Pocket 99s

[mojobluesman]

Thanks.

One more please.

Tighten up the pre-flop raiser to 2+2 standards.

Add a 4th hand. On my turn to act I did not know whether the 4th player would fold just because he checked to me.

Lastly, where are you running these sims?

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
Tighten up the pre-flop raiser to 2+2 standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Need more info. How many limpers? Also, is he a 17/8 or a 20/12? Do I have position? Normally I'll fold 99 and 88 and 3-bet TT (with position).

[ QUOTE ]
Add a 4th hand. On my turn to act I did not know whether the 4th player would fold just because he checked to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, where are you running these sims?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://pokerstove.com/

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you are correct that I'm seeing monsters everywhere. It's probaly a result of my recent attempt to tighten up in situations that I am fairly certain I was leaking. It's probably an over-adjustment.

However, in this case I knew that the probabilities of the pre-flop raiser having a higher pair were lower than him having AK-AJ (48 combs) vs. AA-TT (30 combs) (assuming fairly tight standards). That's still a lot of ways I am screwed not including all the flush and STR8 draws. So I was thinking about it in the grand scheme of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not screwed by a flush draw. You want to be against a flush draw. Villain having a flush draw is a good thing (though not the best thing - I'm comparing this to overpairs and the rare made flush). I'm surprised that you go down to TT but you don't include KQ in your count. I think that deserves some reconsideration.

You suggest that fairly tight raising standards is what you should be using. In the absence of reads, it makes more sense to use a moderate set of raising standards. I'd throw in 99, 88, KJs, QJs, and ATs as well as the KQ mentioned above.

I ran a quick PokerStove simulation and here's what I got:

10,266,741 games 17.079 secs 601,132 games/sec

Board: 3h 4h 5h
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) / tie (%)

Hand 1: 24.5611 % [ 00.23 00.02 ] { 9s9d }
Hand 2: 41.5062 % [ 00.40 00.02 ] { AA-88, AKs-ATs, KQs-KJs, QJs, AKo-AJo, KQo }
Hand 3: 33.9327 % [ 00.32 00.02 ] { random }

So you've got 25% equity in this pot getting 10.5:1 on a call. Even if you cut back on a few hands, you're still getting better than 20% equity which is enough to peel for a safe card.

When the pot gets big, you've got to be willing to make calls with weaker hands.

[mojobluesman]

Raising with only AA-TT and AK-AJ. (very tight)

When it was my turn to act on the flop, the BB was still in the hand. He had checked to me. So when I had to make my decision to bet or check, I wasn't sure he would fold to my bet (or any bet). So I had to assume he had some equity also.

[mojobluesman]

OK thanks. So you are saying check call?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
OK thanks. So you are saying check call?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the flop, yes.

[Fantam]

I think this looks like a classic WA/WB situation to me.

You have a reasonable hand, which might be ahead on the flop, but has few outs to improve if it is behind.

In this case, I think check/call the flop, check/call the turn (assuming "safe" turn card), and check or bet/call the river (depending on river card) would be fine.

There is nothing wrong with check-calling a reasonable hand down in this situation. It is not the same as a calling-station calling with any 2 cards.

[mojobluesman]

One thing I just noticed was that the 9 of hearts was not a redraw for me.

[shadow29]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this looks like a classic WA/WB situation to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is WA/WB at all.

[mojobluesman]

I entered some hands to run a simulation and it's telling me that ./testlog is an invalid file when I run a load.

Help please.

This looks like a great tool!