Do you back 2 pair with your stack here? - Page 2

Mackerel · #11 07-31-2005, 04:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
fold. if you had a different suit for your 8 then it might be closer. the only hand that you beat here would be 9h7h. i'm not surprised to see a set here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fold where, to the $8 raise, or to the push?

elus2 · #12 07-31-2005, 04:30 PM

the push.

Mackerel · #13 07-31-2005, 04:45 PM

Okay, I think that's at least a reasonable play to consider. But you don't think there is enough doubt about a player with a flop AF of 12.0 to at least consider calling for better than 2-1? I'm not saying that folding isn't correct (and almost certainly is against some players), but I'm still not sure it's the best play against this players entire possible range of hands.

Where is TWP with some baysean analysis when I need him? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

#14 07-31-2005, 05:10 PM

You can't really figure him for Q-Q becaue you would think he would raise preflop. Q-8 and Q-6 also seems unlikely since he limped from early position. It also seems unlikely that he has 6-6 or 8-8 because he would have to have the remaining two cards in the deck to beat you. I don't like calling here, but I think it's tough to get away from this. Seems most likely that he has K-Q, and maybe A-Q. I probably call, just because it's hard to put him on a hand that beats me. I think more times than not you're ahead here. I reluctantly call.

GoCubsGo · #15 07-31-2005, 05:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You can't really figure him for Q-Q becaue you would think he would raise preflop. Q-8 and Q-6 also seems unlikely since he limped from early position. It also seems unlikely that he has 6-6 or 8-8 because he would have to have the remaining two cards in the deck to beat you. I don't like calling here, but I think it's tough to get away from this. Seems most likely that he has K-Q, and maybe A-Q. I probably call, just because it's hard to put him on a hand that beats me. I think more times than not you're ahead here. I reluctantly call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Malachii · #16 07-31-2005, 05:51 PM

I don't like this situation. By the time he pushes, it's pretty obvious he can beat a Q here. He could have a big draw (OESF) or turned a set. Still, I wouldn't fold, you've put too much money in the pot and there's always a chance he's overplaying top pair or has an OESD draw or something.

PS, playing with an 18/10/12 guy doesn't sound like good game selection to me.

Mackerel · #17 07-31-2005, 06:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like this situation. By the time he pushes, it's pretty obvious he can beat a Q here. He could have a big draw (OESF) or turned a set. Still, I wouldn't fold, you've put too much money in the pot and there's always a chance he's overplaying top pair or has an OESD draw or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this pretty much sums up my thinking at the time.

[ QUOTE ]
PS, playing with an 18/10/12 guy doesn't sound like good game selection to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know that's right, but there were a couple of super-donks in the game with decent stacks and I wanted to dbl-thru one or both of them. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

elus2 · #18 07-31-2005, 06:43 PM

deriving unreasonable reads based on small sample sizes using pokertracker is a good way to piss away money.

Mackerel · #19 07-31-2005, 07:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
deriving unreasonable reads based on small sample sizes using pokertracker is a good way to piss away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

A valid point, and I don't disagree, but when you find yourself in battle with someone that you haven't played thousands of hands against, don't you have to at least consider any information that you have about them, even if it's small and unreliable? Don't you do this at live tables without poker tracker as well?

At this level, it's going to take a passive read for me to not call this I think. Against a complete unknown here I think I'm probably getting my money in anyway, the way this played out. His post-flop hyper-aggression just sealed it for me I think.

vulturesrow · #20 07-31-2005, 07:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
deriving unreasonable reads based on small sample sizes using pokertracker is a good way to piss away money.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I dont disagree entirely with this point, I would point out that VPIP tends to converge very quickly. So it is usually reasonably accurate within a small sample size. Im not quite as sure about the aggression factor but based on my experience I tend to think it converges rather quickly too. If a guy is very aggressive, its going to show very quickly. So in this particular scenario I dont think its a bad use of PT.