Playing small pocket pairs head's-up

[Dylan Wade]

Let's say you've raised a small pocket pair in an attempt to isolate a player- get him head's up. We know that pocket pairs do quite well in a head's up situation statistically because often a player misses the board. I'm wondering if players have any good ideas on how to proceed post-flop here.

Often your opponent will miss on the flop, but he will not let you know this. Basically the way I've been playing these is if I see three cards over T I'll pass, two over T and I'll play slow, only one over T and I'll assume he missed the flop. Also I'll play a pair that beats some of the small cards on the board more aggressively than one that beats nothing at all. Should you call with an underpair (i.e. 22) to see a showdown? etc.. etc..

Curious to other people's strategies in this situation.

[rkiray]

Usually general questions like this are hard to answer, it is better to post hands. This may be the exception though. Why would you want to isolate someone with a small pocket pair? Pocket pairs generally want lots of people in the pot to help their implied odds. Also isolation raises work best in tight games (to maximize the chance of actually isolating). In microlimit games there are too many players that will call 2 with substandard hands to make this a good play.

[Dylan Wade]

I guess I should've posted the question on another fourm. Though, one could imply I was talking about a tight table, otherwise I wouldn't bother trying to isolate people.

Small/medium pocket pairs do play well head's up. Not 2, not 3 players. Heads up or multi-way only. Ok well I'll give you a specific hypothetical hand where I think this applies.

Suppose you're on the button with 66, with one limper to you in late position. Table is tight, a raise will probably lose blinds so you raise 66. Blinds fold, and LP limper calls. Now I say you're often a favorite, but I'm not sure how you proceed. My instinct tells me that you'd pass or raise based on how many cards fall that are in the "play zone" (i.e. paint and aces). I was hoping to see some ideas on this, but you're right, games rarely play this way at level so it's kind of stupid of me to expect a response from the micro limits fourm...

[DrSavage]

Fold.
You are 2% favorite at best. You are actually an underdog with 66 to hands like QTs. since you're unlikely to hold an overpair to the board it's gonna be hard for you to figure out where you stand. Whatever small profit you might've squeezed out from outplaying your opponent is going to get eaten by huge rake at microlimits. If either one of the blinds calls you're in trouble.
There is no EV in playing 66 here. Fold.

[ScottTheFish]

I play the micro limits, and the only way I play 66 is if I can get in cheap with at least 3 or 4 other limpers, and hope to flop a set (fit or fold all the way for me on these hands). I don't think you should try to isolate and actually win the hand with 66 unimproved, as most hands are going to the showdown, even if you manage to isolate and get it heads up (rare in my limited experience)

And like rk said, squeezing out small pots like you're describing by the guy folding when he misses the flop will get eaten up by the rake /images/graemlins/frown.gif

IMO you have to play for the big hands on the flop and win relatively few big pots. That's working for me so far anyway. But I'm the first to admit I don't know what the heck I'm doing /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dylan:

Small pocket pairs don't play well heads-up. First, your opponent might have a bigger pair. Second, even if he has just overcards to your pair he can bluff occasionally. There's an essya in my book Poker Essays, Volume II called "A Few Simulations" that addresses this in more detail.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Dylan Wade]

Thanks. I'll read it. Thanks to everyone else who posted on this thread.

This was a little idea I had while in the shower, that's why I didn't have a specific hand to show.