Q5s and facing an open raise

[jt1]

So in responding to a TStone post, I mention that I don't call with a hand like Q5s in the bb when the sb open raises.

I'll tell you why: I feel I can't raise with it unless I hit a pair or draw and so about 2/3 of the time I have to fold the river. It makes me ashamed to be alive when I simply call an LP or sb open-raise and fold to a measley bet on the flop. (doing this with suited connectors isn't a big deal but i often re-raise with suited connectors pre-flop)

I need to be told it's okay to fold Q5s or J7s or T6s after calling an open raise from button or sb when I don't hit.

Actually Tstone said that I should be calling with something close to 90% of my hands.

I would much rather tighten that up to top 45% and re-raise with all of those then call with top 90% and fold the flop 2/3 of the time. Where's the flaw in my thinking?

I suppose I could raise with top 50% and just call with the bottom playable 40%


I play 5/10 FT and UB (2-3 TAG'S or wannabes and 1-2 tight passives with 1-2 loose passives is the norm). I'm hoping to move up as soon as my bankroll allows it.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
Where's the flaw in my thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't feel the need to hit a pair to call a flop bet.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't feel the need to hit a pair to call a flop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hmm, why it's true that when i steal, i usally give up after the flop. But there are many players who don't. I could try it but it feels weak. Wouldn't it be better to raise the flop or 3 bet pre-flop?

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't feel the need to hit a pair to call a flop bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't it be better to raise the flop or 3 bet pre-flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe. Maybe not. There's really not an absolute here other than: if you're willing to defend, you can't do so planning to fold any flop every time that it doesn't pair you up or offer a strong draw. Given your opponents opening range and the texture of the flop, there are plently of situations where you'll want to fold, call, or raise. If you're only calling 1/3 of the time, then it's profitable for the SB to raise any two and lead the flop everytime (he's getting 4:1 on his flop bet). These situations are pretty contextual, so it's hard for me to give you any sort of "cheat sheet" or guide.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
so it's hard for me to give you any sort of "cheat sheet" or guide.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well then let's talk theory. In theory you can call with 100% HU SB/BB battle and show a profit. You are getting 2-1 every time and you have position.

You should probably 3-bet at about the same rate that you think your opponent will open raise.

Now is your opponent correct to raise preflop with any 2? He has to commit 2.4 sb each and every time. When he wins after you just call then he will win 2 sb. He'll win about 2/3 of the time after you just call. When he wins after you raise, he'll be committing 4.6 sb and will win 4 sb and he can expect to win in this situation about 1/3 of the time.

hold on i have to finish my thought later, i just got a call and am expecting someone...

[Catt]

You need to get away from this 2/3 / 1/3 schtick. If your opponent is only continuing on flops he "hits" then he is greatly exploitable. Whether you choose to three-bet Q5s against an SB opener should depend on his opening range, and particularly how he plays post-flop -- if he's a fit-or-fold type, then the three-bet becomes more attractive (but Q5s is not a favorite three-betting hand of mine). I'd frankly be more inclined to call Q5s against the vast majority of opponents I play. Look at flop texture; consider how it compares to his range; consider his tendencies post-flop (will he often fire and give up on a blank turn if you call the flop?); you have position and thus you have a great deal of control over how many bets go into the pot -- use that power to tailor an approach that compares favorably with your opponent's range and tendencies. If he's raising any two - then he's only hitting 1/3 of the time, too, and you've got Q-high. Pick your spots (fold ugly flops; continue on more benign ones), but don't just call pre because someone said to do so and don't fold the flop when you don't hit a pair or a 4-flush -- if you do you'll get eaten alive by the better opponents.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to get away from this 2/3 / 1/3 schtick. If your opponent is only continuing on flops he "hits" then he is greatly exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well wait a minute. That's not what I meant. I meant the person with the lead will <u>win</u> 2/3 or 1/3 or the time because he'll lead the flop and take it down 2/3 of the time. Obviously I simplified the matter, since sometimes the leader will hit the flop and still loose and other times the chaser will miss and still win, but the idea here is that I am being told I surrender to many big blinds after it's folded to the sb and I'm trying to figure out how to correct that error.

BTW, alot of the play here is geared toward party poker play. For example I'm not, at all, convinced that raising an MP open raiser with AJo when on the button is the best approach in the games I play. So perhaps I play just fine, but I'm going to work on the theory I was trying to develop up above on my own when I get a chance. If I feel I need help, I'll respond to this thread. Ofcourse, if you or anyone else has something to add, feel free....

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
don't fold the flop when you don't hit a pair or a 4-flush -- if you do you'll get eaten alive by the better opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]


BTW, there is no better feeling then completely missing the board and still winning by re-taking the lead. However, my play in this area is so completely unsystematic that in a more objective light I have to wonder if I've been just lucky all those times. Trying to work instinct into a managable system is where the study of poker becomes something beautiful. It'd be great if there could be a forum just for blind battles.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to get away from this 2/3 / 1/3 schtick. If your opponent is only continuing on flops he "hits" then he is greatly exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well wait a minute. That's not what I meant. I meant the person with the lead will <u>win</u> 2/3 or 1/3 or the time because he'll lead the flop and take it down 2/3 of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where you're losing me:

[ QUOTE ]
Now is your opponent correct to raise preflop with any 2? He has to commit 2.4 sb each and every time. When he wins after you just call then he will win 2 sb. He'll win about 2/3 of the time after you just call. When he wins after you raise, he'll be committing 4.6 sb and will win 4 sb and he can expect to win in this situation about 1/3 of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where is this 2/3 and 1/3 coming from?

If you have HPFAP, check out the HU section. It approaches the pure math (putting aside hand quality and flop texture issues) pretty well. A final thought as you think about your theory -- a lot of things you'll do HU you do not for the specific hand at issue, but in order to influence your opponent's actions in future hands. I'm not saying "ignore EV as meta game is all that matters" but I am saying that how you play HU against a specific player does have more than immediate value to the hand at issue.

Edit:

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, there is no better feeling then completely missing the board and still winning by re-taking the lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think calling down with Q5s and being shown J-high (and collecting 2.5 BBs post-flop), and then being called an idiot, is better than raising the flop and having him fold. But it doesn't happen often enough /images/graemlins/laugh.gif