playing against the "I've got aces" reraise with a medium/small pair

[HonchoOverload]

I swear, 90% of the time someone puts in the "just a little more" reraise early in the tourney, he's got aces or kings. It's easy to read as a big pair. I don't know when this play became the standard, but everyone seems to do it now.

For example, say I've got 88 in middle position. I've noticed that if I raise 3x the big blind (60) in a 10/20 round and get a caller followed by a reraise of say 200, that's a huge red flag that he's usually got a big pair. Elementary poker, right?

My question is this: With 1500 starting chips, assuming we both have around this amount, is it correct to always call the 140 with implied odds that I will stack him if I hit my set even though I know I am way behind? I think it is. My experience has been that if I hit the set, I will stack an overpair almost every time. Yes, there are (extremely) rare instances where I run up against set over set, but it's rare enough to ignore. What do you guys think?

[tigerite]

Stop raising with 88 in mid position in the early levels.

[HonchoOverload]

I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

you will find AKs raising in these situations a lot of times too.

[tigerite]

[ QUOTE ]
I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is a huge leak then.

[runner4life7]

thats really bad, i dont know who taught you this

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is a huge leak then.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, not in the later rounds, but definitely in the early rounds. I don't get involved in many pots at all, but when I do, I'm raising.

[tigerite]

Well you just were on about the early rounds. Stop raising 88 in mid position in the early rounds, then you won't get in this situation. It's hardly rocket science is it!?

But if you don't want to listen fine. Keep doing it. Keep spewing chips everywhere. It's not my game or my $, it's yours.

[HonchoOverload]

now would probably be a good time to mention (again) I play 6 handed tournaments

maybe I should just start a separate forum

[kevkev60614]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well this is a huge leak then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. This is not good. As for your original question, it depends. Post a specific hand and you'll get a lot more useful feedback.

[tigerite]

It makes no difference.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
Well you just were on about the early rounds. Stop raising 88 in mid position in the early rounds, then you won't get in this situation. It's hardly rocket science is it!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing the point of the post. The point is that I have implied odds to call anyway.

[tigerite]

I'm just not going to bother replying on this thread anymore, seeing as your mind is made up about how to play it anyway.

Good luck.

[HonchoOverload]

Maybe if you explained WHY it's bad I would listen instead of just saying "it's bad, you're an idiot"

I remember now why I stopped coming to these forums several months ago...does everyone have a frickin attitude like this?

[raptor517]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well you just were on about the early rounds. Stop raising 88 in mid position in the early rounds, then you won't get in this situation. It's hardly rocket science is it!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing the point of the post. The point is that I have implied odds to call anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the 109s and up its necessary to make those kinds of raises, especially on stars where the stacks are deeper. if you have 1500, call that 140 reraise, you have excellent odds, and if you set up you bust him. i call if theres someone else in too, and if its heads up.. i prolly call anyway. if the rr is much more than 140 though, its probably not worth it. and for the record, i dont think its as bad as everyone is making it out to be raising with 88 in mp. holla

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well you just were on about the early rounds. Stop raising 88 in mid position in the early rounds, then you won't get in this situation. It's hardly rocket science is it!?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're missing the point of the post. The point is that I have implied odds to call anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

in the 109s and up its necessary to make those kinds of raises, especially on stars where the stacks are deeper. if you have 1500, call that 140 reraise, you have excellent odds, and if you set up you bust him. i call if theres someone else in too, and if its heads up.. i prolly call anyway. if the rr is much more than 140 though, its probably not worth it. and for the record, i dont think its as bad as everyone is making it out to be raising with 88 in mp. holla

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks, that is my point of view exactly. I feel as though everyone plays these pairs way too weakly. You limp, couple other limps, you flop your set and you make nothing. You limp, somebody puts in a big raise behind and you fold. I think this is wrong. You play it strong, build up the pot, and make them call a big "continuation" bet after you hit your set. if you don't hit the set, be done with it. I agree that any more than 140 I don't call.

[kevkev60614]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel as though everyone plays these pairs way too weakly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever everyone on this board does something, take note.

[ QUOTE ]
You limp, couple other limps, you flop your set and you make nothing. You limp, somebody puts in a big raise behind and you fold. I think this is wrong. You play it strong, build up the pot, and make them call a big "continuation" bet after you hit your set. if you don't hit the set, be done with it. I agree that any more than 140 I don't call.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I think you're saying: raise in MP with a small PP. If you make a set, c-bet. If you don't, you can get away.

The problems I see with this: when you raise with a PP, you dilute your pot-odds for hitting a set because you get less callers. Also, when you hit and make a c-bet, you'll get a lot of folds because you'll be representing TPTK or an overpair. You're (usually) risking 3 BB.

When you limp, you drag more limpers with you and increase your pot-odds of hitting the set. When you hit, your hand is well disguised. Many limpers will stay in the pot with 2nd pair or an inside straight draw (assuming a low buy-in) even if you've become aggressive. You're (often) risking 1 BB.

My default action when folded to in MP with a PP is to limp and call any reasonable raise.

[Paul Thomson]

I don't think that raptor is saying that it is WRONG to not raise with a middle pair. I think that he's saying that it's NOT wront to raise with a middle pair. I agree that's it's fine to raise with every hand when you're the first to enter for deceptive reasons. If this wasn't the case I think it is correct to limp from middle position since they're difficult to play out of position on the flop if you miss your set. If you're in late position, I think raising is correct.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]

The problems I see with this: when you raise with a PP, you dilute your pot-odds for hitting a set because you get less callers. Also, when you hit and make a c-bet, you'll get a lot of folds because you'll be representing TPTK or an overpair. You're (usually) risking 3 BB.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but people see me as a loose-aggro player making a continuation bet with possibly nothing. People don't get me enough credit because I frequently am raising/betting. You'd be surprised how many time people bluff raise with overcards after my "c-bet" and are now drawing dead.

[kevkev60614]

Oh, okay then. You're right. Go about your business.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, okay then. You're right. Go about your business.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's a good point you made, I'm just making a counterpoint that it's not always as though they think you've got TPTK or an overpair.

[rybones]

[ QUOTE ]
I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nurse Betty, get me a tourniquet quick. He's bleeding chips.

[Slim Pickens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nurse Betty, get me a tourniquet quick. He's bleeding chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

6-handed with deep stacks, this isn't so bad of an idea. We never really see these situations in 10-player STT's. Usually, if it gets 4-6 handed on Level 2, no one can adjust.

[rybones]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel as though everyone plays these pairs way too weakly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel as though you have mis-read the flames. To me it sounds like "everyone" (whatever that means) feels that raising "every" time you are first to enter a pot is -ev. come play at my table and I am likely to re-raise you from the co for t200 with 7,2o and then you have a tougher call. My guess is that you would call and as you will miss your set or flush or str8 most hands I will push on the flop after your throw in your continuation bet. Yes you will bust me sometimes, but mostly you will bleed chips. What's more you have now bled t200 or more. Now if you didn't raise "every" pot you entered I wouldn't be able to do this. Now if you limp 8,8 and I raise to t80 and you call. Now if you hit your set you will likely still stack me, but if you don't you have only bled t80. Moreover, I am not raising entering the hand as I have there is not real dead money (i.e. yours) so I fold my 7,2. My issue is with absolutes. If you do something "every" (or even nearly every) time you make it easy for us to read you.

just my thoughts.

Ryan

Just my thoughts, do with them what u want.

[tigerite]

Correct, and I was saying he shouldn't raise with 88 if he doesn't know what to do in this position, to stop him getting in this position. Not that raising 88 is wrong per se. But the raising every time you enter is pretty nonsense, IMHO.

[xJMPx]

[quote}Yeah, but people see me as a loose-aggro player making a continuation bet with possibly nothing. People don't get me enough credit because I frequently am raising/betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

What level are you playing at? At most low levels, people are not going to be perceptive enough to notice what you are doing. They just simply play their hands.

I play the $33, and for the most part people don't notice that I play very few hands and I still often get paid off on my big hands despite what my image should be.

[ QUOTE ]
What level are you playing at? At most low levels, people are not going to be perceptive enough to notice what you are doing. They just simply play their hands.

I play the $33, and for the most part people don't notice that I play very few hands and I still often get paid off on my big hands despite what my image should be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beleive this is a common misconseption. Most of the donks at the $33s and down play only one or two tables and they are in fact gonna notice that youre raising alot of pots and are gonna start spite-calling you. This is in most cases not what you want, if you dont _really_ know what you're doing, but in that case I doubt you would be at the $33's for very long anyways.

[HonchoOverload]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I enter every pot I'm involved in with a 3x raise if I'm first to enter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nurse Betty, get me a tourniquet quick. He's bleeding chips.

[/ QUOTE ]

6-handed with deep stacks, this isn't so bad of an idea. We never really see these situations in 10-player STT's. Usually, if it gets 4-6 handed on Level 2, no one can adjust.

[/ QUOTE ]

6-handed with deep stacks IS a completely different structure. You have to be more aggressive.

[xJMPx]

[ QUOTE ]
I beleive this is a common misconseption. Most of the donks at the $33s and down play only one or two tables and they are in fact gonna notice that youre raising alot of pots and are gonna start spite-calling you. This is in most cases not what you want, if you dont _really_ know what you're doing, but in that case I doubt you would be at the $33's for very long anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't explain myself well enough. I agree that they are probably going to notice the guy raising a lot of pots. What, I was saying is that I'm a tight aggressive player and they tend not to notice that I haven't played a hand in two orbits. However, I still seem to get lots of action on my big hands.

My point was in response to the fact that the OP said that his LAG imagine gets him action, but I think you get that anyway at the 33s and down, so I don't take the risk of being a LAG when you still get paid of as TAG. That make sense?

[HonchoOverload]

lol this hand just came up. I have 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif UTG/CO, 4 people left, round three. I have 1400 in chips. Blinds are 25,50. I raise 150. I've already established myself as a loose-aggro player who frequently makes bets and raises and people are starting to play back at me. Button calls, and the blinds fold.

Flop is 8/images/graemlins/club.gif 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif I fire a bet of $150, he obviously has "call any" selected because he auto-calls. Turn is the 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, I bet 300, he calls. River 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif. I check, he goes all in, I call, he flips up AQ.