Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Relevant Chipstacks2/5 NL, 200 min/max buy in..Hero(SB); 1200LAG(MPish); 1000TAG(COish); Both of us covered, probably 2kI don't remember exact positions, it was about a week ago. I remember most of the specifics though. So, let's see how you all play this.Reads:LAG; likes to play a lot of pots, likes to chase a bit, but, he's smart. He lays down hands when he should more times than not. Bets almost automatically when it's checked to him. If I check any flop, with any holding, I can almost guarantee he'll be betting, regardless of preflop action.TAG; Has some weak tight tendencies, but, will jump on weakness, abuses his equity preflop with lots of raising and re-raising. Not afraid to get it all in. Good, solid, but still some weakish tendencies. Hero is SB with A :D A :club: Folds to LAG, LAG limps, folds to TAG in CO or so, TAG bets 25, Hero..? How much do we raise, or do we raise? Anything under 100, I can almost guarantee LAG's coming--and he doesn't need premium holdings. TAG's range is pretty much any suited Ace, KQo/s--K9o/s, any pocket pair. He may be simply trying to isolate the LAG.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

are we allowed to speculate on your image?
Heh..I'm the 2/5 player you hate, Scott. I'm pretty well active preflop, but, I don't play big pots without big hands. I've showdown KK, JJ, 33(set) and 98s--all were nut or near nut hands. The players are pretty well aware that I'm not just playing big hands, but, I don't give them much to work with. I'd characterize my image as TAG OOP, LAG IGP (in good position), very aggro postflop.BTW, when you say how much we're raising/if we're raising, please, everyone, give an explanation as to why. This hand is really a lot more interesting than it seems--edit; especially when you see the flop.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh..I'm the 2/5 player you hate, Scott. I'm pretty well active preflop, but, I don't play big pots without big hands. I've showdown KK, JJ, 33(set) and 98s--all were nut or near nut hands. The players are pretty well aware that I'm not just playing big hands, but, I don't give them much to work with. I'd characterize my image as TAG OOP, LAG IGP (in good position), very aggro postflop.BTW, when you say how much we're raising/if we're raising, please, everyone, give an explanation as to why. This hand is really a lot more interesting than it seems, IMO.
I don't hate you guys. :club: I play a lot like you outside of the 2/5 realm. I just find 2/5 in my area funny because it's a bunch of LAG's all playing back at eachother unwilling to shift gears. All i know.As for the hand....LAG's Limping range is quite large. I don't want to have to stand up to that OOP without testing it. Because of this, it's a must raise situation. It tips our hat a bit, but we're creative too.$25 seems like a small preflop raise. If it's standard, I think it's bumped to $75. If it's light, I think we raise to $90 or so. Don't wanna outthink ourselves w/ the amount. I think that sort of betting leads to becoming transparent. Although, I think you can argue that overraising preflop from the blinds based on your poor position after the flop is acceptable.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Folds to LAG, LAG limps, folds to TAG in CO or so, TAG bets 25, Hero..?
100 straight.
Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW, when you say how much we're raising/if we're raising, please, everyone, give an explanation as to why. This hand is really a lot more interesting than it seems--edit; especially when you see the flop.
One vote for 75, one vote for 100. I want to get a few more opinions before I say what I did, and give my explanation--and the most brutal flop possible for two red aces.
eh... now that I know that, just call and fold the flop UI.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I say 75. Obviously your thought process without having seen the flop yet needs to be to try and suck in the LAG. Especially because it is likely that the TAG could fold here because he's out of position. My opinion...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I say 75. Obviously your thought process without having seen the flop yet needs to be to try and suck in the LAG. Especially because it is likely that the TAG could fold here because he's out of position. My opinion...
TAG is the CO; he has position on both the LAG and I. But, yes, I want to keep the LAG along and try and squeeze the TAG out if possible.
Link to post
Share on other sites
TAG is the CO; he has position on both the LAG and I. But, yes, I want to keep the LAG along and try and squeeze the TAG out if possible.
Oh sorry...misread it, i thought you were on the button. Okay, I change my vote then to 100 just because you are out of position. In this situation I'm hoping the LAG calls and the TAG folds. That way you can get value out of the LAG on the flop, trapping if it comes low and letting him bet into you. But by the way you made it sound it sounds like the flop didn't hit you very well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
TAG is the CO; he has position on both the LAG and I. But, yes, I want to keep the LAG along and try and squeeze the TAG out if possible.
Interesting. What makes you want to keep the LAG and lose the TAG. TAG is weaker and is going to be transparent post flop which is very desirable as you play AA OOP. LAG on the other hand is going to use his knowledge of your premium hand against you to exploit a scarey situation if it comes up. I kinda wanna raise to lose the LAG and keep the TAG who probably will not fold preflop.
Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm out of my league here, but for sh.its and giggles i'll take a stab at it.raise 75 preflop to suck in the LAG and hopefully with a decent preflop pot already the TAG will hold to his pattern of abusing preflop equity by coming over the top.if the TAG just smooth calls preflop, check the flop so the LAG can bet, and then assuming the TAG doesn't fold, he'll end up defining his hand for you a bit by the time the action gets back to you. assuming the flop isn't totally hellacious, you can then re-raise and sandwich the LAG. based on that action, if the LAG calls/re-raises, you'll have a much easier time narrowing his hand range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with Scott3705. I don't want TAG to call because you can't get the same value out of him as you can from the LAG. He's already been described as almost a guarateed better on the flop. He will be much easier to trap the the TAG and we can most likely extract more value out of him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Heh..I'm the 2/5 player you hate, Scott. I'm pretty well active preflop, but, I don't play big pots without big hands. I've showdown KK, JJ, 33(set) and 98s--all were nut or near nut hands. The players are pretty well aware that I'm not just playing big hands, but, I don't give them much to work with.
in other words, he's the second coming in 2/5.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i'm out of my league here, but for sh.its and giggles i'll take a stab at it.raise 75 preflop to suck in the LAG and hopefully with a decent preflop pot already the TAG will hold to his pattern of abusing preflop equity by coming over the top.if the TAG just smooth calls preflop, check the flop so the LAG can bet, and then assuming the TAG doesn't fold, he'll end up defining his hand for you a bit by the time the action gets back to you. assuming the flop isn't totally hellacious, you can then re-raise and sandwich the LAG. based on that action, if the LAG calls/re-raises, you'll have a much easier time narrowing his hand range.
I like your style. Scott--My reasoning for wanting to keep the LAG in, is that regardless of the flop, I knew he would put some kind of money in. The TAG's hand range for calling a raise from me is all relative to what the LAG does. I figured if I could get the LAG to call, the TAG might stick around--which I was pretty indifferent about. My feeling was that he would have to hit trips with his kicker(assuming Ax), or hit a set on me if he was going to win this pot. The TAG could smooth call with 22-QQ, AKs, AQs depending on what he really put me on. The TAG also understands position and that if I'm putting in the second raise, with two players behind me, from the SB, that I have to have a pretty decent hand--in essence, he's not coming along without a hand that's got two outs. The LAG on the other hand, will come along with everything from 54s to JJ--he'd likely re-raise anything better. He bluffs at a lot of pots, firing three bullets most every time. Tosses his hand away on the river about half the time without showdown when someone says "I call" to his river bet. So, my thinking was, I had a much greater chance of stacking the LAG, without the TAG to act behind him. He was competent, but not overly impressive. If I put in a big flop bet, he'd likely fold if he didn't catch a good part of it with the TAG to act behind him. If I could squeeze the TAG out preflop, I could check/raise, I could lead weak and hope to re-raise, I could just hammer him right away with a raise, my options were unlimited.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree. I don't want TAG to call because you can't get the same value out of him as you can from the LAG. He's already been described as almost a guarateed better on the flop. He will be much easier to trap the the TAG and we can most likely extract more value out of him.
Value of AA OOP comes mostly from PF. As the pot gets bigger post flop, the greater the chances get that we're beat. I like the idea of using the LAG as a foil if both players are coming in as we can use him to make a sandwich C/R and tie his hands. But going heads up against him OOP... no. Not scared of him. I just think it's a tricky situation that w'ere going to navigate careful against him.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like your style. Scott--My reasoning for wanting to keep the LAG in, is that regardless of the flop, I knew he would put some kind of money in. The TAG's hand range for calling a raise from me is all relative to what the LAG does. I figured if I could get the LAG to call, the TAG might stick around--which I was pretty indifferent about. My feeling was that he would have to hit trips with his kicker(assuming Ax), or hit a set on me if he was going to win this pot. The TAG could smooth call with 22-QQ, AKs, AQs depending on what he really put me on. The TAG also understands position and that if I'm putting in the second raise, with two players behind me, from the SB, that I have to have a pretty decent hand--in essence, he's not coming along without a hand that's got two outs. The LAG on the other hand, will come along with everything from 54s to JJ--he'd likely re-raise anything better. He bluffs at a lot of pots, firing three bullets most every time. Tosses his hand away on the river about half the time without showdown when someone says "I call" to his river bet. So, my thinking was, I had a much greater chance of stacking the LAG, without the TAG to act behind him. He was competent, but not overly impressive. If I put in a big flop bet, he'd likely fold if he didn't catch a good part of it with the TAG to act behind him. If I could squeeze the TAG out preflop, I could check/raise, I could lead weak and hope to re-raise, I could just hammer him right away with a raise, my options were unlimited.
I completely agree....See my above post. This is exactly the way I would have played it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like your style. Scott--My reasoning for wanting to keep the LAG in, is that regardless of the flop, I knew he would put some kind of money in. The TAG's hand range for calling a raise from me is all relative to what the LAG does. The LAG on the other hand, will come along with everything from 54s to JJ--he'd likely re-raise anything better. He bluffs at a lot of pots, firing three bullets most every time. Tosses his hand away on the river about half the time without showdown when someone says "I call" to his river bet. So, my thinking was, I had a much greater chance of stacking the LAG, without the TAG to act behind him. He was competent, but not overly impressive. If I put in a big flop bet, he'd likely fold if he didn't catch a good part of it with the TAG to act behind him. If I could squeeze the TAG out preflop, I could check/raise, I could lead weak and hope to re-raise, I could just hammer him right away with a raise, my options were unlimited.
See this is where I think I'm going the other way here. All players are relatively deep here for 2/5. For me, that really brings down the value of AA. Unless, I am against a maniac, which I don't mind taking this to the flop against, I really don't want anyone overly aggressive behind me. I'm going to be at a decision for atleast 2 streets. (Unless he's a maniac, which i'm just going to showdown against).I don't know the players, but I would think TAG is sticking around here whether or not LAG is in. I think we can use LAG to get a call from the TAG on the flop and put in a C/R.I think if we are really looking to stack the LAG in a heads up situation, we need to know what type of boards we're looking for and exactly how we're going to do it since you say he's capable of laying down when he's behind. I interpret this to mean, unless he's doing the betting, if the pot gets big, my AA is done. So do we weak lead and let him contorl the betting until a C/red river. And what happens if the boards starts getting funky? Do we just call down now for showdown value?
I disagree with Scott3705. I don't want TAG to call because you can't get the same value out of him as you can from the LAG. He's already been described as almost a guarateed better on the flop. He will be much easier to trap the the TAG and we can most likely extract more value out of him.
Alright, let's trap on the low cards....flop: 2 :D 4 :D 5 :D Pot is $200 against LAG HUWe check, LAG bets $150, we c/R?, We call?If we C/R and we're in real good shape, we win an extra $150. If we C/R and we're called. Well we might be ahead, but based on description of villain, we're not really in good shape either and our thoughts of stacking should be kinda quieted. But what do we do on the turn? lead? If we check he's sure to bet, so are we just going to keep thinking we're ahead?Edit: Goin to bed now. I'll take a look at this thread tomorrow at work. "Good post" :club: Just for you DD. haha
Link to post
Share on other sites
See this is where I think I'm going the other way here. All players are relatively deep here for 2/5. For me, that really brings down the value of AA. Unless, I am against a maniac, which I don't mind taking this to the flop against, I really don't want anyone overly aggressive behind me. I'm going to be at a decision for atleast 2 streets. (Unless he's a maniac, which i'm just going to showdown against).I don't know the players, but I would think TAG is sticking around here whether or not LAG is in. I think we can use LAG to get a call from the TAG on the flop and put in a C/R.I think if we are really looking to stack the LAG in a heads up situation, we need to know what type of boards we're looking for and exactly how we're going to do it since you say he's capable of laying down when he's behind. I interpret this to mean, unless he's doing the betting, if the pot gets big, my AA is done. So do we weak lead and let him contorl the betting until a C/red river. And what happens if the boards starts getting funky? Do we just call down now for showdown value?Alright, let's trap on the low cards....flop: 2 :D 4 :D 5 :D Pot is $200 against LAG HUWe check, LAG bets $150, we c/R?, We call?If we C/R and we're in real good shape, we win an extra $150. If we C/R and we're called. Well we might be ahead, but based on description of villain, we're not really in good shape either and our thoughts of stacking should be kinda quieted. But what do we do on the turn? lead? If we check he's sure to bet, so are we just going to keep thinking we're ahead?Edit: Goin to bed now. I'll take a look at this thread tomorrow at work. "Good post" :club: Just for you DD. haha
You might be right here. However, I still do like the idea of leading at the turn. If he calls again after the c/r on the flop, I'm thinking that we are in trouble. But, in the example of the flop that you gave, it's very likely that he's calling the bet on the flop with a draw. A lead at the turn put him to a decision and we also find out where we are. If he calls and the draw misses on the river, I am most likely taking another stab at the river. I think that with a set, he's going to raise us on the turn, if he just flat calls the bet on the turn and the river is a blank, I think we have the best hand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You might be right here. However, I still do like the idea of leading at the turn. If he calls again after the c/r on the flop, I'm thinking that we are in trouble. But, in the example of the flop that you gave, it's very likely that he's calling the bet on the flop with a draw. A lead at the turn put him to a decision and we also find out where we are. If he calls and the draw misses on the river, I am most likely taking another stab at the river. I think that with a set, he's going to raise us on the turn, if he just flat calls the bet on the turn and the river is a blank, I think we have the best hand.
C/Red flop =$400 reasonable. If we're called, the pot's gotten to $1k w/ us having less than the pot left in our stack for two streets. if we lead the turn, we're all in. If we're taking this route, we're going to C/R the turn for a second time against an aggressive LAG, maybe C/C depending on whether he puts us in or not. Eh... kinda realizing something about this hand. w/ the raise and the reraise the pot gets pretty big preflop we pretty much destroyed the implied odds for the LAG to call with two suited connectors or a pair (I'll pay off a set anyway). The LAG gets really tied to the pot by betting the flop and calling a C/R and therefore, the value of AA goes up and the chances of us being beat as the pot gets bigger on a per $ basis is not as bad. The pot's going to get big quick regardless and people are going to get pot stuck real quick. So I changed my mind, w/ these stacks, let's go after the LAG, but let's bump it to $100 str8.Let's see a flop. I'm bored at work.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The LAG on the other hand, will come along with everything from 54s to JJ--he'd likely re-raise anything better. He bluffs at a lot of pots, firing three bullets most every time. Tosses his hand away on the river about half the time without showdown when someone says "I call" to his river bet.
Are you saying that this guy will call a reraise to $100 with that range of hands?I think you don't care which player comes in with you. The LAG player clearly because you can stack him. The TAG player because he's likely to have few outs. I'm never keen on having too many people come with me post-flop without position.If the LAG player is as loose as you indicated, then the $100 makes sense. It's a slight overbet so that indicates a little weakness on your part (perhaps you have Js) which gives the LAG player more reason to call you thinking he can bluff you post-flop.The $100 bet makes it hard for the TAG player unless he has KK which then may cause him to get all his money in pre-flop...clearly not a bad problem to have =)
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you saying that this guy will call a reraise to $100 with that range of hands?I think you don't care which player comes in with you. The LAG player clearly because you can stack him. The TAG player because he's likely to have few outs. I'm never keen on having too many people come with me post-flop without position.If the LAG player is as loose as you indicated, then the $100 makes sense. It's a slight overbet so that indicates a little weakness on your part (perhaps you have Js) which gives the LAG player more reason to call you thinking he can bluff you post-flop.The $100 bet makes it hard for the TAG player unless he has KK which then may cause him to get all his money in pre-flop...clearly not a bad problem to have =)
I like this line. I think even if we raise above $100, with the stated range of hands, we are more likely to get called by the LAG, who may come in hoping to get odds from the TAG calling the reraise too; the TAG, having some weak tendences, may think better of his Ax sooooted or KQ and fold. If you see a flop, regardless of whether LAG, TAG or both are with you...you have to bet into it...hard to figure what flop could come out that they would both miss completely, considering their range of hands...and you will be putting yourself in a position to fold.I know Drawing prefers to extract maximum value....but realistically in this situation, that might mean taking LAG's limp, TAG's raise, and being happy with that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I like this line. I think even if we raise above $100, with the stated range of hands, we are more likely to get called by the LAG, who may come in hoping to get odds from the TAG calling the reraise too; the TAG, having some weak tendences, may think better of his Ax sooooted or KQ and fold. If you see a flop, regardless of whether LAG, TAG or both are with you...you have to bet into it...hard to figure what flop could come out that they would both miss completely, considering their range of hands...and you will be putting yourself in a position to fold.I know Drawing prefers to extract maximum value....but realistically in this situation, that might mean taking LAG's limp, TAG's raise, and being happy with that.
I don't like leading the Flop unless the board presents a special circumstance. Assuming LAG calls, Leading gets a fold from a worse hand and a raise from a better or even money hand which also cuts offs any hand that TAG will call if he think he's heads up against the LAG. Given the description of the LAG, I think we play this hand w/o worrying about monsters under the bed from LAG and being mindful of what the TAG does if he comes along. If we're going this route, we probably get the most value from C/Ring the flop. (Note: I think a bet is in order if the flop presents something which warrants it. I can't think of a board in particular that would be though).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't like leading the Flop unless the board presents a special circumstance. Assuming LAG calls, Leading gets a fold from a worse hand and a raise from a better or even money hand which also cuts offs any hand that TAG will call if he think he's heads up against the LAG. Given the description of the LAG, I think we play this hand w/o worrying about monsters under the bed from LAG and being mindful of what the TAG does if he comes along. If we're going this route, we probably get the most value from C/Ring the flop. (Note: I think a bet is in order if the flop presents something which warrants it. I can't think of a board in particular that would be though).
I think you should worry about monsters in this case, when both opponents could have pocket pairs or connectors. If you keep them both in for the flop, then you yell "BOO" and take a look under the bed to see if there's a monster there. If something growls back, then you can decide whether you're going to hang out and hope he goes away, or get the hell out of there. Your line is more like sticking a foot under the bed, trying to get a small bite and then hoping that when you jump under the bed to take on the monster, he's smaller than you.I just think this is a sticky situation, and you are potentially risking a bigger loss than win. If you get your check-raise called or re-raised, we'll have to get into pot committed, odds, etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...