blinds... usually I play 55+ from CO

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
If they are LAGGY enough then it should be profitable to play them for set value alone...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Assuming you get only one caller, you're investing 1bb to see the flop. Being 8:1 against to flop a set you need to collect 8 more BB from one player just to make set value a break even play. Thats not gonna happen. The most likely betting sequence here will be him c/r the flop and you calling. (1bb) He bets the turn and you raise and he calls (2bb). He then check calls the river (1bb) thats only 4. Even if he 3 bets you on the turn and leads the river thats 7. You're still short. Combine that shortcoming with how difficult this hand is to play against a LAG, since you never know where you stand and will often feel compelled to get to showdown and it makes this a very tough spot.

lf

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are LAGGY enough then it should be profitable to play them for set value alone...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Assuming you get only one caller, you're investing 1bb to see the flop. Being 8:1 against to flop a set you need to collect 8 more BB from one player just to make set value a break even play. Thats not gonna happen. The most likely betting sequence here will be him c/r the flop and you calling. (1bb) He bets the turn and you raise and he calls (2bb). He then check calls the river (1bb) thats only 4. Even if he 3 bets you on the turn and leads the river thats 7. You're still short. Combine that shortcoming with how difficult this hand is to play against a LAG, since you never know where you stand and will often feel compelled to get to showdown and it makes this a very tough spot.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]


so if the Blinds a LAGGY, it can't be +EV to raise 22-66, right? So we're folding these hands in the CO of Button when it's been folded around to us?

God, this just seems so weak-tight to me! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If they are LAGGY enough then it should be profitable to play them for set value alone...

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Assuming you get only one caller, you're investing 1bb to see the flop. Being 8:1 against to flop a set you need to collect 8 more BB from one player just to make set value a break even play. Thats not gonna happen. The most likely betting sequence here will be him c/r the flop and you calling. (1bb) He bets the turn and you raise and he calls (2bb). He then check calls the river (1bb) thats only 4. Even if he 3 bets you on the turn and leads the river thats 7. You're still short. Combine that shortcoming with how difficult this hand is to play against a LAG, since you never know where you stand and will often feel compelled to get to showdown and it makes this a very tough spot.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]


so if the Blinds a LAGGY, it can't be +EV to raise 22-66, right? So we're folding these hands in the CO of Button when it's been folded around to us?

God, this just seems so weak-tight to me! /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

It may very well be weak/tight, and i'm not saying i'm right. I will say, however, that trying to beat aggression with aggression when you have a marginal holding is not a good approach. I don't think its profitable to try and outlag a lag...

lf

[Jdanz]

if they're laggy play passive post flop, you'll make a bunch of money.

edit: assuming they have position, if in position i'd be more likely to get aggressive, but still in small pots (4 1/2 sb) they can make pretty big mistakes by checking behind on the flop or turn and having them bluff at you, considering if you're ahead on the flop you're gonna win the pot 80% of the time.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
considering if you're ahead on the flop you're gonna win the pot 80% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if they have two overs, and thats neglecting any other possible draws, like gutshots or flush draws. 80% is way to high. 6 outs seeing both cards is going to get there something like 27% of the time, and its very possible for them to have more than 6 outs. That 80% number has to be way off.

lf