[Closed] nl6 sh JTs

Why SB is unknown?
Opencomplete from SB means, that you play against fish almost in 100% of cases.

You have an equity edge even against top doper.
Nevertheless, 4B AI is bad because you'd be called only by sets, and all worse will fold.
I prefer raise to 1,5$.

Hello tofu22,

Nah, I guess I wouldn't raise it on flop. The problem is that it's really towards to set play here. Therefore, I'd very likely call as well the flop but I'd still bet the turn for protection from sets. You are just giving away free cards for them to hit.

As played you can even raise it bigger on river, ~$2 should be enough as well.

Best regards.

Nah, I guess I wouldn't raise it on flop.

veriz, why? If he shoves, we have enough equity to call.
If we suggest that 88, 99 SB would raise preflop, so remains only 3 combos of 22, but 9 combos of 98, 98s, + slowplayed QQ+.
On blank turn we have only ~29% against 2Pairs+ (It's enough to call pot bet, but if he will play check/ push AI, we are to fold). On broadway turn we can't get more value from A9 (if he can complete with this hand). On flush turn we can't get value from any worse hand, only worst flush.
So potsize 4Bet is good to get value from TPTK and 2Pairs unlike shoving.
Don't we want to play big pot with monster?

P.S.
I understand, you have more expierence, so if I'm mistaken, tell me, please, where I'm wrong!

Best regards!

casadewinna showed me the thread and asked what I think about this hand.

At first:
I would have raised preflop.
Reason #1: Position
Reason #2: Villain's openlimp makes it very likely that he's a fish. -> Fishes openlimp/call lots of hands worse than JTs -> so in this case it's a value raise.
Reason #3: JTs is a hand with lots of postflop potential, especially in position. But even if we don't hit, we have the opportunity to collect the dead money with a c-bet.

I also do raise the flop b/c of the reasons casadewinna already mentioned.
And I have absolutely no problem with reraising against his 3bet.
Even if he always holds 22, 88, 99 and 98 we have 47% Equity against this range. But he doesn't seem to be a good player. And bad players also 3bet/shove in this situation top-pairs, overpairs, even worse flush draws. Against this range we have at least a coinflip and often times we are ahead.

Assuming we knew that Villain is only 3-betting a set, than reraising him wouldn't be a good idea, because in this case we only have 42% equity. And if we raise and get put all-in, we now would have to call because now we would get the right pot odds.
But as I said. I think this Villain has more hands than only the sets in his 3-betting range and we have the absolute monsterdraw.

casadewinna wasn't actually talking about a raise but I mean about 4bet. :> Rather would take the odds and Call his 3bet.

I understand it.
But why do you prefer to play small bank with such a strong hand, and not to 4bet?

Originally posted by casadewinna
I understand it.
But why do you prefer to play small bank with such a strong hand, and not to 4bet?

The problem with going for a 4bet/Broke here is that we don't know what kind of range he is going for the 3bet. If we consider him mostly having sets only here while it could be possible and if we are against a set then we ain't doing with the equity very good and in long run we will loose money.

We need ~47% equity even for break-even go-broke. But for example if we are against most likely sets:

Board: 2♠8♥9♥
       Equity     Win     Tie
UTG    57.88%  57.88%   0.00% { 99-88, 22 }
UTG+1  42.12%  42.12%   0.00% { JhTh }

We don't get that kind of equity. Therefore this means we really need to know the opponent that he might play that aggressively with some other crap. Since only few combos of 2pairs are possible like 89 and that's all. Since I don't think that he would play a pair that aggressively or either 92/82.