I think you guys are all wrong.

[Ghazban]

It depends on the opponent. If you can get headsup with the original raiser and you know him to be weak-tight, then you don't care about hitting the flop with your random cards, you just want him to have not hit it (or for him to fold an overpair to your "obvious" set). In this case, stack sizes aren't all that important.

If the original raiser takes hands too far, you'd like him (and you) to be deep so that, when you flop a random two pair or odd straight, you can win a very large pot versus his overpair.

Against the tightie, you make money by him folding better hands. Against the overaggressive player, you make money by showing down the best hand. You will win a lot of small pots uncontested vs. the first (and probably lose the big ones) and you will lose many small pots to the second while winning the occasional monster.

[PinkSteel]

Thanks, great point about the fold equity when the opponent is tight/misses the flop.

I still think too much in terms of having the best hand, rather than taking down the pot.

[btetreau]

Along a similar line, I've found a new (to me) situation that I've been pulling in good pots with recently - anytime the board pairs. I've been doing it regardless of whether I've got a hand or not - for example, sitting on the button, villian min-raises PF in EP, not many (if any) players call, and I'm holding 33. I'll call. Flop comes J64 rainbow. Villian bets pot or less, I'll call.

I've gotten a lot more comfortable with these calls of late because I still have two outs to the set but more importantly I'll jump all over any scare card, particularly if the board pairs, and most of the time can get the bad guy to fold. So on a flop like that with smallish bets from villian, I see myself having at least 8 outs.... I'm sure this is second nature to many of you, but it's new to me and has been working very well. As someone mentioned, I'm starting to see it as winning the pots instead of having the best hand.... Good times!

[poboy]

This is all fine and good against the right opponent, namely weak-tight players. However from what I can tell the SSNL games aren't dominated by weak-tights, there are far more calling stations and LAG's. In a game where you will regularly be called down by TPNK and worse(which is the norm at SSNL), this strategy just seems like chip spewing. JMO

[BobboFitos]

this is an interesting idea

havent read replies or more of the thread

deals with deeper stack poker (200x bb)

but I think if you are playing vs a player who has the hand range of AA-TT AK-AJ then this may or may not be pos EV, depending how easily they will drop QQ-TT and/or pay off two pair with AA or AK.

I also think your argument deals with position poker moreso then pair poker, if you understand what i say

as for #2, i love taking the small pots, if 6 people (well, maybe not 6) and i have 67 a 9 7 2 rainbow board is great to take down.

#3 is sorta dumb, no kidding it's ok to slowplay.

[BobboFitos]

i think this play you mention is bad

if it's yielding positive results so far youre just running lucky

sorry

[SeattleJake]

I would say that it's still about having the best hand most of the time.

This differs quite a bit from the OP. Hero there has second pair, and is betting that Villain does not have a K. The resulting actions will define things quite clearly. You're getting 2:1 odds with 2 outs, and are betting that Villain doesn't have anything.

If you're going to make this play, you need to be aware of the stack sizes and your position with regard to the pre-flop raiser. You should also consider modifying your calling pairs to increase your chances of having the best hand: If it's the high card that's paired, then I want a pocket pair over the low card; if it's the low card that's paired, then I want a pocket pair over the high card.

The play works mostly because it's aggressive. But you need to be aware of how often you have to win (the small pots) in order to make up for the times you lose (the big pots). Running it every time the board pairs will lead to disaster.